Fox NFL Power Rankings

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#1 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

The Fox NFL Power Rankings are out, what are your thoughts? Agree, disagree?

Personally, I think the top 3 teams most people agree on. I think the discussion kicks in further down the list. The Cardinals number 5? A 9-7 team in a weak dicision that surprised everybody when they went deep into the playoffs, who still don't have a surefire number 1 runningback, Fox is ranking them overalmost every team in the NFC South andNFC East? The number three team in the NFC? Come on.

And what's with the NFC South? Don't get me wrong, I'm high on the Falcons, but division champs? What have they done to improve defense? And Carolina number eight after giving up 30+ points in five games down the stretch? Why are the Saints getting no love despite the fact that they were the number one offense last year and, unlike their rivals, have upgraded their D over the postseason?

And the NFC North, the Vikings number 11? People talk about the Bears sucking, but they forget that they were one win away from taking the division title away from the Vikes. And the Packers? They'll be improved, but does anyone think they'll go from one of the worst run defenses to almost snagging a wild card in a run heavy division? Even though the Bears had a better 2008 and made bigger off-season moves the Packers are still ranked ahead of them, and I think nine spots is a little much to seperate two teams that were as close as the Vikings and the Bears. I mean come on, the Redskins? You're ranking a team whose offense is basically one big question mark in one of the most competitive divisions in football ahead of a team with a breakout rookie back and a Pro Bowl QB? And why are the Cowboys so high, despite Romo still being a question mark and despite the fact that most of their moves this off-season have been getting rid of players?

And they're ranking the Bills higher than the Dolphins? The Bills are another team where, aside from TO and their runningbacks the entire offense is a question mark, and their defense isn't completely sound either. Miami had a ten game turnaround last season and added explosive playmakers in the draft, why is Buffalo higher?

And why are the Seahawks lower than the Niners? I'll admit the Hawks had a down season, but with their star QB back they should at least be better than a team who's going back and forth between two underperforming QBs.

It seems to me that these rankings are basically saying there is going to be no change from last year other than the Eagles taking the division and the Pats returning to their rightful throne. I tihnk whoever made this is just trying to play it safe.

Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#2 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts

This would be a much better thread with a link or a chart of the teams (HINT HINT)

Avatar image for monkeytoes61
monkeytoes61

8399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 76

User Lists: 0

#3 monkeytoes61
Member since 2005 • 8399 Posts
Seattle at 27? Give me a break. They should be around 15-20. Our defense is vastly improves, we finally got Hasselbeck a weapon, we got arguably the best player in the draft. Seahawks are going to be a 9-7 team next year, maybe enough to grab the NFC West.
Avatar image for Renegade_Fury
Renegade_Fury

21755

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 Renegade_Fury
Member since 2003 • 21755 Posts

I never take rankings seriously, especially those of the offseason. Prove it on the field, and you'll get your respect.

Avatar image for flowersjf
flowersjf

2856

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#5 flowersjf
Member since 2008 • 2856 Posts

I never take rankings seriously, especially those of the offseason. Prove it on the field, and you'll get your respect.

Renegade_Fury
Yep that's what I'm talking about. But I hope my Vikings do good again this year.
Avatar image for dodgerblue13
dodgerblue13

20846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 dodgerblue13
Member since 2004 • 20846 Posts
A few years ago, if someone predicted the Falcons and the Cardinals as 4 and 5 he'd have been placed in an institution. That said, third? I'll embrace it. Go Iggles.
Avatar image for CleanPlayer
CleanPlayer

9822

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 31

User Lists: 0

#7 CleanPlayer
Member since 2008 • 9822 Posts

This would be a much better thread with a link or a chart of the teams (HINT HINT)

Jaysonguy
Seriously...what is going on!? Anyways, Patriots better be numero uno
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#8 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

Well the NFC North has been weak for a while now. They're going to have to have some strong showings against good teams before anyone breaks the top 10.

Avatar image for dodgerblue13
dodgerblue13

20846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 dodgerblue13
Member since 2004 • 20846 Posts
[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

This would be a much better thread with a link or a chart of the teams (HINT HINT)

CleanPlayer
Seriously...what is going on!? Anyways, Patriots better be numero uno

Here... And Pittsburgh is first, deservedly so. New England is second.
Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#10 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

This would be a much better thread with a link or a chart of the teams (HINT HINT)

dodgerblue13

Seriously...what is going on!? Anyways, Patriots better be numero uno

Here... And Pittsburgh is first, deservedly so. New England is second.

