YoHo's Power Rankings: Week Eight [Archive] - Pigskin Heaven

YoHoChecko

10-31-2006, 02:11 AM

The new power rankings are up and formatted and on time! So everyone should have a solid week's worth of discussion ready for me. Yes, the Panthers, Steelers and even Colts are a bit lower than their fans will deem appropriate, so it should be a raucus good time!

The NFL has gone crazy. The consensus "two worst teams" in the league, the Titans and the Raiders have each won two straight games--not to mention the Packers also joining that club. There are four teams with 8 games completed; three of them are 4-4, and then the Cardinals are 1-7. There are NINE 2-5 teams. There is ONE 3-4 team. There are at least eight teams that seem capable of winning or losing to ANY team every week--maybe 18 of them. Weird stuff.

However, some things stay consistent. The Colts win, the Bears win, the Patriots win. The Cardinals lose, the Lions and Dolphins don't win (ok, so they had bye weeks). All of this makes the rankings below, say, #8, very difficult. Too many of these teams have beaten each other and then lost to someone awful. There can be no methodology except to rely on my own brilliance.... and so that's what I did.

Crunked

10-31-2006, 05:44 AM

I am not even going to debate positioning with you this week, not that I had issue in previous weeks (other than wanting full disclosure on your reasoning) I do however want to point out one thing stated by coach Dungy, and he revisited it in detail in his Monday press conference, now I am not part of the inner circle of the Indy Colts so I must take what he is saying at face value to some extent, but I do understand the game to a degree and I know there is at least some merit in what he is saying.

He has said this same basic comment 5 times this year after games and recently summed it up this way.........."Teams are coming at us in very specific ways this year pulling things out of their playbook that we have not seen on film"

His precise quote from this Mondays press conference on this read this way:

Defensively, we played pretty well in the first half, gave up a couple of passes on some bootlegs, one dash-throwback that Coach (Mike) Shanahan brought out from the old days. We hadn’t really worked on that one. That was a big play for them to get their first touchdown drive going. The second half, they came at us offensively, ran some plays that they have in their arsenal that they don’t run a lot and they changed some blocking things, and we didn’t really respond quick enough. We made a couple of plays, had a couple of stops early in the half to get our offense the ball and we got the stop at the end of the game.

here is another example:

"People don't always play us the way they play other teams, so you prepare all week and you go in feeling like you have an idea of what you're going to get. Sometimes we get that, sometimes we don't," Dungy said

Now, this is not offered as an excuse because poor play is poor play, but I did find it interesting that he said Washington, Tennessee, Jacksonville, NY Giants, NY Jets all did similar things where they ran plays not in their "standard" package that you see on film. In all those games the Colts played down to the wire, much the same as in Denver...so I will not argue that our run defense is suspect, I am just making the assertion that maybe teams are using the Steeler formula (being an aggressive passing team in playoffs after running it down everyonese throat previous to that) of coming out doing something atypical in hopes of setting us on our ear.

an observation people not an excuse read carefully or melon tweaking will ensue

jjflr

10-31-2006, 09:05 AM

Soel v25

10-31-2006, 09:21 AM

I will argue one point that I know I am right about, and you are definitely wrong. The Bears are not 5-0.;)

YoHoChecko

10-31-2006, 09:58 AM

well, maybe crunked doesn't want to argue positioning with you........but I will..........

The Chiefs are NOT a Top 10 team........they're probably not even Top 15........this team will be lucky to finish 8-8

The Steelers BEHIND the Browns, 49ers, and Packers ? Are you telling me that if these 4 teams played double round-robin, the Steelers would go 0-6 or 1-5 (last place) ? C'mon YoHo.........you're just trying to stir the pot......they're AT LEAST better than the 49ers.........they might be on the same level as the Browns and Packers right now but definitely not the 49ers

Dolphins are the worst team in football right now (but the Cardinals are pretty bad also)

One place I definitely DON'T argue is the Patriots at #2............If I were to make opinion-based rankings..........I might put them #1.........they have been my Super Bowl pick since about week 4..........
First of all, power rankings, in general, often lean towards the recent, so as to reflect how powerful they are right now. The Chiefs have recently defeated the Chargers and the Seahawks. They have won, I think, 4 out of 5. They may have started the season slowly, but right now, I see them as a pretty dangerous team.

Secondly, the Steelers just lost to the Raiders. They are 2-5 and they lost... to the Raiders. I find it very difficult to argue that they should be higher. WHat do you base this on? On Big Ben USED to be good? Personally, the Bears' game aside, I think the 49ers offense could put up at least 27 on the Steelers right now, and against ANY team, I'm not sure I trust Big Ben not to give the ball away right now. If Batch were their starter, they'd be significantly higher. This is no pot stirring... the Steelers frickin BLOW right now. They just lost... to the RAIDERS... despite giving up only 98 yards. ANd I'd give credit to their D for holding the team to 98 yards except they just gave up 41 to the Falcons last week. Good teams win even when they play badly. Bad teams find a way to lose even when they do things very well... and there we have our 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers.

