Views
896
Comments
46
  • 11/14/2012, 03:27AM ET

NFL Power Rankings

Marlins Fan (156-78-31) vs Dyhard (43-23-2)
3
Votes
2
Votes
3
Votes
2
Votes


Alright now that the Week 10 games have all been played we're able to gain a clearer view of all the teams and where they stand. Week 10 was sort of a "statement" week for a lot of teams and that definitely helps out with this TD. (Dyhard, if you don't have a couple of changes we can draw and try again next week)

1. Texans (8-1)

Pretty easy call here. Atlanta finally lost and Houston just beat Chicago so...

2. Falcons (8-1)

Lost to NO but had a chance to win the game, if not for a perfectly timed deflected pass by Jabari Greer.

3. Bears (7-2)

Two close losses, one to Green Bay and one to Houston. Still a really scary team, particularly defensively.

4. Broncos (6-3)

Surprisingly efficient offense and the defense has been super aggressive.

5. Packers (6-3)

We all know they should be 7-2.

6. Ravens (7-2)

Great record even if they're not wow-ing anyone.

7. 49ers (6-2-1)

You gotta beat the Rams and Vikings. Otherwise not much to pick at.

8. Patriots (6-3)

Brady's still a machine.

9. Steelers (6-3)

Starting to rack up quality wins.

10. Colts (6-3)

I believe.


1. Texans

2. Falcons -- can't disagree with these two, especially after the Texans victory over Chicago and Atlanta's loss to NO.

3. Packers -- As they should be 7-2, they destroyed the Texans, the number 1 team and also shut down Chicago when they played against them. Definitely deserve the number 3 spot.

4. Bears -- After a loss to the Texans in which they only scored six points and can't seem to get it done against the Packers, they belong right here.

5. 49ers -- Their tie to the Rams is definitely hurting them in this rankings. But they did start off extremely impressive this season and are a good team still.

6. Ravens -- They're playing pretty well and scored 55 points this past weekend, which was the most scored by any team this season.

7. Patriots -- The Patriots are getting hot and they also have already defeated Denver, otherwise I'd have Denver above them.

8. Denver -- Their loss to the Patriots is what puts them here.

9. Colts -- They've won two road games in a five-day span and also defeated the Packers this season.

10. Steelers -- Barely defeated KC in OT in a game in which they were supposed to destroy them was quality?


Alright well you changed a bunch of stuff so instead of attempting to address everything I'm just gonna start with what I perceive to be the biggest deals.

First of all, you moved Denver from fourth to eighth. In my opinion you're underrating the Broncos. Peyton Manning has that offense operating flawlessly. Their passing attack is impeccable. Demaryius Thomas is one of the best WR's in the NFL right now and there are a variety of other options for Peyton to throw to. They still have a really good rushing game led by "Old Faithful" Willis McGahee and their chance-of-pace burner, Ronnie Hillman. Denver can put up points in a flash, which leads me to...

...their defense. With Peyton lighting up the scoreboard consistently the Broncos have completely unleashed Von Miller. Denver has been able to play with the lead lately and their pass rush has been absolutely relentless. For anyone who hasn't been watching, do yourself a favor and watch Von Miller this weekend. The guy is a ****-ing animal. He is quite possibly (as first opined by Peter King) the best, most dominating linebacker in football right now.

Denver is the complete package and should be much higher on your list.


Well, I know that Denver moving four spots down is for a good reason. While Denver does have a very good team, I have a lot more confidence in the 49ers, Packers, Patriots and Ravens.

While I can see a case for Denver to be moved up higher, there's no way that I can see them above the Packers like you have it.

Green Bay should be sitting at 7-2 currently and they have a victory over the Texans (#1) and the Bears (#4). Plus, they're a scary team only going up.

San Francisco is a dangerous team but was hurt by Alex Smith's concussion this past week. They're still better than Denver and I can see SF shutting Denver down.

Exactly who has Denver beat that you can put them as high as you did, especially over GB? Or above Baltimore or San Francisco? Hell, even over the Patriots is a little ridiculous, especially when you look at the fact that they beat Denver 31-21.

