jjflr's Week 13 Power Rankings [Archive] - Pigskin Heaven

jjflr

12-06-2005, 12:03 PM

http://www.pigskinheaven.com/gallery/files/7/NFL3.png

Theme This Week: "Questions Still To Be Answered"

Biggest Movers:

UP

Cardinals +7 spots--this is mainly because the bottom 15 are so close together and almost everyone that was immediately in front of them had bad losses.

Buccaneers, Redskins, and Dolphins all moved up 2 spots

DOWN

Cowboys down 4 spots.

Rams and Bills both down 3 spots.

1) INDIANAPOLIS COLTS (12-0) :indy: 34.0673 Only 2 questions left to be answered. Can they go 16-0 and will they win the SB ?
2) SEATTLE SEAHAWKS (10-2) :seahawk: 28.0554 2 questions: Can they secure home-field advantage and get to the SB ?
3) DENVER BRONCOS (9-3) :broncos: 26.8177 Is the division title now up for grabs ? :eek:
4) SAN DIEGO CHARGERS (8-4) :chargers: 25.5800 Can they 'win out' and take the division ?
5) CAROLINA PANTHERS (9-3) :-panther: 25.5210 Their offense has not been as productive the last 3 games. Is it an issue ?
6) NEW YORK GIANTS (8-4) :giant: 24.6959 Will Eli choke in the playoffs?
7) CHICAGO BEARS (9-3) :bear: 23.4699 How far can the team ride this defensive train through the playoffs?
8) JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS (9-3) :jags: 23.3992 Are they the ones to stop the Colts finally ?
9) KANSAS CITY CHIEFS (8-4) :kc: 23.1045 How will they do on the road in consecutive weeks now ?
10) DALLAS COWBOYS (7-5) :cowboy: 21.8078 Can they still get a wild-card?
11) CINCINNATI BENGALS (9-3) :bengal: 21.1005 Are they for real or is this ranking of #11 more accurate ?
12) TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS (8-4) :bucs: 19.8038 Will they win a playoff game ?
13) PITTSBURGH STEELERS (7-5) :steeler: 19.2734 I've seen some 'opinion'-based rankings that STILL have them in the top 5 in the NFL--:wow: --I don't think so. Are they the 7th-best team in the AFC, as these rankings state?
14) ATLANTA FALCONS (7-5) :falcon: 17.5052 Did the Falcons coaches lose the game on Sunday by not running the ball? :angryfire
15) WASHINGTON REDSKINS (6-6) :redskin: 16.5739 Will this team make noise next year ?
16) MINNESOTA VIKINGS (7-5) :viking: 16.5032 Can they squeak into the playoffs ?
17) NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS (7-5) :-pat: 15.9138 Sunday was the first game all year they held their opponent under 14 points. Is it a 'sign' or was it just the Jets?
18) ARIZONA CARDINALS (4-8) :cards: 11.1986 Will this team turn the corner next year? :toetap:
19) PHILADELPHIA EAGLES (5-7) :eagle: 11.1573 What was that last night ? :sleep:
20) OAKLAND RAIDERS (4-8) :raider: 10.5503 Questions about the coach. Questions at QB. Questions about Moss. When do we get some answers? :toetap:
21) MIAMI DOLPHINS (5-7) :-phin: 10.1966 Great comeback by the future Dolphins QB, Sage Rosenfels ?
22) ST. LOUIS RAMS (5-7) :ram: 9.1946 The 'Harvard Hurler' came back to earth on Sunday. Where is this team going in the future?
23) GREEN BAY PACKERS (2-10) :-pack: 9.1711 Lots of questions to be answered in the off-season. Where do I start ?
24) BUFFALO BILLS (4-8) :bill: 9.0119 Most disappointing team in the NFL this year ? :nono:
25) CLEVELAND BROWNS (4-8) :dawg: 8.9589 Does this team have more bad luck than any team in the league?
26) TENNESSEE TITANS (3-9) :titan: 8.8410 Will Jeff Fisher be back in Tennessee next year?
27) BALTIMORE RAVENS (4-8) :raven 8.2516 Will Billick have this team 'back' next year ?
28) DETROIT LIONS (4-8) :lion: 7.7211 Who will be coaching them in 2006?
29) NEW ORLEANS SAINTS (3-9) :saint: 5.1278 This team definitely has the most questions to answer in the off-season. :huh:
30) NEW YORK JETS (2-10) :jet: 3.5953 Reggie Bush would be a good replacement for C-Mart, wouldn't he?
31) SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS (2-10) :niner: 2.5934 Smith played well on Sunday. Can he keep it up ?
32) HOUSTON TEXANS (1-11) :texan: 0.4126 Played better on Sunday but who will be coaching them next year?

XPetey

12-06-2005, 12:13 PM

How on earth are the Bengals #11??? They proved they are for real last week, I don't see how Dallas, San Diego, KC, or Carolina are ahead of us...there's something wrong with that

jjflr

12-06-2005, 03:35 PM

How on earth are the Bengals #11??? They proved they are for real last week, I don't see how Dallas, San Diego, KC, or Carolina are ahead of us...there's something wrong with that

The main reason that the Bengals are so low is because they have very few quality wins. The overall winning percentage of the Bengals victims is .379 and the game on Sunday was the FIRST time this season that the Bengals defeated a team that was above .500 heading into the game. THAT'S pretty staggering.

