Packers, Patriots ranked too high.

[VinnyTheMick]

Mia-yayo is exposing young Matthew.

[NZB2323]

*Bump*

[bucks59]

The Packers losing to the Cowboys this week doesn't mean that the Packers last week should have been ranked lower. It just means that the Eagles should move above them for next week. The Packers did get beat badly but it was still to one of the best teams in the NFL.

This would be my top ten.
1) Cowboys
2) Giants
3) Eagles
4) Steelers
5) Packers
6) Titans
7) Broncos
8) Panthers
9) Patriots
10) Colts

Here are the teams you wanted ranked higher than the Packers and the Patriots:
Panthers, Bills, Broncos, Titans, and Eagles.

The Panthers lost today to the Vikings, and it was primarly due to the strong play from the Vikings defense. That either means that the Vikings are a good team and that was a good win for the Packers or that the Panthers are only an average team.

The Bills barely beat a bad Raiders team at home. It took a field goal with time expiring for that win. They are good, but not yet in that upper tier in my opinion.

The Broncos did play well and they were on the road, their defense forced some turnovers in that game. I still think the Packers are more of a complete team but that one I could see differently as well.

The Titans played very well again and I think its close between them and the Packers as well.

I think the Packers right now are somewhere between 4 and 7. I still think they were ranked appropriatly last week though. The Steelers also have no quality wins (Cleveland and Texans) and got beat by a good team and I could see the Packers being ahead of them. The Broncos and the Titans might be better than the Packers right now. I think those four teams are in the second tier of NFL teams right now and are all fairly close to each other.

Also, as poor as Rodgers played, his overall line isn't that bad. No interceptions, a QB rating of 80, 22-39 for 56 percent, no TD's, five sacks, and 290 yards. He held the ball too long and some of his throws were high, but outside of that, thats not terrible. And that was by far the worst game of his career. Its not that much worse than Romo's line of 18-30, a completion percentage of 57, three sacks, one TD, one interception, and a QB rating of 83. The real difference in this game was that the Packers only got field goals and the Cowboys were able to convert TDs, and the Cowboys were able to run the ball a lot more effectively than the Packers.

[MadCityBucky]

I'd switch the Steelers and Titans. Steelers/Packers could be a wash(their o-line looked pathetic).

You forgot about the Bills, they are 3-0. It is power rankings, so take it for what you wish. Giants were 1-2 at this time last year.

Just not a good day for me, Packers lose, I get the 3 red lights for my 360

[studcrackers]

hey buck the broncos were at home today not on the road

[spike_throw]

Brown's five touchdowns lead Dolphins to blowout over Pats...
The record winning streak of patriots was ending with a stunning domination by the lowly Dolphins...this is the first loss for patriots in 21 matches...

[NZB2323]

The Patriots are 2-1 against teams that are 2-6. Their points for/points against is 49/58. Cassel might be a good QB, but he’s a huge downgrade from Brady, and their defense is starting to show it’s age. Also, the more Cassel plays, the more tape people get of him, the more defensive coordinators will learn his weaknesses. Same thing applies to Rodgers. Remember when Rex Grossman and Derek Anderson were playing amazing? I’m not saying that the fall for Rodgers and Cassel will be as big but defenses will get more adjusted to them.

When the Packers played against the Vikings, Tarvaris Jackson was Minnesota’s QB. He’s had a QB rating of 65.8 this season. When the Panthers played against the Vikings, he had a QB rating of 77.1. I realize that 77.1 isn’t that good, but its 17% better than 65.8. And this Panther’s team has a good defense.

Buffalo didn’t look that good this weekend, but they are 3-0, win games by an average of 10 points, and beat Jacksonville and Seattle, who were both supposed to be good this year and could both end up having good seasons.

I agree that the Packers are close with the Broncos and Titans.

One other team that I would add to the top ten is the Redskins. They lost to the Giants, but then they beat the Saints who were supposed to be good this year and the Cardinals who looked very good in their first 2 games.

