Week 3 Rankings

[mweb]

Comments likely to be added later.

1. Pats(2) 2-0
2. Colts(1) 2-0
3. Chargers(3) 1-1
4. Cowboys(6) 2-0
5. Ravens(5) 1-1
6. Bears(7) 1-1
7. Steelers(10) 2-0
8. Redskins(15) 2-0
9. Packers(16) 2-0
10. Jags(13) 1-1
11. Seahawks(4) 1-1
12. Broncos(12) 2-0
13. Texans(23) 2-0
14. 49ers(19) 2-0
15. Titans(17) 1-1
16. Eagles(14) 0-2
17. Lions(19) 2-0
18. Cards(21) 1-1
19. Bengals(8) 1-1
20. Panthers(11) 1-1
21. Bucs(30) 1-1
22. Saints(9) 0-2
23. Browns(32) 1-1
24. Rams(18) 0-2
25. Jets(22) 0-2
26. Giants(24) 0-2
26. Vikings(27) 1-1
27. Giants(24) 0-2
28. Bills(25) 0-2
29. Dolphins(26) 0-2
30. Raiders(29) 0-2
31. Chiefs(28) 0-2
32. Falcons(31) 0-2

There's now two teams that are clearly above the rest. 3-7 is the next tier, followed by 8-15, 16-20, 21-25. I'd be shocked if any of the rest of the teams contended, and their pretty interchangable.

[glenn__davis]

The Vikings should be ranked higher with their stellar offense led by Donovan McNabb clone Tarvaris Jackson. He'll probably go to the Pro Bowl this year.

[Sports Guy]

Are the Eagles disappointing or where they finally should be?

[tywright]

The Chargers have been exploited and I think the Bears peaked last season. Redskins are way too high...they've beaten two teams that should not be in the top 20

[millsy25]

Are the Eagles disappointing or where they finally should be?

They are where they should be. A non existant pass rush, a depleted secondary, WR's who can't seperate from press coverage, a QB who's knee is clearly still bothering him and guns balls 150 mph over rec. heads or in the dirt, a head coach who mismanages the clock and calls 80% pass plays when Westbrook is ave. 5 yds a carry, etc, etc. Jeff Garcia had command of the WCO and good touch on his passes, which McNabb doesn't.

If they lose to the Lions at home and then to the Giants, let the Kevin Kolb era begin.

[Camden_yardbird]

ESPN has the steelers above us at 6, ravens at 7. I like where you put them, they havent won against any formidable team yet, but have looked good.

The Raiders should be higher in your poll, or Denver lower There is no way you could put Denver at 12 and the Raiders at 30. That is too big a difference for how that game turned out.

Lions below the Eagles??? Really? No 2-0 team should be behind an 0-2 team, especially given they will probably be 3-0 and 0-3 after this week. Besides that, I think the Lions have an explosive offense, whereas the Eagles do not. And they both have average defenses.

[NJOriolesFan]

I think the Jets should be higher. Any prognastication that had the Jets in the top 15 at the beginning of the season still should. Who among the experts or even casual fans would have had the Jets winning either of their first two games against New England and the Ravens. The 0-2 start stinks but that was expected and a 9-7 season or better was projected by most. I think the Jets should be around 15th or 16th despite the record.

The Vikings are better than where you have them but I don't know how much better. They are definately better than the Giants. Tavaris Jackson was awful in week 2 and they still lost to your #17 ranked team because their game winning 52 yard field goal try went off the left upright. The game was in Detroit and they lost in OT and you have them separated by 10 spots?

[Sports Guy]

I think the Jets should be higher. Any prognastication that had the Jets in the top 15 at the beginning of the season still should. Who among the experts or even casual fans would have had the Jets winning either of their first two games against New England and the Ravens. The 0-2 start stinks but that was expected and a 9-7 season or better was projected by most. I think the Jets should be around 15th or 16th despite the record.

The Vikings are better than where you have them but I don't know how much better. They are definately better than the Giants. Tavaris Jackson was awful in week 2 and they still lost to your #17 ranked team because their game winning 52 yard field goal try went off the left upright. The game was in Detroit and they lost in OT and you have them separated by 10 spots?

The Jets stink...Mangini deserves a medal for getting that team to win 10 games last year..I see them as a 7 win team.

[ccbird]

Kudos to mweb for actually taking the time to do this every week. Just looking at the list off the top of my head from top to bottom

- Jags too high. Not high on them at all. Unimpressive in both games against Tenn and Atl at home. I think they are closer to the bottom half of the league than top 10. I prob would have them around 16 or 17 right now.


- SF while I don't think will end up a top 10 team should be there right now. Ari win doesn't look to shabby now and the win in STL where STL usually plays very well was a very solid W.

-Eagles too high. If the Saints are 22 for two losses on the road to INdy and an improved TB team than Philly has to be below them for losing a home game. They should be lower than all the 1-1 teams below them except for Cleveland.

