Wednesday, October 18, 2006

NFL Power Rankings:
Bears Still No. 1?

As usual, submitted without further comment (that's for you in the Comments area) and with embarrassment over using the term "Power Rankings."

Questions for you: (1) Should the Bears still be No. 1? (2) If so, who should be No. 2? (3) Who are your biggest gainers (and droppers) this week?

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

I'd also point you to MJD's excellent rankings for AOL's NFL Fanhouse.

-- D.S.

38 comments:

Jake C said...

Colts @ 4 and Giants @ 16 (behind Atlanta nonetheless)...stop trying to just create controversy :)

Anonymous said...

Wait, wait, wait, did you link the AOL Excellence Rankings because they're the most obscene rankings...ever? EVER? Damn, Dan. Some of their calls make you look TAME.

ChrTh said...

Yes, Detroit won. But Packers beat them, and had a bye week (and played St. Louis close the previous week). How could they drop to 31? Nonsensical. Oh well, Packers play 3 sub-20 (or is it over-20? I never get the rankings nomenclature right) teams in a row, they should be able to earn their way up the list, or they'll be in 31 where they belong.

Richard said...

I think you're giving the Radiers way too much credit.

azcohen said...

GIANTS beat the Falcons, soundly mind you, and they sit behind them? Sorry, do not buy that one.

Brian in Oxford said...

I enjoyed the AOL link's allusions to Mike Tyson's Punch-Out video game for original Nintendo.

Stuff like that makes you want to invent time travel, so we can take washed-up, girl-fightin' Mike back in time and warn him!

I'm kinda surprised the Colts didn't jump up to #1....they did only score 3 fewer offensive points last week than the Bears. If only to say, yes the Bears are good, but I've gotta punish you for playing that bad and pulling the win out of your newly-crowned ass.

marcomarco said...

What's the term i'm looking for.

Someone who starts an arguement, just for the sake of arguing, even tho they don't believe their original statement?

Devil's Advocate? No, too overused.
Instigator? perhaps.

Your rankings are silly, Dan. You're losing street cred in your quest for 100 responses. (yet i still gave you 1/100)

Albert Leshchinsky said...

why are the eagles ranked so high in all the power rankings i see? The there only win against a some what decent opponent came against the cowboys. They have lost to the two teams on their level in the giants and the saints. AS for the giants, how come every power rankings talks about them being so good yet have them listed so low? They have played 5 very tough games so far against all playoff caliber teams and are 3-2 comming into another tough game against the cowboys on the road. If they go 4-2, will people finally start to realize this might be the most talented team in the NFC?

teaboyNC said...

Thanks for FINALLY stepping up and being someone that gives the Panthers the credit they deserve. They have looked terrific since Steve Smith returned. Julius Peppers is gonna break the sack record this year.

Deech said...

Bears should remain #1. They squeaked by a bad team, but the Colts squeaked by the Jets and Titans, who aren't much better (if at all).

FreKy J said...

I think the Bears have to remain #1 despite their poor showing on MNF. Looking past a team you're supposed to steamroll happens to everyone. If they don't rebound by steamrolling their NEXT opponent, then it's time to knock them down a notch.

nyc-steelers fan said...

Teams that should be higher:
Colts, Saints, Giants, Steelers (big surprise...), Jets, Falcons, Titans
Temas that should be lower:
Panthers, Falcons, Ravens (injured QB), Redskins, Raiders

Jo Fer said...

If the Bears are not as good as everyone thinks, it will show against their next two cupcakes, (San Fran, and Miami) and to a greater extent when they go on the east coast tour of Giants, Jets and Patriots. Let's not forget the Bears have always had a Monday night curse, and I'll chalk Monday's near miss up to that.

It's not like they are that much better (if at all) than the next 10 teams or so, but they've earned the #1 until 'de-throned'.

Josh said...