However, I'll also break down each one individually:

CHARGERS are ahead because they have won 8 of their last 10 games. The Bengals have lost 3 of their last 8. The early-season games don't factor as heavily at this point in the year. In addition, the Chargers rank MUCH better statistically on the defensive side of the ball and this is costing the Bengals a couple of points.

CHIEFS have been ahead of the Bengals for a few weeks (since the Bengals had their 3-3 stretch) and the Chiefs wins over the past few weeks have been just as impressive as the Bengals last 2. The Chiefs have won 6 of their last 8 and the Bengals have only won 5 of their last 8.

PANTHERS again have won 8 of their last 9 (see CHARGERS explanation above) and they have more quality wins.

COWBOYS over the last 2 months have only lost to the Giants, Broncos, and Seahawks (#2, #3, and #6). Over the same time period, the Bengals have lost to the Colts, Steelers, and Jaguars (#1, #13, and #8). In addition, the Cowboys rank statistically better than the Bengals in yards and this is costing the Bengals nearly a full point compared to the Cowboys.

I hope this helps point out a few of the differences between the Bengals and the other teams.

(Note: The schedule doesn't get any harder for the Bengals from here on out either. The only team they will face that will be above .500 are the Chiefs in the final game of the season. I don't see the Bengals being able to improve their situation in these rankings greatly unless they get their defense in gear and/or just beat the snot out of everyone left on their schedule).

XPetey

12-06-2005, 03:37 PM

Hence the reason why computer rankings will NEVER adiquately rank teams.

CatClaw

12-06-2005, 03:56 PM

jjflr

12-06-2005, 04:13 PM

Hence the reason why computer rankings will NEVER adiquately rank teams.

XPetey, you're going to have to bring something stronger than "this is why computer rankings suck................" to make your point.

Let's throw the computer rankings out the window for a minute and just talk about the on-the-field performance.

The Bengals have been given a beautiful schedule this year. They have had the luxury of playing practically all of the 'lower-performing' offenses (according to the NFL) in the league, such as the Bears, Ravens (twice), Packers, Vikings, Browns, Jaguars, Texans, Titans and Steelers (twice). :sleep:

Other than the Colts, --zero--zip--nada--NONE of the teams that the Bengals have played in their other 11 contests have a top 15 offense in this league. ALL of them are in the lower half of the league in offense!

They have been handed a schedule on a silver platter that SHOULD allow them to sleep-walk through these games and still shut down these teams defensively (if they are the 5th best team as you claim).............

INSTEAD..........they are giving up 337 yards a game (28th in the league) :nono: and 20 points a game and this is ALL while leading the league in takeaways. Just imagine when they play someone like Peyton Manning or Trent Green or Drew Brees :wow: who don't make as many mistakes as the bad QB's (BigBen excluded) for these other horrible teams they are playing. They will pick the Bengals secondary APART.......

Please explain to me how you think the Bengals D is going to stop the offensive powerhouses in the AFC like the Broncos, Patriots, Colts, Chargers, and Chiefs and give Carson and his offense a chance to win it if they only score 30. :toetap:

Most of the good teams in the AFC also have pretty decent defenses so your team better plan on figuring out how to win the game with only 27-30 points, don't you?

Thus far, I have seen nothing that tells me that this team is capable of keeping a top 10 offense under 40 points. IMO, the good QB's in the AFC--Tom Brady, Trent Green, Drew Brees, Jake Plummer, and Peyton Manning would all have a field day against the Bengals secondary.

Please tell me why I'm wrong. I always keep an open mind. :)

jjflr

12-06-2005, 04:20 PM

So...jjflr..with the formulas reasoning...because the Bengasl beat the Vikings when they were 0-1..that's not a quality win? The Bears were 2-0 when the Bengals beat them, but we wouldn't get credit because they are now 9-3???? I'm not poking fun, but how does it count wins like those????

No, I did not say that it was factored in the formula that way.

I was simply pointing out an interesting fact about the Bengals schedule to XPetey.

The parts that WILL be factored into the formula is their lack of quality wins, their losses to the Jaguars and Steelers (#8 and #13--not exactly world-beaters), and giving up 20 points a game and 337 yards a game thus far on defense.

XPetey

12-06-2005, 04:36 PM

XPetey, you're going to have to bring something stronger than "this is why computer rankings suck................" to make your point.

See...the BCS. I rest my case there.

Let's throw the computer rankings out the window for a minute and just talk about the on-the-field performance.

The Bengals have been given a beautiful schedule this year. They have had the luxury of playing practically all of the 'lower-performing' offenses (according to the NFL) in the league, such as the Bears, Ravens (twice), Packers, Vikings, Browns, Jaguars, Texans, Titans and Steelers (twice). :sleep:

The Jaguars are not a lower performing team. Granted, they beat us, but we still played with them, and I feel that if we play them again we would beat them (even if they had Byron). How can you call the Steelers a bad team?? When they haev Big Ben they are a completely different team. They've only lost to the Colts and Bengals. They only underperform when Ben isn't in the lineup. Do your rankings take that into account?? The Bears may have a weak offense, but if defense wins championships, how come they couldn't shut down ours??

Other than the Colts, --zero--zip--nada--NONE of the teams that the Bengals have played in their other 11 contests have a top 15 offense in this league. ALL of them are in the lower half of the league in offense!

