PDA

View Full Version : week 2 ESPN power rankings


Ravens1991
09-22-2009, 04:57 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2009&week=3



thoughts on this? Personally I am shocked the Ravens are #1, IDK if we deserve it just yet.

YAYareaRB
09-22-2009, 05:00 PM
No one is playing better football than the Ravens right now. They can run, pass, and play defense (I know really?).

I'm just happy that the Niners are in the top half of the league for once.

Splat
09-22-2009, 05:07 PM
Falcons O last year good insert a HOF TE this year scary.

MetSox17
09-22-2009, 05:14 PM
I think the Jets should be a lot higher. They beat a pretty good Texans team and the Patriots.

DMWSackMachine
09-22-2009, 05:29 PM
Quite funny. Dallas loses to the #2 team in the PR by two points at home and falls from 13 to 16.

Green Bay loses to the #22 team in the PR by 3 at home and goes from 11 to 12. Hmmm.



Still, I love early season power rankings. Cause, in reality, no one has a freakin clue who is the best, so you have crazy rankings that make no sense and all it really does is reveal 1) the biases of the media men doing the rankings and 2) how clueless everyone really is.


Not until week 10 should any of these things ever be taken serious. And even then they are little more than a dainty confection.

derza222
09-22-2009, 05:34 PM
I think the Jets should be a lot higher. They beat a pretty good Texans team and the Patriots.

Lets keep expectations tempered with the Jets, please. They're looking good right now, but I'm sure we can find plenty of faults still.

The hype has me a little uncomfortable, since before the last two games people didn't have them in the playoffs and there was talk of going 0-5 to start the season. I'd love to have a successful season, but let's see how they stand after the next 3 weeks playing some pretty solid teams before we pass judgement.

I'll put it this way, the Jets shouldn't be so far ahead of the 49ers yet IMO, who also looked good going 2-0 and lead their division to the surprise of most behind a head coach who seems like he's doing a fantastic job. The situations are maybe a little different, but not 8 in the power rankings vs. 16 in the power rankings different.

Job
09-22-2009, 05:50 PM
The 2-0 Broncos behind two or three 0-2 teams is funny.

wicket
09-22-2009, 05:56 PM
to me the saints should at least be ahead of the vikings and the steelers. that might obviously be a homer bias but we beat the same team as the vikings did in a more convincing fashion and beat a legit contender pretty handily imo. saints have the highest margin of victory over the first two games combined by a pretty big margin (44 with the #2 at 28), this with a pretty mediocre special teams performance as well. I get why we are behind other teams that played two solid games and came in higher ranked but I dont get why we are behind a team with already a loss and a team that looked quite unconvincing in their wins against more mediocre opponents.

Way worse by the way is arizona dropping a spot after blowng a team out this week

Timbathia
09-22-2009, 06:21 PM
The 2-0 Broncos behind two or three 0-2 teams is funny.

I dont think even the most ardent Broncos fans would consider us better than the Titans or Dolphins just yet.

awfullyquiet
09-22-2009, 06:31 PM
Quite funny. Dallas loses to the #2 team in the PR by two points at home and falls from 13 to 16.

Green Bay loses to the #22 team in the PR by 3 at home and goes from 11 to 12. Hmmm.


continuing the trend: chicago loses to the #12, wins to #1. and goes from 15->14.

i'm also waiting for the patriots to keep falling.

DMWSackMachine
09-22-2009, 06:46 PM
Yes, and the Chargers lose a nail biter to the supposed #1 and fall all the way from 6 to 11....lol. So f***ing stupid.

Shane P. Hallam
09-22-2009, 06:56 PM
It's not about numbers and dropping. It is a Power Ranking. So the previous week doesn't affect the next week.

DMWSackMachine
09-22-2009, 06:59 PM
Oh, so its ONLY about week 2? Then why aren't the Eagles 30? Why is NY 2 when they could barely eek out a win against #15? Why are the Pack 12 when they got beat at home by #22?

No, its an all-inclusive ranking that takes into account expectations coming into the season as well as the performance of the team in the first two weeks.

MasterShake
09-22-2009, 07:01 PM
The 2-0 Broncos behind two or three 0-2 teams is funny.

I love how Bronco fans are high on their 2-0 team. You beat the worst team in the league in the Browns and it took a literal miracle for you to win your other game. Seriously...the hand of God came down and placed that ball into Stokely's hands.

