Top 10 to date

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Top 10 to date

    1. N.O. - without question
    2. Min - 2 & 3 could be switched
    3. Den - see above
    4. Indy -
    5. Atl - I am sure this raises some dander.
    6. NE -
    7. NYG - its what my unofficial, thoroughly fallible ranking system says.
    8. Cin - By virtue of win over Pit
    9. Pit -
    10. GB - could have been (adjustment) AZ.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1020us. Show m1020us's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]1. N.O. - without question 2. Min - 2 & 3 could be switched 3. Den - see above 4. Indy - 5. Atl - I am sure this raises some dander. 6. NE - 7. NYG - its what my unofficial, thoroughly fallible ranking system says. 8. Cin - by virtue of win over Pitt. 9. Pitt 10. GB - could have been Chi or SF, but GB won, Chi lost, SF idle. 
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    LOL!  Hypocrite.....

    I recall that you put a ton of effort into trying to convince people that H2H was very important.....Why are you flip-flopping?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    Dogg...

    1 - 4 makes sense..... what is the head scratcher (you predicted this retort).. your rationale to place Atlanta ahead of NE considering how easily the Pats handled them. Did you see something in that game that made you think the Falcons are better than the Pats?  Also, in spite of the loss to Denver in which the Pats played them tough, much better than the Chargers did, and it took OT, with no opportunity to get the ball, for this loss.  Everyone acknowledges the Pats will improve as the season progresses, what is your prognosis for the Falcons?  Can you imagine what the game versus the Falcons would have been like if Brady was firing in all cylinders like he was in the Titans game?

    Anyway... I'm just happy they play the game and opinions don't decide this matter.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    I expected this M10 and I totally agree with you. 

    I actually was having a little fun last night and tried to create a system that was slightly subjective but not too much. 

    I said:  All teams 500 or better were "good" teams.  Any teams 2-4 or worse were "bad" teams. 

    Then I looked at the games played to date and devised a points system

    Good Win - 3 pts
    Win - 1 pt
    Bad Win - 0 pts
    Loss -  (-2)
    Bad Loss - (-4)

    A good win is a win by 14 or more good team vs. good team. 
    A bad win is a win by a good team by less than 7 against a bad team
    A win is all other wins. 

    A bad loss - is a loss by a good team of 14 or more points or a loss vs. a bad team. 
    A loss is all other losses.  There is no such thing as a good loss. 

    Finally, I said a bad loss was worse than a good win, and a loss worse than a win, if for no other reason than good teams should win. 

    So ATL is above NE (even though the head to head) b/c NE, at 4-2, has a good win (ATL) and a bad win (BUF).  so 3+1+1+0-2-2.  Total pts = 1.  

    ATL has a total of 2 pts.  They have a good win (SF) and a bad loss (NE).  3+1+1+1-4=2. 

    These could very easily change each week.  If 2-4 teams become 3-4 they are no longer bad and some of the "good or bad" games get thrown out. 

    Regardless, doing this will be fun, but I have no problem with your issue.  And yes, personally, head to head means more, but NE still has 2 losses to ATL's 1 and they played that game in NE.  Subjectively, I could easily put NYG above both NE and ATL, but the scoring did not work out that way.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    Dogg....

    Hmmmm...   and this point assignment can be totally different in a couple weeks when the team's records are adjusted for subsequent wins and losses and your point assignments are rather arbitrary.

    For example, the Pats victory's against undefeated teams, Falcons and Ravens still counted as only one point, an equal weight given to a victory against a team with a losing record.  Is that fair?  Why not have 2 points for a win against an ABOVE .500 team while giving the -1 for a loss to a .500 team or better and -2 to a losing record team.  The 14 point margin doesn't hold water because of garbage time TDs when the game is clearly in the W column. Score closer than the actual game overall.  Look at the results of the Steelers-Chargers and Vikings-Ravens games.  In those games would it have been safe to say the Steelers and Vikings dominated and simply let up late with big leads?