Thanks, and sorry about that. I could swear I included the link with my first post, I must be losing my mind.

Avatar image for NetYankEagle
NetYankEagle

11090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 NetYankEagle
Member since 2007 • 11090 Posts
i didnt even have to look to know that the eagles are third. They have been in just about every power ranking
Avatar image for HurricaneHugo
HurricaneHugo

40807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 HurricaneHugo
Member since 2002 • 40807 Posts
I can't wait until the Eagles lose their wings like Icarus and fall down to reality. Chargers will cream them!
Avatar image for chAzN93
chAzN93

34854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#13 chAzN93
Member since 2004 • 34854 Posts
i dont understand why everyone is rating the seahawks so low....its not their fault they lost half their starters last season...hasselbeck has TJ now...and their defense is still looking solid bills better than the dolphins....no and the NFC South to me is definately the hardest division after the bucs at last :(...the falcons are great but i donno about division champs...the panthers havent lost anything and are pretty mucht hte same team as last year...and the saints..if their defense can actually play defense they have a shot at winning.
Avatar image for flowersjf
flowersjf

2856

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#14 flowersjf
Member since 2008 • 2856 Posts
I can't wait until the Eagles lose their wings like Icarus and fall down to reality. Chargers will cream them!HurricaneHugo
lol that's funny. But an Eagles-Chargers Super Bowl would be awesome.
Avatar image for dodgerblue13
dodgerblue13

20846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 dodgerblue13
Member since 2004 • 20846 Posts
I can't wait until the Eagles lose their wings like Icarus and fall down to reality. Chargers will cream them!HurricaneHugo
Philly will fare better than the Chargers even though the Eagles play in the NFC East and the Chargers are in the...well...you know. With the Chiefs, Broncos, and Raiders. What do you call that little group of powerhouses? AFC West? How cute.
Avatar image for Innovazero2000
Innovazero2000

3159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#16 Innovazero2000
Member since 2006 • 3159 Posts

Well the NFC North has been weak for a while now. They're going to have to have some strong showings against good teams before anyone breaks the top 10.

duxup
if the packers get a run D, and the vikes get a QB...you better believe they are super bowl contenders. That said the packers are a year away in my opinion, and the vikes...we'll, we will see. The Bears got a major upgrade at QB, but eh...we'll see how that works, and the lions...well nuff said.
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#17 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

[QUOTE="duxup"]

Well the NFC North has been weak for a while now. They're going to have to have some strong showings against good teams before anyone breaks the top 10.

Innovazero2000

if the packers get a run D, and the vikes get a QB...you better believe they are super bowl contenders. That said the packers are a year away in my opinion, and the vikes...we'll, we will see. The Bears got a major upgrade at QB, but eh...we'll see how that works, and the lions...well nuff said.

Well Well I'm a Vikings fan and the Vikings even with talent are chronic underachievers so even with talent I think any ranking system would be understandable knocking them down a few spots until they show they can beat some good teams regularly.

Avatar image for mattykovax
mattykovax

22693

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#18 mattykovax
Member since 2004 • 22693 Posts

ehhh....the reigning champs are one and my team is two so everything is allright with the world.

Avatar image for applefan1991
applefan1991

3397

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 applefan1991  Moderator
Member since 2009 • 3397 Posts
The Colts are at 10...yet the Patriots are at 2....riiiiight
Avatar image for dodgerblue13
dodgerblue13

20846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 dodgerblue13
Member since 2004 • 20846 Posts
The Colts are at 10...yet the Patriots are at 2....riiiiightWadeFan
I'd certainly expect the Patriots to be better than the Colts this season.
Avatar image for HurricaneHugo
HurricaneHugo

40807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 HurricaneHugo
Member since 2002 • 40807 Posts
[QUOTE="HurricaneHugo"]I can't wait until the Eagles lose their wings like Icarus and fall down to reality. Chargers will cream them!dodgerblue13
Philly will fare better than the Chargers even though the Eagles play in the NFC East and the Chargers are in the...well...you know. With the Chiefs, Broncos, and Raiders. What do you call that little group of powerhouses? AFC West? How cute.

Doesn't matter, the point is that the Chargers will cream the Eagles when they meet up. :P
Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#22 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

[QUOTE="duxup"]

Well the NFC North has been weak for a while now. They're going to have to have some strong showings against good teams before anyone breaks the top 10.

