View Full Version : Rankings Week 2
So Brady's out for the season, and my 3-5 teams lost, two at home to teams that weren't expected to be that good, one in very bad fashion. So a big shake up is in order at the top.
1. Cowboys(2): I was tempted to put them #1 to begin with, now they're a no brainer at that spot imo. Couldn't have gotten off to a much better start.
2. Steelers(6): I had high expectations for them, but wasn't sure if they were justified, but a dominant performance against the Texans, who I thought were solid, may make those expectations too low.
3. Eagles(8): Yes, they played the Rams, but that was a very impressive game, Donovan is back in a big way.
4. Packers(9): Rodgers looked very good last night, I doubt there will be much of a drop off from Brett.
5. Chargers(4): Obviously a tough and surprising first week loss, but still probably the second most talented team in the league.
6. Colts(3): Looked awful at home against the Bears, but I have to believe they'll greatly improve on that performance starting next week.
7. Saints(11): Their offense, and specifically Reggie Bush looked like they did in 2006, they may be primed for another season like that one.
8. Vikings(7): They held their own at Green Bay, it's hard to penalize them much for that loss.
9. Jaguars(5): Garrard threw 2/3 of the picks he threw all of last year, and the O-line is without both of it's starting guards, not a good sign.
10. Giants(13): D-line did quite well considering their losses, Jacobs and Plaxico continue to look great, still think Eli is just an average QB though.
11. Titans(15): Very good defensive effort against the Jags, and Chris Johnson seems like he'll be an impact player for them, but the QB position is holding them back.
12. Patriots(1): I still think they'll be solid, probably win 9-10 games, but we obviously need to see more from Cassell.
13. Broncos(21): I know it was against the Raiders, but you still have to be very impressed by that game, especially without Marshall.
14. Panthers(23): Shocking win at SD, the running game looked quite good, which is a key for their success this year.
15. Bears(25): Speaking of shocking wins, if the D is back to the way it was a couple years ago, and with Forte looking like the real deal, they could return to the playoffs with Orton managing games.
16. Jets(17): Have a good shot at the division now, but that wasn't that impressive of a performance against the lowly Dolphins.
17. Bills(24): Dominated the Seahawks, great game by Roscoe Chicken and Waffles Parrish.
18. Bucs(19): Lost, but looked like a very solid team.
19. Cards(18): Did what they were supposed to do against the 49ers.
20. Browns(12): I expected them to lose to the Cowboys, but thought they'd at least compete. Was last year a fluke, or just a matter of running into a juggernaut?
21. Ravens(22): Defense had a great performance, offense still a big question mark.
22. Seahawks(10): Too many injuries, could be the year they lose their grip on the NFC West.
23. Redskins(14): Lets see how quickly Zorn can get his offense up and running, the talent is there for this team to be quite a bit better.
24. Texans(16): Wow, brutal loss to the Steelers, expected better. Will they develop a running game?
25. Falcons(32): It's not shocking that they beat the Lions at home, but it is shocking that they racked up 474 yards of offense while winning somewhat easily. Turner with an incredible debut.
26. Chiefs(28): Almost pulled off the upset against the Pats.
27. Bengals(20): Awful performance.
28. Lions(26): At least Calvin had over 100 yards receiving.
29. 49ers(29): Gore played well, but they lost 4 fumbles which obviously killed them.
30. Dolphins(31): Held their own against the Jets.
31. Raiders(27): Hard to look much worse than they did.
32. Rams(30): Unless you're the Rams that is.
Icterus galbula
09-09-2008, 04:22 PM
I thought the Packers looked sloppy last night, and if it weren't for Bigby they very well could have lost that game. I would probably rank them outside of the top 5 and I might drop the Jags, who are missing a good deal of their line and didn't impress me.
Aside from that, good stuff and keep the rankings coming.
I thought the Packers looked sloppy last night, and if it weren't for Bigby they very well could have lost that game. I would probably rank them outside of the top 5 and I might drop the Jags, who are missing a good deal of their line and didn't impress me.
Aside from that, good stuff and keep the rankings coming.
