Packers, Patriots ranked too high.

[NZB2323]

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.

The Packers beat the Viking by 5. Rodgers had 178 yards and 1 touchdown against one of the worst pass defenses in the NFL last year. Then the Packers whooped on the Lions, who had one of the worst overall defenses in the NFL last year. Remember, the Lions allowed Atlanta to score 34 against them. That Atlanta team only scored 9 a week later against Tampa. The Packers are undefeated against two teams that are 0-2. Rodgers looked good against the Lions, but so did Matt Ryan. I doubt that Rodgers and the Packers will look so good when they play against the Cowboys, Bucs, Colts, Titans, Bears, Saints, and Panthers, all of whom are on their schedule this year.

Then you have the Patriots. They beat the Chiefs by 7, but the Raiders beat the Chiefs by 15. Then the Patriots beat the Jets by 9, a Jets team that won 4 games last year. I know that they have Farve now, but an old QB who has had little time to learn the offense only adds so much to a team. Cassel looked good against two horrible defenses, and I don’t think that he’ll look that good against better teams.

I think that both of these teams are good teams, but I think that they are ranked to high. I would certainly rank the Eagles higher than the Packers(I doubt that the Packers keep it close against the Cowboys), and I would rank the Panthers, Titans, Bills, and Broncos above both teams. I don’t understand why the Panthers are so low- they beat the Charges and the Bears without Steve Smith. I think that both Aaron Rodgers and Matt Cassel are good quarterbacks, but I hear people saying that Rodgers is as good as Favre and Cassel is as good as Brady and that’s just not true.

[studcrackers]

no one thinks cassell is as good as brady

[captain_cheapseats]

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 ... (edit) ...

The Packers beat the Viking by 5. Rodgers had 178 yards and 1 touchdown against one of the worst pass defenses in the NFL last year.** Then the Packers whooped on the Lions, who had one of the worst overall defenses in the NFL last year. Remember, the Lions allowed Atlanta to score 34 against them. That Atlanta team only scored 9 a week later against Tampa. The Packers are undefeated against two teams that are 0-2. Rodgers looked good against the Lions, but so did Matt Ryan. I doubt that Rodgers and the Packers will look so good when they play against the Cowboys, Bucs, Colts, Titans, Bears, Saints, and Panthers, all of whom are on their schedule this year.

I'm not so sure I agree. The Packers are a talented team with a lot of depth, have no obvious weakness, and are 2-0. I would argue that, although the Cowboys/Eagles have more star power, top to bottom there is not a more complete team in the NFC. While you make a solid point about the Lions not being a good team, keep in mind that the Packers beat them by 23 points.....that's a pretty big margin in the NFL, even against a weak opponent. And as for your "[t]he Packers are undefeated against two teams that are 0-2" comment, ehh, it's waaaay too early in the year for that. At this point, the Packers are 50% of the reason why those teams are 0-2. Granted, it's not quite as absurd as saying "yeah, the Packers might be 1-0, but they did it against an 0-1 team!" but it's dang close.

Then you have the Patriots. They beat the Chiefs by 7, but the Raiders beat the Chiefs by 15. Then the Patriots beat the Jets by 9, a Jets team that won 4 games last year. I know that they have Farve now, but an old QB who has had little time to learn the offense only adds so much to a team. Cassel looked good against two horrible defenses, and I don’t think that he’ll look that good against better teams.

(The following not directed at you NZB2323, unless you were also one of these people). Before the game everyone was talking like Farve was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and the Jets were the heavy favorite both amongst the media and the odds makers. Then the Pats beat them and suddenly everyone remembers that Farve is old and the Jets were 4-12 last year. Funny how that works, isn't it?

I think that both Aaron Rodgers and Matt Cassel are good quarterbacks, but I hear people saying that Rodgers is as good as Favre and Cassel is as good as Brady and that’s just not true.

Anyone saying Cassel is as good as Brady is a moron. As for Rodgers, I've only seen him play one game, and he certainly didn't look as good as a prime Favre (then again, who does?). However he did play well, and looked like he might be as good as Favre is now (particularly for those who think last year was a fluke.....I'm not one of these people, but they do have an argument).

