NZB2323 wrote:Does anyone else agree with me that everyone seems to be ranking these teams too high? I have looked at several power ranking but I suppose that I’ll use ESPN as an example. On ESPN the Packers are ranked 4th and the Patriots are ranked 6th. I also believe that right now Aaron Rodgers and Matt Cassel are overrated.
Your basis as to why the Packers and the Pats should be lower is because they have played bad competition. First, part of your analysis of why teams are bad is based off of last year (like the Jets, the Vikings pass defense, etc), which means you should also rank the Packers and the Patriots high based off of what they did last year as well. Sure the Packers lost Favre, but they were the second youngest team last year and did not really lose any other substantial pieces to their team. Even if Rodgers isn't as good as Favre was last year (which might be a big if), the rest of the team should improve.
You are right that the Vikings did have one of the worst pass defenses in the NFL last year, but someone else was also right that that was due to the fact that the Vikings had a great run stopping defense last year. Additionally, the Vikings added Jared Allen, last years sack leader, and other defensive players. Granted that game was close, but at the same time, Rodgers did not make a mistake in that game and managed it well.
You also don't have much basis for your criticism of Rodgers so far. He has played in three games in the last two years (Dallas, Vikings, Detroit), and he has looked great in all three games. He has not made any costly mistakes that have hurt his team and he has been able to create plays with his legs. Additionally, for him to play that opening game against the Vikings given all he went through in the offseason and do as well as he did speaks volumes to the amount of talent he has. He will never be what Favre was in his prime, I don't think anyone thinks that, but he could be better than Favre last year.
Additionally, compare Rodgers's numbers to Romos so far this year. Rodgers so far this year is 42-60, a 70 percent completion rating, 506 total yards, 4 TDs, no interceptions, and a passer rating of 117.8. Romo so far is 45-62, a passer rating of 73 percent, 632 yards, 4 TDs, 2 interceptions, and a passer rating of 113.1. The Browns last year had the ninth worst defense in terms of yards given up and the Eagles were average. In terms of yards last year, the Lions and the Vikings were dead last. However, the Browns and the Eagles were not great defensive teams according to those stats, at least not the Browns, and yet, Rodgers's numbers are not that much worse. He has less yards, but no interceptions, the same amount of TDs, and a higher passing rating.
Additionally, I will also contend that passing yards given up is not a good indicator of how good a defense is. Last year, the Vikings were a top ten defense in terms of how many points an opponent scored through the air and were the 20th defense in terms of opponent QB rating. They were also 8th last year in total sacks. Then they also added a lot of defensive players this offseason and they had a dominate rush defense.
Also, compare Manning's numbers in week two agains the Vikigns to Rodgers. Granted, Manning is coming back from surgury on his knee, but it still seems like a fair comparison. Rodgers also had to deal with external issues, probably played in one of the biggest pressure situation games, and Manning is still an elite QB.
In that game, Manning completed 26 of his 42 passes, a completion percentage of 62 percent. He had 300 yards, was sacked twice, had 1 TD, 2 interceptions, and a QB rating of 72.6. Rodgers in week 1 completed 18 of his 22 passes, a completion percentage of of 82 percent. He had 1 TD, 0 interceptions, 0 sacks, and a passer rating of 115.5. He also ran for 35 yards and had a rushing TD. Granted Manning had more overal yards thrown, he had a lower per attempt average (7.4 for Manning and 8.1 for Rodgers), a lower completion percentage, more intercpetions, a substantially lower QB rating, and less overall TD's if you include Rodgers's rushing TD.
The Lions suck. But the Packers did destroy them, much like the Eagles destroyed the Rams and the Bills destroyed Seattle.
Additionally, the Packers were 13-3 last year and in the NFC champtionship game and that should account for something for early season rankings. Granted that losing Favre should have the Packers initially lower, but after seeing how Rodgers has played in the first two weeks, its hard not to keep the Packers in the top five. The guy has no interceptions and a passer rating of 117 with 70 percent completion percentage.
