NFL Power Rankings to start the season

Post #1 » by **CBS7** » Wed Sep 5, 2007 8:18 pm

Post #2 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Wed Sep 5, 2007 8:25 pm

The Sportsline one is laughable.

If I had to do my Power rankings, I would probably do this:

1)Pats
2)Chargers
3)Colts
4)Ravens
5)Bears
6)Saints
7)Broncos

Philly
9)Seattle
10)Dallas

I think anywhere from 3-8 can basically be flopped around depending on a few things.

Post #3 » by **CBS7** » Wed Sep 5, 2007 8:31 pm

Bears at 10 is funny... I think 4-5 is where they ought to be, but no way are they behind Dallas, New Orleans, and Phili.

Post #4 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Wed Sep 5, 2007 8:39 pm

Prisco's usually dependable; I don't know what the hell happened there.

Post #5 » by **Rafael122** » Wed Sep 5, 2007 8:55 pm

Rankings were fair for the Redskins, though I have no clue why the Giants are ranked in the top 20 in each.

Post #6 » by **studcrackers** » Wed Sep 5, 2007 8:56 pm

dallas at 4? jesus i think they should be at 8 max down to around 12.

trwi7 · Post #7 » by **trwi7** » Wed Sep 5, 2007 9:19 pm

Cardinals at 13. :rofl:

Pierce 4 3 · Post #8 » by **Pierce 4 3** » Wed Sep 5, 2007 9:46 pm

Here's my power ranking:

1)Pats
2)Chargers
3)Ravens
4)Bears
5)Colts
6)Saints
7)Broncos

Philly
9)Seattle
10)Dallas

SportsWorld · Post #9 » by **SportsWorld** » Wed Sep 5, 2007 11:04 pm

trwi7 wrote:Cardinals at 13.

I thought they were going to be good last year but last year showed me they still have about 4-5 years until they make the playoffs.

High 5 · Post #10 » by **High 5** » Wed Sep 5, 2007 11:58 pm

You have to be an idiot to believe the Falcons are the 2nd worst team. We'll probably be pretty bad, but there will be at least 5 teams worse off.

WEFFPIM · Post #11 » by **WEFFPIM** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 12:00 am

Oh good Lord.

SportsWorld · Post #12 » by **SportsWorld** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 12:33 am

High 5 wrote:You have to be an idiot to believe the Falcons are the 2nd worst team. We'll probably be pretty bad, but there will be at least 5 teams worse off.

Who?
You guys were awful with Vick, now you guys are horrid

Post #13 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 12:35 am

SportsWorld wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Who?
You guys were awful with Vick, now you guys are horrid

The Falcons were never "awful" with a healthy Vick. They were 7-9, not great, but in the NFC South, not really awful either.

treiz · Post #14 » by **treiz** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 12:38 am

LOL @ Prisco

SportsWorld · Post #15 » by **SportsWorld** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 12:46 am

NO-KG-AI wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

The Falcons were never "awful" with a healthy Vick. They were 7-9, not great, but in the NFC South, not really awful either.

Well, they weren't good and now they have Joey Harrington as their QB.
Harrington is the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. No matter how bad he is he always seems to land in the right place.

Post #16 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:07 am

SportsWorld wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Well, they weren't good and now they have Joey Harrington as their QB.
Harrington is the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. No matter how bad he is he always seems to land in the right place.

Agreed, but I don't think Atlanta will be as horrible as some think, unless Petrino has screwed the running game.

If you play good D, and can run the ball, you can still be pretty productive.

Then again, you might be right, and they might win 3 games....

High 5 · Post #17 » by **High 5** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 1:18 am

SportsWorld wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Who?
You guys were awful with Vick, now you guys are horrid

We weren't awful with Vick, we just choked hard against bad teams. We're 5-2 with wins over Pittsburgh, @Carolina and @Cincinnati, then go and lose to Detroit and Cleveland. 7-9 is still better than 9 other teams last year.

We lose Vick, but we gain a true offensive mind at coach, a better OL (thought not much better), and better receivers. Our defense should also be a lot better assuming we aren't destroyed with injuries again. Improvement on all three levels plus a worlds better defensive coach in Zimmer.

So yeah, you're really misinformed if you think we're going to be the 2nd worst team. I say we're in the 6-10/7-9/8-8/9-7 range.

blueNorange · Post #18 » by **blueNorange** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 2:34 am

Rafael122 wrote:I have no clue why the Giants are ranked in the top 20 in each.

The Giants were 6-2 and then the injury bug hit practically whole defensive line and they also lost Toomer ... a good WR.

A lot of people are underrating the Giants this year because of no Tiki Barber but fail to realize that Jacobs is a beast and it has to take 2-3 guys to take him down. 2007-08 will be the year of 'Big Bad Brandon'

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zwcOR9jZP5o

:clap:

High 5 · Post #19 » by **High 5** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 2:44 am

blueNorange wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zwcOR9jZP5o

Half of the video is the same two clips over and over and over again and some crazy old guy in the stands.

Post #20 » by **CBS7** » Thu Sep 6, 2007 2:47 am

High 5 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

We weren't awful with Vick, we just choked hard against bad teams. We're 5-2 with wins over Pittsburgh, @Carolina and @Cincinnati, then go and lose to Detroit and Cleveland. 7-9 is still better than 9 other teams last year.

We lose Vick, but we gain a true offensive mind at coach, a better OL (thought not much better), and better receivers. Our defense should also be a lot better assuming we aren't destroyed with injuries again. Improvement on all three levels plus a worlds better defensive coach in Zimmer.

So yeah, you're really misinformed if you think we're going to be the 2nd worst team. I say we're in the 6-10/7-9/8-8/9-7 range.

You could have just said 6 to 9 wins, ya know.