**As a side note, don't make the mistake of assuming that because the Vikings give up a large number of passing yards they have a poor pass defense. A lot of that is due to the fact that they have an incredible run defense, so most of their opponents throw the ball against them a lot more often than they normally would, distorting the numbers.

[greenbeans]

Who the eff said Cassel is as good as Brady is what I wanna know. and oh ya, dont you hassle matt cassel my friend.

[MadCityBucky]

You sure do make a lot of assumptions.

The way you talk about the Packers, they sound like the Rams, and are destined to lose to all 7 of those teams you listed.

If anything the Chargers are too high, it's power rankings (should be determined by your W-L) and 13 for an 0-2 is ridiculous, I don't care about how much talent they have.

[HarlemHeat37]

the Packers ARE one of the best teams in the NFL..nobody can tell me Rodgers hasn't impressed..even with that being said, they have one of the better defense's in the NFL..playmakers in the secondary, and a solid pass rush..Green Bay just gets even better with Rodgers continuing to mature and improve..they are still 2-0..

as for NE..I haven't heard anything about Cassel yet, so I don't know where you're getting this from..NE still has the best coach in the NFL..they still have a solid defense..they still have a solid O-line, Moss and Welker..they're still a tough team..they are still 2-0..

[Bleeding Blue]

NE still has the best coach in the NFL..

I am not buying that Belichick is the best coach in the NFL.....

"Belichick’s record without Brady is so startlingly bad you have to read it twice: 42 wins, 58 losses. In his first year as the Pats coach, he inherited a .500 team from Pete Carroll and promptly went 5-11. He began his second season 0-2 before Mo Lewis removed Drew Bledsoe from the picture, and Brady stepped onto the scene. The Pats won 100 of their next 127, including playoffs"- Boston Herald

So is Belichick a great coach or is he just a product of Tom Brady....

[VinnyTheMick]

The Jets were ranked way too high. Favre has to stay two seasons to save his career. Next year he should have a much better season than this one because he will have learned the system & know it like the back of his hand. He can't do that this year. Plus Mangini is a p_ssy & won't let Brett do Brett. All these rinky dink safe plays that get nothing done.

[Celtics_Champs]

NE still has the best coach in the NFL..

I am not buying that Belichick is the best coach in the NFL.....

"Belichick’s record without Brady is so startlingly bad you have to read it twice: 42 wins, 58 losses. In his first year as the Pats coach, he inherited a .500 team from Pete Carroll and promptly went 5-11. He began his second season 0-2 before Mo Lewis removed Drew Bledsoe from the picture, and Brady stepped onto the scene. The Pats won 100 of their next 127, including playoffs"- Boston Herald

So is Belichick a great coach or is he just a product of Tom Brady....

Well, that is what we will find out this year. So far... 2-0.

[VinnyTheMick]

NE still has the best coach in the NFL..

I am not buying that Belichick is the best coach in the NFL.....

"Belichick’s record without Brady is so startlingly bad you have to read it twice: 42 wins, 58 losses. In his first year as the Pats coach, he inherited a .500 team from Pete Carroll and promptly went 5-11. He began his second season 0-2 before Mo Lewis removed Drew Bledsoe from the picture, and Brady stepped onto the scene. The Pats won 100 of their next 127, including playoffs"- Boston Herald

So is Belichick a great coach or is he just a product of Tom Brady....

Well, that is what we will find out this year. So far... 2-0.

Eh, I think the earlier Patriot SB teams would have been a better test for Bellichick.

[captain_cheapseats]

NE still has the best coach in the NFL..

I am not buying that Belichick is the best coach in the NFL.....

"Belichick’s record without Brady is so startlingly bad you have to read it twice: 42 wins, 58 losses. In his first year as the Pats coach, he inherited a .500 team from Pete Carroll and promptly went 5-11. He began his second season 0-2 before Mo Lewis removed Drew Bledsoe from the picture, and Brady stepped onto the scene. The Pats won 100 of their next 127, including playoffs"- Boston Herald

So is Belichick a great coach or is he just a product of Tom Brady....

Ehh, the relationship is so obviously co-dependent it barely warrants debate. "BB sucked without Brady!" "Brady couldn't even get off the bench until he met BB!" etc.