Again. Can I do anything about that?? Can anyone?? No! However, the Bengals have won the games they should have, and are in a position to be resting during the first weekend of the playoffs.

They have been handed a schedule on a silver platter that SHOULD allow them to sleep-walk through these games and still shut down these teams defensively (if they are the 5th best team as you claim).............

This has nothing to do with the team...it's the NFL's fault not the Bengal's

INSTEAD..........they are giving up 337 yards a game (28th in the league) :nono: and 20 points a game and this is ALL while leading the league in takeaways.

We've played someone like Peyton Manning, and we almost beat him. Granted our defense isn't top notch yet, but it has improved almost every game. Once we can cover TEs, we can beat the Colts. Until then, yes, they will win.

Just imagine when they play someone like Peyton Manning or Trent Green or Drew Brees :wow: who don't make as many mistakes as the bad QB's (BigBen excluded) for these other horrible teams they are playing. They will pick the Bengals secondary APART.......

Yeah there's this guy called Brett Favre...dunno if you know him. He's taking a roadtrip to Canton sometime soon...we played him and picked him off 5 times. Daunte Cullpepper and Steve McNair are no slouches either.

Please explain to me how you think the Bengals D is going to stop the offensive powerhouses in the AFC like the Broncos, Patriots, Colts, Chargers, and Chiefs and give Carson and his offense a chance to win it if they only score 30. :toetap:

Like Chad Johnson said "We're gonna score 40 points for the rest of the season. All our defense has to do is keep them to 39 for us to win." I don't care whether we shut them down, as long as we win. Stats aren't important. Wins are. And the only team of those "powerhouses" that can beat us in a shootout is the Colts, so I feel pretty confident.

Most of the good teams in the AFC also have pretty decent defenses so your team better plan on figuring out how to win the game with only 27-30 points, don't you?

Chicago: 24 points
Baltimore: 42 points
Idianapolis: 37 points
Pittsburgh: 38 points

You can check your beloved rankings, but I'm pretty sure those teams are near the top.

Thus far, I have seen nothing that tells me that this team is capable of keeping a top 10 offense under 40 points. IMO, the good QB's in the AFC--Tom Brady, Trent Green, Drew Brees, Jake Plummer, and Peyton Manning would all have a field day against the Bengals secondary.

Brett Favre: 5 interceptions
Peyton Manning: 1 interception
Ben Roethlisburger: 3 interceptions

who cares how many yards they put up as long as we win? Not me.

You worry too much about rankings and don't stop to see that this team is winning games. You're more worried about stats than wins, and it's the wins that really matter.

CatClaw

12-06-2005, 04:39 PM

XPetey, you're going to have to bring something stronger than "this is why computer rankings suck................" to make your point.

Let's throw the computer rankings out the window for a minute and just talk about the on-the-field performance.

The Bengals have been given a beautiful schedule this year. They have had the luxury of playing practically all of the 'lower-performing' offenses (according to the NFL) in the league, such as the Bears, Ravens (twice), Packers, Vikings, Browns, Jaguars, Texans, Titans and Steelers (twice). :sleep:

Other than the Colts, --zero--zip--nada--NONE of the teams that the Bengals have played in their other 11 contests have a top 15 offense in this league. ALL of them are in the lower half of the league in offense!

They have been handed a schedule on a silver platter that SHOULD allow them to sleep-walk through these games and still shut down these teams defensively (if they are the 5th best team as you claim).............

INSTEAD..........they are giving up 337 yards a game (28th in the league) :nono: and 20 points a game and this is ALL while leading the league in takeaways. Just imagine when they play someone like Peyton Manning or Trent Green or Drew Brees :wow: who don't make as many mistakes as the bad QB's (BigBen excluded) for these other horrible teams they are playing. They will pick the Bengals secondary APART.......

Please explain to me how you think the Bengals D is going to stop the offensive powerhouses in the AFC like the Broncos, Patriots, Colts, Chargers, and Chiefs and give Carson and his offense a chance to win it if they only score 30. :toetap:

Most of the good teams in the AFC also have pretty decent defenses so your team better plan on figuring out how to win the game with only 27-30 points, don't you?

Thus far, I have seen nothing that tells me that this team is capable of keeping a top 10 offense under 40 points. IMO, the good QB's in the AFC--Tom Brady, Trent Green, Drew Brees, Jake Plummer, and Peyton Manning would all have a field day against the Bengals secondary.

Please tell me why I'm wrong. I always keep an open mind. :)
Before playing the Colts...the Bengals were in the top three of points allowed...now sure that has a lot to do with the offenses they play, but you could make the same argument that when the Bengals are up by thirty....teams tend to rack up garbage points and yards throwing the ball when playing from behind. Sure the Bengals couldn't stop the Colts enough...they gave up points to the Steelers WITH Ben...where four games leveled their offensive numbers without him (that effects your formula for the Steelers and Bengals)...and gave up garbage points to the Ravens. These games knocked the Bengals out of your "contenders" formula in your other post and it seems they are staying put at mediocrity in these rankings...It seems the Bengals haven't proven anything this year...:eek:

XPetey

12-06-2005, 04:41 PM

CatClaw

12-06-2005, 04:46 PM

I'm not worrying, but it sure is fun to give someone a hard time....:D

BigBenCan7

12-06-2005, 04:52 PM

They have had the luxury of playing practically all of the 'lower-performing' offenses (according to the NFL) in the league, such as the Steelers (twice). :sleep:

Please explain to me how you think the Bengals D is going to stop the offensive powerhouses in the AFC like the Patriots and give Carson and his offense a chance to win it if they only score 30. :toetap:

Please explain to me how you think that the Steelers offense is 'lower-performing' and the Patriots offense is a power house, when the Steelers score 1.2 more points per game than the Patriots...

jjflr

12-06-2005, 05:39 PM

Please explain to me how you think that the Steelers offense is 'lower-performing' and the Patriots offense is a power house, when the Steelers score 1.2 more points per game than the Patriots...