I'm still wondering about Pittsburgh's "quality" wins. Against the Giants? An OT win against KC? Those aren't quality. Indy isn't pumping out quality wins either, but I think their victory over GB is quality enough to push them above Pittsburgh.

Denver doesn't deserve fourth, they deserve eighth.


Quick note about Pitt's "quality wins". The last two Pitt games have came against the defending SB champion NY Giants, in New York and against the Chiefs with no Roethlisberger.

Pitt beat the defending SB champs in New York two games ago.

Last game they beat a crappy but uber-motivated Chiefs team, without Ben Roethlisberger.

Not sure if you watched the Pitt-KC game, but the Chiefs obviously were playing as if they had nothing to lose. It was a classic trap game, and it showed in KC's intensity. When Ben got hurt it presented a major problem for Pitt since Leftwich kinda sucks.

But Pitt overcame the obstacles and won, anyway. Quality win, just like two games ago in NY against the defending SB champs.

For Denver, it's not so much their record or opponents that makes them scary. It's the fact that they are firing on ALL cylinders right now and I just can't see ANY team matching up well against Denver. Records aside, they're playing as well as anybody right now.

GB is a scary team but they're dealing with injuries (Benson, Nelson, Jennings) and although they're a really good passing team they can't run AT ALL and their defense isn't great.

Good TD and good luck.


Even when Big Ben was playing in the game against the Chiefs, he wasn't performing nearly as well as he should've been only completing 9-of-18 passing for 84 yards. Plus, there shouldn't be an excuse for taking the Chiefs to OT. That's not acceptable and isn't going to go down as a "quality" win anytime soon. It's far from quality.

The Giants are the defending champs, but I don't think that they're very good this season, as evident by their record and their schedule.

While Denver is a scary team, I don't select power rankings based on how the team is going to do in coming weeks or anything like that, I base them on their schedule/record and how they're playing. The Broncos are firing on all cylinders, but I can't put them very high with a 6-3 record, a loss to the Patriots (should spring New England ahead automatically with the same record) and not an overly tough schedule.

With the Packers, they've had to fight their way through some injuries, but I think that just helps their case even more. With a fake L against Seattle, the Packers are better than their record shows and they're finding ways to win even with an extremely banged up team.

November 14, 2012  03:30 AM ET

Dyhard let me know before this TD started that he wouldn't be able to make it on FN from Friday to Monday, so please don't auto-vote against him if/when the 5 minute glitch comes into play. He let me know and I agreed to the TD anyway knowing that he wouldn't be able to make it those days, so hopefully we can all give Dy a free pass about the 5 minute glitch this time.

Do people still vote on TD's, anyway?

November 14, 2012  04:26 AM ET

I'll auto vote if I want to, dammit!

November 14, 2012  04:29 AM ET

BTW, you should have had the Rams tied with the Niners.

November 14, 2012  11:31 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

BTW, you should have had the Rams tied with the Niners.

Top 15 and tied with the Cowboys most likely on his list.

November 14, 2012  02:35 PM ET
QUOTE(#1):

Dyhard let me know before this TD started that he wouldn't be able to make it on FN from Friday to Monday, so please don't auto-vote against him if/when the 5 minute glitch comes into play. He let me know and I agreed to the TD anyway knowing that he wouldn't be able to make it those days, so hopefully we can all give Dy a free pass about the 5 minute glitch this time.Do people still vote on TD's, anyway?

Well, if we can get all three arguments in before Friday at 2:00 p.m., we'll be good.

November 14, 2012  07:12 PM ET

**** the Falcons. As a fan of a team in the NFC playoff hunt, i would much rather meet Atlanta in the playoffs than pretty much any of the other NFC contenders.

November 14, 2012  07:33 PM ET

Andrew Luck > Robert Griffin III

Comment #8 has been removed
November 14, 2012  09:51 PM ET
QUOTE(#7):

Andrew Luck > Robert Griffin III

Agreed.

November 15, 2012  01:16 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

**** the Falcons. As a fan of a team in the NFC playoff hunt, i would much rather meet Atlanta in the playoffs than pretty much any of the other NFC contenders.

Be careful what you wish for. Just might happen.

November 15, 2012  01:17 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

Andrew Luck > Robert Griffin III

I suppose that could be true but their bodies of work are still pretty small.