Sloppy in what way? Their offense exceeded expectations considering the defense they were facing. Rodgers was 18-22, Grant ran well. They were sloppy in terms of penalties, I'll give you that.
Sports Guy
09-09-2008, 04:33 PM
Browns are staring at 0-3 to start the year...Overrated team to say the least IMO.
Browns are staring at 0-3 to start the year...Overrated team to say the least IMO.
Well you're the same guy who kept saying they weren't good last year, and didn't have a chance at 10 wins.
I think they'll likely win 1 of the next 2 games.
How do you rate your power rankings by what they should be... By the game... Or when we get further along by the win, loss. I think the Falcons should be higher, you have them in there with all the teams that lost. There offense looked good and the D was not to bad. Expectations would have them lower and having a mediocre game maybe a win. Which is why I ask how you rank them. I think they performed better then the Texans and the redskins.
Well I rank them by how good I think they're. Obviously there's only been 1 game, so pre season notions still play a big role. If it was just based on this one game, the Falcons would be above the Colts, which would be stupid imo.
Sports Guy
09-09-2008, 05:39 PM
Well you're the same guy who kept saying they weren't good last year, and didn't have a chance at 10 wins.
I think they'll likely win 1 of the next 2 games.
And i am not sure they were that good but they did have a good year.
They clearly have to show it again...I think 9-7 is the best they can hope for and I see more than 7-9 for them.
And i am not sure they were that good but they did have a good year.
They clearly have to show it again...I think 9-7 is the best they can hope for and I see more than 7-9 for them.
Yeah, looking at their schedule, they'll probably miss the playoffs this year considering they're are facing the two best divisions this year.
Sports Guy
09-09-2008, 05:45 PM
Yeah, looking at their schedule, they'll probably miss the playoffs this year considering they're are facing the two best divisions this year.
Yep...that and a lack of defense.
Offensively they SHOULD be good but I am skeptical of DA until he shows he can do it again and you have to wonder how much Jamal has left.
BTW, considering the Brady injury and how the Colts and Chargers looked, I've gone from thinking the AFC was clearly better to thinking that it's pretty close, and maybe even favoring the NFC.
sportsfan14
09-09-2008, 05:50 PM
Great write-up. Few nit-picky questions/disagreements:
-Whats up w/ the rankings for the Bucs and Saints?
The Bucs won the division last year. Beat the Saints by 2 games. Neither team did anything dramatic in the off-season. You seem to think that the Saints underachieved while the Bucs overachieved last season- and I actually don't disagree at all. At the same time, however, Tampa just went in to New Orleans and lost by what, 4? And they led mid-way through the 4th quarter. And they had the ball in Saints territory at the end of the game. Of course, they didn't get it done in the end, but still. I know these rankings are fluid, and there is lots of parity, but right now you have the Saints as a team that can win a game in the playoffs (#7 overall), while the Bucs are substantially out of playoff contention at 18 overall, #9 in the NFC.
I think they should be closer together.
-I don't really have any doubt the Colts will pull it together. I wouldn't have dropped them so far. They were unprepared, and they played like it, that's all. Defense was actually still solid despite being put in some poor situations by the offense. Chicago had 319 total yards. Offense has the pieces. When healthy, Manning --> Wayne/Gonzo/Harrison/Clark is just about unstoppable. Addai catching passes out of the backfield too. They look like the Dallas of the AFC imo.
OTOH, I'm completely off the Jacksonville bandwagon. They are constructed to be a team defined by the running game. Tennessee might have the best run-D in the league, but 1.9 YPC is absolutely unacceptable. That's beyond bad; that's bordering on "we've got a serious problem". The Garrard TOs you mentioned should be a concern as well. And facing a QB with serious problems (in terms of his physical ability to throw the football, and his overall mental state) the Jags D was decent but did not really impress. If they play don't improve considerably next week, they need to be dropped way down. Especially in that division, they could be in for a long year.
-Sort of on that note, I think you were a bit harsh on Houston. Of course, I'm really high on Pittsburgh.
