Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Kansas City defeats the BYE week for the first time in years, finally break the Top-10 in this week's Power Rankings   (espn.go.com) divider line 188
    More: Cool, Power Rankings, Jack Del Rio, Big Board, Tom Izzo, Kansas City, Trent Edwards, Ricky Williams, MNF  
•       •       •

3501 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Oct 2010 at 3:23 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-10-05 04:36:05 PM  
mitchcumstein1: Saints are lucky they're not 0-4

If they were lucky they'd be 4-0. And would actually have some healthy safeties.
 
2010-10-05 04:36:28 PM  
Spreadhead: Nabb1: Spreadhead: Ponzholio: Spreadhead: The 49ers are ranked too low. They are a really good 0 and 4, and have had some terrible luck.

Is it really better to say you're the best worst team out there?

They should probably be somewhere around 15, their luck has been horrendous. Plus, you know Coach Singletary is going to kick some butt and get them playing at a high level again.

What exactly did you smoke for lunch?

Nothing, I don't smoke. Not sure if you've seen their games, but they have outplayed their opponents all year. Bad luck cost them a win over New Orleans, that's the game Frank Gore talked about.


31-6 loss to the Seahawks was "bad luck"? How about 31-10 to KC? They could have beaten Atlanta if Clements hadn't fumbled, but turnovers aren't bad luck.
 
2010-10-05 04:36:44 PM  
Why are the Dolphins still as high as 13? I've watched all their games and the last 2 have been awful in the second halves. They fired their farkin special teams coach today. I'm looking at the teams below them and I think Dallas, Titans, Giants, Bungles, Broncos, Rams, Hawks, and maybe a few others would be favored against them. They beat the Vikings on a goal line stand or they would be 1-3. Buffalo stinks. I think they should be in the bottom third. Hell, my Yucaneers could probably beat them.

/This is no way scientific, or anything else. Just a gut reaction to the way they've been playing.
 
2010-10-05 04:49:31 PM  
netweavr: TheNewJesus: Ok I'm a Chiefs fan but damn we didn't even play?

ESPN realized that the Chiefs have a strong running game at the core of their offense and they're playing Indy.

Indy has no running defense. It'll either be a shootout or KC is going to slaughter the Colts. Either way, KC is going to look good.


The over/under is 44-1/2. I think either team alone could hit that...

Rest of the odds-

Broncos +7 Ravens
o/u 38.5

Jaguars pk Bills
o/u 41

Chiefs +8 Colts
o/u 44.5

Rams +3 Lions
o/u 42.5

Falcons -3 Browns
o/u 41

Buccaneers +6.5 Bengals
o/u 38

Bears -2.5 Panthers
o/u 35.5

Packers -2.5 Redskins
o/u 44

Giants +3 Texans
o/u 47

Saints -6.5 Cardinals
o/u 45.5

Chargers -6.5 Raiders
o/u 44.5

Titans +6.5 Cowboys
o/u 41.5

Eagles +3 49ers
o/u 38

Vikings +4 Jets
o/u 38


I like the Rams +3, Falcons -3, Packers -2.5 and Chargers -6.5
 
2010-10-05 04:50:29 PM  
Nabb1: mitchcumstein1: Saints are lucky they're not 0-4

If they were lucky they'd be 4-0. And would actually have some healthy safeties.


This. A blown chip shot FG and an idiot not falling down after picking off Matty Ocre is the difference between 1-3 and 3-1.
 
2010-10-05 04:55:44 PM  
Rams at 24, places them atop their division. I love the NFC West.
 
2010-10-05 04:56:17 PM  
Ponzholio: Chargers -6.5 Raiders
o/u 44.5


Raiders/Chargers games are usually close.

Ponzholio: Eagles +3 49ers
o/u 38


Vick is out, Samuel had a concussion, McCoy is out. If SF can't win here, they'd be ranked too high at #33.

Ponzholio: Chiefs +8 Colts
o/u 44.5


Indy has no run defense.
 
2010-10-05 05:00:13 PM  
Chargers -6.5 Raiders

I never bet on my Chargers, but this is easy money, and I've just gotta do it, damnit!

If the Chargers don't turn the ball over 4 times, they cover. Simple as that.