Innovazero2000

if the packers get a run D, and the vikes get a QB...you better believe they are super bowl contenders. That said the packers are a year away in my opinion, and the vikes...we'll, we will see. The Bears got a major upgrade at QB, but eh...we'll see how that works, and the lions...well nuff said.

I really don't understand how everyone's so down on the Bears. Like I said, they missed the division by one game last season, everyone made such a big deal out of Cutler saying he made them playoff contenders automatically, they still have Matt Forte and Greg Olsen not to mention an upgraded O-line, but everyone's still OK ranking them as third in the division? I mean, the Packers are going through a total defensive overhaul with a rookie at the heart of a 3-4 system, how does uncertainty like that equate to them being ranked higher despite having a worse record last season?

Avatar image for dodgerblue13
dodgerblue13

20846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 dodgerblue13
Member since 2004 • 20846 Posts
Doesn't matter, the point is that the Chargers will cream the Eagles when they meet up. :PHurricaneHugo
I doubt it. But they are coming off games with the Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders, and Giants before the Eagles game and the Eagles face the Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys before the meeting with the Super Chargers. Either way, Philly deserves the number three slot in the preseason and will earn the number one spot in the postseason. E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#24 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

[QUOTE="Innovazero2000"][QUOTE="duxup"]

Well the NFC North has been weak for a while now. They're going to have to have some strong showings against good teams before anyone breaks the top 10.

theone86

if the packers get a run D, and the vikes get a QB...you better believe they are super bowl contenders. That said the packers are a year away in my opinion, and the vikes...we'll, we will see. The Bears got a major upgrade at QB, but eh...we'll see how that works, and the lions...well nuff said.

I really don't understand how everyone's so down on the Bears. Like I said, they missed the division by one game last season, everyone made such a big deal out of Cutler saying he made them playoff contenders automatically, they still have Matt Forte and Greg Olsen not to mention an upgraded O-line, but everyone's still OK ranking them as third in the division? I mean, the Packers are going through a total defensive overhaul with a rookie at the heart of a 3-4 system, how does uncertainty like that equate to them being ranked higher despite having a worse record last season?

The Bear's have some baggage that the Packer's don't: Their owners don't care if they win or loose.

They were in position with that defense to win a Super Bowl for a while and did nothing about it. Now they pickup a QB and ... well who is he going to throw to? Meanwhile that outstanding D of the Bears is showing cracks here and there. It feels more like a window is closing on them than much else. A good QB who played under a good coach going to a team with historically poor offense is not a sure positive pickup for the Bears.

Avatar image for dodgerblue13
dodgerblue13

20846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 dodgerblue13
Member since 2004 • 20846 Posts

[QUOTE="Innovazero2000"][QUOTE="duxup"]

Well the NFC North has been weak for a while now. They're going to have to have some strong showings against good teams before anyone breaks the top 10.

theone86

if the packers get a run D, and the vikes get a QB...you better believe they are super bowl contenders. That said the packers are a year away in my opinion, and the vikes...we'll, we will see. The Bears got a major upgrade at QB, but eh...we'll see how that works, and the lions...well nuff said.

I really don't understand how everyone's so down on the Bears. Like I said, they missed the division by one game last season, everyone made such a big deal out of Cutler saying he made them playoff contenders automatically, they still have Matt Forte and Greg Olsen not to mention an upgraded O-line, but everyone's still OK ranking them as third in the division? I mean, the Packers are going through a total defensive overhaul with a rookie at the heart of a 3-4 system, how does uncertainty like that equate to them being ranked higher despite having a worse record last season?

Cutler is 15-17 as a starter over the last two seasons. He left competent receivers and no defense for a competent defense and no receivers. He has no one to throw to other than Olsen and Forte--Forte lead the team in receptions last year. The defense also isn't as stingy as it used to be. I wouldn't pencil them in ahead of the Vikings or the Packers.
Avatar image for Boston_Boyy
Boston_Boyy

4103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#26 Boston_Boyy
Member since 2008 • 4103 Posts

I never take rankings seriously, especially those of the offseason. Prove it on the field, and you'll get your respect.

Renegade_Fury

Yeah preseason stuff is pretty stupid. Last year the Packers, jags and Browns were top 10 teams in most rankings, the Cowboys were top 5, the Ravens were in the bottom 10, then maybe the worst was the Falcons and Dolphins were in alot of polls there 2 worst teams.

Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#27 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

I never take rankings seriously, especially those of the offseason. Prove it on the field, and you'll get your respect.

