PDA

View Full Version : First Power rankings of the year!!!!


GiantRutgersFan
05-09-2007, 10:54 AM
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/powerrankings


looks pretty solid to me. Cardinals at 13 rubs me the wrong way however

Flyboy
05-09-2007, 10:56 AM
Power rankings are usually always pointless to me but I glanced the top ten and they didn't look too bad at all.

DI
05-09-2007, 11:01 AM
Just a few things. Carolina is a little low as well as Tennessee and Pittsburgh is a little too high

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 11:03 AM
This whole thing means less than nothing to me. We don't know anything about Cutler's progress, McNabb's injuries, Brandon Jacobs' running as the feature back, or how the rookies will fare. It's not right to do this now.

PalmerToCJ
05-09-2007, 11:05 AM
The Bengals shouldn't be behind the three NFC teams ahead of them, I personally think we should be higher than Baltimore but I can take the other side of the argument as well. I do like the top 5.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 11:08 AM
Given the questions at LB and in the secondary, the Bengals remain unproven in terms of stopping teams. These are very preliminary situations, so don't let it get to you. I'm shocked the Eagles are as high as they are with McNabb still not running on land.

PalmerToCJ
05-09-2007, 11:13 AM
Given the questions at LB and in the secondary, the Bengals remain unproven in terms of stopping teams. These are very preliminary situations, so don't let it get to you. I'm shocked the Eagles are as high as they are with McNabb still not running on land.

My thing is with a worse LB core and secondary last year we beat the Saints at their place without our starting LT, C and RG then 2 of our 3 starting LB's that game will be backups again this year.

constant cough
05-09-2007, 11:14 AM
The Texans are overrated on there.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 11:16 AM
Well, any given Sunday... I think the thing about this is there are concerns about the amount of pressure the team can generate and their ability to stop teams on third down. No one can question the offense, but the defense's ability to control the game is in doubt. It's still early. I think the Bengals have a good chance to win the division, but I want to see them on the field before I make a final prediction.

myinnerself
05-09-2007, 11:19 AM
I don't know if it is correct to say that the Colts losses this offseason are overrated. Losing 2 starting corner's is no joke, and also losing a good starting LB.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 11:20 AM
In the Cover 2 defense, CB's are interchangable and are often not the focus of the defensive success. In general, playing cover 2 CB is easier than playing in other defensive schemes.

Nitschke-Hawk
05-09-2007, 11:22 AM
Prisco's an idiot.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 11:24 AM
I don't trust power rankings at all. I trust analysis and predictions done just after the draft even less.

Ace
05-09-2007, 12:08 PM
24 sounds about right, but the suprise in that he has the Chiefs at 26.

SFbear
05-09-2007, 12:22 PM
"When you play the style of football they do, the margin for error is small. Everything will have to go right for the Bears to be back in the Super Bowl. That rarely happens."

What the hell is he talking about? We lost two Pro Bowlers on defense and our Quarterback became a walking turnover machine and we still made it to the Superbowl. How is that having everything go right in order to succeed? I don't mind the rank otherwise.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 12:36 PM
I think they were talking about things in general. The Bears try to generally control the clock and win with defense. That means they have to score points when they can. The team is not expected to score a ton, meaning that they have to capitalize on every opportunity to keep up their level of success.

Eagles own the NFC East
05-09-2007, 06:06 PM
IMO Cowboys, Cardinals, Giants, and Bengals are too high.

Titans are too low, they shouldn't be 29 despite having a bad off-season, anything could happen with Vince and gaining more experience. Everyone is pointing the finger of the team to slip and have at terrible season is the Titans because they believe there are so many signs, Pacman suspension, losing Drew Bennett, having a bad draft, Vince on the madden cover, however I think the Titans will prove the doubters, especially Vince like he did last season and through out his college career.

dc4life
05-09-2007, 06:12 PM
Too early for this.

Broncos, Eagles, Cardinals too high. Jets and Rams should be higer.

