Notice: All forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at

Power Ratings Already!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Power Ratings Already!

    First, a word about preseason scoring.

    Coaches ask themselves, why stick out like a sore thumb on week 1 of the regular season?  Why make yourself a target for every opponent?  If I were a coach and scoring 1000 points per preseason game is worthless, then I’d want my players to play well but I wouldn’t want them to cream the opposition. 

    I’ve seen enough plays that strain credulity in preseason games that I now operate on the idea that coaches throw preseason games deliberately.  For example, do I believe that New Orleans is about to blow two fourth down punting situations in the same game in the regular season?  No chance!  Last year I saw just horrid passes by Brady and Hoyer and I didn’t believe those passes either.  These are gentlemen’s scoring rules for preseason. 

    So, for preseason, I don’t want to count the giveaway plays.  Instead, I count first downs and offensive touchdowns until the point where one team yanks their starting quarterback.  The first down count gives a reasonable estimate on which team is having its way with the other team. 

    Next week’s point spreads in preseason are meaningless.  Any punk player can fumble the football away to earn his brother in law $100 grand, and the scab refs are just random number generators. 

    These results don’t cover the Saturday night and Sunday games.  They do cover two New Orleans games. 

    Power rankings.

    1     ne     13.4     (last March 3)

    2     gb     13.3     (last March 2)

    3     no     13.1     (last March 1)

    4     sf     11.9     (last March 4)

    5     nyg     11.4     (last March 5)

    6     phi     11.0     (last March 8)

    7     bal     11.0     (last March 7)

    8     hou     10.9     (last March 6)

    9     pit     9.7     (last March 9)

    10     mia     9.4     (last March 10)

    11     atl     9.1     (last March 11)

    12     nyj     9.0     (last March 15)

    13     det     9.0     (last March 12)

    14     sd     8.6     (last March 14)

    15     dal     8.5     (last March 13)

    16     chi     7.9     (last March 16)

    17     sea     7.6     (last March 19)

    18     ten     7.5     (last March 17)

    19     cin     7.4     (last March 18)

    20     az     6.8     (last March 21)

    21     car     6.6     (last March 20)

    22     buf     6.3     (last March 23)

    23     den     6.1     (last March 22)

    24     was     5.9     (last March 27)

    25     oak     5.8     (last March 26)

    26     min     5.6     (last March 24)

    27     cle     5.3     (last March 25)

    28     jac     5.2     (last March 28)

    29     kc     5.2     (last March 29)

    30     stl     2.7     (last March 31)

    31     tb     2.7     (last March 30)

    32     ind     2.2     (last March 32)
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WazzuWheatfarmer. Show WazzuWheatfarmer's posts

    Re: Power Ratings Already!

    Intersting list.  I've become a fan of your power-ranking system over the past couple of seasons.  Definitally an intersting perspective.  Mia at 10 suprised me a little, but it's early.  Keep up the good work.
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Power Ratings Already!

    More validation for my theory that preseason scoring means less than nothing to coaches.  Dallas vs. Oakland on Monday night.  Oakland had a drive for the ages.  It took them four plays to reach fourth down.  In a punting situation Dallas hands them another first down by penalty.  Soon enough they've gotten to fourth down again.  Once again, in a punting situation Dallas hands them a first down by penalty.  Finally after a 15 play "drive" Oakland still hasn't crossed midfield and this time they successfully punt the ball away without a Dallas penalty.  Would this ever happen if points meant anything? 

    My first down counting system marks this one up as three separate drives.  Oakland gets no legitimate first downs out of the first two of these drives.   My official end-of-week-1 ratings will be coming soon.
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Power Ratings Already!

    New counting system, still straightening out some bumps for the first week.  Sorry.  Let’s start again.

    Microscopic winners of my first-string versus first-string first down count:

    az   kc   8  Arizona’s first stringers had no shame, twice.

    az   no   6  Hall of fame game.  New Orleans and AZ have gotten two games in so far.

    bal   atl   5  At least Balt. folded to a good team.

    nyj   cin   4  Hmm.

    ten   sea   4  New England starts with Tennessee in early September.

    pit   phi   -4  Best away game performance of the list.

    den   chi   -3  Peyton's got it going!  Will his neck work through January?

    was   buf   -2  Hot young team on the rise?  Not Buffalo today.

    no   ne   2 (fourth down penalties on punts don’t count as real first downs)

    tb   mia   -2

    cle   det   2

    nyg   jac   2  A 9-7 team lays down to somebody bad?

    stl   ind   2  Try not to ever lose to somebody awful.

    gb   sd   1  Underwhelming for a team of Green Bay's stature.

    min   sf   1

    hou   car   -1

    dal   oak   1 (twin fourth down penalties on punts don’t really count)

    There were no tie counts of first downs.