    For all we know, the Falcons, or the Pats for that matter, could go into the tank, or a team like the Chargers could turn it around.  The classic example, the Phins of last year, were 2 - 4 and finished 11 - 5.  This turnaround does what to an early season win against them, which would have been termed a win against a poor team, into a "quality" win given the team's overall season result?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from fuzzy1. Show fuzzy1's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]1. N.O. - without question 2. Min - 2 & 3 could be switched 3. Den - see above 4. Indy - 5. Atl - I am sure this raises some dander. 6. NE - 7. NYG - its what my unofficial, thoroughly fallible ranking system says. 8. Cin - By virtue of win over Pit 9. Pit - 10. GB - could have been ( adjustment)  AZ.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Dogg,

    Kind of strange, but I think that Indy/New Orleans should be a toss up for number 1.  Indy seems to go under the radar every single year.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    AGC - Well, I am no Sagarin, that's for sure.  As I said, I was just having fun.  as I see it, a good team is a good team as defined by their record.  Undefeated means little in most cases because frequently the undefeated team may have played cupcakes (see NYG).  Actually that is why N O is so impressive.  They have handily beaten the Giants, Jets, and Eagles all with winning records. 

    You could complicate the formula ad infinitum and maybe you would have a more consistent result week to week, but maybe not.  The only other thing I did consider is whether or not there was such a thing as a good loss.  And, I thought no.  Good team should win, period.  When 2 good teams play a close game thats how it should be.  Frankly, the pats benefitted from a good win (ATL) but were negatively affected by a bad one.  Same goes for the colts.   

    I agree that the points applied to each are arbitrary, but when doing something like this, isn't the starting point always like that?  You have to start somewhere. 

    Doing something like this creates a very dynamic ranking.  6 games is not a good sample, but its better than 4 and yes, things could change dramatically.  Honestly, if you think about it, these rankings are how the teams have played to date and not necessarily a projection of how they will play over the next week or 6 weeks, etc.   At the same time, I don't think you can rank based on potential.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Re: Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Top 10 to date : Dogg, Kind of strange, but I think that Indy/New Orleans should be a toss up for number 1.  Indy seems to go under the radar every single year.
    Posted by fuzzy1[/QUOTE]
    Fuzzy, in my opinion, there is only one team head and shoulders above all others to date and that is New Orleans. 

    I think Indy, Denver, and Minn are closer to one another (and my numbers suggest that) but Denver and Minn are 6-0 and that is better than 5-0.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1020us. Show m1020us's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Re: Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]I expected this M10 and I totally agree with you.  I actually was having a little fun last night and tried to create a system that was slightly subjective but not too much.  I said:  All teams 500 or better were "good" teams.  Any teams 2-4 or worse were "bad" teams.  Then I looked at the games played to date and devised a points system Good Win - 3 pts Win - 1 pt Bad Win - 0 pts Loss -  (-2) Bad Loss - (-4) A good win is a win by 14 or more good team vs. good team.  A bad win is a win by a good team by less than 7 against a bad team A win is all other wins.  A bad loss - is a loss by a good team of 14 or more points or a loss vs. a bad team.  A loss is all other losses.  There is no such thing as a good loss.  Finally, I said a bad loss was worse than a good win, and a loss worse than a win, if for no other reason than good teams should win.  So ATL is above NE (even though the head to head) b/c NE, at 4-2, has a good win (ATL) and a bad win (BUF).  so 3+1+1+0-2-2.  Total pts = 1.   ATL has a total of 2 pts.  They have a good win (SF) and a bad loss (NE).  3+1+1+1-4=2.  These could very easily change each week.  If 2-4 teams become 3-4 they are no longer bad and some of the "good or bad" games get thrown out.  Regardless, doing this will be fun, but I have no problem with your issue.  And yes, personally, head to head means more, but NE still has 2 losses to ATL's 1 and they played that game in NE.  Subjectively, I could easily put NYG above both NE and ATL, but the scoring did not work out that way.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    So this is devised by a SOS that you had created?  Ok....what do you do if one team has played more games than another team? 
    What about a not so bad loss?  An overtime loss or a loss that was by 1 score?  those should not be the same as a Bad loss....
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    Dogg.. there is one "X" factor we can never include in these "ratings" and that is how a team will play that day.  A good team can throw in a stinker, totally against their grain, while a bad team can play well above expectations.  IE - OAK & PHL.  It does make for great discussion.

    When you look at the season to date..  Pats lose to the Jets and Broncos.  The Jets looked like world beaters that day and now?  The Broncos appear to be legit, but, I am certain the Pats would love a rematch as they all agree the O was off that day.  The Saints looked like world beaters against the Giants, who also looked like world beaters against who?  It is week to week with Jekyl and Hyde teams appearing all the time.  Tough to figure, isn't it?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Re: Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Top 10 to date : So this is devised by a SOS that you had created?  Ok....what do you do if one team has played more games than another team?  What about a not so bad loss?  An overtime loss or a loss that was by 1 score?  those should not be the same as a Bad loss....
    Posted by m1020us[/QUOTE]
    M10 - I suppose it is.  If a team has played more games than another then they get the value (good or bad) of that extra game.  It will all even out in the end. 