So unless you plan on having Jesus Christ on your sideline the rest of the year or have the Browns on the schedule for the next 14 games...wait until you beat a real team before you make ANY statements about how good your team is.

Timbathia
09-22-2009, 07:08 PM
I love how Bronco fans are high on their 2-0 team. You beat the worst team in the league in the Browns and it took a literal miracle for you to win your other game. Seriously...the hand of God came down and placed that ball into Stokely's hands.

So unless you plan on having Jesus Christ on your sideline the rest of the year or have the Browns on the schedule for the next 14 games...wait until you beat a real team before you make ANY statements about how good your team is.

Stupid post. Have you actually been reading any of the posts from the Broncos fans in here? We can hardly be considered "high" on them. I think pleasantly surprised is about the gist of it. Most of the Broncos fans in here (aside from Jimmy) thought the Broncos would be solid this year. Guess what, so far the Broncos have looked solid.

abaddon41_80
09-22-2009, 07:08 PM
I love how Bronco fans are high on their 2-0 team. You beat the worst team in the league in the Browns and it took a literal miracle for you to win your other game. Seriously...the hand of God came down and placed that ball into Stokely's hands.

So unless you plan on having Jesus Christ on your sideline the rest of the year or have the Browns on the schedule for the next 14 games...wait until you beat a real team before you make ANY statements about how good your team is.

I could not agree with this post more.

Timbathia
09-22-2009, 07:09 PM
I could not agree with this post more.

Who is touting the Broncos as being great?

RaiderNation
09-22-2009, 07:09 PM
Imagine how much higher Oakland would be if JaMarcus could actually complete some passes before the 4th quarter

YAYareaRB
09-22-2009, 07:10 PM
I think the Jets should be a lot higher. They beat a pretty good Texans team and the Patriots.

Yeah definitely. Their D is really good and Mark Sanchez is looking real good.

abaddon41_80
09-22-2009, 07:13 PM
Who is touting the Broncos as being great?

I have seen Broncos fans putting them in the top 16 teams in the league, which is too high based on what we have seen from them

MasterShake
09-22-2009, 07:16 PM
Stupid post. Have you actually been reading any of the posts from the Broncos fans in here? We can hardly be considered "high" on them. I think pleasantly surprised is about the gist of it. Most of the Broncos fans in here (aside from Jimmy) thought the Broncos would be solid this year. Guess what, so far the Broncos have looked solid.

Who is touting the Broncos as being great?

I haven't seen anyone saying they are great, but suggesting that they are even good, "solid", or should be higher on the rankings (as Job alludes to) at this point is too much.

Like I said in the original post, wait until they beat a real team before making that assessment.

Timbathia
09-22-2009, 07:21 PM
I have seen Broncos fans putting them in the top 16 teams in the league, which is too high based on what we have seen from them

I wouldnt put them in the top 16 just yet. However, based on their defensive play over 2 weeks you can make an argument they should be. The key here though is that most people believe the defense is bad and that these two games are completely due to the Browns and Bengals being incompetent. This may be right, or the defense make actually be pretty decent. Too hard to tell just yet - peoples opinions on a lot of things have ruled all discussion on the Broncos during the preseason, and after 2 games it is still at the opinion stage as there is just not enough hard facts to go on.

Shane P. Hallam
09-22-2009, 07:24 PM
Oh, so its ONLY about week 2? Then why aren't the Eagles 30? Why is NY 2 when they could barely eek out a win against #15? Why are the Pack 12 when they got beat at home by #22?

No, its an all-inclusive ranking that takes into account expectations coming into the season as well as the performance of the team in the first two weeks.

You misinterpreted what I said. It's about the overall performance, but they don't use Week 1's power rankings to dictate, "Oh, this team should move down 2 spots, this team up 2 spots." They start with a clean slate.

bored of education
09-22-2009, 07:37 PM
The Chiefs ******* sucks

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-22-2009, 08:01 PM
So unless you plan on having Jesus Christ on your sideline the rest of the year or have the Browns on the schedule for the next 14 games...wait until you beat a real team before you make ANY statements about how good your team is.

We traded him to the Bears :(

SeanTaylorRIP
09-22-2009, 08:14 PM
Skins should be 5 spots lower.

Bengalsrocket
09-22-2009, 09:38 PM
Bengals should be higher. We beat green bay yet we're 12 spots lower? I'm not saying we should even be higher than them, just not that far away. I personally feel we should be closer to where the dolphins are now at 19.