Renegade_Fury
Hey they're better than draft score cards!
Avatar image for Boston_Boyy
Boston_Boyy

4103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#28 Boston_Boyy
Member since 2008 • 4103 Posts

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

I never take rankings seriously, especially those of the offseason. Prove it on the field, and you'll get your respect.

duxup

Hey they're better than draft score cards!

It's worse than pre season rankings, but nothing is worse than "projected fantasy stats". Last year I saw several websites give the Falcons a D for there first round pick of Matt Ryan. Look at how that turned out

Avatar image for zombie_forumite
zombie_forumite

576

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 zombie_forumite
Member since 2009 • 576 Posts
[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

This would be a much better thread with a link or a chart of the teams (HINT HINT)

Seriously...what is going on!? Anyways, Patriots better be numero uno

No...I am the biggest pats fan,but the steelers won. SB champ always gets NO 1 thats fair.just the fact that the pats are at 2 is telling.
Avatar image for dodgerblue13
dodgerblue13

20846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 dodgerblue13
Member since 2004 • 20846 Posts

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

I never take rankings seriously, especially those of the offseason. Prove it on the field, and you'll get your respect.

Boston_Boyy

Hey they're better than draft score cards!

It's worse than pre season rankings, but nothing is worse than "projected fantasy stats". Last year I saw several websites give the Falcons a D for there first round pick of Matt Ryan. Look at how that turned out

Fantasy projections are impossible to predict.
Avatar image for NetYankEagle
NetYankEagle

11090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 NetYankEagle
Member since 2007 • 11090 Posts
[QUOTE="dodgerblue13"][QUOTE="HurricaneHugo"]I can't wait until the Eagles lose their wings like Icarus and fall down to reality. Chargers will cream them!HurricaneHugo
Philly will fare better than the Chargers even though the Eagles play in the NFC East and the Chargers are in the...well...you know. With the Chiefs, Broncos, and Raiders. What do you call that little group of powerhouses? AFC West? How cute.

Doesn't matter, the point is that the Chargers will cream the Eagles when they meet up. :P

like the last time they played them:wink: i dont think you want me to bring back memories:)
Avatar image for bball_freak_2
bball_freak_2

1609

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#32 bball_freak_2
Member since 2006 • 1609 Posts

The Colts are at 10...yet the Patriots are at 2....riiiiightWadeFan

Sounds good to me? They lost Harrison, Dungy and a bunch of other coaches, they're pretty much starting over at RB, and their defence just has potential. Meanwhile the Pats got better at almost every position besides OLB. I might not have droppedthe Coltsthat far down, but they definitely don't deserve to be right up there at 3 or 4.

Avatar image for Asneakyshoe
Asneakyshoe

275

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 Asneakyshoe
Member since 2009 • 275 Posts

[QUOTE="WadeFan"]The Colts are at 10...yet the Patriots are at 2....riiiiightbball_freak_2

Sounds good to me? They lost Harrison, Dungy and a bunch of other coaches, they're pretty much starting over at RB, and their defence just has potential. Meanwhile the Pats got better at almost every position besides OLB. I might not have droppedthe Coltsthat far down, but they definitely don't deserve to be right up there at 3 or 4.

We fixed our Run Defence by drafting two DTs. Plus Peyton Manning had bum knees for the first few games, otherwise we would have won the division. They deserve top five.

Avatar image for DaBrainz
DaBrainz

7959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 DaBrainz
Member since 2007 • 7959 Posts

I saw this on there not to long ago. My problem with these type of pre season rankings is that they base it almost completly on last year and not enoughon offseason moves and how the team presently looks. Sports authors should start growing some hair on their peaches and offer some insight and make more bold claims.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#35 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

Couple of things:

You're going to talk about cracks in a defense in defense of a team with an all-new scheme anchored by a rookie that was one of the worst run defenses in the league last year? I'll admit that defense has been one of the weaker parts of the Bears since the Superbowl, but they still managed to beat teams like the Saints, Colts, Eagles, Vikings, Packers, and came within three points of tying or winning games agains the Bucs, Panthers, and Falcons, and coming within 7 of the Titans and Texans. Also, while their pass defense struggled, their run defense was among the best in the league, barring that horrendous game at Lambeau. Also, while most of the Packers' moves on defense this offseason have been getting rookies through the draft, Chicago has signed Pino Tinoisamoa, Josh Bullocksand Glen Earl. Not to say that they're Pro Bowlers or anything, but Chicago has been active in trying to create competition at key spots, not to mention that if some of the D-Line players bounce back and return to form it makes us a much better team, most notably Mark Anderson and Alex Brown. People also forget that Tommie Harris had a very productive season, some argue a Pro Bowl season last year and that we have a rookie lineman who is yet to prove what he can do in Marcus Harrison.