Dan...truly I'm not sure where ya got this one from but the Steelers at 17?! They don't even have a winning record! Big Ben is nothing this year because he's being forced to actually do something in the game other than hand the ball off. Given the current state of affairs I don't think the Steelers will even make the playoffs at this point. Frankly I think your 18th ranked Vikings are one of the most underrated teams in the NFL this year. (That could be because they play in the NFC North and I'm fully willing to admit that.)

I really want to address one great injustice that you (band wagon jumper than you are) keep overlooking. Marques Colston for ROY. He has been the most consistant rookie for ANY team this year. He was 2 picks away from being Mr. Irrelivent and he's currently the most productive rookie on the Saints but is being overshadowed by the big name of Reggie Bush. Look at the stats and give credit where credit is due.

rafael said...

The only QB in the league that does nothing but hand the ball off is Vick.

I'm pretty sure Roethlisberger used his arm last Sunday..hmm..perfect QB rating?

tim said...

Since everyone thinks the Raiders should be ranked lower...I propose the bottom of the rankings as:

32. Buckeyes
33. Raiders

Father of Logan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Father of Logan said...

Why do people care where their team is ranked after the top 10? Is that what society has come to now? Every kid deserves a star even though they finish last in their class because they are dumb? Listen, don’t bitch about a made up ranking system and don’t complain if your team should be 16th instead of 17th, how silly does that sound anyway? Of course my team, The NE Patriots, are going to win the super bowl so whether they are ranked 6th going into week 7 or ranked 1st in week 1 in next years rankings makes no diff to me.

Generik said...

How can you rank an unbeaten team lower then 2 beaten teams? This isn't college ball where some team in the lower tier division tromps everyone, but is facing cupcakes everyweek. This is the NFL, all teams are considered equal (except the Raiders), thus win / loss record HAS to be the dominant stat here. Bears 1, Colts 2.

Charlie (Seattle) said...

Why does everyone have to pick on the Raiders. As soon as Al Davis and Art Shell die...we're going to be back to greatness. Just you wait.

Look at all of these great athletes that want to play for the Raiders: Warren Sapp, Jeff George, Desmond Howard, etc. The list could go on, but I have to go cry over how terrible my team is, and how inept their coaching staff/ownership is.

Steve said...

Albert Leshchinsky said...
AS for the giants, how come every power rankings talks about them being so good yet have them listed so low?

I think it's because Jeremy Shockey is such an incredible tool that people hate the giants and subliminally rank them lower than they should be. I mean is there anyone who is a bigger douchebag than Shockey? I say no.

ChrTh said...

Why do people care where their team is ranked after the top 10?

I honestly don't care, but I use the bottom of the rankings as an indicator as to how much effort a ranker has put into their rankings. If they can't be bothered to concentrate on the whole thing, and get the bottom 10 right, how I can trust what they put in the top 10?

WedgeMcWedgy said...

I second the needing of mention for Marques Colston as ROY

Bobman said...

What's the term i'm looking for.

Someone who starts an arguement, just for the sake of arguing, even tho they don't believe their original statement?


I believe this is referred to as "being Skip Bayless."

Ma4tt (the 4 is silent) said...

To whoever put the Buckeyes at 32 and the Raiders at 33:

Please. No group of boys, no matter how talented, can beat a team made up of men. Ever. Stop dreaming.

Dan:

You called the rankings "excellent," even though the guy gives credit to the Super Bowl Champs by putting them at 8?

(What he wrote follows. It's all true.)

"I know they're under .500. I know they have a lot of issues. But if they keep playing anywhere near the level they did when they massacred the Chiefs, then the 8-spot is way too low. They did anything they wanted against the Chiefs. If they wanted to throw, they threw. If they wanted to run, they ran. If Bill Cowher wanted Herm Edwards to cook him breakfast in bed, he had banana nut pancakes with a side of sausage links."

