Power Rankings from Around the Web (Week 3)
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Oct 1, 2009 11:30 AM PDT
in NFL Power Rankings
43 comments
A bit of a shake up this week with the Steelers dropping like a rock and the Jets getting a lot of love. The Chargers are still in the top ten but it does not seem like their win against the Dolphins helped them all that much.
Sources:
ESPN
Fox
CBS
USA Today
Football Outsiders
SI
Pro-Football Talk
NFL.com
Sporting News
Vegas Insider
1 recs |
43 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Awesome.
We could totally go to 6-1 and not break the top five!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Oct 1, 2009 11:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Patriots are rated too high. So are the Falcons. Bears and Cardinals are too low.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John (obviousman) on Oct 1, 2009 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Patriots could go 0-16 and the media would still rate them in the top 5
A kid who has a unicorn ranch in his room cannot call other people weird. Yes, we know about "Rancho Unicorno."
by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Oct 1, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
You might want to reconsider that comment
Since the Pats are currently 2-1. It makes it pretty impossible to go 0-16. I’m not a Pats fan by any stretch, but their record is the same as the Bolts. They’re only #7 overall this week, 3 spots up. Is it fair? Probably not.
by sjboltfan on Oct 1, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow brilliant
I never thought of that.. I didn’t know they couldn’t go 0-16. Thanks for the clarification.
A kid who has a unicorn ranch in his room cannot call other people weird. Yes, we know about "Rancho Unicorno."
by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Oct 2, 2009 5:07 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't know
Cardinals look about right to me.
I’d definitely consider the Broncos too high. So much of their value is from their defensive performance, but I’d like to see them play a better offense than Cincy/Cleveland/Oakland.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Oct 1, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pats look about right to me
Based on how teams have played so far this season I am not sure which teams that are ranked below them should be put ahead of them.
Not a fan of the Niners and I think their lack of a passing game will hurt them during the year, but based strictly on the three games that have been played I think they deserve a little more love.
by JeromeB on Oct 1, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love the favorable comparison to the 2007 Patriots offense.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John (obviousman) on Oct 1, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
no, no he can't
And I’m one of his biggest fans.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Oct 1, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
you'll be happy to know
that Kyle Orton is ranked 9th in DYAR while Brady is ranked 8th. Orton is ranked 8th in DVOA while Brady is ranked 11th. Also, KO’s passer rating is 91.2 while Brady’s is 79.9.
For those who don’t know, Orton has been putting up these numbers despite wearing a glove all season on his throwing hand due to a knuckle he dislocated in his index finger during the third preseason game.
Orton probably won’t finish the season with Bradyesque numbers, but it’s looking like he should be okay.
by CoastalBronco on Oct 2, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me put it this way
Jay Cutler has a better chance at getting close to Brady then Orton does.
You can put those stats up but you haven’t seen a quality defense all year other then Cinci and that game, though you guys won it, was lucky, but hey that is what happens sometimes. To compare Orton to Brady to me seems absolutely ridiculous, Orton never has shown anything in Chicago and I don’t think he is even a top 10 QB maybe not even a top 15 QB.
by Dude52089 on Oct 2, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the contrary, Orton showed consistent improvement every season in Chicago
I’m not really sure where to take this if you won’t look at stats as at least part of your evaluation of a player. Your entire response is opinion based on perception, which I won’t refute because, even if it was ridiculous (and I’m not saying it isn’t), you have every right to it.
It would also help if you actually read my comments, since, although Orton is statistically “close to Brady” right now, I specifically did not claim he would finish the season that way (but to be fair, I didn’t claim that he wouldn’t either).
What I addressed was the suggestion that Orton “can’t” “be very, very good,” which was posited in the previous comment. I think this is wrong, and to support my opinion I provided a few facts.
Maybe a one sentence summary will help you: There is every possibility that Orton can be good, with how many "very"s I couldn’t say, based on his performance so far this season relative to other respected QBs.
by CoastalBronco on Oct 2, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apologies if I’m snippy today… I’m 18 hours without a cigarette. Maybe I should wait a couple of days to comment.
by CoastalBronco on Oct 2, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been there
and I was less cordial than you.
