/cdn.vox-cdn.com/photo_images/8180745/20120802_ajl_ar5_197.jpg)
Just like the majority of NFL players are gearing up to play their first 2012 NFL pre-season game this week, I too must practice in preparation for the regular season. So it's time to dust off the cobwebs and boot up the Rankings Machine and get it to crunch numbers again.
The good news for the Rankings Machine is that a lot of pundits are taking the summer off still. But, there are still some dedicated professionals out there that work over the summer and provide us with new content in the form of the Subjective Power Rankings.
We'll call this the Diet Coke of Power Rankings (I'm sure I've used that phrase before, oh well).
Notable Quotes
SBNation
The Chargers seem to have the talent to be one the league's top teams, but they'll once again be battling against luck, health and coaching. 2010 was the year of disastrous Special Teams, and 2011 was the year of Greg Manusky, disastrous Defensive Coordinator. If first-year DC John Pagano (brother of Chuck Pagano) can be as good as his brother was with the Ravens, the Chargers should have no problem making the playoffs.
This guy ... this guy gets it.
SportingNews
They still have the top-line talent to make up for two disappointing, playoff-less seasons. More consistency, both from Philip Rivers and a defense led by new coordinator John Pagano, will put them neck-and-neck with Denver.
So does this guy.
ProFootballTalk
We ranked the Chargers as a middle-of-the-pack team for 2012 because Turner has been on the job for five seasons, and San Diego's final-year positioning has essentially gotten worse on an annual basis. Some of it has to do with bad luck. Most of it has to do with underachieving, and we're not sold that the '12 Chargers are good enough to push the envelope they've established in the AFC.
We'll just have to see about that, now won't we?
Division Averages
Division | Avg Ranking |
---|---|
NFC East | 12.2083 |
NFC North | 13.7917 |
AFC North | 14.4583 |
NFC South | 16.6667 |
AFC East | 16.7917 |
AFC West | 17.7083 |
NFC West | 19.1667 |
AFC South | 21.2083 |
My initial gut reaction to this ranking is that the AFC West is woefully underrated. But then I got thinking about it and I don't think overall ranking is a good measurement of a division's competitiveness. In future editions, I think I'll start incorporating divisional Standard Deviation too. That way it'll show which divisions are more tightly-grouped, and thus more competitive with each other.
Subjective Average
Subjective | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|||
Packers | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.667 | 0.745 | ||
Giants | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2.000 | 1.000 | ||
Patriots | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2.333 | 0.471 | ||
49ers | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.500 | 0.764 | ||
Texans | 6 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5.500 | 0.957 | ||
Ravens | 4 | 11 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6.167 | 2.267 | ||
Steelers | 8 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6.833 | 1.067 | ||
Eagles | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 8.333 | 0.943 | ||
Broncos | 10 | 13 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 9.833 | 1.772 | ||
Saints | 13 | 9 | 9 | 12 | 8 | 9 | 10.000 | 1.826 | ||
Lions | 9 | 10 | 13 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11.000 | 1.291 | ||
Falcons | 12 | 7 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 11.667 | 2.134 | ||
Bears | 11 | 15 | 11 | 15 | 12 | 11 | 12.500 | 1.803 | ||
Cowboys | 14 | 14 | 14 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 13.667 | 1.700 | ||
Bengals | 16 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 16 | 14 | 14.500 | 1.384 | ||
Chargers | 15 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 16 | 15.667 | 0.943 | ||
Jets | 20 | 19 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 17 | 18.667 | 0.943 | ||
Bills | 23 | 18 | 19 | 17 | 17 | 19 | 18.833 | 2.034 | ||
Titans | 18 | 23 | 20 | 18 | 20 | 21 | 20.000 | 1.732 | ||
Panthers | 21 | 24 | 17 | 21 | 18 | 20 | 20.167 | 2.267 | ||
Chiefs | 17 | 22 | 21 | 23 | 21 | 18 | 20.333 | 2.134 | ||
Seahawks | 22 | 20 | 22 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 21.333 | 0.943 | ||
Cardinals | 19 | 16 | 25 | 24 | 26 | 23 | 22.167 | 3.532 | ||
Buccaneers | 24 | 26 | 26 | 22 | 25 | 26 | 24.833 | 1.463 | ||
Redskins | 25 | 27 | 24 | 25 | 23 | 25 | 24.833 | 1.213 | ||
Raiders | 26 | 21 | 23 | 32 | 24 | 24 | 25.000 | 3.464 | ||
Dolphins | 27 | 28 | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 27.333 | 0.471 | ||
Jaguars | 28 | 25 | 30 | 26 | 29 | 31 | 28.167 | 2.115 | ||
Rams | 29 | 29 | 28 | 30 | 28 | 28 | 28.667 | 0.745 | ||
Vikings | 31 | 30 | 29 | 31 | 30 | 29 | 30.000 | 0.817 | ||
Browns | 30 | 31 | 32 | 27 | 32 | 30 | 30.333 | 1.700 | ||
Colts | 32 | 32 | 31 | 29 | 31 | 32 | 31.167 | 1.067 |
Observations:
- Not a lot has changed since the end of the 2011 regular season. It would seem the expectation is the Chargers are going to be an "average" team (by average, I'm using the "median" definition).