As for the Bears offense, I'd call mediocre instead of poor. We have ALWAYS had a solid running game even in the down years with people like Anthony Thomas, Cedric Benson, and Thomas Jones all having at least one big year. The real weak spot has been the passing game, and even that is blown out of proportion a lot of times simply because it's not the best in the league. I was in the Madden forums on a topic that asked which was the worst Bears QB and Jim Miller was getting a lot of grief. When I started posting some numbers people started to remember real flukes at QB like Cade McNown. At any rate, our quarterbacking has been good enough to win us two division championships and a Superbowl appearance the past four years, and almost a third division championship last year. I won't say play at the position has been great, but you can't get that far under poor play. I see Cutler improving that a LOT. He's not going to be putting up the same numbers, but we managed to hold together a playoff ready team for the past few years, now our one weak spot has become our strong point, I don't see how that doesn't count for something. Plus, between forcing the opposing D to respect the pass and opening up more room for the run and in providing better accuracy for Hester on the long bombs I think ouroffense will be much more respectable.

As for having no receivers, in Denver last season one of Cutler's top targets was a rookie, Eddie Royal. He had 91 receptions for 980 yards and five touchdowns. They also played a different game in Denver. Chicago's passing game has always centered on spreading the ball around and utilizing backs and tight ends. Olsen and Dez Clark are a standout Tight End duo, and having a running back who is utilized in the passing game isn't a bad thing, either. Granted, there should be a reciever or TE who has more receptions, but that should be better this year. As I said, one of the big problems with Hester was that on the long route, in which he is most effective, he was overthrown. In terms of speed, most D-backs, if any can touch him and keep him contained on a route, plus when he did get the ball and didn't miss his route he was able to shake defenders like he had been doing it all his life. Remember, he's only had two seasons at the position ever, including college and high school. It's just going to take some time for him to get adjusted, adn this could be a breakout year. If anything, the presence of Cutler is sure to make him more of a factorwith the deep ball. Also, don't count out the Bears' other receivers. Coaches and scouts are very high on Johnny Knox and Juaqin Iglesias, and Earl Bennett is an old teamate of Cutler's who could see a breakout season. People say he didn't catch a pass last season, but he barely saw any playing time at all. This season is his chance to prove himself. And remember, a quarterback makes a receiver, not the other way around.

Am I saying the Bears should be penciled in ahead fo the Vikings? No, but I think the disparity in the rankings is too much for two teams that were so close last season. Ahead of the Pack, though, why not? What moves has the Pack made to not only stay where they are, but jump ahead of the Bears? They didn't even make 500 last season, is anything they did so drastic as to warrant jumping ahead of the Bears in the standings? I don't see how.

Chargers/Eagles, Chargers have a superbe offense, questions at defense. Eagles, exactly the opposite. McNabb, good as he is, is always a bit of a question mark, especially in the clutch. In SD on the defensive side, Merriman is probably the equivalent of McNabb. Both players are going to have to step up to meet the high expectations people have for their teams. I'll just say, though, that I think the Eagles D is far superior to the Chargers D. I think the Chargers have the potential to go deeer into the playoffs, but head to head I'll take the Eagles IF McNabb can perform at the top of his game. If the whole offense rests on B West then the Chargers will stack the box and shut down the Eagles.

With the Pats/Colts, the Colts play in a VERY competitive division. The Titans are pretty much a surefire playoff team, the Texans are just on the verge of being there, and the Jags have made some very big offseason moves. The AFC South is going to be the AFC's answer to the NFC East. THe PAts, on the other hand, pretty much just have to worry about the fins. The Bills will be better, but playoff better? I'm not convinced. The Jets are still at least a season away from a solid playoff run. I think the East almost unquestionably belongs to the Pats.

Avatar image for Renegade_Fury
Renegade_Fury

21755

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#36 Renegade_Fury
Member since 2003 • 21755 Posts

^^^

Instead of writing all that, how about you just sit back and watch? Power rankings are worse than GS reviews in terms of relevancy.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#37 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

^^^

Instead of writing all that, how about you just sit back and watch? Power rankings are worse than GS reviews in terms of relevancy.