- Det has to be in the top 15. Neither of their wins were real impressive but 2-0 start has to have them in the top 15, especially ahead of the 0-2 Eagles.

-Browns are too high at 23. Don't be fooled by one huge scoring week against a horrible Cinci defense. They are still one of the 5 worst teams in football.

- Vikes should be 4-5 spots higher. They are a mised FG from being 2-0.

[mweb]

I think the Jets should be higher. Any prognastication that had the Jets in the top 15 at the beginning of the season still should. Who among the experts or even casual fans would have had the Jets winning either of their first two games against New England and the Ravens. The 0-2 start stinks but that was expected and a 9-7 season or better was projected by most. I think the Jets should be around 15th or 16th despite the record.

The Vikings are better than where you have them but I don't know how much better. They are definately better than the Giants. Tavaris Jackson was awful in week 2 and they still lost to your #17 ranked team because their game winning 52 yard field goal try went off the left upright. The game was in Detroit and they lost in OT and you have them separated by 10 spots?

I had the Jets at 19th to begin the year I believe. I just don't think they're good, they overachieved last year imo.

The Vikings may be better, it's hard to tell since they've had an easy schedule so far. Basically, I haven't seen much to move them up much. I know 10 spots seems like a lot, but it really isn't considering all the parity. I don't think much separtes most of the NFL. There's a 4-8 teams that have/will separate themselves from the pack, then there's 4-8 teams that may be slightly above the rest of the pack and will have a lot of stuff go their way, build confidence, etc. Then there's a bunch teams that are about the same, coaching, luck, and injuries will separate them a little. Finally, there might be a few flat out bad teams like the Falcons or whoever, but then again I thought the Browns were one of the few bad teams.

I will move the Vikes up 1 spot though, and agree that they could easily be higher, we'll see what happens over the next couple weeks with them. They need to win at KC, then at home against GB should be interesting.

[mweb]

The Chargers have been exploited and I think the Bears peaked last season. Redskins are way too high...they've beaten two teams that should not be in the top 20

The Chargers will rebound. I agree that the Bears peaked last year, but they're still a good team. Skins may be too high, but not sure about way too high, at Philly is a better win than a lot of the other 2-0 teams have, and of course I thought they were much improved to begin the year. And like I said, 8-15 is a pretty even group right now, maybe I put the Skins on top of that group because their my team.:)

[mweb]

Kudos to mweb for actually taking the time to do this every week. Just looking at the list off the top of my head from top to bottom

- Jags too high. Not high on them at all. Unimpressive in both games against Tenn and Atl at home. I think they are closer to the bottom half of the league than top 10. I prob would have them around 16 or 17 right now.


- SF while I don't think will end up a top 10 team should be there right now. Ari win doesn't look to shabby now and the win in STL where STL usually plays very well was a very solid W.

-Eagles too high. If the Saints are 22 for two losses on the road to INdy and an improved TB team than Philly has to be below them for losing a home game. They should be lower than all the 1-1 teams below them except for Cleveland.

- Det has to be in the top 15. Neither of their wins were real impressive but 2-0 start has to have them in the top 15, especially ahead of the 0-2 Eagles.

-Browns are too high at 23. Don't be fooled by one huge scoring week against a horrible Cinci defense. They are still one of the 5 worst teams in football.

- Vikes should be 4-5 spots higher. They are a mised FG from being 2-0.

Jags may be too high, I still like the talent that they have, but they need to step it up.

I'm just not sold on SF or DET. I don't think I'd be able to pick them to win on a neutral site over any of the teams ahead of them. Would you? If either team wins Sunday, I'll move them up a lot. DET at PHI should be intersting considering your comments.

Maybe the Brown are too high, but if Derek Anderson is at least a respectable QB, they won't be bad imo.

I moved up the Vikes one notch, and like I've said, their isn't much difference between where their ranked and 5-10 spots ahead of them.

[mweb]

ESPN has the steelers above us at 6, ravens at 7. I like where you put them, they havent won against any formidable team yet, but have looked good.

The Raiders should be higher in your poll, or Denver lower There is no way you could put Denver at 12 and the Raiders at 30. That is too big a difference for how that game turned out.

Lions below the Eagles??? Really? No 2-0 team should be behind an 0-2 team, especially given they will probably be 3-0 and 0-3 after this week. Besides that, I think the Lions have an explosive offense, whereas the Eagles do not. And they both have average defenses.


It's funny that I was arguing against the Eagles not long ago with Gesh, whom I'm eager to here from:D , but am now defending them. I'm confident the Eagles will win that game.

Concerning your Raiders remark, it's just one game, and not one where the Raiders won, so I'm not going to drastically change my opinion on those two teams. I do think the Raiders are better than teams that are normally 30th and the Broncos are not as good as teams that are normally ranked 12th. Lots of parity.