    I just kind of figured that there was no such thing as a "good" loss.  It still goes on a team's record as a loss. 

    That said, there is differentiation between a loss and a "bad" loss, and a team that is looking worse than their record right now is the Jets.  They were beaten by N O by 14 AND they lost to a bad team (BUF).  I shouldn't put them above NE just because they beat NE should I?  just kidding.

    As I said, I was just having fun and thought I'd throw it out there as something to discuss.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Re: Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]Dogg.. there is one "X" factor we can never include in these "ratings" and that is how a team will play that day.  A good team can throw in a stinker, totally against their grain, while a bad team can play well above expectations.  IE - OAK & PHL.  It does make for great discussion. When you look at the season to date..  Pats lose to the Jets and Broncos.  The Jets looked like world beaters that day and now?  The Broncos appear to be legit, but, I am certain the Pats would love a rematch as they all agree the O was off that day.  The Saints looked like world beaters against the Giants, who also looked like world beaters against who?  It is week to week with Jekyl and Hyde teams appearing all the time.  Tough to figure, isn't it?
    Posted by agcsbill[/QUOTE]
    And I think that a loss like Philly's says something very bad about the good team.  Now if Oakland wins next week (which would make them 3-4) then Philly's "bad" loss is wiped out and it just becomes a loss, because at 3-4 Oakland is no longer a "bad" team. 

    I do have a question - if I try to keep this up throughout the year, how do I define bad teams - winning percentage below a certain #, two games under 500, etc?  thoughts?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Re: Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]I expected this M10 and I totally agree with you.  I actually was having a little fun last night and tried to create a system that was slightly subjective but not too much.  I said:  All teams 500 or better were "good" teams.  Any teams 2-4 or worse were "bad" teams.  Then I looked at the games played to date and devised a points system Good Win - 3 pts Win - 1 pt Bad Win - 0 pts Loss -  (-2) Bad Loss - (-4) A good win is a win by 14 or more good team vs. good team.  A bad win is a win by a good team by less than 7 against a bad team A win is all other wins.  A bad loss - is a loss by a good team of 14 or more points or a loss vs. a bad team.  A loss is all other losses.  There is no such thing as a good loss.  Finally, I said a bad loss was worse than a good win, and a loss worse than a win, if for no other reason than good teams should win.  So ATL is above NE (even though the head to head) b/c NE, at 4-2, has a good win (ATL) and a bad win (BUF).  so 3+1+1+0-2-2.  Total pts = 1.   ATL has a total of 2 pts.  They have a good win (SF) and a bad loss (NE).  3+1+1+1-4=2.  These could very easily change each week.  If 2-4 teams become 3-4 they are no longer bad and some of the "good or bad" games get thrown out.  Regardless, doing this will be fun, but I have no problem with your issue.  And yes, personally, head to head means more, but NE still has 2 losses to ATL's 1 and they played that game in NE.  Subjectively, I could easily put NYG above both NE and ATL, but the scoring did not work out that way.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Total nonsense. You dream up a completely arbitrary and meaningless system for designating "good" wins and "bad" wins but somehow indy comes out ahead of the pats after the cupcake schedule they've played. 

    earth to dogg;  any win is a good win!

    relative win margins are meaningless. the only consideration should be strength opponents' schedule this year, in terms of evaluating the "merits" of a win.

    I'd like to see a NFL power ranking based on that factor alone. In fact maybe I'll do it myself, since I'm retired and can do whatever I want.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    Power rankings are complete BS. This isn't the BCS where USC blows out some team from East Carolina by fifty points to improve their ranking. Good win Bad Win has no bearing on what actually occurs in the post season (see 2007 Pats). The goal the NFL is to win enough games to make the playoffs(and preeferably get a bye in the 1st round), then win the super bowl.....no one will care how many good wins or bad wins you have if you show up in the playoffs. Every win is good win and every loss is bad loss because it directly affects where your team is in the stands and could, inevitably, affect playoff positioning. For example, if the Pats win 14 games and no one else in the AFC does they get the bye and homefield. If their are head to head match-ups against playoff teams that win the same # of games then the H2H matters.