Once the Steelers coast to a 4-3 record (after shutting down the Falcons' run game and obliterating da Raiders), I hope the Steelers crack your top ten again.

marcomarco said...

lol @ bobman

Richard said...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15316912/

I'm sorry, but how fucked up is this?

Ma4tt (the 4 is silent) said...

richard:

I've sent that article a few times today.. the subject line has been "Celeste D'Elia's son is a wussy."

ndyanksfan05 said...

So you are going with the old "throw darts at the wall" approach to picking your power rankings - i think its a swell system. Just to harp on the giants a little more: do you realize they are behind two teams they have beaten and they are coming off a very strong performance on the road.

Anyway - i think you should consider putting a little blurb next to at least some of your picks explaining what you were thinking, at least to appease your loyal fans.

Brian in Oxford said...

One thing I think people forget in stuff like this is that,

sometimes upsets happen, and teams beat teams they're not as good at, and teams lose to teams they're better than.

All you can do is try to analyze which results are indicative of teams' strength, and which were fluky.

That is at least better than trying to go all transitive-property on us. Especially if you're using the results of a game from a month ago, just to compare to a more current result. Otherwise, we've got the 49ers beating the Rams beating the Broncos beating the Ravens beating the Chargers.

One last note. Someone suggested Chicago 1, Indy 2, based on records. So Indy's not as good as Chicago because they've already had their bye week? That's kinda flimsy, no?

WedgeMcWedgy said...

Dan about the whole "Power" Rankings thing...

Why not just drop the word Power and NOT replace it with anything... Aren't you just ranking the NFL teams? Its your opinion of who can beat who if played on a neutral field correct? #1 is favored against 2-32, 2 is favored against 3-32 and so on right? That simply sounds like:

NFL Rankings
Dan's NFL Rankings
NFL Team Rankings

rafael said...

First dodgeball..now tag. Pretty soon HORSE will be out, because someone will be a 'Ho' for a while..and that's bad.

tim said...

Jeez...ma4tt...the Buckeyes at 32 and Raiders at 33 was a joke! I just was laughing at everyone saying the Raiders were overrated...at 32.

I couldn't agree more...no college team stands a chance against an NFL squad...

Either way, everyone takes this debate FAR too seriously! It's not college football! Any sort of rankings are irrelevant...they get to settle it on the field!

The heroin sheik said...

I say that a month after the National championship we take the two teams and let them play the bottom two teams in the nfl. Didn't they used to have a game with college allstars against an nfl team back in the 50's? Imagine seeing art shell staring into space as Ginn goes 80 yrs for a td or laughing as Tim Tebow destroys the texans. You know you woudl watch it.

Keithsrk said...

My biggest issue, strangely enough, is having the Skins higher than the Titans. I think they play 10 more times and the Titans win 9 of 'em.

It might have something to do with the fact that the Skins just knocked me out of my elimination pool and I'm really bitter -- but I doubt it.

Kurt said...

these rankings arent even worth commenting on they are so ridiculous. i think dan purposely puts the Giants way down the list because he knows it pisses me off.

cbabob said...

As a die hard Panthers fan, I smiled at your rankings, but they aren't right.
1. Bears
2. Colts
3. Chargers
4. Seahawks
5. Panthers

I am not sold on the Broncos, with their offensive woes, nor the Patriots with their situation. The Saints can't be ahead of Carolina, and everyone else has more holes than Carolina does.
I still worry about the Panther running game, as it doesn't seem hearty enough to make this a #2 team.

nyc-steelers fan said...

Good god, the panthers are overranked. I know they beat the saints, but it was in carolina and the saints were off a short week. They BARELY beat a team with a QB playing with a ruptured spleen! And then, they BARELY beat a team playing almost the whole game with Kyle Boller, who doesn't have a ruptured spleen as an excuse for why he is so bad. And even their win against Cleveland wasn't very impressive, considering that they were playing, um, cleveland. Eventually they are probably going to play teams better than the tampas and clevelands...