So I have the Ravens higher here than ESPN has them, does that mean I'm not unfair to the Ravens?:D ;) Not directed specifically to you Camden_yardbird.

[mweb]

Are the Eagles disappointing or where they finally should be?

Where they should be unless McNabb steps it up.

[tywright]

The Chargers will rebound. I agree that the Bears peaked last year, but they're still a good team. Skins may be too high, but not sure about way too high, at Philly is a better win than a lot of the other 2-0 teams have, and of course I thought they were much improved to begin the year. And like I said, 8-15 is a pretty even group right now, maybe I put the Skins on top of that group because their my team.:)

Haha I figured you were a Skins fan :rolleyes:

[geschinger]

It's funny that I was arguing against the Eagles not long ago with Gesh, whom I'm eager to here from:D , but am now defending them. I'm confident the Eagles will win that game.

Concerning your Raiders remark, it's just one game, and not one where the Raiders won, so I'm not going to drastically change my opinion on those two teams. I do think the Raiders are better than teams that are normally 30th and the Broncos are not as good as teams that are normally ranked 12th. Lots of parity.

So I have the Ravens higher here than ESPN has them, does that mean I'm not unfair to the Ravens?:D ;) Not directed specifically to you Camden_yardbird.

I'm jumping off the Eagles bandwagon. Unless they make a change at quarterback or McNabb gets his game back they are going nowhere. I can't remember the last time I saw a quarterback as inaccurate as he was on Monday night. I severly underestimated the significance of the downgrade from switching from Garcia to McNabb.

[mweb]

I'm jumping off the Eagles bandwagon. Unless they make a change at quarterback or McNabb gets his game back they are going nowhere. I can't remember the last time I saw a quarterback as inaccurate as he was on Monday night. I severly underestimated the significance of the downgrade from switching from Garcia to McNabb.

Glad you've come to your senses.;) Any chance you're going to abandon the Giants too? Or will the Skins feel their wrath as well?

[Sports Guy]

The Giants are the biggest tease in the NFL.

They should have an explosive offense and a defense that can cause a lot of turnovers because of the pressure on the QB.

[geschinger]

Glad you've come to your senses.;) Any chance you're going to abandon the Giants too? Or will the Skins feel their wrath as well?

Nope, I'm still confident the Giants will end up being an average team this year.

[mweb]

The Giants are the biggest tease in the NFL.

They should have an explosive offense and a defense that can cause a lot of turnovers because of the pressure on the QB.

Why should their offense be explosive? Besides Burress and Shockey, what is good about their offense?

The rest of their D is nothing to speak of.

[mweb]

Nope, I'm still confident the Giants will end up being an average team this year.

I'll check back with you when they're 0-4. Well I at least hope that's their record, Skins should beat them at home, and I think the Eagles are the better team, although that's in NY.

[Sports Guy]

Why should their offense be explosive? Besides Burress and Shockey, what is good about their offense?

The rest of their D is nothing to speak of.

RBs are good(Barber last year as well), WR are solid(including Shockey in here) and Manning should be better.

This is where the "should" comes into play....Eli.

[mweb]

RBs are good(Barber last year as well), WR are solid(including Shockey in here) and Manning should be better.

This is where the "should" comes into play....Eli.

Well yes, last year they had a very good RB situation, this year, not so much. Manning is a slow QB with questionable accuracy, I'm not sure he should be doing that much better. If his name wasn't Manning, the expectations of him probably would be lessened. He does have solid potential, and his results have been ok for his age, I'm just not seeing his ceiling being as high as some think.

BTW, last year they were 11th in points, 13th in yards, 2 years ago they were 3rd in each. So far this year, they're 11th and 9th. Defense has been what's held them back for the most part.

[Sports Guy]

Well yes, last year they had a very good RB situation, this year, not so much. Manning is a slow QB with questionable accuracy, I'm not sure he should be doing that much better. If his name wasn't Manning, the expectations of him probably would be lessened. He does have solid potential, and his results have been ok for his age, I'm just not seeing his ceiling being as high as some think.

BTW, last year they were 11th in points, 13th in yards, 2 years ago they were 3rd in each. So far this year, they're 11th and 9th. Defense has been what's held them back for the most part.

Yea i know...Just saying with Strahan and Uymensksosded on the outside, they should be able to get at the QB and force more TOs...Not neccassarily a good defense but something along the lines of Cinci a few years ago.

They just aren't that team though...I am not sure you can even call them average which is sad because if you can't be average in the NFC, you have problems.

[mweb]

Yea i know...Just saying with Strahan and Uymensksosded on the outside, they should be able to get at the QB and force more TOs...Not neccassarily a good defense but something along the lines of Cinci a few years ago.

They just aren't that team though...I am not sure you can even call them average which is sad because if you can't be average in the NFC, you have problems.