    Power rankings in week six have no validity at all for how the season ends and who gets slotted where in the playoffs. There is far to much football left.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    No thinking person without an agenda to stir the pot or a blind team loyalty would rank the Falcons over the Pats when the Pats soundly beat them just three weeks ago and have just displayed an historic, record-setting 59-0 victory in their last game played.

    I want to do my best to refrain from personal insults on these forums. Let's just say you deserve no respect from me or anyone else here. You are not to be taken seriously.  I will leave it at that.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Re: Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Top 10 to date : Total nonsense. You dream up a completely arbitrary and meaningless system for designating "good" wins and "bad" wins but somehow indy comes out ahead of the pats after the cupcake schedule they've played.  earth to dogg;   any win is a good win! relative win margins are meaningless. the only consideration should be strength opponents' schedule this year, in terms of evaluating the "merits" of a win. I'd like to see a NFL power ranking based on that factor alone. In fact maybe I'll do it myself, since I'm retired and can do whatever I want.
    Posted by unclealfie[/QUOTE]
    Could be nonsense.  I don't disagree.  Was just having fun with it. 

    As for any ranking.  I am going to bet that every one has an undefeated team ranked higher than a 2 loss team. 

    Sagarin does some of that.  Currently the pats are ranked 6th with the seventh hardest sched.  Indy is 3rd with the 19th hardest. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Re: Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]Power rankings are complete BS. This isn't the BCS where USC blows out some team from East Carolina by fifty points to improve their ranking. Good win Bad Win has no bearing on what actually occurs in the post season (see 2007 Pats). The goal the NFL is to win enough games to make the playoffs(and preeferably get a bye in the 1st round), then win the super bowl.....no one will care how many good wins or bad wins you have if you show up in the playoffs. Every win is good win and every loss is bad loss because it directly affects where your team is in the stands and could, inevitably, affect playoff positioning. For example, if the Pats win 14 games and no one else in the AFC does they get the bye and homefield. If their are head to head match-ups against playoff teams that win the same # of games then the H2H matters. Power rankings in week six have no validity at all for how the season ends and who gets slotted where in the playoffs. There is far to much football left.
    Posted by JohnHannahrulz[/QUOTE]
    Totally agree hannah.  just having fun with it.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Re: Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]No thinking person without an agenda to stir the pot or a blind team loyalty would rank the Falcons over the Pats when the Pats soundly beat them just three weeks ago and have just displayed an historic, record-setting 59-0 victory in their last game played. I want to do my best to refrain from personal insults on these forums. Let's just say you deserve no respect from me or anyone else here. You are not to be taken seriously.  I will leave it at that.
    Posted by chrisakawoody[/QUOTE]
    I somewhat agree.  but I was just trying to play with statistics.  Cue johnboy pmike.

    Its just to discuss. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    dogg...   try to keep up the whole season and you'll go stir crazy!!  For a few weeks you may feel a team is "good" then they go into the tank, scratching your head the whole time!

    Pats fans learned the hard way that who wins the last game is in the memories of most as to who the best team is regardless of season accomplishments.  All it took was one miraculous play!!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    Well, given the grief that I received, I may do it just for myself even if the pats end up at the top by the end of the season without the best record. 

    There was no disrespect meant, but I understand the anger seeing ATL above NE, but no one seemed bothered by the fact that the Giants were below NE although they have one more win and have only lost to the best team thus far while the pats have lost 2 including one to a 3-3 team. 

    No big deal.  I don't think the colts at this juncture have defined themselves as anything other than a team that has not lost a game.  There are a few more difficult games coming up NE, @BAL, @HOU then in Dec they play DEN and 4 days later @JAX.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    In Response to Re: Top 10 to date:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Top 10 to date : Surely you're being sarcastic.  If Womanning threw 5 td's in a quarter he'd be instantly inducted into the hall Of fame!
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Amen to that.

    Its a mystery to me why manning is worshipped so by the media. Yes, he's a great QB. But he plays in a time of great QBs throughout the league, so he's not exactly unique in that. (Farve, brady, rivers, brees, et al along with flacco, sanchez and ryan in the next generation).