According to how the NFL rank offenses, the Steelers are #20 in the league. They are in the lower half of the league.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-TOTAL/2005/regular?sort_col_1=4

jjflr

12-06-2005, 05:41 PM

Before playing the Colts...the Bengals were in the top three of points allowed...now sure that has a lot to do with the offenses they play, but you could make the same argument that when the Bengals are up by thirty....teams tend to rack up garbage points and yards throwing the ball when playing from behind. Sure the Bengals couldn't stop the Colts enough...they gave up points to the Steelers WITH Ben...where four games leveled their offensive numbers without him (that effects your formula for the Steelers and Bengals)...and gave up garbage points to the Ravens. These games knocked the Bengals out of your "contenders" formula in your other post and it seems they are staying put at mediocrity in these rankings...It seems the Bengals haven't proven anything this year...:eek:

Valid points all around CatClaw. As usual, a good analysis.

I still think the Bengals defense is too susceptible to be considered championship-worthy, though.

We'll see if they (and XPetey) prove me wrong.

Blackmallard

12-06-2005, 06:13 PM

We've played someone like Peyton Manning, and we almost beat him. Granted our defense isn't top notch yet, but it has improved almost every game.

I do not think the Bengals "almost won" that game. They showed that Indy could not stop them from scoring, but they never lead, and never showed they could stop the Colts offense.

They did a good job of capitalizing on opportunities at the end of the half and the beginning of the second half to pull within one, but the Colts pulled away after that and never looked back.

I do think the Bengals are for real, they are really the best team in their division, they really are going to the playoffs and they have a great shot at a bye. I have not seen anything from them that makes me think they can beat three of the best teams in the league in a row, or hang 40 on everyone like Chad Johnson said they would.

XPetey

12-06-2005, 06:50 PM

I do not think the Bengals "almost won" that game. They showed that Indy could not stop them from scoring, but they never lead, and never showed they could stop the Colts offense.

They did a good job of capitalizing on opportunities at the end of the half and the beginning of the second half to pull within one, but the Colts pulled away after that and never looked back.

I do think the Bengals are for real, they are really the best team in their division, they really are going to the playoffs and they have a great shot at a bye. I have not seen anything from them that makes me think they can beat three of the best teams in the league in a row, or hang 40 on everyone like Chad Johnson said they would.

By saying they "almost beat the Colts" I meant that with one defenseive stop (which we couldn't get) we could have won. Let's say "we gave the Colts a good game"

BigBenCan7

12-06-2005, 07:18 PM

According to how the NFL rank offenses, the Steelers are #20 in the league. They are in the lower half of the league.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-TOTAL/2005/regular?sort_col_1=4

According to yards per game...

Yards per game means nothing, all that matters is the points you score. Do you think anyone is going to worry about how many yards you gained if you didn't win the game?

Oak

12-06-2005, 08:36 PM

I wouldn't worry about it CatClaw...this is the only ranking I've seen that considers the Bengals mediocre still. Rankings don't matter, but in the end, when the Bengals beat the Colts in the AFC title game (like Chad guarentees) we'll see where we're ranked.

Don't kid yourself, the Bengals are good, but if they don't fix their leaky defense odds are they will lose their first playoff game. Not to mention Chad Johnson couldn't keep his mouth shut about the whole 40 points a game crap from here on out. I'm a firm believer in good karma and what Chad said causes bad karma and leads to a huge jinx come playoff time. Hopefully, Marvin Lewis will pull Chad into his office and tell him to shut his pie hole.

Now that said, I don't agree with the Bengals ranking either. "Just Win Baby" is all that matters and the win over the Steelers in Pittsburgh proves that the Bengals have arrived.

XPetey

12-06-2005, 09:03 PM

Don't kid yourself, the Bengals are good, but if they don't fix their leaky defense odds are they will lose their first playoff game. Not to mention Chad Johnson couldn't keep his mouth shut about the whole 40 points a game crap from here on out. I'm a firm believer in good karma and what Chad said causes bad karma and leads to a huge jinx come playoff time. Hopefully, Marvin Lewis will pull Chad into his office and tell him to shut his pie hole.

That's just Chad being Chad. He sets the bar too high, so if he falls short he's still at a high point. Also, it motivates his teammates. I've heard guys say first hand that Chad talking gives the team energy, even if the rest of them keep their mouths shut.

Oak

12-06-2005, 09:14 PM

That's just Chad being Chad. He sets the bar too high, so if he falls short he's still at a high point. Also, it motivates his teammates. I've heard guys say first hand that Chad talking gives the team energy, even if the rest of them keep their mouths shut.