Well no one got many sacks last year for them, Osi lead the team with 6 sacks. Overall, no, I don't think they can be called average. I think the team is sick of Coughlin. And they're well below average on defense.

[Bosibus]

The list is going to need a shake up this week for sure!

[Sports Guy]

Glad you've come to your senses.;) Any chance you're going to abandon the Giants too? Or will the Skins feel their wrath as well?

After all this back and forth with you and Gesch, how ironic is it that the Giants beat the Skins in Washington?

Funny how this game works.

[square634]

I think regardless of tonight's game and the Monday night game, the top three right now have to be 1) New England 2) Indianapolis 3) Pittsburgh

[geschinger]

I'll check back with you when they're 0-4. Well I at least hope that's their record, Skins should beat them at home, and I think the Eagles are the better team, although that's in NY.

I don't watch much Skins football to have a feel for how good or bad their offense is but either way if the Giants defense plays like it did today they will meet my expectations of being an average team. Especially if they can get rid of the costly dropped passes.

[AgentOrange]

The G-Men dominated the second half. I was in shock, they looked really good for that second half, the momentum was clearly on their side.

Upsetting loss for the skins. If they want to be serious about making a run, they need to win those games at home. Can't expect to go on the road and pick up those wins. Divisional opponets always play tough, no matter how they were playing before.

Eagles look like they could be back, unless Detroit was a team that over-achived. So tonights loss was pretty hard to swallow if you are a skins fan, that would be so sweet for them to be 3-0 going into the bye, and you can look at it as "Well they are still 2-1, that is not terrible at all." True, but that loss could mean getting in or out of the playoffs later on in the season.

BTW SD looks like a different team this year. Not as effective, but I did think Rivers had a pretty solid game, poor interception though.

[Sports Guy]

Well Dallas is showing why they are the best team in the NFC and i am not sure anyone is that close to them right now.

[mweb]

Brutal loss for the Skins, no excuse for blowing a 17-3 lead to a team that's not good. They shouldn't have spiked the ball at the one either, they had time for 4 plays, should have left a WR or two out there as well. Sucks even more because I was there. Well obviously they'll drop a good amount in my rankings.

I think the Cowboys are actually deserving of being #3 right now. Barber is a beast. It's about time they give him the ball more than Jones.

I didn't watch much football other than the Skins today, but looks like the Packers are legit, the Chargers aren't the same with the new coaching staff, Bears should give Griese a shot, Broncos continue to look average at best, and McNabb and the Eagles are back. So at least I was right on them beating the Lions today. The Vikings didn't do anything to move up where some on here want them either. Oh, and the Ravens with another unimpressive win, but hey, at least they won. Just not showing any reason to think of this team as a SB contender.

Back to the Packers, the NFL might just be getting their fairy tale sendoff for Favre. I highly doubt they'll win the SB, but they should make the playoffs and they could represent the NFC in the SB.

[Sports Guy]

Brutal loss for the Skins, no excuse for blowing a 17-3 lead to a team that's not good. They shouldn't have spiked the ball at the one either, they had time for 4 plays, should have left a WR or two out there as well. Sucks even more because I was there. Well obviously they'll drop a good amount in my rankings.

I think the Cowboys are actually deserving of being #3 right now. Barber is a beast. It's about time they give him the ball more than Jones.

I didn't watch much football other than the Skins today, but looks like the Packers are legit, the Chargers aren't the same with the new coaching staff, Bears should give Griese a shot, Broncos continue to look average at best, and McNabb and the Eagles are back. So at least I was right on them beating the Lions today. The Vikings didn't do anything to move up where some on here want them either. Oh, and the Ravens with another unimpressive win, but hey, at least they won. Just not showing any reason to think of this team as a SB contender.

Back to the Packers, the NFL might just be getting their fairy tale sendoff for Favre. I highly doubt they'll win the SB, but they should make the playoffs and they could represent the NFC in the SB.
Yea...I think right now it is NE, Indy, Dallas, Pitt and GB.....Baltimore is 6th because of the poor 4th quarter play the last 2 weeks and the injuries.

[longflyball]

My how quickly things change in the NFL. You have your work cut out for you on Tuesday, Mweb.

Are the Steelers, 8-8 last year, an elite team after 3 dominant wins against weak teams?

Are the Colts, the reigning champions, still a top 3 team after 2 unimpressive wins against Tennessee and Houston?

Does Dallas deserve mention among the AFC's best, after thrashing the NFC champions and putting up 39 points a game in their first 3?

Are the Chargers in dire straits a year after coasting to 14-2?

Do the Eagles better resemble the team that scored 13 and 12 points against Green Bay and Washington or the team that scored 56 against Detroit?

Are the Saints a good team that played 2 awful games or a bad team whose success last year was simply a product of the NFC's mediocrity?