I know that Rodgers didn’t play that poorly but he didn’t play that great either. My argument was that Rodgers was a good QB, not a great one. And I don’t think that you can discount this game because it was “by far his worst game” in his 3.25 game career. I think that he will have more games similar to these ones when he plays against good defenses.

[bucks59]

The Patriots are 2-1 against teams that are 2-6. Their points for/points against is 49/58. Cassel might be a good QB, but he’s a huge downgrade from Brady, and their defense is starting to show it’s age. Also, the more Cassel plays, the more tape people get of him, the more defensive coordinators will learn his weaknesses.

You're obviously right about that, Sam Cassell is at best a game manager. Outside of the Dolphins game, their defense has still looked good, and they play in a bad division so they will get a fair amount of wins this season. Also, the point disparity right now is big because they had one bad blowout loss early in a season and they don't have the offense to score a ton of points. You are right that they still haven't been able to beat a good team but I think they should still be in the top ten right now. They have a good defense, a good line, good wide recievers, a good defense, and a great coach. They're still a top ten team to me.

If you justify putting the Patriots lower, then I guess the Colts would also have to be lower. The bottom ten i guess could be the Bills at 9 and the Redskins at 10.

Same thing applies to Rodgers. Remember when Rex Grossman and Derek Anderson were playing amazing? I’m not saying that the fall for Rodgers and Cassel will be as big but defenses will get more adjusted to them.

It does help to have game tape to plan for a QB, but I really don't think Rodgers will have the same downfall as Anderson and Grossman. That argument you just made could be used for any young QB. The opposite could also be true, Rodgers could be the next Peyton or Eli Manning.

Rodgers and Sam Cassell both have two important advantages, they got to sit behind great QBs for several years and learn. At the very least, they wont make critical mistakes like Grossman and might only be game managers. They have both already shown that ability. Rodgers has other attributes that make him a QB with good potential for the future. He has good armstrength and he has good mobility and is able to evade sacks. He might not be a hall of fame QB but he is not Rex Grossman.

When the Packers played against the Vikings, Tarvaris Jackson was Minnesota’s QB. He’s had a QB rating of 65.8 this season. When the Panthers played against the Vikings, he had a QB rating of 77.1. I realize that 77.1 isn’t that good, but its 17% better than 65.8. And this Panther’s team has a good defense.

Part of that reason is because they Packers also have a good defense and great cornerbacks. Additionally, Ferotte is not a great QB. He is a career backup who played a bad game. He was 16-28 for 200 yards and a completion percentage of 57 percent and a touchdown and one interception. Jackson in the game against the Colts had comparable stats actually. He was 14-24, 130 yards, a completion percentage of 58 percent, and a QB rating of 73. He had no TDs or interceptions. Ferotte had more yards and an extra touchdown but he also had an interception. Outside of that, the completion percentages and the QB ratings are very close for both QBs. Granted the sample size is small because I am comparing two games to each other, but Ferrotte isn't that big of an improvement.

Additonally, the Vikings were also slightly limited in that game given that AP had a hamstring injury and was a game time decision.

Also, the Vikings offense in that Panthers game scored one offensive touchdown and one defensive touchdown. The offense also had two fumbles lost and one interception. Meaning that the defense created three turnovers. This is also when the Panthers were at full strength and should have had a good passing attack with Steve Smith. This means a couple of things. Either the Vikings defense is good and it was impressive that Rodgers played well against them or the Panthers offense sucks. That point is also compounded by the fact that Manning also had a subpar game against them, though he is also having a subpar season so far this year.

Buffalo didn’t look that good this weekend, but they are 3-0, win games by an average of 10 points, and beat Jacksonville and Seattle, who were both supposed to be good this year and could both end up having good seasons.

Seattle has literally no wide recievers and their only win this season is against the Rams. Hasselback has not recovered from off season surgery yet. The line play has also been inconsistent so far this season. Jacksonville was supposed to be good this year, but before they played the Colts, they could not get a running game going at all. They have injuries all over their offensive line and Garrad has already thrown four interceptions when he threw three last year. I believe that the Bills are good, they have a good running game and a good defensive and Edwards has played well. But I think they are just behind the Patriots right now. That could easily change after next week but as of now, I give the Patriots the benieft of the doubt right now.