True, but I hate it when players give opposing teams motivation where there shouldn't have been any.

Blackmallard

12-06-2005, 10:07 PM

Don't kid yourself, the Bengals are good, but if they don't fix their leaky defense odds are they will lose their first playoff game.

I wouldn't go that far, it really depends on who they play, I think they would match up really well against some teams they might see as their first playoff game, with or without improvement on defense.

Tiki Tiger

12-06-2005, 10:08 PM

Jags behind the Giants! Please Explain!!!

Blackmallard

12-06-2005, 11:40 PM

Jags behind the Giants! Please Explain!!!

The Giants are one win behind the Jaguars and have had a tougher schedule.

Blackmallard

12-07-2005, 11:37 AM

For those of you who do not like where the Bengals came out on this ranking, I found one where they are #1. They drop to #3 if you weight the later games more than the earlier ones but they are ranked #1 over the entire season. The Bengals are also ranked #11 in defense.

This other formula is based on play efficiency, breaking down every single play on offense defense and special teams, gives them ratings and then combines them. It is very complicated and this link only really shows the results. The area where the Bengals come out much better than the Colts: special teams. Note also that win/loss record is NOT a factor in this other formula, but things like strength of schedule are.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2005/12/06/ramblings/dvoa-rankings/3325/

Bruschibabe

12-07-2005, 11:39 AM

What gets me about this whole thing is that NE wins over a supposedly bad Jets team and they slide down from 16 to 17..Yet when KC wins over a bad Texans team they move up??

Crunked

12-07-2005, 06:26 PM

Blackmallard

12-07-2005, 11:21 PM

Oh yeah theri DVOA is whack, in some instances its dead nuts bet there are those anamoly squads that don't fit their DVOA model and they will be ultra high or low you have to kind of read between the lines but it is good information if you like to crunch the numbers

I thought it was interesting. It definetly had some good information, you just have to know what you are looking at. They were not exactly claiming that the number one DVOA team was the best team necessarily.

GBneedsDCnOC

12-07-2005, 11:30 PM

23) GREEN BAY PACKERS (2-10) :-pack: 9.1711 Lots of questions to be answered in the off-season. Where do I start ?

the injury list...its humungous(SP?) if we get those guys back and dont lose em to FA and our o-line gels then we could be better

jjflr

12-09-2005, 09:53 PM

Jags behind the Giants! Please Explain!!!

Tiki, sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. I've been spending a lot of time on a tournament I'm working on.

The Jaguars are doing fine. A lot of it is out of their control though. Their strength of schedule is very weak, especially compared to the Giants. In addition, they are barely beating a lot of these lower-tier teams and the formula DOES factor margin of victory. A lot of their victories against these bad teams are by just 3-7 points.

Blackmallard

12-11-2005, 10:44 PM

Questions answered:

1) INDIANAPOLIS COLTS (12-0) :indy: 34.0673 Only 2 questions left to be answered. Can they go 16-0 and will they win the SB ? No answers yet. Nostradamus predicts no, and yes
2) SEATTLE SEAHAWKS (10-2) :seahawk: 28.0554 2 questions: Can they secure home-field advantage and get to the SB ? yes and maybe
3) DENVER BRONCOS (9-3) :broncos: 26.8177 Is the division title now up for grabs ? :eek: Not even close
4) SAN DIEGO CHARGERS (8-4) :chargers: 25.5800 Can they 'win out' and take the division ? New question: can they 'win out' and miss the playoffs?
5) CAROLINA PANTHERS (9-3) :-panther: 25.5210 Their offense has not been as productive the last 3 games. Is it an issue ? Yes, naturally.
6) NEW YORK GIANTS (8-4) :giant: 24.6959 Will Eli choke in the playoffs? If he does not play that well leading up to them, will a bad game really be choking?
7) CHICAGO BEARS (9-3) :bear: 23.4699 How far can the team ride this defensive train through the playoffs? They will not ride it through Seattle, I give them a chance against most other NFC teams, but not an even one.
8) JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS (9-3) :jags: 23.3992 Are they the ones to stop the Colts finally ? no
9) KANSAS CITY CHIEFS (8-4) :kc: 23.1045 How will they do on the road in consecutive weeks now ? Will their season end in New York?
10) DALLAS COWBOYS (7-5) :cowboy: 21.8078 Can they still get a wild-card? I like their odds.
11) CINCINNATI BENGALS (9-3) :bengal: 21.1005 Are they for real or is this ranking of #11 more accurate ? They are for real, but are they ready for the playoffs?
12) TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS (8-4) :bucs: 19.8038 Will they win a playoff game ? How are you supposed to answer this without knowing who they play first?
13) PITTSBURGH STEELERS (7-5) :steeler: 19.2734 I've seen some 'opinion'-based rankings that STILL have them in the top 5 in the NFL--:wow: --I don't think so. Are they the 7th-best team in the AFC, as these rankings state? Don't rule out the possibility that New England is better too.
14) ATLANTA FALCONS (7-5) :falcon: 17.5052 Did the Falcons coaches lose the game on Sunday by not running the ball? :angryfire Are you trying to lead the witness here?
15) WASHINGTON REDSKINS (6-6) :redskin: 16.5739 Will this team make noise next year ? Can they sneak into a wildcard spot?
16) MINNESOTA VIKINGS (7-5) :viking: 16.5032 Can they squeak into the playoffs ? they have a decent shot
17) NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS (7-5) :-pat: 15.9138 Sunday was the first game all year they held their opponent under 14 points. Is it a 'sign' or was it just the Jets? It is a sign. They are getting better.
18) ARIZONA CARDINALS (4-8) :cards: 11.1986 Will this team turn the corner next year? :toetap: I think we are still looking two years down the road before the Cards get a winning season
19) PHILADELPHIA EAGLES (5-7) :eagle: 11.1573 What was that last night ? :sleep: Terrible.
20) OAKLAND RAIDERS (4-8) :raider: 10.5503 Questions about the coach. Questions at QB. Questions about Moss. When do we get some answers? :toetap: We know what the answer isn't.
21) MIAMI DOLPHINS (5-7) :-phin: 10.1966 Great comeback by the future Dolphins QB, Sage Rosenfels ? Who cares about Rosenfels, ALL HAIL SABAN!:hail:
22) ST. LOUIS RAMS (5-7) :ram: 9.1946 The 'Harvard Hurler' came back to earth on Sunday. Where is this team going in the future? L.A.?
23) GREEN BAY PACKERS (2-10) :-pack: 9.1711 Lots of questions to be answered in the off-season. Where do I start ? Start with, who is the QB of the future? Aaron Rodgers? Vince Young? Matt Leinart?
24) BUFFALO BILLS (4-8) :bill: 9.0119 Most disappointing team in the NFL this year ? :nono: For Buffalo fans I guess.
25) CLEVELAND BROWNS (4-8) :dawg: 8.9589 Does this team have more bad luck than any team in the league? Not worse than Green Bay's
30) NEW YORK JETS (2-10) :jet: 3.5953 Reggie Bush would be a good replacement for C-Mart, wouldn't he? Only if Chad Pennington and his shoulder are both back.