I’ll throw my two cents in here. I think McDaniels’ system is one that makes it easy for the QB to put up stats and remain relatively mistake-free. I think that’s why Cassel looked good last year (and bad this year) and that’s why Orton looks good this year. I think Brady is better than both, which is why when he’s in the system instead of just looking good he’s breaking records and winning Super Bowls.
Take that as a compliment or an insult if you want. I think as long as Orton stays in McDaniels’ system, he’ll be good. I think McDaniels traded for him because Orton played in a similar system at Purdue and was good there. Will Orton ever be Elway? Hell no. Could he be Matt Cassel? Sure. And that’s good enough for now, with a strong defense and a improving running game in Denver.
I also think Kyle needs to grow his beard back.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John (obviousman) on Oct 2, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
beard lover
A kid who has a unicorn ranch in his room cannot call other people weird. Yes, we know about "Rancho Unicorno."
by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Oct 2, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is more what i should have been going towards
Cassel in the system he was in last year was 11-4 starting games just barely missing the play-offs. Orton seems like he just has to manage games again with a better offense then at chicago and just a slightly worse defense. I say worse defense because so far the offensive teams you faced are 31st, 32nd and 22nd in YPG, even though your defense has gotten better i haven’t been impressed so far because of the quality of opponents.
9-7 or 10-6 wouldn’t be that bad for you guys though the rest of the schedule looks to be extremely tough on you. With only 3 cupcake games remaining vs. KC vs. Oak and @Was.
by Dude52089 on Oct 2, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll hold back before I criticize a Mike Nolan defense. If Elvis Dumervil wins DPOY, Nolan should get a huge raise.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John (obviousman) on Oct 2, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Orton is unfortunately getting unfairly credited with that Stokely catch
Whereas he very nearly should have been credited with an int instead. It is effecting his numbers to a decent extent. But, yes we has played well (outside of the Bengals game). However, it doesn’t mean he’ll be “very, very good”. That’s a least one too many "very"s, if not two too many.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Oct 2, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
you are letting your head talk
instead of what happened on the field? Is it the stats, or is it what you saw happen?
by JeromeB on Oct 2, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the ability I've seen from Kyle Orton
By using all possible tools of evaluation. Stats and numbers can’t show you projection. But, you can see how a player goes about and game and the skills he has. I’ve also never heard anyone refer to Orton as a rising star outside of a Broncos fan. If he becomes a star it’s because he found a new skill set he didn’t have in college or with the Bears and I find that hard to believe. I love the guy, but I’ve loved a lot of my fellow Boilermakers and not many of them are going to be “very, very good” either.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Oct 2, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Just joking around
I was not trying to be a smart ass, just having a little fun with you about it.
I have never been a big fan of Orton. Not only will he not be a star in my opinion, but he will be lucky to start for more than a year in Denver. He is very average, at best.
It was just funny to see you point out how the stats can be misleading in your Orton to Stokely post, and then the very next post (by maestro) your reply is prove it on the field not in someones head. Anyway to me it was funny but maybe I have a crappy sense on humor.
by JeromeB on Oct 3, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is humurous
But in a big picture view, where the smart guys know that the stats are just a way to make sure everything gets counted and the human brain has to intervene when something becomes difficult to quantity (like the Stokely play), then it’s only funny until you start thinking about it.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Oct 3, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FO's rankings show their over-reliance on their numbers rather than their eyes.
Ranking the Chargers behind teams like the Titans (0-3), Bills (1-2), Jaguars (1-2), Redskins (1-2), and Seahawks (1-2) isn’t realistic.
Greg Maddux for manager.
by Zach (maestro876) on Oct 1, 2009 12:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The most compelling thing I see...
Is the all out, dirty brawl between The Browns and The Rams, fighting like never before to claim that coveted bottom feeder status
Formerly, thats a no-go.
I apologize for my ignorant and blatant lack of refinement in terms of my cursage. I did not know much of this Tuel feller so I accidentally used another innocent mans picture. Believe me, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!
by CaDuck on Oct 1, 2009 3:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Chiefs and Buccs are having a weak tussle just behind them, too.
Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ◔ヮ◔
Uncommon Sportsman :: Absurdity in play
by Axion on Oct 1, 2009 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's nice, but doesn't matter.
the only thing that matters is that the chargers are 2-1 for the first time since 2006, when they went 14-2, and aren’t off to the slow start they did last year and in ‘07. they’ll play the giants in november and already proved they can give the ravens a good game, something kc and cleveland clearly couldn’t. considering how banged up they are right now and despite their deficiencies, they still give themselves and philip rivers a chance to win the game leaves me feeling encouraged. me thinks this team will get better as the season progresses.
by SoCalCMH on Oct 1, 2009 10:43 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Couldn't have said it better...
These rankings are fun to talk about, but ultimately have no bearing on the postseason. Overall, I find it hard to argue with any of the rankings (except Football Outsiders…I want what they’re smokin’).
I’m still not sure how good any team is (or isn’t) at this point, but I’m encouraged, given the injuries and how the replacements have responded…the Ravens game was very winnable.
Now, let’s steal one Sunday night and we’ll be looking good!
by BamaBolt on Oct 2, 2009 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Football Outsiders is smoking the stuff
That shows you how well a team has played whereas all the other rankings tell you how good other people think that team is. It’s not really a fair comparison.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Oct 2, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Computers smoke?
Whoever is near that computer needs to get away from it as fast as they can.
by Dude52089 on Oct 2, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
EFF YEAH!!! TRUCKASAURUS!!!
Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ◔ヮ◔
Uncommon Sportsman :: Absurdity in play
by Axion on Oct 2, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Holy crap!?
Where the hell did you find that picture of the young Jamal Williams?
Formerly, thats a no-go.
I apologize for my ignorant and blatant lack of refinement in terms of my cursage. I did not know much of this Tuel feller so I accidentally used another innocent mans picture. Believe me, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!
by CaDuck on Oct 2, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Axion you have single handedly inspired my picture posting today...
I don’t even know you but I like your style my friend…by the way I’m Gorditoe 1 nice to meet you…(handshake)
Chance favors the prepared mind.......
by Gorditoe1 on Oct 2, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
another objective ranking system
This is a well implemented ranking system based on who beat who: http://beatpaths.com/
Another idea, if you’re interested in adding objectivity to the chart, is to include the ranking by NFL playoff standards, using head-to-head, division record, and conference record as tiebreakers.
by CoastalBronco on Oct 2, 2009 8:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yup
Looks like that ones suffering from some sample size issues too. I’m sure that one, just like Football Outsiders, would recommend waiting 8 games before putting much stock in it.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Oct 2, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh yes, any ranking this early in the season is limited by sample size
Even subjective rankings will benefit from more games played. Only hindsight really allows us to evaluate ranking accuracy, and who pays attention to last week’s, let alone last year’s, rankings?
The best test of a ranking system, taking attention span into account, is it’s ability to predict performance. Beatpaths seems to be doing a pretty good job of picking games, even with a small sample size, so it appears to be as accurate as any. I like it for a “forest” view, while FO does a far superior job for looking at the “trees.” And yes, I fully realize this is tainted by my bias toward wins and losses as the stat that rules them all.
by CoastalBronco on Oct 3, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, true
But that’s why (and I sound like a broken record) Football Outsiders has the DAVE ranking, which is much more accurate at this point in the season than the DVOA ranking, which will only gain it’s accuracy after week 8 when it starts adjusting for opponent strength.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Oct 3, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a fan of DAVE
Regression analysis is not proving to be an accurate assessment of off season changes. The best example is that Denver was ranked 32nd (dead last) to start the season. Although I’ll be (happily) surprised if the Broncos maintain their current #3 level, I think they have at least proven the error of projecting them at the very bottom of the league. Denver may be a special case due to the extensive changes in their off season, but the mark was considerably missed nevertheless. I fully expect pre 1st game DAVE rankings to be considerably different than week 4 DVOA rankings. If DAVE was accurate, I wouldn’t think this to be the case.
by CoastalBronco on Oct 4, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