One other team that I would add to the top ten is the Redskins. They lost to the Giants, but then they beat the Saints who were supposed to be good this year and the Cardinals who looked very good in their first 2 games.

The Redskins have looked good outside of that Giants game. I am still not sold on them for a couple of reasons. First, the Saints have only been ok this season and have no won a road game yet. Its impossible to tell if Arizona is actually finally good, they do this every year where they tease people. The Cardinals have also only beaten the Dolphins and the Niners so far this year, so not exaclty impressive wins. That was also before the Dolphins started to play Ronnie Brown as much as they did in the Pats game.

The Redskins were also a playoff team but I still think they are in the 10-15 range but if you move the Colts and the Pats both down, then you could move the Redskins and the Bills up.

I know that Rodgers didn’t play that poorly but he didn’t play that great either. My argument was that Rodgers was a good QB, not a great one. And I don’t think that you can discount this game because it was “by far his worst game” in his 3.25 game career. I think that he will have more games similar to these ones when he plays against good defenses.

Well then we werent really arguring about much here, I think he is a good QB right now, which is all the Packers need if they can get everyone else healthy. I am also not discounting this game. He did play poorly, and even against a good defense, his poor performance did not result in any turnovers. I will also contend that Rodgers has played a good defense before, the Vikings have a good defense, and he played very well. Additionally, Romo's stat line was not substantially better than what Rodgers did. That game doesn't worry me in terms of Rodgers. He has yet to have a "Rex Grossman" game, or even a game that he makes his team lose. He definitely helped them win against the Vikings.

The Packers should still be somewhere between 4 and 7. The Steelers, Broncos, and the Titnas are also in that range and that order can change. The Bills and the Redskins are not to that level yet. The Patriots maybe should be lower, but I still think they are around 9 or 10 right now.

[Icness]

You two above posters:
Keep posting, and keep respectfully fighting. Some excellent points by both y'all there!

I still think any power poll before week 4 is done is premature, because we don't really know the level of competition or if a certain team is a fluke until that point. Having said that, this current Pats team shouldn't be in the same breath as a lot of the teams most people (me too) had in teh grouping below them.

[MadCityBucky]

It's Matt Cassell not Sam Cassell.

I agree with you for the most part though buck. Though I would definetely have both the bils and redskins above the pats. The bills have always played the pats tough and without Brady should beat them.

EDIT: Actually they were blown out last year by the Pats, but different year and different teams. Still 3-0>2-1(especially if you lost to the Fins)

[Icness]

It's Matt Cassell not Sam Cassell.

I agree with you for the most part though buck. Though I would definetely have both the bils and redskins above the pats. The bills have always played the pats tough and without Brady should beat them.

After yesterday the Pats might want Sam instead of Matt.

[NeedsMoreCheese]

It's Matt Cassell not Sam Cassell.

I agree with you for the most part though buck. Though I would definetely have both the bils and redskins above the pats. The bills have always played the pats tough and without Brady should beat them.

EDIT: Actually they were blown out last year by the Pats, but different year and different teams. Still 3-0>2-1(especially if you lost to the Fins)

Well technically its Matt Cassel so there really shouldnt be any confusing the two

[bucks59]

It's Matt Cassell not Sam Cassell.

Sorry, that was intended as a joke, though apparently a bad joke. I just like referring to him as Sam Cassell.

I agree with the rest of your post though, it is pre-mature to do rankings before week 4 or 5 the rankings are just primarily based off the previous season.

[bucks59]

This would be my top 20 after Sunday, but this can obviously easily change after tonight:

1) Titans
2) Giants
3) Cowboys
4) Eagles
5) Bills
6) Stealers
7) Redskins
8) Bucs
9) Jags
10) Ravens
11) Panthers
12) Broncos
13) Chargers
14) Bears
15) Colts
16) Pats
17) Packers
18) Vikings
19) Saints
20) Jets