Jughead10
09-22-2009, 10:56 PM
I just posted this in Shiver's thread. I think all the huge offense that we are not used to seeing from the Ravens has made people overlook that this isn't a typical Ravens defense. At least not right now it is.

vikes_28
09-22-2009, 11:29 PM
I don't think number 5 is the appropriate spot for the Vikings. I think they should be 7 - 10 spots lower. Here is my reasoning:

1. The Vikings played two teams that are 0-2. They did pretty well against them, but nothing that hasn't ever happened before.

2. They couldn't stop the run in those two games. The Lions got above 100 yards rushing.

3. The Vikings didn't get moving until the second half. I don't know if it's just because the Lions were excited? Or if it was just the way they played. But something has to be done about the offense and defense showing up later in the game.

4. I can see that Favre is managing the game, which is what he came here to do, but he can't be successful if he is not being protected. If Favre gets hurt, who will manage the game? I guess that is usually expected when there are two new starters.

Number 5 is steep, I would say a lot lower.

Bengals78
09-22-2009, 11:40 PM
I would hope the Bengals could be closer to middle of the pack right now, but it is espn so I put no stock into it. We should be 2-0 but the big man upstairs decided to shun us for our years of stupidity after finally having a good offseason. We played hard at GB and won. And how about the defense? huh? yeaaahhh. Once Carson gets his timing down, I think we could really start to make some teams sweat.

Denver Bronco56
09-23-2009, 01:13 AM
I understand we played 2 teams that well arent GOOD...but in the same sense when they played their other games they played good (EXE. Chad Ocho and Jamal Lewis played great against their other opponents) but when they play us we shut them down...

i like the idea of being underrated...but we are playing good football



and i understand we ALMOST didnt win the bengals game....but we outplayed them 59:00 minutes and they scored there only points on the last drive

Saints 4 Lyfe
09-23-2009, 01:19 AM
right now Saints are top 5 imo..

CC.SD
09-23-2009, 01:52 AM
Yes, and the Chargers lose a nail biter to the supposed #1 and fall all the way from 6 to 11....lol. So f***ing stupid.

seriously...so if Naanee holds onto that pass in the final seconds in the end zone, are the Ravens 11? It doesn't make sense.

killxswitch
09-23-2009, 07:40 AM
I don't think the Colts deserve the #3 ranking. They had no business winning that game in Miami. The Saints and Jets seem too low. I would also rank the Bengals higher.

LizardState
09-23-2009, 09:48 AM
9ers ahead of Dallas? Whod'a thunk it? Eagles are way too high without McNabb. Ravens are no surprise at #1 to anyone who saw them in last season's playoffs.

If present trends continue Patriots could be going down faster than a preacher's daughter. And we could be looking at a SB matchup of Jets vs. Giants or vs. NOLA Saints.

Power rankings are 95% speculation after 2 games as scheduling is the most important factor now, in the early season it's 32 teams vaguely divided into Haves & Have Nots.

21ST
09-23-2009, 10:40 AM
Wow cant believe the skins are that high

vikes_28
09-23-2009, 10:42 AM
The 9ers are looking good this year. But we all know they won't win the superbowl this year. Maybe when they get a decent QB.

YAYareaRB
09-23-2009, 10:53 AM
The 9ers are looking good this year. But we all know they won't win the superbowl this year. Maybe when they get a decent QB.

I wish we could nab hall of famers out of retirement.

vikes_28
09-23-2009, 11:06 AM
I wish we could nab hall of famers out of retirement.

Yeah, the thought of the Vikings winning a superbowl with Favre is being optimistic.

abaddon41_80
09-23-2009, 12:18 PM
The 9ers are looking good this year. But we all know they won't win the superbowl this year. Maybe when they get a decent QB.

Shaun Hill is a decent QB and I think the 49ers could win a Super Bowl with him :eek: :eek: ...providing they first get a dominant pass rusher, a huge upgrade at right tackle, and a true #1 receiver :( :(

no bare feet
09-23-2009, 12:39 PM
If a lot of things happen for a lot of teams then every team can say they could win the Super Bowl.

CC.SD
09-23-2009, 12:40 PM
great. now i'm laughing so hard i'm literally going to asphyxiate.

Man I really want to make an autoerotica joke right here.

YAYareaRB
09-23-2009, 12:40 PM
Yeah I mean.. IF those things happened, it wouldn't be hard to see the Niners being one of the better teams in the league...If those things happened

abaddon41_80
09-23-2009, 12:42 PM
great. now i'm laughing so hard i'm literally going to asphyxiate.