Quick Notes, so this doesn't become a mega post:
-I'm not buying Denver yet.
-Carolina looks like the real deal.
-I still like the Browns to win 8 games.
-I think Seattle is done. They knew coming into the year that they would need to rely on the pass, and now thats obviously dicey(On my main fantasy team, I drafted Burleson and Obamanu. Thats been fun). I think they'll be in too deep of a hole by the time Engram and Branch return.
-The NFC West is pathetic.
-Lions were beaten soundly by the Falcons. The Dolphins nearly beat the Jets. And I'd take the Jets over the Falcons. I think the Fins are slightly too low, and the Lions are too high.
Icterus galbula
09-09-2008, 05:50 PM
Sloppy in what way? Their offense exceeded expectations considering the defense they were facing. Rodgers was 18-22, Grant ran well. They were sloppy in terms of penalties, I'll give you that.
The penalties were definitely part of what I'm talking about, and for a while in the first half they had some trouble getting first downs. The way the Vikings looked, I thought the Packers should have put that game away earlier. They are a solid team, no doubt, I just personally wouldn't put them ahead of the Colts or Chargers just yet.
Sports Guy
09-09-2008, 05:53 PM
BTW, considering the Brady injury and how the Colts and Chargers looked, I've gone from thinking the AFC was clearly better to thinking that it's pretty close, and maybe even favoring the NFC.
I think you have to agree with this.
Indy and SD will be fine IMO but are they really any better than Dallas and Philly?
I think it is close.
ccbird
09-09-2008, 05:54 PM
My biggest problem is the Viks at 8. I've never thought they were top 10 anyway and nothing they did last night changed my mind. Yeah, the defense and Oline are good but you can't win without a QB. Jackson isn't a good or even adequate QB.
Great write-up. Few nit-picky questions/disagreements:
-Whats up w/ the rankings for the Bucs and Saints?
The Bucs won the division last year. Beat the Saints by 2 games. Neither team did anything dramatic in the off-season. You seem to think that the Saints underachieved while the Bucs overachieved last season- and I actually don't disagree at all. At the same time, however, Tampa just went in to New Orleans and lost by what, 4? And they led mid-way through the 4th quarter. And they had the ball in Saints territory at the end of the game. Of course, they didn't get it done in the end, but still. I know these rankings are fluid, and there is lots of parity, but right now you have the Saints as a team that can win a game in the playoffs (#7 overall), while the Bucs are substantially out of playoff contention at 18 overall, #9 in the NFC.
I think they should be closer together.
-I don't really have any doubt the Colts will pull it together. I wouldn't have dropped them so far. They were unprepared, and they played like it, that's all. Defense was actually still pretty good. Chicago had 319 total yards. Offense has the pieces. When healthy, Manning --> Wayne/Gonzo/Harrison/Clark is just about unstoppable. Addai catching passes out of the backfield too. They look like the Dallas of the AFC imo.
more to come...
Thanks.
Well as you said, I and apparently you as well, think the Saints underachieved and Bucs overachieved last year, so that's a big part of it. The Saints did make some big additions though imo. They got Vilma, Shockey, Ellis, and some other guys to help out that defense. Yeah, they're likely closer than the 11 spots would suggest, but as you said, lots of parity. At this point in the season, the rankings can fluctuate a lot, and I'm not sure there's much difference between 7 and 18 right now. Where would you rank them?
Concerning the Colts, I'm not convinced Harrison will continue to be a great player, nor am I convinced that Manning will be in peak form anytime soon. Injuries aren't helping either. But yes, they'll probably rise on the list.
sportsfan14
09-09-2008, 06:17 PM
Thanks.
Well as you said, I and apparently you as well, think the Saints underachieved and Bucs overachieved last year, so that's a big part of it. The Saints did make some big additions though imo. They got Vilma, Shockey, Ellis, and some other guys to help out that defense. Yeah, they're likely closer than the 11 spots would suggest, but as you said, lots of parity. At this point in the season, the rankings can fluctuate a lot, and I'm not sure there's much difference between 7 and 18 right now. Where would you rank them?