32) HOUSTON TEXANS (1-11) :texan: 0.4126 Played better on Sunday but who will be coaching them next year? I guess that depends on whether Capers is supposed to be losing every game or not.

jjflr

12-12-2005, 03:38 PM

Here is a sneak peek at the week 14 power rankings:

The biggest movers (up) at this point appear to be the Bucs, Patriots, Dolphins, and Packers.

The biggest droppers are the Bears, Jaguars, and Raiders.

The Raiders have had 3 BAD losses in a row and look like they're going to drop all the way down to 27th or 28th.

BigBenCan7

12-12-2005, 07:09 PM

So the 8-5 Patriots who beat the 4-9 Bills are going to move up more than the 8-5 Steelers who beat the 9-4 Bears? That doesn't make much sense at all...

Wolverine

12-12-2005, 09:39 PM

jjflr

12-12-2005, 09:54 PM

I'll make a point here..

Week after Week your ratings continue to make the Chargers look so good, when the reality is, they are in the worst possible position to make the playoffs. They lost to MIAMI this week. If a team can't beat a mediocre team to take a strong hold on the rest of the Wild-Card Contenders, then how are they a top 5 team?

Haven't all of the top 10 teams (except for the Colts) lost to mediocre teams though..........???

Denver lost to this SAME mediocre Dolphins team.......does that mean THEY'RE not top 5?

The Seahawks lost to the Redskins...........does that mean THEY'RE not top 5??

The Giants got pulverized by this Chargers team that you speak so fondly of...........does that mean THEY'RE not top 5 ??

WHO is it that you're wanting to be ahead of the Chargers ?

jjflr

12-12-2005, 10:04 PM

So the 8-5 Patriots who beat the 4-9 Bills are going to move up more than the 8-5 Steelers who beat the 9-4 Bears? That doesn't make much sense at all...

The previously ranked #17 Patriots absolutely DESTROYED a division opponent ON THE ROAD..........They outgained them like 500 yards to 200 yards and it was just as bad on the scoreboard..............

The Steelers at #13 handled the #7 team AT HOME, outgained them, and beat them by 12............good win...........just like the Patriots

both teams move up in 'points' and it looks like the Steelers are going to remain ahead of them overall and they're both 8-5...........what's the problem ??? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Blackmallard

12-12-2005, 10:33 PM

Haven't all of the top 10 teams (except for the Colts) lost to mediocre teams though..........???

The Patriots and the Bengals haven't. Wait....they aren't top ten. Also if you want to count Washington at home as a mediocre team I guess the Seahawks lost to a mediocre team. I think the jury is still out on this year's Skins.

The worst team that the Giants lost to is the Vikings and I bet if you did a post-Culpepper power rating they would not come out mediocre.

WHO is it that you're wanting to be ahead of the Chargers ?

No one really, I might have some ideas about adjusting the formula a little (its hard to give advice on that since I don't know what the formula is) If their performance against the Dolphins is indicative of how good that team is they will not be top ten much longer.

That being said, I think the Bengals are a very strong playoff contender in relation to their ranking. A lot of my opinion on that has more to do with the matchups that I anticipate though than their game to game performance, which has been a little inconsistent, and it is not possible for a formula to factor in matchups that have not happened yet.

Wolverine

12-12-2005, 10:47 PM

Haven't all of the top 10 teams (except for the Colts) lost to mediocre teams though..........???

Denver lost to this SAME mediocre Dolphins team.......does that mean THEY'RE not top 5?