The sad part is that I am serious. Hill is much better than Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer and both have won a Super Bowl in the past 10 years. I'm just saying that Hill is not what is holding the 49ers back, like some people seem to believe.

awfullyquiet
09-23-2009, 12:43 PM
really though, I think SI's power rankings look a little better

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/09/23/week.3.1/index.html

Ravens
Saints
Giants
Jets
Colts
Falcons
Vikings
Steelers
Patriots
Iggles
Niners
Chargers
Cowboys
Broncos
Bungles
Packers
Bears
Texans
Titans
Bills
Cards
Seahawks
Fins
Raiders?
Redskins
Panthers
Chiefs
Jags
Lions
Rams
Browns

CC.SD
09-23-2009, 12:45 PM
Yeah I mean.. IF those things happened, it wouldn't be hard to see the Niners being one of the better teams in the league...If those things happened

I still think the 9ers will be good, I actually like Hill.

DMWSackMachine
09-23-2009, 12:47 PM
Hill is nowhere close to as good as Brad Johnson was. He was a Pro Bowler multiple times in his career and finished in the top 5 in passer rating a few times.

Shaun Hill is a borderline starter at best. Beating two teams (narrowly, even) from the worst division in football does not qualify as anything significant. This reminds me of a couple years back when SF won their first two games and everyone started talking about "watch out for the Niners!" and they proceeded to finish with 6 or 7 wins.

CC.SD
09-23-2009, 12:55 PM
Hill is nowhere close to as good as Brad Johnson was. He was a Pro Bowler multiple times in his career and finished in the top 5 in passer rating a few times.

Shaun Hill is a borderline starter at best. Beating two teams (narrowly, even) from the worst division in football does not qualify as anything significant. This reminds me of a couple years back when SF won their first two games and everyone started talking about "watch out for the Niners!" and they proceeded to finish with 6 or 7 wins.

That was before Mike Singletary. This 9er team is on a mission to make Crabtree look like a lackbrain.

abaddon41_80
09-23-2009, 01:03 PM
Hill is nowhere close to as good as Brad Johnson was. He was a Pro Bowler multiple times in his career and finished in the top 5 in passer rating a few times.

Shaun Hill is a borderline starter at best. Beating two teams (narrowly, even) from the worst division in football does not qualify as anything significant. This reminds me of a couple years back when SF won their first two games and everyone started talking about "watch out for the Niners!" and they proceeded to finish with 6 or 7 wins.

No one thought anything about the 2007 Niners after those two games because they looked awful on offense and not nearly as good on defense as this year.

EDIT: And I think that if the 49ers had a dominant pass rusher ala Ware then the defense would easily be top 5 in the league and a good #1 WR, and a good right tackle we would have a much better offense than the Raven had. I stand by the statement that Hill is definitely not what is holding the 49ers back.

YAYareaRB
09-23-2009, 01:05 PM
Hill is nowhere close to as good as Brad Johnson was. He was a Pro Bowler multiple times in his career and finished in the top 5 in passer rating a few times.

Shaun Hill is a borderline starter at best. Beating two teams (narrowly, even) from the worst division in football does not qualify as anything significant. This reminds me of a couple years back when SF won their first two games and everyone started talking about "watch out for the Niners!" and they proceeded to finish with 6 or 7 wins.

Maybe not but Brad Johnson did all that after he turned 30. Shaun Hill is capable of doing the same but I am, as a 49er fan, skeptical. We're not worried about our QB play because we're gonna be a run first team so if Shaun Hill can manage our games and continue to convert on 3rd downs. We're winning ugly and that's expected in the first couple weeks. But come on.. you're gonna fault us for barely beating last year's SB loser and last season's most injury ridden team. The Seahawks are a totally different squad with Hassleback and Tatupu.

Weren't you crying about not being higher after barely getting beat by the Ravens but the previous week you barely beat the Raiders.

BlindSite
09-23-2009, 03:41 PM
that's the most inane load of crap i've read in a really long time.

further, trent dilfer won because he had literally one of the best defenses ever. the 49ers are not even remotely close, not even on the same planet, as that defense. even IF you happened to have an elite pass rusher.

and you accused broncos fans of being ridiculous homers for thinking we're top 16? please stop posting, really, my ribs hurt from laughing so much.

Agreed Trent Dilfer is not a superbowl winning quarterback, Trent Dilfer is a quarterback who played on a superbowl winning team. There is a difference there.