Oh, and Crunked, The Broncos did NOT throw 180 yards worth of things that weren't on film at the Colts in the second half, on the ground. Maybe that can explain even 80 yards, but when a team RUNS for 180 yards in one HALF, any sort of comment like the one Dungy just made almost seems laughable. Seriously, if I had heard that comment, I might have dropped them a couple spots for having an excuse-maker at coach. Maybe YOU weren't trying to make excuses for the team, but it sure sounds like HE is. The Broncos run the ball. They run it a lot. I'VE seen that on film, and you know that can come nowhere CLOSE to explaining their consitently ****-poor run defense.

StevenSD

10-31-2006, 10:46 AM

The comment you made for the Chargers can easily be made for the Broncos, so I don't understand the huge difference between the two rankings.

YoHoChecko

10-31-2006, 10:59 AM

The comment you made for the Chargers can easily be made for the Broncos, so I don't understand the huge difference between the two rankings.
The Broncos won 5 straight games before losing a very close game to one of the league's elite teams.

The Chargers started out hot against weak opponenets but have dropped games to the Ravens and Chiefs. I don't consider the Ravens to be quite as good as their record and I don't consider the Chiefs to be all that great, either. So the Chargers have lost some momentum and shown that they will drop games to teams that they SHOULD beat.

Also, I don't consider the Broncos defense to have been "exposed" as I do the Chargers because I ever thought the Broncos D was as good as its points numbers indicated... and because most teams won't have Peyton Manning throwing to Reggie Wayne. I legitimately thought the Chargers had the best defense around--or right up there with the Bears and Ravens, and that has been proven false, so I feel as if more has been "exposed" there.

But mainly, I just find it difficult to reconcile the Chiefs loss... it's a division opponent. You NEED that win. They are hot and playing well right now, but they're a run-first team and the Chargers are built to stop the run. It was strength against strength and the Chargers got pushed aside.

Crunked

10-31-2006, 11:11 AM

First of all, power rankings, in general, often lean towards the recent, so as to reflect how powerful they are right now. The Chiefs have recently defeated the Chargers and the Seahawks. They have won, I think, 4 out of 5. They may have started the season slowly, but right now, I see them as a pretty dangerous team.

Secondly, the Steelers just lost to the Raiders. They are 2-5 and they lost... to the Raiders. I find it very difficult to argue that they should be higher. WHat do you base this on? On Big Ben USED to be good? Personally, the Bears' game aside, I think the 49ers offense could put up at least 27 on the Steelers right now, and against ANY team, I'm not sure I trust Big Ben not to give the ball away right now. If Batch were their starter, they'd be significantly higher. This is no pot stirring... the Steelers frickin BLOW right now. They just lost... to the RAIDERS... despite giving up only 98 yards. ANd I'd give credit to their D for holding the team to 98 yards except they just gave up 41 to the Falcons last week. Good teams win even when they play badly. Bad teams find a way to lose even when they do things very well... and there we have our 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers.

Oh, and Crunked, The Broncos did NOT throw 180 yards worth of things that weren't on film at the Colts in the second half, on the ground. Maybe that can explain even 80 yards, but when a team RUNS for 180 yards in one HALF, any sort of comment like the one Dungy just made almost seems laughable. Seriously, if I had heard that comment, I might have dropped them a couple spots for having an excuse-maker at coach. Maybe YOU weren't trying to make excuses for the team, but it sure sounds like HE is. The Broncos run the ball. They run it a lot. I'VE seen that on film, and you know that can come nowhere CLOSE to explaining their consitently ****-poor run defense.

point well taken but I dont think DUngy's point was that them running was a surprise but in blocking schemes for the run were atypical of what they had showed on film, and there is some truth to the fact that the Broncos offense was making cut back runs something they had not done much of until Sunday (this year but last year oh yeah) Plummer was succefully rolling out and throwing on the run something he has been successful with in the past but hadnt been doing much of this year...so I think you can attribute about 1/2 to the Colts inept adjustments and 1/2 to denver getting back to what worked last year for them

StevenSD

10-31-2006, 11:21 AM

The Broncos won 5 straight games before losing a very close game to one of the league's elite teams.

The Chargers started out hot against weak opponenets but have dropped games to the Ravens and Chiefs. I don't consider the Ravens to be quite as good as their record and I don't consider the Chiefs to be all that great, either. So the Chargers have lost some momentum and shown that they will drop games to teams that they SHOULD beat.

Also, I don't consider the Broncos defense to have been "exposed" as I do the Chargers because I ever thought the Broncos D was as good as its points numbers indicated... and because most teams won't have Peyton Manning throwing to Reggie Wayne. I legitimately thought the Chargers had the best defense around--or right up there with the Bears and Ravens, and that has been proven false, so I feel as if more has been "exposed" there.