Does Baltimore have a dominant defense and an anemic offense or a capable offense and a disappointing defense?

Is Chicago a quarterback controversy away from reemerging as one of the NFC's best?

Is 3 games enough to say with confidence that Green Bay is doing it with more than just smoke and mirrors?

[ccbird]

Brutal loss for the Skins, no excuse for blowing a 17-3 lead to a team that's not good. They shouldn't have spiked the ball at the one either, they had time for 4 plays, should have left a WR or two out there as well. Sucks even more because I was there. Well obviously they'll drop a good amount in my rankings.

I think the Cowboys are actually deserving of being #3 right now. Barber is a beast. It's about time they give him the ball more than Jones.

I didn't watch much football other than the Skins today, but looks like the Packers are legit, the Chargers aren't the same with the new coaching staff, Bears should give Griese a shot, Broncos continue to look average at best, and McNabb and the Eagles are back. So at least I was right on them beating the Lions today. The Vikings didn't do anything to move up where some on here want them either. Oh, and the Ravens with another unimpressive win, but hey, at least they won. Just not showing any reason to think of this team as a SB contender.

Back to the Packers, the NFL might just be getting their fairy tale sendoff for Favre. I highly doubt they'll win the SB, but they should make the playoffs and they could represent the NFC in the SB.

The Packers have no shot at getting to the Super Bowl. They probably get into the playoffs now that they have beaten 2 of their toughest opponents and still play Min and Det twice and Atlanta once but they aren't good enough to get out of the NFC. I still don't see them winning the division or more than 9-10 games. The game today tells me a lot more about how far SD has fallen than it has told me how much GB has improved.

Top 4this week is easy. Number 5 not so much, but I'm putting the best 2-1 team in there over GB and that is Baltimore IMO.
1. New England
2. Indy
3. Dallas
4.Pitt
5. Baltimore

[mweb]

The Packers have no shot at getting to the Super Bowl. They probably get into the playoffs now that they have beaten 2 of their toughest opponents and still play Min and Det twice and Atlanta once but they aren't good enough to get out of the NFC. I still don't see them winning the division or more than 9-10 games. The game today tells me a lot more about how far SD has fallen than it has told me how much GB has improved.

Top 4this week is easy. Number 5 not so much, but I'm putting the best 2-1 team in there over GB and that is Baltimore IMO.
1. New England
2. Indy
3. Dallas
4.Pitt
5. Baltimore


I wouldn't count out GB so easily. If they were in the AFC, yes, I'd say there is basically no chance they'll make it to the SB, but in the NFC, how can you say they have no shot. The Cowboys are the only team that looks better, and their no sure thing by any means. So Dallas has the best chance by far, lets say it's 50%, which I think is a little high, well that leaves 50% for the rest, and GB has to get at least 10% of that imo.

I agree with SG's top 6.

[mweb]

My how quickly things change in the NFL. You have your work cut out for you on Tuesday, Mweb.

Are the Steelers, 8-8 last year, an elite team after 3 dominant wins against weak teams?

Are the Colts, the reigning champions, still a top 3 team after 2 unimpressive wins against Tennessee and Houston?

Does Dallas deserve mention among the AFC's best, after thrashing the NFC champions and putting up 39 points a game in their first 3?

Are the Chargers in dire straits a year after coasting to 14-2?

Do the Eagles better resemble the team that scored 13 and 12 points against Green Bay and Washington or the team that scored 56 against Detroit?

Are the Saints a good team that played 2 awful games or a bad team whose success last year was simply a product of the NFC's mediocrity?

Does Baltimore have a dominant defense and an anemic offense or a capable offense and a disappointing defense?

Is Chicago a quarterback controversy away from reemerging as one of the NFC's best?

Is 3 games enough to say with confidence that Green Bay is doing it with more than just smoke and mirrors?


Yeah, it's a challenge every week because of all the parity. That's why I try to separate it into tiers, and say teams 8-15 or whatever are about the same or there's really not much of a difference between 15 and 25.

Concerning your points:

I still want to see the Steelers go up against a good team to see how good they really are.

Yes, the Colts should be 2nd, winning at Tenn and Houston are decent wins, no reason to knock them down.

I think Dallas might be up there with the Colts, but NE is on a whole other level imo.

Yes, the Chargers are in trouble, they need to get LT on track. They have played a very tough schedule though, perhaps the toughest so far, so lets not forget that. At NE and GB, and home to the Bears, ouch.

Eagles will be in between those performances, McNabb certainly showed a lot today.

Check back on the Saints tommorow, must win game.

Ravens have been disappointing, and I think they are at or towards the top of where the rankings really dropoff. They haven't played anyone in the top half of the league imo, two of their games have been at home, and they've only outscored their opponents by 3. Were unlucky in the Bengals game, but have had some luck these past two games. Offense doesn't look much better. Boller starting would probably help.

