Week 3 Power Rankings - Bears @ 14 (from 15)

blumeany · Post #1 » by **blumeany** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:51 pm

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2009&week=3

Not that I put a ton of stock in these ratings, but how can the Bears' drop from 11 to 15 after losing to the Pack, but then only go up 1 spot after beating the world champs. Meanwhile, the Pack only slips one after getting beat by the BENGALS?

Cliff Levingston · Post #2 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:16 pm

Who cares? It's BSPN.

tclg · Post #3 » by **tclg** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:06 pm

I dont think their rankings make any sense really

CjayC · Post #4 » by **CjayC** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:38 pm

Bleh.

They hate Chicago. Is it any wonder?

SportsWorld · Post #5 » by **SportsWorld** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:10 pm

You guys are complaining about ESPN's rankings? They actually have us high compared to others.

CBS #19 http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/12248303
FOX #17 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings
NFL.com #14 http://fanrankings.nfl.com/

I guess they are fair rankings so far. I still think the Bears haven't played their best football which is a good thing. We beat the defending champs not at our best and we have an easy schedule to end the year.

mattbulls · Post #6 » by **mattbulls** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:15 am

Cnnsi power rankings have us behind GB saying, can't put them ahead of GB since they lost to them, yet Pittsburgh is up at 8........

WEFFPIM · Post #7 » by **WEFFPIM** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:28 am

blumeany wrote:http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2009&week=3

Not that I put a ton of stock in these ratings, but how can the Bears' drop from 11 to 15 after losing to the Pack, but then only go up 1 spot after beating the world champs. Meanwhile, the Pack only slips one after getting beat by the BENGALS?

Because the Bears needed two missed field goals and a game-winner with 15 seconds left to beat the world champs at home?

NoSkyy · Post #8 » by **NoSkyy** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:51 am

Yeah, but it's the Bengals. They couldn't beat Kyle Orton and they freaking manhandled the Packers....

AT LAMBEAU. Come on.

WEFFPIM · Post #9 » by **WEFFPIM** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:54 am

NoSkyy wrote:Yeah, but it's the Bengals. They couldn't beat Kyle Orton and they freaking manhandled the Packers....

AT LAMBEAU. Come on.

Let's face it, the Bengals beat the Broncos and a fluke play switched the result.

mattbulls · Post #10 » by **mattbulls** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:11 am

WEFFPIM wrote:
blumeany wrote:http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2009&week=3

Not that I put a ton of stock in these ratings, but how can the Bears' drop from 11 to 15 after losing to the Pack, but then only go up 1 spot after beating the world champs. Meanwhile, the Pack only slips one after getting beat by the BENGALS?

Because the Bears needed two missed field goals and a game-winner with 15 seconds left to beat the world champs at home?

Even if Reed makes both FGs we could've still won with a TD, everyone is forgetting that.

NoSkyy · Post #11 » by **NoSkyy** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Yeah, but still. I mean, you could argue that whole Jennings thing was a fluke play(it wasn't, Vasher just blows chunks)

I'm just playing Devil Advocate. No way in hell would I rank Green Bay below us or drop the Steelers that far. Let's not forget we beat them without Polamalu who for all we know could have like intercepted Jay, four times and raped Greg Olsen. I mean, we're 14 w/o Brian Urlacher? I'll take it.