But mainly, I just find it difficult to reconcile the Chiefs loss... it's a division opponent. You NEED that win. They are hot and playing well right now, but they're a run-first team and the Chargers are built to stop the run. It was strength against strength and the Chargers got pushed aside.

Valid points, however, when was the last time an AFC West team won in KC? I can only recall it being in 2004 with the Chargers. Besides, what other team can come back from a 20-3 point deficit in KC and almost win? Defensive play calling was the main reason why KC was able to march down the field, I don't know a single person that likes Prevent. The last two games one of key run stoppers has been out and will be out for one or two more weeks, Igor Olshansky. If anything, those two games are telling people how great Igor is. The Ravens game is a very good point, but again, defense vs defense the home team usually wins, not the road. Not trying to make an excuse for the loses, it's just there are very good reasons behind each one.

chiefzilla

10-31-2006, 07:05 PM

Explain more in detail. Why do you think the Chiefs are an average team and an 8-8 team at best?

well, maybe crunked doesn't want to argue positioning with you........but I will..........

The Chiefs are NOT a Top 10 team........they're probably not even Top 15........this team will be lucky to finish 8-8

The Steelers BEHIND the Browns, 49ers, and Packers ? Are you telling me that if these 4 teams played double round-robin, the Steelers would go 0-6 or 1-5 (last place) ? C'mon YoHo.........you're just trying to stir the pot......they're AT LEAST better than the 49ers.........they might be on the same level as the Browns and Packers right now but definitely not the 49ers

Dolphins are the worst team in football right now (but the Cardinals are pretty bad also)

One place I definitely DON'T argue is the Patriots at #2............If I were to make opinion-based rankings..........I might put them #1.........they have been my Super Bowl pick since about week 4..........

YoHoChecko

10-31-2006, 07:19 PM

Explain more in detail. Why do you think the Chiefs are an average team and an 8-8 team at best?
Hey man, this is my thread; aren't you gonna at least give me some love for recognizing the hot streak and puttin' the Chiefs at ten? People are always so much more comfortable as the victims, huh? haha

BigBenCan7

10-31-2006, 07:25 PM

Secondly, the Steelers just lost to the Raiders. They are 2-5 and they lost... to the Raiders. I find it very difficult to argue that they should be higher.

So you don't think the Steelers could beat the Browns or the 49ers?

WHat do you base this on? On Big Ben USED to be good

Or maybe how good he was the previous two weeks before getting sandwiched between 3 very large men. He'll bounce back, if you don't believe that, you must not watch Ben very often.

chiefzilla

10-31-2006, 07:31 PM

Hey man, this is my thread; aren't you gonna at least give me some love for recognizing the hot streak and puttin' the Chiefs at ten? People are always so much more comfortable as the victims, huh? haha

Sorry, buddy. If you want me to respond to you, you'll have to revise your rankings and put the Chiefs at #20.

But yeah, I'm glad somebody recognizes what the Chiefs have done. i have to agree with you. The team is not flashy. There are 100 excuses for why they shouldn't be winning, but they are, and they're doing so in very impressive fashion. I think this football team as a whole is a lot better than many give them credit for being.

YoHoChecko

10-31-2006, 07:32 PM

So you don't think the Steelers could beat the Browns or the 49ers?
Yes, that is precisely what I think. I don't see them containing the 49ers or scoring much on the Browns. Seriously. They just lost to the Raiders, man... a team that was defeated by both of those teams in question. Right now, the way the Steelers have played with the exception of one big win in KC, I can't think of that many teams the Steelers would beat. Their running game is inconsistent, Hines Ward is their only WR playing well, their QB is playing poorly and their defense got GASHED by the Falcons and hasn't been as reliable against the run as it should have been. They are flat out playing Losing footbal

BigBenCan7

10-31-2006, 07:47 PM

Hines Ward is their only WR playing well,

What? Have you seen the other wide receivers? Both Santonio Holmes and Nate Washington have looked very impressive. In the past three weeks, Santonio has averaged 64 yards per game and 21.3 yards per catch. Nate has also averaged 64 yards per game to go along with his 2 TD catches in the last three weeks. While not exactly earth shattering numbers, they have played well to say the least.

their QB is playing poorly

Indeed. You don't expect him to turn it around just as he did after 3 poor games earlier this season? If that's the case, then I can understand this ranking, otherwise, I'm not seeing it.

and their defense got GASHED by the Falcons and hasn't been as reliable against the run as it should have been.

They were hardly GASHED by the Falcons. Their touchdown drives were of 22 yards, 25 yards, 51 yards, 26 yards, 75 yards, and 65 yards. Two drives for touchdowns that started behind their own 45 yard line. Even with that game, they are still ranked 6th in the league defensively.