    Power ratings based on these counts (influenced by last year’s power ratings)

    1   ne   14.2   (end of last year  1)

    2   no   13.3   (end of last year  3)

    3   gb   13.1   (end of last year  2)

    4   pit   12.8   (end of last year  9)

    5   atl   11.8   (end of last year  11)

    6   hou   11.5   (end of last year  8)

    7   sd   10.8   (end of last year  14)

    8   sf   10.5   (end of last year  4)

    9   bal   9.8   (end of last year  7)

    10   kc   9.1   (end of last year  29)

    11   det   8.9   (end of last year  13)

    12   sea   8.7   (end of last year  17)

    13   cin   8.6   (end of last year  19)

    14   nyg   8.4   (end of last year  5)

    15   den   8.1   (end of last year  23)

    16   phi   8.0   (end of last year  6)

    17   car   7.8   (end of last year  21)

    18   min   7.6   (end of last year  26)

    19   ten   6.8   (end of last year  18)

    20   jac   6.8   (end of last year  28)

    21   chi   6.4   (end of last year  16)

    22   dal   6.4   (end of last year  15)

    23   nyj   6.3   (end of last year  12)

    24   mia   6.3   (end of last year  10)

    25   oak   6.2   (end of last year  25)

    26   cle   5.9   (end of last year  27)

    27   was   5.8   (end of last year  24)

    28   tb   5.1   (end of last year  31)

    29   az   4.4   (end of last year  20)

    30   buf   3.5   (end of last year  22)

    31   ind   2.5   (end of last year  32)

    32   stl   0.9   (end of last year  30)

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChasaB. Show ChasaB's posts

    Re: Power Ratings Already!

    Buf is too low, Indy is too low, the jets are too high, Cle is too high, sea is too high
  6. This post has been removed.

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Power Ratings Already!

    In Response to Re: Power Ratings Already!:
    Buf is too low, Indy is too low, the jets are too high, Cle is too high, sea is too high
    Posted by ChasaB

    Buffalo played like Wyle E. Coyote dropping off a cliff last year.  They finished on a 1-8 streak.  Then they looked worse than Washington this past week.  I don't give out any preemptive Nobel Peace Prizes either.

    Indy was a bit better than St. Louis but they socked for Luck last year.  I'll grant you that Indy may get better someday, but where's the statistical beef right now?

    I give the Jets credit for their tough 2011 defense.  They stayed in games last year, with a few collapses and a few blowouts.  Most of the teams that kicked them around were pretty good teams at the time:  Patriots, Giants, Baltimore, Philadelphia.  It's possible that they're preparing to collapse now, but my software can't read too much into their kissing Cincy's ringless hand this week. 

    The Browns got in there and fought every one of their last eight games last season.  Credit where credit is due.  Cleveland's first string didn't particularly embarass themselves against Detroit, and that's consistent with their 2011 play. 

    If the Browns went down fighting in 2011, the Seahawks went out 5-3 with no big collapses and with some pretty impressive winning margins.  They also handled Tennessee's first stringers well last week.
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Power Ratings Already!

    In Response to Re: Power Ratings Already!:
    Houston had like 8 sacks in the first pre-season game.  If they stay healthy on offense, they are going to be scary.
    Posted by Patsman3

    Houston only scored one of those eight sacks against Cam Newton and the first stringers.  Houston's first string offense under Matt Schaub only scored 3 points in three drives.  Maybe the offense and defense will get a little better in the scary department, but they need to show it to people.  Nice kickoff runback for a touchdown against camp guys.
  9. This post has been removed.

  10. This post has been removed.

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Power Ratings Already!

    Is that so outrageous, UD6? The Patriots are contenders almost every year, have won their division for 4 of the last 5, and finished last years regular season on quite a winning streak.

    Your argument seems to be that because the Patriots are always at or near the top, the model is flawed. I would suggest the opposite, that any model which doesn't have the Patriots at or near the top is flawed - and history seems to support that view.

    Instead of mindless bashing of Paul K's model, why don't you either a) present a better model yourself, or b) be a bit more specific as to were his model is biased towards the Patriots?

    @Paul K, great work. I, for one, am always looking forward to your power rankings.
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChasaB. Show ChasaB's posts

    Re: Power Ratings Already!

    UD6's model



    all the other teams tied for last.
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Power Ratings Already!

    In Response to Re: Power Ratings Already!:
    look everyone Paul has his power rankings out and what???  the pats are on top.  This year instead of removing the 4th quarter from his ranking system (because it is now suddenly important), Paul will not be using the second quarter.  Paul you and babe should have a discussion about the value of the 4th quarter.  That might turn into a pretty salty thread.
    Posted by UD6

    Well, let's see: the Pats had one of the best records in the year last year and made it to the SB. THey played well enough to be seriously in contention till the Giants scored late. THey did it with their best O lineman playing with serious injuries and with the best TE in the game barely able to play at all due to injury. So having the Pats ranked high should in fact illustrate that there is at elast soemthing to his rankings. So where would you have put the Pats ranking at the start of last season? If in the top 5 then what are you complaining about? If not in the top 8 then you clearly were wrong to begin with. SO what IS your point???????????????????
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Power Ratings Already!

    In Response to Re: Power Ratings Already!:
     Paul going back to last years playoffs how did you rank the Giants against their competion,including the SB?
    Posted by sod11

    The Jints, when they were a 9-7 team at the end of the season, had an undistinguished 9.3 rating.  Then they either got healthy or inspired.  Three notable playoff road wins later they had moved up to an 11.8 rating.  I had them as a 2.4 point underdog for the Super Bowl.  Winning by 4 points was good for them, but not too far out of line.

    Their ranking dropped for the start of 2012 because of the six month gap.  People, Gronkowski and Mankins for example, tend to get healthy over six months.  For this reason, the Giants' last games didn't get quite as much weight for 2012 as they would for a game next week.  They may have finished on a high peak but for 2012 they got pulled back toward their original 9.3 a bit.