The Seahawks lost to the Redskins...........does that mean THEY'RE not top 5??

The Giants got pulverized by this Chargers team that you speak so fondly of...........does that mean THEY'RE not top 5 ??

WHO is it that you're wanting to be ahead of the Chargers ?

The Jaguars lost to a better team than the Chargers, have a better defense and a better record we can start with them.

The Bengals, 2nd-3rd seed in the AFC is 11th?

Since you seem to be about key wins and loses, well the Chargers loss was very key, you can't expect a good team to lose a game to a mediocre game this late in the season. The circumstances were different. It was the first week, the Broncos have redeemed themselves, at least they didn't choke like the chargers did.

The Broncos beat some great teams, and have proven themselves to probably get 2nd or 3rd seed in the playoffs with wins over New England and Jacksonville. The Chargers don't really have a stand-out win, YET.

Blackmallard

12-12-2005, 10:56 PM

The Jaguars lost to a better team than the Chargers, have a better defense and a better record we can start with them.

You think that the Rams are better than the Dolphins? I think they are about the same this year, or they were untill the latest bout of injuries to the Rams. The Jags are good, but their schedule is not very comprable to the Chargers and they have not been dominant against many of the "lower" teams. The Jags might be much better than the formula indicates if their performances against the lower ranked teams are the Jags "playing down" and are not indicators of their true potential.

The Bengals, 2nd-3rd seed in the AFC is 11th?

I have seen some things from the Bengals that make me think that their potential is not being reflected well in this ranking, but they only really have one quality win and it was not against a top ten team. Part of the Bengals problem is they have not had all that many opportunities to play top teams.

Edit: I forgot about their victory over Chicago, which was very good, but which is probably losing its effect since the formula weights later games more heavily.

Since you seem to be about key wins and loses, well the Chargers loss was very key, you can't expect a good team to lose a game to a mediocre game this late in the season. The circumstances were different. It was the first week, the Broncos have redeemed themselves, at least they didn't choke like the chargers did.

That is very true, but aren't the Broncos ranked ahead of the Chargers on this thing? That would seem to be a point in favor of whatever system gives out these point values.

The Broncos beat some great teams, and have proven themselves to probably get 2nd or 3rd seed in the playoffs with wins over New England and Jacksonville. The Chargers don't really have a stand-out win, YET.

San Diego also beat New England and they beat the Giants handily, who are easily comparable to NE or Jacksonville, and the Giants beat Denver, but like I said Denver is ranked above the Chargers anyhow.

Basically San Diego really struggled at the beginning of the season, but against very good teams. They had been playing as well as anyone before last Sunday since then and the rankings show it. The AFC west is the hardest division to get to the playoffs from this year.

Bruschibabe

12-12-2005, 11:14 PM

both teams move up in 'points' and it looks like the Steelers are going to remain ahead of them overall and they're both 8-5...........what's the problem ??? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Here is my problem with that...San Diego beat NE..Pitt beat SD, NE beat Pitt ..

then you have Miami who beat the Bronco's AND the Chargers AND the BIlls but NE beat Bills twice, Miami once yet lost to SD and Denver...

IMO the way you say this is on strength of game then I believe the Phins should be moving on up bigtime..

Basically my point is that I can't conceive the logic behind this whatsoever..:confused:

Blackmallard

12-12-2005, 11:23 PM

IMO the way you say this is on strength of game then I believe the Phins should be moving on up bigtime..

The Dolphins were listed as one of the top gainers for next week, so your opinion is shared by JJ's formula.

Soel v25

12-12-2005, 11:25 PM

Are jjflr and blackmallard the same person:confused: Just wondering.;)

Bruschibabe

12-12-2005, 11:26 PM

The Dolphins were listed as one of the top three gainers for next week, so your opinion is shared by JJ's formula.

Yes I understand that but thanks for pointing it out. I was basically putting both of those together and showing how much sense it made since Pitt is above NE yet NE beat them in a head to head....

Blackmallard

12-12-2005, 11:33 PM

Are jjflr and blackmallard the same person:confused: Just wondering.;)

Hehe, no I've never met him. I do like discussing power rankings though, and this one is one of my favorites. I also happen to think that the Chargers are a great team this year so it was natural for me to jump in. I'm thinking about posting the Prisco rankings and the DVOA rankings also to spark more debates, especially Prisco's since they are just his opinion and don't even make sense sometimes but one Power ranking to argue over is probably enough.

I don't really think that this ranking is dead on about all the teams....but it is a computer model based on what seems to be some good info to me.

I'm sure his rebuttals would have been much different. (also I agreed that the Bengals are getting underrated)

Blackmallard

12-12-2005, 11:37 PM

Yes I understand that but thanks for pointing it out. I was basically putting both of those together and showing how much sense it made since Pitt is above NE yet NE beat them in a head to head....

New England looks like it is playing better and better lately. I would not be suprised to see them keep climbing. No one can say that the Bucs aren't any good if the Pats handle them like they did the Jets and the Bills.

Soel v25

12-12-2005, 11:39 PM

Hehe, no I've never met him. I do like discussing power rankings though, and this one is one of my favorites. I also happen to think that the Chargers are a great team this year so it was natural for me to jump in. I'm thinking about posting the Prisco rankings and the DVOA rankings also to spark more debates, especially Prisco's since they are just his opinion and don't even make sense sometimes but one Power ranking to argue over is probably enough.