You know I think RGIII is gonna be a beast. I also have come around on Luck. If I had to pick either one of those dudes to lead my team over the next several years, I hate hate hate to say this but I'd go with Luck, right now.

November 15, 2012  02:38 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Be careful what you wish for. Just might happen.

I'd have absolutely no problem facing Atlanta as a Packers' fan.

November 15, 2012  04:14 AM ET

Von Miller= a gosh darn Beast.

He is a bad man. Man.

November 15, 2012  04:41 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

Von Miller= a gosh darn Beast. He is a bad man. Man.

Homer. Ok, maybe he's pretty good, but still, homer.

November 15, 2012  06:13 PM ET
QUOTE(#11):

I suppose that could be true but their bodies of work are still pretty small.You know I think RGIII is gonna be a beast. I also have come around on Luck. If I had to pick either one of those dudes to lead my team over the next several years, I hate hate hate to say this but I'd go with Luck, right now.

Luck has the longer shelf life, so futures sake I wouldn't even consider it close.

What I will say about RGIII is that I believe he's the rare scrambling QB talent that actually has the potential to win a championship in the NFL. (some people claim that because it's never been done it can't be done - my opinion is that such a small percentage of scrambling style QBs have actually played in the NFL, that it's a ridiculous claim to make). But he's going to have to learn to play like an NFL pocket passer first. Washington's college style offense is going to hold back his develop, IMO.

November 15, 2012  08:10 PM ET
QUOTE(#15):

Luck has the longer shelf life, so futures sake I wouldn't even consider it close.What I will say about RGIII is that I believe he's the rare scrambling QB talent that actually has the potential to win a championship in the NFL. (some people claim that because it's never been done it can't be done - my opinion is that such a small percentage of scrambling style QBs have actually played in the NFL, that it's a ridiculous claim to make). But he's going to have to learn to play like an NFL pocket passer first. Washington's college style offense is going to hold back his develop, IMO.

I kind of get that, but then again it's just an assumption. We can assume that Luck will stay healthy longer, but it's not really a smart assumption. Luck runs a lot more than prople think.

We can also assume RGIII will be more injury-prone because he runs, but that's not a smart assumption either. (Again, Luck runs more than people think) RHIII may decide that a few extra yards aren't worth a concussion.

There's also the possibility of freak injuries. Luck could get sacked this Sunday and break his neck (hope not, just using an example) which might end his career. There are a lot of variables.

I get your point, but I just don't agree that we can assume that Luck will have the longer shelf life.

November 15, 2012  08:11 PM ET

You bring up an interesting point about the Redskins' scheme, though. I'm not sure what it is about the offense that makes it a primarily college offense but I would like to know.

November 15, 2012  08:33 PM ET

The Bears offense sucks. They have been winning on defense, and special teams.

If you don't turn the ball over against the Bears, and allow the Bears D to score or give the offense great field position, you will beat the Bears.

November 15, 2012  08:46 PM ET
QUOTE(#18):

The Bears offense sucks. They have been winning on defense, and special teams.If you don't turn the ball over against the Bears, and allow the Bears D to score or give the offense great field position, you will beat the Bears.

Lot of if's lol.

 
November 15, 2012  08:47 PM ET

If the sun was actually the moon then it would be the moon.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Leaderboard

  Fan W L T Win %
1 Darth Maim 76 21 7 76.4%
2 fvkasm2x 193 58 12 75.7%
3 7#bag _ Com 996 338 73 73.4%
4 HOOTZ 33 14 9 67.0%
5 Marlins Fan 156 78 31 64.7%
6 Argos. 184 101 29 63.2%
7 Goodell 2.0 643 429 71 59.4%
8 J-Business 78 66 19 53.7%
9 Highway... 175 848 63 19.0%

The Si.com Cover Hub Go to the Cover Hub

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    2455
    Comments
    866
  2. 2
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    2223
    Comments
    527
  3. 3
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    2333
    Comments
    400
  4. 4
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    3561
    Comments
    248
  5. 5
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    2137
    Comments
    139

Throwdowns

Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
    Robataille
  2. 2
    ~Mother-Marge~
  3. 3
    TxHeat
  4. 4
    buddhaa.luck
  5. 5
    Deep Creek

Blogs