- CBS, you okay there? Cardinals better than the Chargers? Okay ...
- Of course, in the AFC West, the Denver Broncos are getting all the sizzle. Picking up a future-Hall of Fame Quarterback during Free Agency will do that. I have my doubts of just how good the Broncos will be this year, but I'm not going to analyze it too much.
- I certainly think the Kansas City Chiefs will be better than a bottom-third team this year. Their draft wasn't anything that special, but they're getting some key players back from injury. Not to mention they'll have a 4th-place schedule this year. They could be dangerous.
- SportingNews has the Raiders at #32? I know they're a mess and all, but the worst team in the league? I'm not so sure.
- Slightly amused by the fact that Green Bay is still ranked higher than the reigning Super Bowl Champions.
- Last year, expectations were a bit high for the Rams. Not so much this year.
Subjective Standard Deviation
Subjective | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|||
Dolphins | 27 | 28 | 27 | 28 | 27 | 27 | 27.333 | 0.471 | ||
Patriots | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2.333 | 0.471 | ||
Rams | 29 | 29 | 28 | 30 | 28 | 28 | 28.667 | 0.745 | ||
Packers | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.667 | 0.745 | ||
49ers | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.500 | 0.764 | ||
Vikings | 31 | 30 | 29 | 31 | 30 | 29 | 30.000 | 0.817 | ||
Chargers | 15 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 16 | 15.667 | 0.943 | ||
Eagles | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 8.333 | 0.943 | ||
Jets | 20 | 19 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 17 | 18.667 | 0.943 | ||
Seahawks | 22 | 20 | 22 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 21.333 | 0.943 | ||
Texans | 6 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5.500 | 0.957 | ||
Giants | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2.000 | 1.000 | ||
Steelers | 8 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6.833 | 1.067 | ||
Colts | 32 | 32 | 31 | 29 | 31 | 32 | 31.167 | 1.067 | ||
Redskins | 25 | 27 | 24 | 25 | 23 | 25 | 24.833 | 1.213 | ||
Lions | 9 | 10 | 13 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11.000 | 1.291 | ||
Bengals | 16 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 16 | 14 | 14.500 | 1.384 | ||
Buccaneers | 24 | 26 | 26 | 22 | 25 | 26 | 24.833 | 1.463 | ||
Browns | 30 | 31 | 32 | 27 | 32 | 30 | 30.333 | 1.700 | ||
Cowboys | 14 | 14 | 14 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 13.667 | 1.700 | ||
Titans | 18 | 23 | 20 | 18 | 20 | 21 | 20.000 | 1.732 | ||
Broncos | 10 | 13 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 9.833 | 1.772 | ||
Bears | 11 | 15 | 11 | 15 | 12 | 11 | 12.500 | 1.803 | ||
Saints | 13 | 9 | 9 | 12 | 8 | 9 | 10.000 | 1.826 | ||
Bills | 23 | 18 | 19 | 17 | 17 | 19 | 18.833 | 2.034 | ||
Jaguars | 28 | 25 | 30 | 26 | 29 | 31 | 28.167 | 2.115 | ||
Chiefs | 17 | 22 | 21 | 23 | 21 | 18 | 20.333 | 2.134 | ||
Falcons | 12 | 7 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 11.667 | 2.134 | ||
Ravens | 4 | 11 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6.167 | 2.267 | ||
Panthers | 21 | 24 | 17 | 21 | 18 | 20 | 20.167 | 2.267 | ||
Raiders | 26 | 21 | 23 | 32 | 24 | 24 | 25.000 | 3.464 | ||
Cardinals | 19 | 16 | 25 | 24 | 26 | 23 | 22.167 | 3.532 |
Observations:
- Dolphins and Patriots are equally consistent in their rankings, just at opposite ends of the spectrum.
- Chargers have a pretty solid hold on that #16 spot.
- The Cowboys would have been very consistently ranked had the crackpots at SportingNews not put them in the top 10. Seriously?
- Also, CBS is a lone wolf in thinking the Ravens will be weaker than everyone else thinks.
- Some people want to believe in the Panthers, others not so much.
- Who knows what to think about the Raiders or Cardinals?