I'm not expecting any top 10 ranking, or even a top 20 ranking. But come on, the Browns? :(

jjflr

10-31-2006, 09:14 PM

The Chiefs have recently defeated the Chargers and the Seahawks. They have won, I think, 4 out of 5. They may have started the season slowly, but right now, I see them as a pretty dangerous team.

Secondly, the Steelers just lost to the Raiders. They are 2-5 and they lost... to the Raiders. I find it very difficult to argue that they should be higher. WHat do you base this on?

My counter-argument to both the Chiefs and Steelers positions...........

Steelers 45
Chiefs 7

Does anyone else remember this game happening or did I just imagine it ?

Yes, it's only one game.......but when is the last time someone like the Cardinals beat someone like the Colts 45-7 ?

I can't recall one...........

Was the game just a complete fluke on both sides of the ball ?

Were the Chiefs players abducted by aliens who wanted to play in their place so they took over their bodies but didn't understand the game or how the 'funny-shaped ball' was suppossed to be thrown and caught and why they were suppossed to tackle the guys on the other team ?

Were the Steelers gloriously returned to Super Bowl form for one, brief afternoon only to have it stolen away from them the next week ?

Here is a much more likely reality:

The Chiefs and Steelers are both middle-of-the-pack teams.........the Chiefs have pulled out a couple of close victories and the Steelers have lost a couple of close games...........the Chiefs could very easily be 2-5 and the Steelers could be 4-3 with a few bounces here and there..........

jjflr

10-31-2006, 09:26 PM

Explain more in detail. Why do you think the Chiefs are an average team and an 8-8 team at best?

zilla, sorry it took me a while to respond.........i just got back on..........

I've seen a few of their games this year.......... the Broncos, Chargers, and Seahawks games (the 3 games where the Chiefs allegedly played their best) and I have not been impressed........they allowed the Chargers to come from WAY back and they needed a 53 yard FG to prevent overtime...........they allowed the Seahawks to come from WAY back and take the lead late in the game...........they should have had the Broncos against the ropes but couldn't close the deal (and I'm not buying the coin flip argument because that was a defensive struggle......the Chiefs could have easily dominated in a field position battle by kicking off......instead, they allowed the Broncos to drive right down the field and win it)............and 3 of their other 4 games were even less impressive............got beaten by the Bengals and Steelers pretty badly........and barely beat the Cardinals.......

not impressed.........8-8 at best...........

chiefzilla

10-31-2006, 09:37 PM

Actually, there is a large story in KC that the Chiefs may have been victims to a... sex toy convention... that was being held in their hotel. The rumor is that there were 7-10 Chiefs that were there and seen hanging out very late into the night. And the general feeling is, there were a ton of hot ladies roaming around the hotel all day, so it may have affected more than just a few Chiefs. It almost reminds me of the story of how LT used to order prostitutes for opposing teams to tire them out the next day. That does sound like an excuse, but if you look at the energy level the Chiefs played with in Pittsburgh versus every other game this season, it is complete night and day. You can't deny that the CHiefs have played every game but the Steelers game with a ton of energy. IN the Steelers game, they looked tired, didn't want to tackle, didn't look like they wanted to be there.

My counter-argument to both the Chiefs and Steelers positions...........

Steelers 45
Chiefs 7

Does anyone else remember this game happening or did I just imagine it ?

Yes, it's only one game.......but when is the last time someone like the Cardinals beat someone like the Colts 45-7 ?

I can't recall one...........

Was the game just a complete fluke on both sides of the ball ?

Were the Chiefs players abducted by aliens who wanted to play in their place so they took over their bodies but didn't understand the game or how the 'funny-shaped ball' was suppossed to be thrown and caught and why they were suppossed to tackle the guys on the other team ?

Were the Steelers gloriously returned to Super Bowl form for one, brief afternoon only to have it stolen away from them the next week ?

Here is a much more likely reality:

The Chiefs and Steelers are both middle-of-the-pack teams.........the Chiefs have pulled out a couple of close victories and the Steelers have lost a couple of close games...........the Chiefs could very easily be 2-5 and the Steelers could be 4-3 with a few bounces here and there..........

chiefzilla

10-31-2006, 10:01 PM

What's interesting about this argument, is that you're knocking on a team for barely beating three teams that each have 4 or more wins. The Broncos and Chargers are in almost everyone's top 10. Some have both of them in their top 5. These are teams that have won 5 games each. They beat the Chargers -- only one of 2 teams to do so. They almost beat the Broncos IN DENVER, which, by the way, would've made them the first team to beat the Broncos in Denver in TWO YEARS. So winning against those 3 teams is considered a bad thing, I'm not sure.

jj, I have always contend that the overtime rules are moronic. No matter which way you spin it, 9 times out of 10, offenses score points for you. So yes, it's a legit question to ask whether KC could've won if they won the coin toss. Now, as for how the Chiefs allowed the Broncos into field goal range, remember, it was a 24-yard pass to Javon Walker and many argue that he pushed off on Ty Law. Those points aside, Denver is a top 5 team in the league. They have been virtually unbeatable at home over the past 3 seasons. Yet, the Chiefs went into their house and they took that top 5 team into overtime. Keep in mind, also, that this was Damon Huard's first start as a starter in 5 years and the Chiefs clearly did not open up the offense to nearly the extent that they are doing now.

