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.


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.

Christian Thoma 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.

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

Christian Thoma 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?

Allen Wedge 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."

marcomarco said...

lol @ bobman

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?

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

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.

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.