Concerning the Colts, I'm not convinced Harrison will continue to be a great player, nor am I convinced that Manning will be in peak form anytime soon. Injuries aren't helping either. But yes, they'll probably rise on the list.
Vilma and Ellis are upgrades, sure, I didn't mean to write them off. Most teams that plan to contend make a couple upgrades. I don't really think of them as "game-changers" though (which is what I think of when I say "dramatic"). And I think Shockey is quite overrated.
Here's a comparison for ya.
Week 1 Rankings:
Saints (11)
Giants (13)
Skins (14)
Bucs (19)
The Saints barely beat the #18 team, and move up 4 spots.
The Giants convincingly beat the #14 team, and move up 3 spots.
(and theoretically, it should be harder to move up the higher you are)
I guess you could say that the Giants game jut revealed how far the Redskins are from grasping the Zorn offense, and they never should have been ranked as high as #14, but still. I don't understand the Saints love.
I don't really disagree with the Bucs ranking honestly. Maybe a spot or two higher, but no big deal. I'm just not sure why the Saints get a big boost by eeking out a home win over a mediocre team. I think they should be right around #9-14. On par with the Pats, Giants, Panthers, Bears.
----
I think Manning will be back to full speed within the next week or two, and I am just not ready to count out Harrison yet. We'll just have to wait and see on that one though. Just a gut feeling really. 8 catches is an encouraging start.
Vilma and Ellis are upgrades, sure, I didn't mean to write them off. Most teams that plan to contend make a couple upgrades. I don't really think of them as "game-changers" though (which is what I think of when I say "dramatic"). And I think Shockey is quite overrated.
Here's a comparison for ya.
Week 1 Rankings:
Saints (11)
Giants (13)
Skins (14)
Bucs (19)
The Saints barely beat the #18 team, and move up 4 spots.
The Giants convincingly beat the #14 team, and move up 3 spots.
(and theoretically, it should be harder to move up the higher you are)
I guess you could say that the Giants game jut revealed how far the Redskins are from grasping the Zorn offense, and they never should have been ranked as high as #14, but still. I don't understand the Saints love.
I don't really disagree with the Bucs ranking honestly. Maybe a spot or two higher, but no big deal. I'm just not sure why the Saints get a big boost by eeking out a home win over a mediocre team. I think they should be right around #9-14. On par with the Pats, Giants, Panthers, Bears.
Well yes, it's hard to give the Giants that much credit for the Skins ineptness on offense.
And if you were to do that comparison now, the Bucs are ahead of the Skins, so to me, now that win looks better.
And again, there's not much of a difference between 7 and 14, so to me, they basically are on par, just a slight difference or preference.
ESPN actually has the Saints #4.
ledzepp8
09-09-2008, 07:23 PM
Sloppy in what way? Their offense exceeded expectations considering the defense they were facing. Rodgers was 18-22, Grant ran well. They were sloppy in terms of penalties, I'll give you that.
Yep, both teams were. But a lot of the penalties for both sides were just ridiculous, although the Vikings did get away with quite a few holds. I think that officiating crew was just a little flag happy...towards the end it seemed like they were just looking for penalties to call (like that Leverage penalty on the Packers...when has anyone ever heard that called, well except if you were watching the Packers/Bears game last season) instead of just letting the teams play.
geschinger
09-09-2008, 08:40 PM
6. Colts(3): Looked awful at home against the Bears, but I have to believe they'll greatly improve on that performance starting next week.
I'm not so sure, for next week at least. They have a ways to go to get back into the swing of things with so many players skipping preseason (not to mention many of them missing significant time at the end of last season).
Hopefully they'll do enough to win at least one or both of their next two games but I think realistically we'll have to wait to see the real Colts until October 5th.
NJOriolesFan
09-09-2008, 11:21 PM
Yep, both teams were. But a lot of the penalties for both sides were just ridiculous, although the Vikings did get away with quite a few holds. I think that officiating crew was just a little flag happy...towards the end it seemed like they were just looking for penalties to call (like that Leverage penalty on the Packers...when has anyone ever heard that called, well except if you were watching the Packers/Bears game last season) instead of just letting the teams play.