Here's my main contention, though, jj. You say that the Chiefs are an average team. The Chiefs absolutely dominated the Chargers early, then lost the lead when they got too conservative--they are certainly not the first to do this, but it shouldn't take away how impressive the CHiefs looked when they were "trying" to score points. The Chiefs absolutely dominated the Seahawks; it was basically two careless mistakes that allowed the Seahawks to even be in the game--a very ill-advised fumble by Huard in Seahawks' territory and a ridiculous botched snap. I'm not sure how you couldn't be impressed with the Chiefs' last 2 victories. Yes, they played sloppy. But if we're talking about the pure ability to win games, the Chiefs should have looked very convincing. Point being, the Chiefs have looked dominant in half of their games. Anybody who saw the Chargers and Seahawks game will tell you that the Chiefs absolutely dominated in both games, even if the score turned out closer than it should have. Even against Denver, anybody will tell you that the Chiefs absolutely dominated the Broncos, but were held back because they couldn't get into the end zone (which, by the way, was largely due to the Chiefs not trusting Huard to throw deeper routes which they clearly do now).

I'm just sort of scratching my head at how beating or losing to a top 5 team by less than a TD is a bad thing. Or, for that matter, why the Chiefs beating Arizona by a few points is such a negative, whereas the Colts barely beating the Titans or the Bears barely beating the Cardinals isn't. It doesn't matter how it was done, the Chiefs have won 4 of the last 5 games. And the game before that, they almost beat Denver, one of the top 5 teams in the league. The Colts, by the way, have not beaten any team but the Texans and Redskins (2 below .500 teams) by more than a TD. Does that make their wins any less impressive?

I certainly do not believe the Chiefs are top 5 or dominant by any means. What I do believe is that the Chiefs are a solid team, definitely a very above-average team, that can beat any team in the league. There is not a single team in this league that they couldn't beat.

zilla, sorry it took me a while to respond.........i just got back on..........

I've seen a few of their games this year.......... the Broncos, Chargers, and Seahawks games (the 3 games where the Chiefs allegedly played their best) and I have not been impressed........they allowed the Chargers to come from WAY back and they needed a 53 yard FG to prevent overtime...........they allowed the Seahawks to come from WAY back and take the lead late in the game...........they should have had the Broncos against the ropes but couldn't close the deal (and I'm not buying the coin flip argument because that was a defensive struggle......the Chiefs could have easily dominated in a field position battle by kicking off......instead, they allowed the Broncos to drive right down the field and win it)............and 3 of their other 4 games were even less impressive............got beaten by the Bengals and Steelers pretty badly........and barely beat the Cardinals.......

not impressed.........8-8 at best...........

jjflr

10-31-2006, 10:52 PM

I love your passion zilla, as always...............I love getting you riled up about your Chiefs.......now, to counter some of your points........

Anybody who saw the Chargers and Seahawks game will tell you that the Chiefs absolutely dominated in both games, even if the score turned out closer than it should have.

I DID see both games and I wouldn't say that the Chiefs absolutely dominated both games...........I saw a team almost puke all over themselves in both games and that should worry their players, coaches, and fans

Even against Denver, anybody will tell you that the Chiefs absolutely dominated the Broncos, but were held back because they couldn't get into the end zone

i wouldn't say the Chiefs dominated the Broncos either and 'getting the ball into the end zone' is the difference between success and failure in this league so if they couldn't, of course they lost.........

why the Chiefs beating Arizona by a few points is such a negative, whereas the Colts barely beating the Titans or the Bears barely beating the Cardinals isn't.

The difference ?

Neither the Colts or Bears have lost 3 games, including one by 45-7 to a team that popular opinion says is horrible.............

What I do believe is that the Chiefs are a solid team, definitely a very above-average team, that can beat any team in the league. There is not a single team in this league that they couldn't beat.

and this is where we disagree.........a solid, very above-average team that could beat anybody in this league would be top 10.......in fact, YOHO's position of #10 is too low by your standards.........

I would put them somewhere from #14 to #18 in an opinion-based ranking......I think that's about where they are in my formulaic rankings also.

I'm sure we could get an event put on vbookie if you wanted to wager on the over/under on Chiefs wins for the year..........if they ARE solid and very above-average, as you claim, then they should win 10 or more games, right ?

If they are average and right in the middle of the league, as I claim, they'll win somewhere around 8 games, right ?

We could set the over/under at 9 games and I will take the under and you can take the over.........we just need to decide how much we're wagering..........

and we can wager Vcash or something else, if you would prefer..........

