Re: My Power Rankins for the NFL as of right Now
posted at 11/1/2010 4:05 PM EDT
In Response to Re: My Power Rankins for the NFL as of right Now
[QUOTE]Chris we have agreed on many things, so I wont overreact you. Like most times on here, people never really get what the next person is trying to say, due to them thinking about what they wanna say back. One , I never said the officiating was a factor. Go back and read it. You made that up all by yourself. I said we had lucky BREAKS. There were 3 of them in the S.D. game. Please dont tell me I have to list them. Two, I was unaware of you making a statement that I was supposed to respond too. This is MY thread and My opinion. Three, I never called you a HOmer, so if you want to try on that shoe, dont blame me. Four, you are making me look good here, you wanna continue. You just said that the Pats, the Pats, the Pats, you dont mention stats of other teams, and you said Pittsburgh has the 4th hardest division compared to us having the 3rd hardest. Are you really using this as your argument, or are you just mad the Pats werent put # 1? Pittsburgh plays with B.More and Cincy who swept the division last year. Look, I dont have to explain myself to you. I am not gonna argue cuz you are generally someone I agree with, and if you took off the blinders and stop putting words in my mouth, you'll find we probably agree aside from the Giants, but like I said, I watch every game, and I base it on that. The BIlls are 0-7, I dont care how tough they play. The same Way YOU dont care about who the Giants beat. You cant have it both ways. I thought Mighty's comment was enough for me not be explaining myself to you. You obviously think you know more than Football Outsiders too. What did I not answer? Im not going into your conspiracy calls against the Steelers. They won with a 3rd stringer, thats my answer, and the teams that the Giants beat, they beat them down, blowouts. You can choose to ignore that we are 30th ranked against the pass and 30th in 3rd downs allowed if you want, but like I said, the minute we dont get turnovers this 'D' might be in trouble.
Posted by patsfan76[/QUOTE]
But they are getting turnovers and they are getting them consistently.
That's not by accident. You cannot diminish their accomplishments and then give more weight to those of the Giants or Steelers. You might as well write that the Chiefs would be losing if they didn't rush so well and defend so well. You are the one trying to have your cake and eat it too, in comparisons.
As for stats, I cited quite a few. I know, because I was all over the NFL site stats pages.
Like the Ravens of 2000, I consider the Steelers a team that wins despite the QB. Your mentioning that they could win with Charlie Batch at 3rd string supports this. If anything, Big Ben has been a step down for the Steelers, from the little I have seen. He makes a lot of bad plays on the fly.
As for as bad officiating helping certain teams, have you noticed that bad officiating is the hot sub-text in the chat rooms and media this year? That's for a reason. I introduced that aspect, because I consider it germane. My point in the Charger game is that they played a cleaner game. I don't consider that luck. That is taught.
Did San Diego players make unusual blunders? If made by the Pats or the Colts or several other teams' players, sure, yes. But because San Diego players have a history of making such blunders under the current regime, I think it shows that the Pats capitalized on those mistakes better than some other teams. The coaches prepared them for San Diego to make mistakes and the players said as much after the victory. The Pats are winning with whatever other teams give them. That's what they did in their SB runs in 2001, 2003, 2004.
When teams like the Steelers win because of last-ditch, game-changing suspicious calls like in their Miami win (and not the only bad call to favor them in that match), one may legitimately question the success of such teams. In my eyes, the Steelers have a strong D, but they should rightly have a record of 3-4, not 5-2. Such consideration is totally valid to the discussion of team ranking, surely more so than by how dominant a team is in victory.
Do I care or consider how the Giants have beaten teams? Yes. I also consider the teams they have beaten. And I consider the teams that have beaten them and how badly the Giants have been beaten. Why are you not doing the same thing? By my count, the Pats have been man-handled once, and that was early in the season, with a team that has more rookies actively playing and starting than any other team. The Giants have been manhandled twice, and worse each time. They don't have the rookie excuse. Considering the coach, it is not a leap to expect these Pats' rookies to play progressively better in each game, and the results seem to be proving it. This D is much better than it was at the start of the season. I don't think I am alone in thinking that this Pats team today handily beats the Jets today. I can't wait for the re-match. I would concede that the passing attack has lost a statistical step post-Moss. But intangibly, the O seems improved by the move and should only look better as that change is conditioned into the remaining offensive players.
I can see we have both dug-in. I will leave it at that. But mark my words, you are going to catch a lot of flak by tonight. I don't see you persuading too many people that your rankings are well-reasoned. Let's face it - when you publicly rank teams, you invite criticism.