Additionally, while the Patriots lost Brady, they still have a great defense and a great offense. Cassel just has to be mediocre for that team to do well. They are undefeated and if the schedule does matter, the Patriots should be a top 6 ranked team given they have the easiest schedule in the NFL.
I would rank the Panthers, Titans, Bills, and Broncos above both teams.
Your entire argument contradicts itself here.
The problem with your argument is that the teams that you would rank higher all have the same problems as the Packers and the Patriots, they have played poor competition. Take the Panthers. You say they should be ranked higher because they beat the Chargers and the Bears. Well the Chargers are 0-2 and the Bears are 1-1. That same Bears team beat the Colts week 1 and is the reason that they are considered good right now. That same Colts team barely beat the Vikings (it took a last second field goal), a team that you consider bad and a team that you consider has a bad pass defense. In that Colts - Vikings game, Tarvaris Jakson had a higher passer rating than Payton Manning. That would mean that the Panthers opponents right now are 1-3, with the one win coming against a team that barely beat a bad team.
I will say that I could be convinced that the Panthers should be ranked ahead of the Packers right now given that they have beaten two oppontents that have looked good and they did it without argurably their best player. I dont agree with the other teams though.
You would put the Bills ahead of these two teams. The Bills beat the Seahawks and the Jags, both teams that are a combined 0-4 right now. The Seahawks don't have any healthy recievers right now, their running back and offensive line situaitons are shaky, and Hasselback hasn't fully recovered from his surgery over the summer. The Jags have injuries all over their line and have looked terrible so far this season. If the Bills beating those two teams should count for something, than so should the Packers beating the Vikings, a team some picked to go to the Superbowl and a team that last year finished 7-9 and improved its defense.
The Eagles have one win so far, which was against the Rams. The same Rams team that looks completely lost and was also obliterated in week two. The same Rams team that was just as bad as the Jets and the Chiefs last year. The Eagles then lost to the Cowboys. You might be right that the Packers might not hang with Dallas like the Eagles did, but so far, that has not been proven. The Packers have not shown a weakness thus far, and the Eagles have zero impressive wins. I can't see the Eagles being placed ahead of the Packers yet. if the Packers get blown out by Dallas, then you have a good argument.
You argue that the Titans should be ranked higher. The Titans beat the Jags week one and the Bengals week two, making their opponents a combined 0-4. The Bengals look completely lost on offense and have not had a reliable defense for a long time. The Jags have no running game whatsoever right now. Additionally, the Titans have had to make a QB switch, and how knows how that will turn out. Unlike the Packers situation, this happend during the season and the backup had to be made the starter. Granted it could end up being more benefitial, but its too early to tell. I don't think they have better quality wins than the Packers as I think that the Vikings are a better team than the Jags right now. Additionally, I think the talent on the Packers is better than the talent on the Titans and still think they should be ranked ahead of them.
The Bronos beat the Chargers and the Raiders, teams that combine to be 1-3 and the Broncos probably deserved to lose that game against the Chargers. The Raiders just suck right now. They have a second year QB who has not looked even average so far. They have a head coach that could be fired at any moment and they have no real deep field threats. The Broncos do have an insanely good offense but they also have a terrible defense and are not a complete team yet. The Packers are definitely good on both sides of the ball. The Packers offense might arguably be worse, but the defense is substantially better.
Overall, maybe the Panther should be higher, but outside of that, the rankings seem fine.
I also don't think ANYONE has said that Sam Cassell is as good as Brady. They might have said he looks like Brady when Brady first played for the Patriots, but not the Brady that won the MVP last year. If someone did make that statement, they obviously don't know anything about the NFL and it is largely irrelevent what they say.
Additionally, I dont think people, at least educated ones, are saying that Rodgers is better than Favre when he was in his prime. They might say that Rodgeres is playing better than Favre is this year, and that is true. It is way to early to say that he is playing better than the '07 Favre.