    He only has one flawed SB win, he's butttt ugly, he's a whiner and he plays in indianapolis, for crying out loud, possibly the most unglamorous city in the league. (Not counting cleveland and cincinnatti, of course).  
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

         Power Ratings After Week 6:

    1.) New Orleans Saints: Saints look like the second coming of the 2007 Patriots. Deserve the top spot based on blowout wins over the Eagles and Giants;

    2.) Indianapolis Colts: True, they're playing whats' turning out to be a very soft schedule. Nonetheless, as I stated in my last "power ratings" post, I've never seen Peyton Manning play better than he is now. With Bob Sanders set to return for the second half of the season, and their aforementioned schedule, the Colts have a great chance to go 16-0;

    3.) Pittsburgh Steelers: Forget their record. They are still an elite team. Troy Polamalu's return should bolster their defense. 

    4.) Denver Broncos: Can't ignore their start...and their last two wins over the Pats and Chargers;

    5.) New England Patriots: Must prove that they can beat top competition, particularly on the road, in order to move up. Their hole at #3 WR prevents them from being in the same league offensively as the Saints and Colts. Still don't like their inability to rush the passer.

    6.) Minnesota Vikings: Have a chance to show that they're truly an elite team with a win over the Steelers this week. Their defense was awful last week against the Ravens...in a game that they probably should have lost; 

    7.) NY Giants:
    Injury bug has hit the Giants hard of late. Offense must have a healthy Brandon Jacobs to truly click. Defense will bounce back after humiliating performance in New Orleans;

    8.) Atlanta Falcons: A good dome team, but one that must show that it can win in cold weather cites on the road;

    9.) Baltimore Ravens: Can play with anybody...but are a cut below an elite team.  

    10.) Arizona Cardinals: A good team, so long as their OL is able to protect QB Kurt Warner; 

    11.) Philadelphia Eagles:
    Like the bewildered Eagles' fans, I have no idea what happened to this team in Oakland. But, they have the skill position players to give any team trouble. 

    12.) Houston Texans: The most inconsistent, yet talented team in the NFL.

    13.) Cincinnati Bengals: Too many injuries...and loss at home last week to Houston, drops them.

    14.) Miami Dolphins: Well coached team that can run the ball, and that usually don't beat themselves;

    15.) Green Bay Packers: Could come on some, as their defense improves. Lack a running game;

    16.) San Diego Chargers: Can score...but can they stop anyone?
     
    17.) San Francisco 49ers: Loss of RB Frank Gore to injury hurt, big-time; 

    18.) Dallas Cowboys: Their last chance at relevance comes this week, at home against Atlanta;

    19.) New York Jets: How the mighty have fallen...as Mark Sanchez has begun to play like the rookie he is. Jets, and Sanchez, sorely miss WR Jericho Cotchery, and will sorely miss NT Kris Jenkins, who is done for the season;

    20.) Jacksonville Jaguars: Greatest claim to fame this season is that they played the Colts tough, in game one;

    21.) Chicago Bears: Wow!! Isn't that Jay Cutler a difference maker?

    22.) Buffalo Bills: At least their respectable. Loss of QB Trent Edwards (concussion) does them no good;

    23.) Carolina Panthers: Play the Bills in the Mediocre Bowl this week.

    24.) Oakland Raiders: Gained some respectability with big win over Philly;

    25.) Kansas City Chiefs: Will improve somewhat as the season progresses;

    26.) Seattle Seahawks: Dropped off in ratings after getting hammered at home by the Cards;

    27.) Washington Redskins: Sinking fast;

    28.) Cleveland Browns: Have at least won a game; 

    29.) Tennessee Titans: The best of the bottom feeders, talent-wise;

    30.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Beginning to show some improvement;

    31.) St. Louis Rams: Like the Bucs, are showing some improvement;

    32.) Detroit Lions: In their accustomed spot, now that QB Matthew Stafford is out. 

         Thoughts?    

      
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    TP = I am not willing to project what a team may be, so I cannot put Pittsburgh in that spot.  And the same goes for placing Minny behind 2 teams with 2 more losses.   

    I can accept a case where a team with a better record by one game either in the win or loss column could be ranked lower than a team with a worse record, but not a 2 game differential. 

    Regardless, all of it is meaningless accept for the joy received from trying to think about who is best at the time.   
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: Top 10 to date

    Won't disagree with any of these selections.
     
    But i do feel that these rankings are irrelevant in that the pats have such serious flaws in pass rush, wide receiver and RB depth they'll not go far in the playoffs.

     

Share