Renegade_Fury

It's not so much the rankings, as I don't think most people agree with the rnakings. The issues are where people are supporting/not supporting the rankings and why. As to why I wrote so much, just in response to posts. I think the Bears are being grossly underrated and problems are being played up way too much, especially in comparison to the Packers. It just seems like everyone expects the Pack to bounce back in a big way while the Bears sort of just stay where they are or worse. I just wanted to take the chance to respond.

Avatar image for Renegade_Fury
Renegade_Fury

21755

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#38 Renegade_Fury
Member since 2003 • 21755 Posts

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

^^^

Instead of writing all that, how about you just sit back and watch? Power rankings are worse than GS reviews in terms of relevancy.

theone86

It's not so much the rankings, as I don't think most people agree with the rnakings. The issues are where people are supporting/not supporting the rankings and why. As to why I wrote so much, just in response to posts. I think the Bears are being grossly underrated and problems are being played up way too much, especially in comparison to the Packers. It just seems like everyone expects the Pack to bounce back in a big way while the Bears sort of just stay where they are or worse. I just wanted to take the chance to respond.

No I get it, but it's still not worth getting riled up about IMO. Training camp hasn't even started, and most of the 1st rounders haven't even been signed yet, so it's way too early to make predictions. Some teams are always going to get the benefit of the doubt, but that's because of past success and popularity. The truth is, no one really knows what type of teams are going to hit the field until at least the third preseason game, but even then that might be too early. As for the Bears, they're an exceptional case after all that Cutler business. I've been a victim of all this preseason hype before, and in my experience it's much better to wait it out and see. If your team plays well during the season, all that respect will come, don't worry.

Avatar image for LoseEagles1245
LoseEagles1245

1115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 LoseEagles1245
Member since 2007 • 1115 Posts
[QUOTE="HurricaneHugo"]I can't wait until the Eagles lose their wings like Icarus and fall down to reality. Chargers will cream them!flowersjf
lol that's funny. But an Eagles-Chargers Super Bowl would be awesome.

It would be awesome except the Eagles won't make the SB. Cowboys-Chargers.
Avatar image for Cube_of_MooN
Cube_of_MooN

9286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#40 Cube_of_MooN
Member since 2005 • 9286 Posts
Patriots'll be back at number one by the end of the season (I hope).
Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#41 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

^^^

Instead of writing all that, how about you just sit back and watch? Power rankings are worse than GS reviews in terms of relevancy.

Renegade_Fury

It's not so much the rankings, as I don't think most people agree with the rnakings. The issues are where people are supporting/not supporting the rankings and why. As to why I wrote so much, just in response to posts. I think the Bears are being grossly underrated and problems are being played up way too much, especially in comparison to the Packers. It just seems like everyone expects the Pack to bounce back in a big way while the Bears sort of just stay where they are or worse. I just wanted to take the chance to respond.

No I get it, but it's still not worth getting riled up about IMO. Training camp hasn't even started, and most of the 1st rounders haven't even been signed yet, so it's way too early to make predictions. Some teams are always going to get the benefit of the doubt, but that's because of past success and popularity. The truth is, no one really knows what type of teams are going to hit the field until at least the third preseason game, but even then that might be too early. As for the Bears, they're an exceptional case after all that Cutler business. I've been a victim of all this preseason hype before, and in my experience it's much better to wait it out and see. If your team plays well during the season, all that respect will come, don't worry.

I don't get riled up in SGD the same way I do sometimes in OTD. To me, going out and finding stats is a fun thing. The only thing that bothers me is seeing things like the Bears being underrated or saying that despite having a good offense a lack of proven receivers is going to tank the season. And I do understand about pre-season rankings, but I still don't think the discussion are all for naught. Yes, every year there's some Miami or Atlanta, but it's not like every team that didn't make 500 one year is automatically going to have a turnaround season the next. The discussion of guessing who's going to be where is the fun part, and it's not people disagreeing with me I don't like, it's points being left out of the discussion, which as I said i find enjoyment in bringing to light.

Avatar image for Mister__Awesome
Mister__Awesome

2439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#42 Mister__Awesome
Member since 2009 • 2439 Posts
Patriots will be a better team than Steelers when it is all set and done.
Avatar image for MoonMarvel
MoonMarvel

8249

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 MoonMarvel
Member since 2008 • 8249 Posts
Minny should be lower, they don't do well enough pass wise on either side to warrant 11.