I would be willing to wear a sig of your choice proclaiming your victory over me or something like that..............let me know

StevenSD

10-31-2006, 10:58 PM

I give the Chiefs a lot of credit, they should be higher, and honestly I'm scared to see what would happen with Green back behind center.

chiefzilla

10-31-2006, 11:40 PM

I'd be willing to do that, though, I'd probably be too lazy to come up with a signature or figure out how to do vbookie or anything like that. I'll just take you at your word. I'll say the Chiefs can win 10. You say 8.

I will say, one of my slight reservations... I am starting to question whether starting Green will disrupt their momentum. After all, the difference between 8 and 10 games won is 2 games, and I could see Green perhaps costing them 1 or 2 games early in his return.

But as for whether the Chiefs will win 8 or more. Seems like a given. 2 games vs. Oakland. 1 game vs. Miami. 1 game vs. Cleveland. 1 game against Baltimore and 1 game against Jacksonville in Arrowhead in December (where they are virtually unbeatable). That's 6 games they have a really, really good chance of winning.

I love your passion zilla, as always...............I love getting you riled up about your Chiefs.......now, to counter some of your points........

I DID see both games and I wouldn't say that the Chiefs absolutely dominated both games...........I saw a team almost puke all over themselves in both games and that should worry their players, coaches, and fans

i wouldn't say the Chiefs dominated the Broncos either and 'getting the ball into the end zone' is the difference between success and failure in this league so if they couldn't, of course they lost.........

The difference ?

Neither the Colts or Bears have lost 3 games, including one by 45-7 to a team that popular opinion says is horrible.............

and this is where we disagree.........a solid, very above-average team that could beat anybody in this league would be top 10.......in fact, YOHO's position of #10 is too low by your standards.........

I would put them somewhere from #14 to #18 in an opinion-based ranking......I think that's about where they are in my formulaic rankings also.

I'm sure we could get an event put on vbookie if you wanted to wager on the over/under on Chiefs wins for the year..........if they ARE solid and very above-average, as you claim, then they should win 10 or more games, right ?

If they are average and right in the middle of the league, as I claim, they'll win somewhere around 8 games, right ?

We could set the over/under at 9 games and I will take the under and you can take the over.........we just need to decide how much we're wagering..........

and we can wager Vcash or something else, if you would prefer..........

I would be willing to wear a sig of your choice proclaiming your victory over me or something like that..............let me know

jjflr

11-01-2006, 09:16 PM

YoHoChecko

11-02-2006, 11:40 AM

My counter-argument to both the Chiefs and Steelers positions...........

Steelers 45
Chiefs 7

Does anyone else remember this game happening or did I just imagine it ?

Yes, it's only one game.......but when is the last time someone like the Cardinals beat someone like the Colts 45-7 ?

I can't recall one...........

Was the game just a complete fluke on both sides of the ball ?

Were the Chiefs players abducted by aliens who wanted to play in their place so they took over their bodies but didn't understand the game or how the 'funny-shaped ball' was suppossed to be thrown and caught and why they were suppossed to tackle the guys on the other team ?

Were the Steelers gloriously returned to Super Bowl form for one, brief afternoon only to have it stolen away from them the next week ?

Here is a much more likely reality:

The Chiefs and Steelers are both middle-of-the-pack teams.........the Chiefs have pulled out a couple of close victories and the Steelers have lost a couple of close games...........the Chiefs could very easily be 2-5 and the Steelers could be 4-3 with a few bounces here and there..........
You're right, the Steelers could easily be 4-3... but not with a couple bounces: with a different QB. He spoon fed the Raiders the win, and he's cost them at least one other game. Batch, on the other hand, played great. Roethlisberger has had one good game all season, and when he did, they won big. But I'd disagree about the Chiefs easily being 2-5. Maybe top 10 is too high, but there aren't many 4-3 teams playing better than them right now, and there aren't many teams with records better than 4-3... and the 4-4 Panthers and Jets just lost and didn't look too strong. The 4-4 Jags can't be counted on for anything... Win 4 out of 5, you mover up; bottom line.

As for the Steelers, I find it very difficult to understand why I have to keep defending putting a miserable 2-5 team down with the other miserable 2-5 teams, especially after losing to the Raiders, thought to be one of the most miserable of all the teams. We have to stop thinking of the Steelers as Super Bowl Champions, because at 2-5 with their recent losses, they are simply a bad team. They have a starting QB who, despite his breif history of success, cannot be relied upon this season AT ALL. He is a turnover waiting to happen.

BigBenCan7

11-02-2006, 03:40 PM

You're right, the Steelers could easily be 4-3... but not with a couple bounces: with a different QB. He spoon fed the Raiders the win, and he's cost them at least one other game. Batch, on the other hand, played great. Roethlisberger has had one good game all season, and when he did, they won big. But I'd disagree about the Chiefs easily being 2-5. Maybe top 10 is too high, but there aren't many 4-3 teams playing better than them right now, and there aren't many teams with records better than 4-3... and the 4-4 Panthers and Jets just lost and didn't look too strong. The 4-4 Jags can't be counted on for anything... Win 4 out of 5, you mover up; bottom line.