If they were flag happy why didn't they call penalties on the two times that Wade got mauled and that Rice got mauled in the 2nd half. Also the Schiancoe blown call was horrible.
The Packers did very little other than three very big plays. Rodgers ran well but he threw one 56 yard completion. Other than that Rodgers had 122 yards on 17 completions. They did not throw it downfield much at all. The Vikings outgained the Packers by 40 yards and 113 yards of the Packers offense came on two plays. Other than Rodgers running the ball on roll outs to the right when he was rushed all the Pack did was dink and dunk. TJack had 168 yards and also had what may have been a 60 yard completion not counted in his stats on the pass interference that Harris had on Berrian in the first half. I thought the Vikings played as poorly as I would have expected and they still lost by only 5 points on the road against a division rival. I'm unhappy because the game was there for the taking except for three big lapses but that is part of the game and they still lost.
ledzepp8
09-10-2008, 12:36 AM
If they were flag happy why didn't they call penalties on the two times that Wade got mauled and that Rice got mauled in the 2nd half. Also the Schiancoe blown call was horrible.
The Packers did very little other than three very big plays. Rodgers ran well but he threw one 56 yard completion. Other than that Rodgers had 122 yards on 17 completions. They did not throw it downfield much at all. The Vikings outgained the Packers by 40 yards and 113 yards of the Packers offense came on two plays. Other than Rodgers running the ball on roll outs to the right when he was rushed all the Pack did was dink and dunk. TJack had 168 yards and also had what may have been a 60 yard completion not counted in his stats on the pass interference that Harris had on Berrian in the first half. I thought the Vikings played as poorly as I would have expected and they still lost by only 5 points on the road against a division rival. I'm unhappy because the game was there for the taking except for three big lapses but that is part of the game and they still lost.
Rodgers also had a 68 yard TD called back on an ineligible man down field. The Vikings had 40 more yards of offense...they also had 20 more offensive plays. The Packers averaged more yards per play on offense, more yards per play passing. To be fair, Peterson only had one big play too...if you take it away he only averaged 3.8 yards per rush.
See, I can do all that stuff too.;)
NJOriolesFan
09-10-2008, 02:06 PM
Rodgers also had a 68 yard TD called back on an ineligible man down field. The Vikings had 40 more yards of offense...they also had 20 more offensive plays. The Packers averaged more yards per play on offense, more yards per play passing. To be fair, Peterson only had one big play too...if you take it away he only averaged 3.8 yards per rush.
See, I can do all that stuff too.;)
Well to be fair, 3.8 yards per rush is still very good. Most backs don't do that well when you take away their long gain. Some don't do that well if you count them.
Of those 20 "extra plays", 19 were incomplete passes that gained zero yards.
Jackson lost 5 completions for a total of about 90 yards on bad calls. Add that in and TJack is 21 of 35 for 268 yards and the Vikings likely would have won.
Sports Guy
09-10-2008, 02:08 PM
Well to be fair, 3.8 yards per rush is still very good. Most backs don't do that well when you take away their long gain.
Jackson lost 5 completions for a total of about 90 yards on bad calls. Add that in and TJack is 21 of 35 for 268 yards and the Vikings likely would have won.
Jackson just isn't that good...A good QB on the Vikings and they are a serious SB contender IMO.
They should have signed Pennington.
Well to be fair, 3.8 yards per rush is still very good. Most backs don't do that well when you take away their long gain. Some don't do that well if you count them.
Of those 20 "extra plays", 19 were incomplete passes that gained zero yards.
Jackson lost 5 completions for a total of about 90 yards on bad calls. Add that in and TJack is 21 of 35 for 268 yards and the Vikings likely would have won.
I agree about the one catch where they reviewed it, but you can't add PI calls(or what you think should have been PI calls) to his numbers, especially one's where he basically just threw the ball deep hoping his guy would win the battle for the ball. I also thought the first PI call they made on a deep call was bogus.