If Griese becomes the starter and plays solid like he should, the Bears are among the NFC's best, but they have taken some hits to their D with Tank being gone and some injuries, plus the loss of Jones hurts the offense more than most thought it would. I thought they'd fall off even if Grossman was ok.

I haven't watched much of the Packers, but they've played a decent schedule so far, and have come out 3-0, so it's hard to take much away from them.

[ccbird]

I wouldn't count out GB so easily. If they were in the AFC, yes, I'd say there is basically no chance they'll make it to the SB, but in the NFC, how can you say they have no shot. The Cowboys are the only team that looks better, and their no sure thing by any means. So Dallas has the best chance by far, lets say it's 50%, which I think is a little high, well that leaves 50% for the rest, and GB has to get at least 10% of that imo.

I agree with SG's top 6.

I would give you insane odds that the Packers don't win the NFC and happily take your money.

-They have no running game. Strike 1 for winning late in the year and in the playoffs.
-They have a Qb who takes too many risks and throws a lot of picks. Strike 2 for winning in the playoffs.

Strike 3 would be that there are at least 6 teams more talented. Dallas,Philly,Washington,Chicago,Carolina, and Seattle are clearly more talented. Teams like SF, TB, NO and even STL and Arizona are debateable. You figure they will have to go through at least 2 and probably 3 of these more talented teams to get to the SB.

Three strikes and you're out of the Super Bowl hunt.

[ccbird]

Yeah, it's a challenge every week because of all the parity. That's why I try to separate it into tiers, and say teams 8-15 or whatever are about the same or there's really not much of a difference between 15 and 25.

Concerning your points:

I still want to see the Steelers go up against a good team to see how good they really are.

Yes, the Colts should be 2nd, winning at Tenn and Houston are decent wins, no reason to knock them down.

I think Dallas might be up there with the Colts, but NE is on a whole other level imo.

Yes, the Chargers are in trouble, they need to get LT on track. They have played a very tough schedule though, perhaps the toughest so far, so lets not forget that. At NE and GB, and home to the Bears, ouch.

Eagles will be in between those performances, McNabb certainly showed a lot today.

Check back on the Saints tommorow, must win game.

Ravens have been disappointing, and I think they are at or towards the top of where the rankings really dropoff. They haven't played anyone in the top half of the league imo, two of their games have been at home, and they've only outscored their opponents by 3. Were unlucky in the Bengals game, but have had some luck these past two games. Offense doesn't look much better. Boller starting would probably help.
If Griese becomes the starter and plays solid like he should, the Bears are among the NFC's best, but they have taken some hits to their D with Tank being gone and some injuries, plus the loss of Jones hurts the offense more than most thought it would. I thought they'd fall off even if Grossman was ok.

I haven't watched much of the Packers, but they've played a decent schedule so far, and have come out 3-0, so it's hard to take much away from them.

Wow, you are struggling tonight mweb.

They outscored their opponents by 3 but controlled the games for 6 of the 8 quarters. No luck that they won the last 2 games at all. Clearly the better team in both games.

Also, the offense has been quite efficient. Ball control style offense that has been excellant the last 2 weeks. They have dominated time of possession.


No way are the Packers a better team than the Ravens.

[geschinger]

Yea...I think right now it is NE, Indy, Dallas, Pitt and GB.....Baltimore is 6th because of the poor 4th quarter play the last 2 weeks and the injuries.

Hard to argue against this list. Dallas has been incredibly impressive and GB has really surprised me. I don't think they'll be this high a couple of months from now but right now they have been impressive.

Right now NE is on a different level than everyone else. Their start reminds me a lot of the Colts season a couple of years ago when they toyed with an undefeated season. I'm very happy w/where the Colts are right now. They are much improved defensively and they've won in two stadiums they lost at during their SB year. But they have to fix their red zone and special teams issues if they want to beat a team of NE's caliber. If their offense doesn't continue to underachieve neither of the past two games would of been close.

The Steelers look really good and right now belong where they are at. I'm not convinced they'll be there at the end, I still want to see them against better competetion.

[calsmanystances]

Cowboys are playing NE in week 6, I believe. We still won't have Terry Glenn back, but maybe a miracle can happen and Greg Ellis can return by then (he has not gone through a regular practice since the first day of training camp).

As for last night's game, just very happy! I never doubted Romo. My concern was, and is, with the defense. Nice to get Newman back, even if it was only as the nickel CB (he was not ready for full-time duty). If he can healthy it would really help things greatly.

I just love Barber and have since his rookie year. If I have any criticism of Jason Garrett it's that, contrary to Parcells, he does not take out Jones for Barber inside the red zone--he keeps Jones in if it's "his" series. I think that by the end of the year that decision could cost the Cowboys 3-4 TD's. Barber just smells the end zone (16 TD's last year and 5 this year) and does not let any defender(s) stop him from getting in. I dream of McFadden joining him in the backfield next year (via Cleveland since the Cowboys have their first rounder). Romo, Barber, McFadden, TO and Witten. That would be sweet.