So if a game in which a quarterback completes 16 of his 22 attempts, throws for 238 yards, 3 touchdowns, and a passer rating of 147.3 is not considered a "good game," what is?

As for the Steelers, I find it very difficult to understand why I have to keep defending putting a miserable 2-5 team down with the other miserable 2-5 teams, especially after losing to the Raiders, thought to be one of the most miserable of all the teams. We have to stop thinking of the Steelers as Super Bowl Champions, because at 2-5 with their recent losses, they are simply a bad team. They have a starting QB who, despite his breif history of success, cannot be relied upon this season AT ALL. He is a turnover waiting to happen.

Maybe they believe that a quarterback that has never thrown for a season passer rating below 98 or missed a conference championship game in his two years in the league will turn his game around after introducing his face to a windshield of a car, having an appendectomy, and being knocked out by three very large men.

YoHoChecko

11-02-2006, 07:36 PM

So if a game in which a quarterback completes 16 of his 22 attempts, throws for 238 yards, 3 touchdowns, and a passer rating of 147.3 is not considered a "good game," what is?

Maybe they believe that a quarterback that has never thrown for a season passer rating below 98 or missed a conference championship game in his two years in the league will turn his game around after introducing his face to a windshield of a car, having an appendectomy, and being knocked out by three very large men.
I'm sorry, you are correct and I apologize.... two good games, one bad game, three awful games. I mis-spoke.

And as for thinking he'll come back: two seasons is not a very long track record, for one. Secondly, I bet the Dolphins though Daunte Culpepper would come back fine form his knee injury, too. And I spent the first half of last season thinking that a QB who had never lost more than 8 games in 13 years would rally the troops, stop losing close games and throwing interceptions and rectify the Packers' season; eventually, BBC, you must let go of the past and evaluate him on how he is playing. Yes, he has had numerous injuries play a factor, but the REASONS do not eliminate the REALITY... and that is for whatever reason, Big Ben is playing like a Big Loser. And there's no reason to beleive the combination of HAVING these traunas and rushing back despite them isn't going to have a long-term impact on him and his play. Two concussions within 6 months and he plays the week immediately following the second one? That's as stupid as not wearing a helmet to ride a... oh, wait.

He is not playing well. He is the QB of the team... and thing is, even if he DID play well, the Steelers are only 4-3, probably. As I said earlier, the team has shown that they can lose defensive struggles AND shoot-outs. Like a true bad team, they have found ways to lose this season.

BigBenCan7

11-02-2006, 07:51 PM

I'm sorry, you are correct and I apologize.... two good games, one bad game, three awful games. I mis-spoke.

And as for thinking he'll come back: two seasons is not a very long track record, for one. Secondly, I bet the Dolphins though Daunte Culpepper would come back fine form his knee injury, too. And I spent the first half of last season thinking that a QB who had never lost more than 8 games in 13 years would rally the troops, stop losing close games and throwing interceptions and rectify the Packers' season; eventually, BBC, you must let go of the past and evaluate him on how he is playing. Yes, he has had numerous injuries play a factor, but the REASONS do not eliminate the REALITY... and that is for whatever reason, Big Ben is playing like a Big Loser. And there's no reason to beleive the combination of HAVING these traunas and rushing back despite them isn't going to have a long-term impact on him and his play. Two concussions within 6 months and he plays the week immediately following the second one? That's as stupid as not wearing a helmet to ride a... oh, wait.

He is not playing well. He is the QB of the team... and thing is, even if he DID play well, the Steelers are only 4-3, probably. As I said earlier, the team has shown that they can lose defensive struggles AND shoot-outs. Like a true bad team, they have found ways to lose this season.

There's some good old YoHo reasoning. I still feel that they would be able to beat the Browns, the 49ers, and maybe the Packers if they played them next week, but I understand where you are coming from now, and will say that I do agree with your reasoning.

Just a question though; do you feel that Ben will be back, performance wise? This doesn't have anything to do with the rankings, I'm just curious as to what your opinion is on the subject.

YoHoChecko

11-02-2006, 09:00 PM

There's some good old YoHo reasoning. I still feel that they would be able to beat the Browns, the 49ers, and maybe the Packers if they played them next week, but I understand where you are coming from now, and will say that I do agree with your reasoning.

Just a question though; do you feel that Ben will be back, performance wise? This doesn't have anything to do with the rankings, I'm just curious as to what your opinion is on the subject.
I have no idea. For one thing, I always thought he benefitted big time from being on a run-first team, but when he had to pass, even in obvious passing situations, he still played exceptionally well, so to what degree, I'm not sure. What hurts is that he had a changeover at WR at the same time as he lost a major force in the running game, and as the article in the steelers thread states, the O-line has been less than stable right now. This would have ben an excellent season to see what he was made of and to see how he performs when asked to lead--and sometimes carry a less complete team than his first two seasons, but then accident, appendectomy, flu, concussion... it's been unreal there.