NJOriolesFan
09-10-2008, 11:56 PM
I agree about the one catch where they reviewed it, but you can't add PI calls(or what you think should have been PI calls) to his numbers, especially one's where he basically just threw the ball deep hoping his guy would win the battle for the ball. I also thought the first PI call they made on a deep call was bogus.
You can't add them to the numbers but on all those plays he made good throws that were very catchable for his receivers and his receivers were held and/or mauled. They don't count in stats, but once they opened up the game for him in the second half, he was effective other than the interception that ended the game. He was 16-35 for 178 overall. He was 14-28 in the second half and with a better job from the referees he would have been at least 18-28 for 250 yards in the 2nd half. He also ran and escaped pressure very well. I don't think he played as bad as the final numbers show or that most people think. He made some very good throws. He will get better with time. He hasn't even started 16 NFL games yet. Name more than 5 QB's that have been MUCH BETTER 15 games into his NFL career. He is every bit as good as Eli was in his 15 games and he just won a Super Bowl.
Well you continue to add the PI's after saying you can't add them.:confused: I'm sorry for not adding him throwing the ball deep into solid coverage as stats for him. I think you're being a little biased about the calls too, there were a couple bad ones from what I recall, and they gave them one which I didn't think was warranted.
I'm not ripping on him, but Rodgers certainly looked better imo, which was my expectation. I'm not going to research qb's to find more than 5 QB's who meet your arbitrary much better description. Eli still isn't that good of a QB, so not sure he's much of an example.
I picked the Vikings to win that game and the division, so I'm not a hater, but he is their weak spot right now, and one of the lesser starting QB's in the league.
Sports Guy
09-11-2008, 09:07 AM
Well you continue to add the PI's after saying you can't add them.:confused: I'm sorry for not adding him throwing the ball deep into solid coverage as stats for him. I think you're being a little biased about the calls too, there were a couple bad ones from what I recall, and they gave them one which I didn't think was warranted.
I'm not ripping on him, but Rodgers certainly looked better imo, which was my expectation. I'm not going to research qb's to find more than 5 QB's who meet your arbitrary much better description. Eli still isn't that good of a QB, so not sure he's much of an example.
I picked the Vikings to win that game and the division, so I'm not a hater, but he is their weak spot right now, and one of the lesser starting QB's in the league.
Yea, no doubt Rodgers is a much more advanced QB right now.
Kyle Orton is actually probably a more reliable QB than TJack is.
geschinger
09-14-2008, 04:19 PM
Jackson just isn't that good...A good QB on the Vikings and they are a serious SB contender IMO.
Wow, I didn't realize how right you were until seeing today's game... The way the Colts played today they should of been blown out and instead they get a huge win out of it. They can thank Minnesota not even having a hint of a passing game for the win.
Sports Guy
09-14-2008, 04:41 PM
Wow, I didn't realize how right you were until seeing today's game... The way the Colts played today they should of been blown out and instead they get a huge win out of it. They can thank Minnesota not even having a hint of a passing game for the win.
Yea, he is awful.
The Colts looked terrible but since the Vikings can't throw the ball, it didn't matter.
The Vikings should have signed Pennington...they would have been so much better with him.
geschinger
09-14-2008, 07:40 PM
5. Chargers(4): Obviously a tough and surprising first week loss, but still probably the second most talented team in the league.
Snakebitten... Ed Hochuli, usually one of the better referees in the NFL takes a victory away from the Chargers and gives it to the Broncos... What a great game though, just a shame that officials had as much an impact on who won as Hochuli did.
backwardsk
09-14-2008, 07:54 PM
Snakebitten... Ed Hochuli, usually one of the better referees in the NFL takes a victory away from the Chargers and gives it to the Broncos... What a great game though, just a shame that officials had as much an impact on who won as Hochuli did.
Terrible call at the end of the game. Yeah, he's one of the better ones, but he blew it today. The Chargers were robbed.
backwardsk
09-14-2008, 08:00 PM
Three of your top ten teams have taken a loss so far. Probably will see Cincinatti fall close to the bottom. Looking forward to your week three rankings.