[VinnyTheMick]

No, that isn't a good argument at all. Who says Brady couldn't get off the bench before Bellichick? It was Drew Bledsoe's job.

[DelaneyRudd]

The Packers are the same team as last year, with no important player except for Woodson going a little further over the hill. There is that little technicality of who is the QB. Seems OK to me so far.

[rilamann]

Im not going to say Aaron Rodgers is a better QB than Brett Favre but Rodgers might be a better fit for the Packers offense.

Also,going back to the final 4 games of 2006 and including the playoffs the Packers are 20-4 overall to this date in their last 24 games.Of course solid QB play from Favre & Rodgers has had a lot to do with winning 20 of 24 but you dont win that high a % of your games in the National Football League by simply having ''a good QB''.

The Packers are solid overall on both sides of the ball and Mike McCarthy is easily a top 5 coach in the league.I think the biggest thing people overlook with the Packers (even a lot of Packer fans do it as well) is how solid of a coach Mccarthy realy is along with his staff.

[Icness]

It's pretty early to make power rankings with any sort of objectivity. Of course I'm doing one with this weeks picks, so what do I know...

RE: Belichick's pre-Brady record:
He got his start in Cleveland with a team that was in the middle of a big downslide. IMO he turned in an outstanding coaching job getting one of those Browns teams to the playoffs and even winning a playoff game (over the Pats, no less). Owner Art Modell is widely accused of deliberately trying to make the Browns worse in order to get out of town or force the city to build him a new stadium so he could field a more competitive team. That's an awful tough coaching spot; Modell made him turn the keys over from beloved Bernie Kosar to Vinny Testaverde, which still gets Clevelanders' blood boiling. So to say his pre-Brady record is lousy is leaving out a lot of context.

[Basketball Jesus]

Given that Tom Brady’s record without Bill Belichick is…well, a handful of OK seasons at Michigan where he wasn’t more than an OK QB.

Belichick also spent a few toxic seasons in Cleveland, which Icness will be the first to tell you, wasn’t an ideal situation for any coach. (Although, admittedly, it didn’t help that Belichick was as dickish to the media then as he was now.) His first two seasons in NE were spent correcting the previous three years of the abortive and hilariously incompetent Pete Carroll/Bobby Grier regime. (Even more shocking when put in contrast with the brief Parcells era that preceded it.)


EDIT: looks like Icness was the first to tell you. Heh.

[Icness]

Given that Tom Brady’s record without Bill Belichick is…well, a handful of OK seasons at Michigan where he wasn’t more than an OK QB.

Belichick also spent a few toxic seasons in Cleveland, which Icness will be the first to tell you, wasn’t an ideal situation for any coach. (Although, admittedly, it didn’t help that Belichick was as dickish to the media then as he was now.) His first two seasons in NE were spent correcting the previous three years of the abortive and hilariously incompetent Pete Carroll/Bobby Grier regime. (Even more shocking when put in contrast with the brief Parcells era that preceded it.)


EDIT: looks like Icness was the first to tell you. Heh.

Nice mind-meld bro!

I think a big reason why Belichick is such an exceptional coach now is because he learned from his mistakes, but he also learned from the mistakes of management around him. He is the reason why I believe every head coach deserves a second chance. Well, almost every coach. Paging Wayne Fontes to Detroit...

[captain_cheapseats]

No, that isn't a good argument at all. Who says Brady couldn't get off the bench before Bellichick? It was Drew Bledsoe's job.

The reference is to Brady's time at Michigan, not his early years with the Pats. But anyway, I agree it's not a good argument; it was intended to be an example of the many absurd points people make when trying to attribute all of the Pats success to one guy or the other (when obviously both play a large, co-dependent role). I probably should have used green font to make that more obvious.

[Mr Awesome]

I dont see how either one of these teams are ranked too high. The Panthers, Bills, and Titans are NOT better then the Patriots. People seem to have this misconception of the Patriots based on last year. There seems to be this idea that the Patriots can't win without a super star QB or a high powered offense, but that's never how they won before. In the past they won with a solid running game, smart play, and a solid defense. They have all of those things. Most people were way too quick to jump off the bandwaggon. Expect them to win 11 or 12 games, take that division, and make a little run in the playoffs.

[bucks59]

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.