Eagles own the NFC East
05-09-2007, 06:15 PM
good call on Jets forgot about that. also Browns aren't the worst team imo

bearsfan_51
05-09-2007, 06:15 PM
I'm actually fine for once with where he has the Bears but I still HATE Pete Prisco. I would take the few years in jail and subsequent lawsuit to beat him with a bat.

princefielder28
05-09-2007, 06:15 PM
A little suprised to see how low Green Bay is.

PalmerToCJ
05-09-2007, 06:16 PM
IMO Cowboys, Cardinals, Giants, and Bengals are too high.

LOL.

Convenient you leave out your team while including two division rivals.

The Bengals went 8-8 last year with our star LT missing 14 games, our anchor at Center missing 14 games, our franchise player coming off an ACL injury and TONS of bad luck while playing one of, if not the hardest schedule in the NFL and we were STILL one 39 yard field goal from making the playoffs (or one non-phantom roughing the passer call away). I'm actually impressed with the 8-8 given how many things went wrong last year.

derza222
05-09-2007, 06:19 PM
Not to be a homer, but I don't see why the Jets moved down to the 9th spot after making the playoffs last year. The defense started to gel towards the end of the season and will be in their second year in the 3-4, the offensive line will continue to improve, and we actually will have a running back which will help us since we can move the ball on the ground and playaction will be more of a threat with Pennington. Based on talent we're not one of the better teams in the league, but last year the coaching staff got us to play hard and not commit many penalties. We were basically in every game except the Jax game, and the playoff game after the backwards past. Although our schedule will be harder and I'm not sure we'll make the playoffs, I see no reason for us to be the 16th team in the league, especially behind teams like the Cardinals and Giants. That said, the two aforementioned teams are a bit high, and I think the Falcons, 49ers, Panthers, and Titans are too low.

derza222
05-09-2007, 06:21 PM
LOL.

Convenient you leave out your team while including two division rivals.

The Bengals went 8-8 last year with our star LT missing 14 games, our anchor at Center missing 14 games, our franchise player coming off an ACL injury and TONS of bad luck while playing one of, if not the hardest schedule in the NFL and we were STILL one 39 yard field goal from making the playoffs (or one non-phantom roughing the passer call away). I'm actually impressed with the 8-8 given how many things went wrong last year.

That Smith roughing the passer call cost Cincy the Bucs game and was pretty questionable as well. The big thing next year is consistency, will they be able to play well week in and week out. Last year they'd win a bunch and then lose a bunch, for stretches of 3 or 4 games. If Perry steps in and does well in Henry's place that should be important, and I think Brooks will really improve and help out the defense a ton. In a few years I think he's going to be something special.

dc4life
05-09-2007, 06:25 PM
Not to be a homer, but I don't see why the Jets moved down to the 9th spot after making the playoffs last year. The defense started to gel towards the end of the season and will be in their second year in the 3-4, the offensive line will continue to improve, and we actually will have a running back which will help us since we can move the ball on the ground and playaction will be more of a threat with Pennington. Based on talent we're not one of the better teams in the league, but last year the coaching staff got us to play hard and not commit many penalties. We were basically in every game except the Jax game, and the playoff game after the backwards past. Although our schedule will be harder and I'm not sure we'll make the playoffs, I see no reason for us to be the 16th team in the league, especially behind teams like the Cardinals and Giants. That said, the two aforementioned teams are a bit high, and I think the Falcons, 49ers, Panthers, and Titans are too low.

I was definately impressed with them last year and I agree, they are rated lower than they should be.

fenikz
05-09-2007, 06:38 PM
cardinals are right where they should be, good rankings

neko4
05-09-2007, 06:52 PM
Green Bay, Washington, and Cleveland arent given enough credit. (Prisco is a huge idiot)
Cleveland: They have loads of young talent (Edwards, Winslow, Quinn, Thomas, Wimbley just to name some)
Washington: Clearly he forgot that Campbell is an upgrade over Brunell and that Moss will be healthy.
Green Bay: this genius says that Favre will be holding on for dear life(which I suppose is to mean that Favre doesnt have an OL), he must of also forgotten that all 3 of our rookie OLmen improved through out the year. Plus the young guys we have drafted this last 2-3 years have molded into a formidable unit

dc4life
05-09-2007, 06:53 PM
I think its cause everyone basically agrees its too early to fully assess a team with paragraphs of crap that won't make a difference later....