[tywright]

What's shocking is Cincy could be 0-3 right now and is headed for 1-3 once New England beats them.

The Ravens could easily be 3-0 right now, but could also be 0-3 despite outplaying their opponents in 8 out of 12 quarters.

[Sports Guy]

What's shocking is Cincy could be 0-3 right now and is headed for 1-3 once New England beats them.

The Ravens could easily be 3-0 right now, but could also be 0-3 despite outplaying their opponents in 8 out of 12 quarters.

If Cinci loses to NE, i will be surprised if they get 9 wins.

[Tank]

My Packers sure look good so far this year. (When I say "my Packers", I mean that because they were my surprise team pick this year.) I think they have a good shot at winning the NFC North and going to the Super Bowl. Defense is rock solid, Greg Jennings being back helps the offense, and I think the running game will come around a little.

[rolliefingers]

Could we please kill Chris Berman before he does another bit about how it's like the mid-'90s because GB, SF and Dallas are all doing well? Grrrr. Why does this guy get paid to speak into microphones about sporting events?

[square634]

Could we please kill Chris Berman before he does another bit about how it's like the mid-'90s because GB, SF and Dallas are all doing well? Grrrr. Why does this guy get paid to speak into microphones about sporting events?

Oh, c'mon, you know you liked it when he would say Roberto "Remember the Alomar!" :002_ssuprised:

[AgentOrange]

Could we please kill Chris Berman before he does another bit about how it's like the mid-'90s because GB, SF and Dallas are all doing well? Grrrr. Why does this guy get paid to speak into microphones about sporting events?

Wow, looks like you need to step away from the TV for a little while.

[mweb]

I would give you insane odds that the Packers don't win the NFC and happily take your money.

-They have no running game. Strike 1 for winning late in the year and in the playoffs.
-They have a Qb who takes too many risks and throws a lot of picks. Strike 2 for winning in the playoffs.

Strike 3 would be that there are at least 6 teams more talented. Dallas,Philly,Washington,Chicago,Carolina, and Seattle are clearly more talented. Teams like SF, TB, NO and even STL and Arizona are debateable. You figure they will have to go through at least 2 and probably 3 of these more talented teams to get to the SB.

Three strikes and you're out of the Super Bowl hunt.

Fine, give me insane odds. I don't think they will make it to the SB, but after Dallas, no one stands out as being much of a contender. Right now GB is playing the best of the other teams. They have a good D, and Favre is playing much better so far than he has the past few years.

Those teams you mention are probably more talented, but that doesn't mean they're better or will be. The Bears probably won't be better unless they change qb's, and with all the injuries they've had on defense, I doubt they'll be better regardless. You want to play the 3 strikes game with them? Poor QB play, mediocre to poor running game, mediocre to poor receivers. That equals bad offense, and the D isn't elite anymore due to the injury problems. None of those other NFC teams have been very impressive either.

[mweb]

Wow, you are struggling tonight mweb.

They outscored their opponents by 3 but controlled the games for 6 of the 8 quarters. No luck that they won the last 2 games at all. Clearly the better team in both games.

Also, the offense has been quite efficient. Ball control style offense that has been excellant the last 2 weeks. They have dominated time of possession.


No way are the Packers a better team than the Ravens.

Thanks for the kind words, so sweet of you.

They outscored their opponents in only 4 of those 6 quarters that they apparently controlled. So not sure how you're figuring that. Yes, they were the better team in both games, as they should be, both of those opponents are in the bottom half of the league. But, the Jets catch one of two balls in the end zone, that game is tied up and likely going to OT. So they were fortunate in that regard. Bottomline, at home, they should win those games easier. They have not looked like a great team at all, I don't see how anyone can dispute that.

The offense has been decent, ranked in the middle of the pack right now, unfortunately for them, the defense isn't ranked nearly as high as normal, so they've been underperforming. The D needs to do a better job protecting leads.

The Packers are clearly playing better football right now. If SG puts the Packers ahead of the Ravens, that should just end the discussion right there considering how he rates them.

I think the Ravens will most likely end the year as the better team though.

[mweb]

ESPN has the steelers above us at 6, ravens at 7. I like where you put them, they havent won against any formidable team yet, but have looked good.

The Raiders should be higher in your poll, or Denver lower There is no way you could put Denver at 12 and the Raiders at 30. That is too big a difference for how that game turned out.

Lions below the Eagles??? Really? No 2-0 team should be behind an 0-2 team, especially given they will probably be 3-0 and 0-3 after this week. Besides that, I think the Lions have an explosive offense, whereas the Eagles do not. And they both have average defenses.