Lol, don't mention prisco's name around me, I can't stomach that guy. The only rankings I've ever semi-liked are Sagarin's.

Blackmallard

12-12-2005, 11:43 PM

Lol, don't mention prisco's name around me, I can't stomach that guy. The only rankings I've ever semi-liked are Sagarin's.

That's why I like him so much. Some of the stuff he says is just indefensible. I think he does it on purpose sometimes to make people come see what bizzare insight he has next.

Computer model rankings are interesting, you might be suprised how hard it is to make a formula that seperates "good" teams from "bad" ones especially if they are close at all. One thing this formula does not do is account for divisions, seedings, etc so it would be a lousy way to guess who was going to advance in the playoffs since those are huge factors. It also can not account for matchups that make a team do much better against one team than another, and it does not account for poor performances due to injuries that are no longer a factor, you just have to use your judgement on those.

The rankings would also be much more signifigant if all of the teams played the same schedule IMO. I think it does a better job therefore of ranking AFC vs AFC than AFC vs NFC since there is so much more in-conference play.

jjflr

12-13-2005, 09:54 AM

Are jjflr and blackmallard the same person:confused: Just wondering.;)

No, but I have heard rumors that I have a twin brother that I was seperated from at birth .......... ;)

(NOTE: Blackmallard is one of the most intelligent, observant, and objective posters on this site.........just my opinion, though.........:) )

BigBenCan7

12-13-2005, 05:04 PM

The previously ranked #17 Patriots absolutely DESTROYED a division opponent ON THE ROAD..........They outgained them like 500 yards to 200 yards and it was just as bad on the scoreboard..............

The Steelers at #13 handled the #7 team AT HOME, outgained them, and beat them by 12............good win...........just like the Patriots

It doesn't matter what they were previously ranked, the Steelers should move up more than New England. They DESTORYED a division opponent, that division opponent is also one of the worst teams in the NFL. The Steelers offense dismantled the best defense in the NFL. Call me crazy, but I'd say that putting up 21 against the Bears means a lot more than putting up 35 against the Bills. They manhandled the "7th" best team in the NFL, while the Pats beat the "Most disappointing team in the NFL this year." The problem is that the Patriots are going to move up more than the Steelers after beating an awful team, when the Steelers beat one of the best teams in the NFL. That makes no sense to me.

anditsgood

12-13-2005, 10:00 PM

I think im going to wait to comment until jj posts his power poll--and then ill know if he and prisco are drinking the same koolaide :D

Bruschibabe

12-13-2005, 10:21 PM

It doesn't matter what they were previously ranked, the Steelers should move up more than New England. They DESTORYED a division opponent, that division opponent is also one of the worst teams in the NFL. The Steelers offense dismantled the best defense in the NFL. Call me crazy, but I'd say that putting up 21 against the Bears means a lot more than putting up 35 against the Bills. They manhandled the "7th" best team in the NFL, while the Pats beat the "Most disappointing team in the NFL this year." The problem is that the Patriots are going to move up more than the Steelers after beating an awful team, when the Steelers beat one of the best teams in the NFL. That makes no sense to me.

No disrespect Ben but NE did beat Pitt in a head to head match up at Heinz...yet they still trail the Steelers in these power polls...Brady has had 4 300 yard plus passing games, How many had Ben had?..

In case you missed the game..Pats did a bit more than "beat" the supposed most dissapointing team in the NFL, they dominated them on both sides of the ball ..If I wanted to get technical, I could say that Pitt just came off a three game losing streak yet the Pats haven't dropped back to back games all season so they should be higher than Pitt..Not only that but their defense has been 28th in the league and within the past few weeks they have moved up to almost top ten..They have been slowly improving whether anyone wants to see that or not..

JMO so please don't take offense...

RaiderZord

12-13-2005, 10:24 PM

I think im going to wait to comment until jj posts his power poll--and then ill know if he and prisco are drinking the same koolaide :D

I've already seen it :rolleyes:

jjflr

12-14-2005, 10:54 AM

I've already seen it :rolleyes:

Are you hacking again, Zord ?

So, first you're stalking Kate Beckinsale, NOW you're hacking jjflr's computer...............:nono:

What are we going to do with you ???

I'm going to have to move my power rankings off of this computer.............

BigBenCan7

12-14-2005, 03:04 PM

No disrespect Ben but NE did beat Pitt in a head to head match up at Heinz...yet they still trail the Steelers in these power polls...Brady has had 4 300 yard plus passing games, How many had Ben had?..

In case you missed the game..Pats did a bit more than "beat" the supposed most dissapointing team in the NFL, they dominated them on both sides of the ball ..If I wanted to get technical, I could say that Pitt just came off a three game losing streak yet the Pats haven't dropped back to back games all season so they should be higher than Pitt..Not only that but their defense has been 28th in the league and within the past few weeks they have moved up to almost top ten..They have been slowly improving whether anyone wants to see that or not..

JMO so please don't take offense...

I don't disagree that there could be a case made for the Patriots to be ahead of the Steelers. The disagreement here was not who was ahead of who, it was who was moving up more. How much you move up a certain week is based off of how you played the previous week, and I'd say that the Steelers' win deserves more recognition than the Patriots' win. Both were a statement, but it's obvious that the Bears are a much more formidable foe than the Bills.