SeanTaylorRIP
05-09-2007, 07:34 PM
I love when writers think the skins will go 4-12 will just be so much sweeter when we shove it in their faces.

bearsfan_51
05-09-2007, 07:36 PM
I love when writers think the skins will go 4-12 will just be so much sweeter when we shove it in their faces.
By winning 6 games.

SeanTaylorRIP
05-09-2007, 07:40 PM
The skins improved on a 6-10 season in which injuries to their elite players killed them. Clinton Portis, Santana Moss, Jon Jansen, Cornelius Griffin, Marcus Washington, Shawn Springs, and Carlos Rogers. This team now has more depth, i.e. Smoot, Macklin. We have a legit MLB in London Fletcher, a pro bowler Marcus Washington, and a solid vet LeMar Marshall or crazy motor youngster Rocky McINtosh. Add to that LaRon Landry and Jason Campbell being a huge upgrade over last years Brunell. We are the same team but better as the 2005 team which won 10 games. If Campbell can atleast play decent we can shock the world. I don't mind everyone thinking we are 6-10 at best.

BengalsPwn
05-09-2007, 07:46 PM
The browns night not be the worst team, but there the worst team in a very very good division. There the only team to have a more than legit shot at going winless in the division. Also there should probably only 1 NFC team, the bears, in the top ten. It is very clear that the AFC is 100x better than he NFC.

nvot9
05-09-2007, 07:47 PM
Pete Prisco's a dumbass, although these weren't SO bad.

Two things that irked me (and I'm sure there are more because I hate him, but I just glanced) are the Giants and Bears. 1) The Bears were in the SB last year, and in my opinion only got better, I don't see how they could have dropped to 5, plus the Colts lost a lot of good talent, but w/e.

As for the giants, he basically says that their entire offense rests in the hands of two huge questionmarks, Brandon Jacobs and Eli Manning, and says if they're not on, which there's a strong likylihood that they won't be, then they'll be bad, but still ranks them 14th...

bearsfan_51
05-09-2007, 07:54 PM
The skins improved on a 6-10 season in which injuries to their elite players killed them. Clinton Portis, Santana Moss, Jon Jansen, Cornelius Griffin, Marcus Washington, Shawn Springs, and Carlos Rogers. This team now has more depth, i.e. Smoot, Macklin. We have a legit MLB in London Fletcher, a pro bowler Marcus Washington, and a solid vet LeMar Marshall or crazy motor youngster Rocky McINtosh. Add to that LaRon Landry and Jason Campbell being a huge upgrade over last years Brunell. We are the same team but better as the 2005 team which won 10 games. If Campbell can atleast play decent we can shock the world. I don't mind everyone thinking we are 6-10 at best.

Almost every team "improved". It's the offseason.

San Diego Chicken
05-09-2007, 08:02 PM
I think the Chiefs are being slept on here. They're rebuilding their O-line, true, but the defense was much improved, which is why they made the playoffs last year (remember that?). I also think Bowe was a smart draft choice, and they've hit on their young defensive players recently (Allen who has to deal with that suspension, Hali, Johnson, Page, Pollard). These guys are all good fits in Herm's scheme. Insert two DT's, Tyler and McBride into there and Donnie Edwards as more veteran leadership, and they should be good.

On the other hand, my Chargers are a Super Bowl contender but #3 might be high. The Ravens are probably better than the Chargers right now.

BuckNaked
05-09-2007, 08:09 PM
The skins improved on a 6-10 season in which injuries to their elite players killed them. Clinton Portis, Santana Moss, Jon Jansen, Cornelius Griffin, Marcus Washington, Shawn Springs, and Carlos Rogers. This team now has more depth, i.e. Smoot, Macklin. We have a legit MLB in London Fletcher, a pro bowler Marcus Washington, and a solid vet LeMar Marshall or crazy motor youngster Rocky McINtosh. Add to that LaRon Landry and Jason Campbell being a huge upgrade over last years Brunell. We are the same team but better as the 2005 team which won 10 games. If Campbell can atleast play decent we can shock the world. I don't mind everyone thinking we are 6-10 at best.