So, in short, my jury is still out on Roethlisberger. I mean, he had fewer pass attempts in his first two seasons combined than Brett Favre had last season, so we really haven't seen very much of him before all these things went wrong. I know he has a ring and that he performs well under pressure and I know he's an upper echelon QB, but I don't yet know enough to consider him an elite franschise quarterback, even before this year. I know that could ruffle some feathers, but that's how I see it. This season is really an unfair season by which to judge him in the long term. So the jury will remain out with me. I'll have to wait until year four.

I wish he would have taken two games before returning from both of his injuries--the appendectomy and the concussion. Returning so quickly from either of those injuries is DANGEROUS, let alone the fact that it clearly affected his play. He has a reputation as a tough guy with a big ego, and I think that has actually cost him this season.

By the way, I apologize for misleading by typing "in short."

Dreamers

11-02-2006, 11:04 PM

YoHoChecko

11-03-2006, 12:01 AM

I think this is your best work ever! Thank you for finally having Philly where they belong. Although I hope your wrong about Tampa I'd like to see them turn it around. Sorry about doubting you on the Arizona ranking last week.
YES! I've finally impressed you. Who knew all it would take was AZ going in the tank and me dropping the Eagles. WooHoo

Though we'll see how long this keeps up if the Jets keep drop drop dopping like I expect d-:

jjflr

11-03-2006, 09:12 AM

YES! I've finally impressed you. Who knew all it would take was AZ going in the tank and me dropping the Eagles. WooHoo

You still haven't impressed ME, though, and that's all that should matter.........

Do 10 one-handed push-ups............bench-press 350........cure world hunger............and then 'maybe' I'll start to be impressed...........

Blackmallard

11-05-2006, 11:51 PM

YoHoChecko

11-06-2006, 12:03 AM

HA HA HA....the Colts beat another person above them on your YoHo power ranking and STILL haven't adressed their rushing defense problem. Where do they go now? They haven't really improved since week 1, they just go out get run all over and outscore the other guy every week.
How noble of you to wait to make your comments until AFTER the games had been played. Strange, because in my rankings, I flat out said that Colts fans wouldn't even complain because even they knew they were going to lose. I may have been wrong, but I certainly didn't hear much in the way of dissent, my friend d-:

Blackmallard

11-06-2006, 12:10 AM

How noble of you to wait to make your comments until AFTER the games had been played. Strange, because in my rankings, I flat out said that Colts fans wouldn't even complain because even they knew they were going to lose. I may have been wrong, but I certainly didn't hear much in the way of dissent, my friend d-:

I didn't object to their ranking last week. I didn't forsee the Pats turning the ball over five times and trying to play catchup all game. I thought they would match up well against Indianapolis and that Indy would be the team trying to score twice in the last five minutes to force overtime. I'm just wondering: what you do now?

The Colts still haven't really improved, but do you just move them to number one since the Bears fell flat on their face in Miami and the Colts just beat Denver and NE?

Do you leave the Bears on top and write off the Miami debacle pending them beating the Giants?

Do you move Denver or New England into the top spot since they have shown signs of having a good offense and a good defense?

Where is Baltimore now after showing that they aren't going to just "go away"?

Was San Diego's performance against the Browns a good or bad sign?

The HA HA HA part was because the thing thats been holding them back is still not getting better but the only result has been that now before their games we get to find out that they are setting obscure records related to allowing rushing yards without losing.

Oh yeah, and the Saints are pulling ahead in their division after beating Tampa, at least St Louis has your back though as they continue to lose.

YoHoChecko

11-06-2006, 12:14 AM

I didn't object to their ranking last week. I didn't forsee the Pats turning the ball over five times and trying to play catchup all game. I thought they would match up well against Indianapolis and that Indy would be the team trying to score twice in the last five minutes to force overtime. I'm just wondering: what you do now?

The Colts still haven't really improved, but do you just move them to number one since the Bears fell flat on their face in Miami and the Colts just beat Denver and NE?

Do you leave the Bears on top and write off the Miami debacle pending them beating the Giants?

Do you move Denver or New England into the top spot since they have shown signs of having a good offense and a good defense?

Where is Baltimore now after showing that they aren't going to just "go away"?

Was San Diego's performance against the Browns a good or bad sign?
Well, I know what I'm doing with the Colts... what's more difficult for me is to figure out where to put the Bears... a "top 3" team loses badly to a "bottom 3" team. WHat does that mean? Is it just a fluke? Perhaps, but considering the performances against the Cardinals and the Vikings, perhaps it is not. Where is this team? Oy!