What was that again?:p ;)

[ccbird]

Thanks for the kind words, so sweet of you.

They outscored their opponents in only 4 of those 6 quarters that they apparently controlled. So not sure how you're figuring that. Yes, they were the better team in both games, as they should be, both of those opponents are in the bottom half of the league. But, the Jets catch one of two balls in the end zone, that game is tied up and likely going to OT. So they were fortunate in that regard. Bottomline, at home, they should win those games easier. They have not looked like a great team at all, I don't see how anyone can dispute that.

The offense has been decent, ranked in the middle of the pack right now, unfortunately for them, the defense is also ranked in the middle of the pack, so they've been underperforming. The D needs to do a better job protecting leads.

The Packers are clearly playing better football right now. If SG puts the Packers ahead of the Ravens, that should just end the discussion right there considering how he rates them.

I think the Ravens will most likely end the year as the better team though.

Cause I watched the games. They were in control of both 3rd Quarters in each game. They had a big edge in time of possesion in both the games.

Yes, I'm dissapointed in how they closed both games and they should have won by more. However, they never trailed at any point in either game so to even mention the word luck or furtunate isn't accurate.

The offense isn't going to be a top 10 offense. Even when they are playing their best they arent going to be better than 13 or 14. They play ball control, take time off the clock , keep the D off the field offense. It's how they won last year and it's the best way for them to be successful. With that said, the D has to step up and perform the way they are expected to perform. If the D stays in that middle of the pack area we are looking .500 right in the face.

[mweb]

Cause I watched the games. They were in control of both 3rd Quarters in each game. They had a big edge in time of possesion in both the games.

Yes, I'm dissapointed in how they closed both games and they should have won by more. However, they never trailed at any point in either game so to even mention the word luck or furtunate isn't accurate.

The offense isn't going to be a top 10 offense. Even when they are playing their best they arent going to be better than 13 or 14. They play ball control, take time off the clock , keep the D off the field offense. It's how they won last year and it's the best way for them to be successful. With that said, the D has to step up and perform the way they are expected to perform. If the D stays in that middle of the pack area we are looking .500 right in the face.


Ok, so they weren't fortunate that the Jets dropped what would have been the game tying TD late in the game? What word(s) would you use?

The Ravens did not have an edge in time of possesion or in yards in the 3rd quarter against the Cards or Jets from what I can tell. The Cards were also in the middle of a long drive that resulted in a TD when the 3rd ended. And of course they had an edge in time of possesion for the game considering they were trying to run down the clock while the Cards were in a hurry up offense. So I'll stick with what I said, the Ravens were in control on the scoreboard(maybe that's what you mean?), but they didn't outplay their opponents those quarters.

But even if they were in control for 6 of 8 quarters, it should be rather concerning that both games came down to the wire at home against two teams in the bottom half of the league.

You and I are basically on the same page regarding your last paragraph. I don't think I should be getting flack for saying they've had some luck in the last two games, and I did say they had bad luck in the first game, and for putting them 6th, the same ranking SG gave them, and likely as high or higher than ESPN will give them.

[ccbird]

Ok, so they weren't fortunate that the Jets dropped what would have been the game tying TD late in the game? What word(s) would you use?

The Ravens did not have an edge in time of possesion or in yards in the 3rd quarter against the Cards or Jets from what I can tell. The Cards were also in the middle of a long drive that resulted in a TD when the 3rd ended. And of course they had an edge in time of possesion for the game considering they were trying to run down the clock while the Cards were in a hurry up offense. So I'll stick with what I said, the Ravens were in control on the scoreboard(maybe that's what you mean?), but they didn't outplay their opponents those quarters.

But even if they were in control for 6 of 8 quarters, it should be rather concerning that both games came down to the wire at home against two teams in the bottom half of the league.

You and I are basically on the same page regarding your last paragraph. I don't think I should be getting flack for saying they've had some luck in the last two games, and I did say they had bad luck in the first game, and for putting them 6th, the same ranking SG gave them, and likely as high or higher than ESPN will give them.

Tit and tat. I mean I have a hard time saying they were lucky to win when they were in complete control of their destiny the whole time. But yes they were lucky NY didn't tie the game.

Yeah, we are pretty much on the same page. Im worried about the D the last two weeks but if there is one thing I'm gonna be faithful with this team about it's that the D will be good. So call me stubborn but concerned at this point

[mweb]

Tit and tat. I mean I have a hard time saying they were lucky to win when they were in complete control of their destiny the whole time. But yes they were lucky NY didn't tie the game.

Yeah, we are pretty much on the same page. Im worried about the D the last two weeks but if there is one thing I'm gonna be faithful with this team about it's that the D will be good. So call me stubborn but concerned at this point

I never said they were lucky to win the game.

[rolliefingers]

Wow, looks like you need to step away from the TV for a little while.

You got me there.