I'm sure Fred Smoot and David Macklin will help you a lot. Almost as much as it will help us when we got rid of Smoot.

cunningham06
05-09-2007, 08:25 PM
My thing is with a worse LB core and secondary last year we beat the Saints at their place without our starting LT, C and RG then 2 of our 3 starting LB's that game will be backups again this year.

You know, you're right, then that means that the Texans should be in the top 5 because they beat the Colts last season, and were the last team to beat the champs!

Chief49er
05-09-2007, 09:10 PM
49ers at the bottom of the NFC West?

I really don't think so, all homer aside.

Tubby
05-09-2007, 09:27 PM
49ers at the bottom of the NFC West?

I really don't think so, all homer aside.

I agree, the rams are definitely lower.

Anyway, the hawks should be top 10. This is indisputable fact.

M1Koter
05-09-2007, 09:35 PM
I'm actually fine for once with where he has the Bears but I still HATE Pete Prisco. I would take the few years in jail and subsequent lawsuit to beat him with a bat.

well, what are you waiting for?

KWill93
05-09-2007, 11:04 PM
Cardinals above the Rams and Seahawks I don't agree with. Both those teams should be higher. I'm fine with where the Vikes are.

kalbears13
05-09-2007, 11:36 PM
The Browns are below the Raiders??? Err...uh...I'm embarrassed. Don't look at me.

bearsfan_51
05-09-2007, 11:38 PM
well, what are you waiting for?
It's all about timing friend. I'm like the dude that shot Franz Ferdinand. Wait untill he gets his own parade, then you'll see.....you'll all see....

kalbears13
05-09-2007, 11:40 PM
I think the Prisco guy accidentally flipped over the rankings, so the Browns should be in first...

P-L
05-09-2007, 11:49 PM
As soon as I saw it was written by Pete Prisco I stopped reading.

GiantRutgersFan
05-09-2007, 11:56 PM
As soon as I saw it was written by Pete Prisco I stopped reading.

as soon as i saw this post was by Patriots-Lions, I stopped reading

dhoe20
05-09-2007, 11:58 PM
cardinals are right where they should be, good rankings
Meh, they have plenty of talent on the team but they're cursed, cursed I say. Honestly I can't judge this team by what talent they have, because even with the talent they had last year they just won 5 games. They haven't had a winning season since '98. I can't see them being on top of their division nor could I see them getting into the playoffs. It'd be a mild surprise if they did though.
By winning 6 games.

lololololololololol

johbur
05-10-2007, 02:27 AM
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/powerrankings


looks pretty solid to me. Cardinals at 13 rubs me the wrong way however

Yeah, Cards should be #7. For any of the new teams with new coaches, though, just having an 8-8 season beats what new coaches average for wins. Cards with an improved O-line might actually show up on the field more than just look great during the fantasy draft.

OzTitan
05-10-2007, 03:20 AM
as soon as i saw this post was by Patriots-Lions, I stopped reading

Then how did you manage to mimic his post so well? :P

myinnerself
05-10-2007, 11:01 AM
I don't understand this talk by Redskins fans about Jason Campbell being this massive upgrade. We'll see how he plays next year.

bsaza2358
05-10-2007, 11:12 AM
Campbell has more mobility and arm strength than Mark Brunell at this point in his career. With his skill set, if he can get some quality coaching and playcalling, he is capable of doing much more with the Skins than Brunell could.

aheineken
05-10-2007, 11:26 AM
Arizona is always overrated going into the season. They've been pegged as "the break out team of 20xx" for the past 2-3 years.

I don't mind the Rams as 17 though. I prefer to have the flying under the radar early in the year.

bsaza2358
05-10-2007, 11:32 AM
These rankings mean less than nothing right now. They're all conjecture based on one guy's assessment of draft, offseason, retirement, and free agency. We don't know how well the new coaches will do, which players will bounce back, and which rookies will make an impact.