/someone talk me out of this, so I don't jinx 'em...please
 
2010-10-05 05:03:21 PM  
I have to say that I've loved reading Spreadhead's posts, they are full of win. He's trolling everyone and his responses to the troll responses are golden.

he/she's been at it since a couple of days now.
 
2010-10-05 05:05:07 PM  
netweavr: ESPN realized that the Chiefs have a strong running game at the core of their offense and they're playing Indy.

Indy has no running defense. It'll either be a shootout or KC is going to slaughter the Colts. Either way, KC is going to look good.


I'm a Chiefs fan and hope they pull this off. But I can't help but remember that was the same logic people were running before the Chiefs' last two playoff losses.
 
2010-10-05 05:07:23 PM  
Junzi Nicuzn: netweavr: ESPN realized that the Chiefs have a strong running game at the core of their offense and they're playing Indy.

Indy has no running defense. It'll either be a shootout or KC is going to slaughter the Colts. Either way, KC is going to look good.

I'm a Chiefs fan and hope they pull this off. But I can't help but remember that was the same logic people were running before the Chiefs' last two playoff losses.


I didn't say they'd win, I said they'd look good.
 
2010-10-05 05:07:36 PM  
roflmaonow: I have to say that I've loved reading Spreadhead's posts, they are full of win. He's trolling everyone and his responses to the troll responses are golden.

he/she's been at it since a couple of days now.


Thanks so much. I think I need a rest.
 
2010-10-05 05:09:52 PM  
::fist pump::

Go KC! Not...really...deserving of a bump in the polls, having not played...is the entire argument "these other teams proved they were worse than what we've seen of the Chiefs"? 'cause...how'd we do against Cleveland, again? How would those other teams fare in the monsoon? D'ya think they'd stand a better chance in Indy than us?

/Lots of shrugging goin' on 'round here
//Slashies!
///GIVE OUR SECOND STRING RB THE BALL, OR MAKE HIM THE FIRST STRING DAGNABBIT
 
2010-10-05 05:12:12 PM  
Spreadhead: roflmaonow: I have to say that I've loved reading Spreadhead's posts, they are full of win. He's trolling everyone and his responses to the troll responses are golden.

he/she's been at it since a couple of days now.

Thanks so much. I think I need a rest.


I was quite enjoying it, actually.
 
2010-10-05 05:12:18 PM  
oh_please: Chargers -6.5 Raiders

I never bet on my Chargers, but this is easy money, and I've just gotta do it, damnit!

If the Chargers don't turn the ball over 4 times, they cover. Simple as that.

/someone talk me out of this, so I don't jinx 'em...please


I always bet on the Chargers and the over, but then again, I'm not the brightest guy in the world. Worked last week though.

I'm not so sure I'll bet on them this week. Every time the Chargers play the Raiders, the Raiders treat it like the farking Super Bowl. Plus, they're playing up there in shiathole north (as opposed to shiathole south where the Chargers play) and the place will be full of those freakazoid Raider fans. Not sure what to expect.
 
2010-10-05 05:12:57 PM  
Drumboardist
///GIVE OUR SECOND STRING RB THE BALL, OR MAKE HIM THE FIRST STRING DAGNABBIT


When ARE they going to make Charles the starter? Inquiring FFB dorks want to know.
 
2010-10-05 05:13:09 PM  
oh_please: Chargers -6.5 Raiders

I never bet on my Chargers, but this is easy money, and I've just gotta do it, damnit!

If the Chargers don't turn the ball over 4 times, they cover. Simple as that.

/someone talk me out of this, so I don't jinx 'em...please


Chargers were 3.5 point favorites over the Seahawks and couldn't win, let alone cover. Don't take the bet.
 
2010-10-05 05:13:37 PM  
roflmaonow: I have to say that I've loved reading Spreadhead's posts, they are full of win. He's trolling everyone and his responses to the troll responses are golden.

he/she's been at it since a couple of days now.


/stops
//removes hook from mouth
...dammit...

Well done, Spreadhead. I admit defeat.
 
2010-10-05 05:14:27 PM  
The Third Man: Two points:

Once again, the Bills will be hard-pressed to win a game in the AFC East. (Clayton) Once again, the Bills will be hard pressed to win a game in the AFC East

I realize that's only one point, but it's such a good point, I felt it should be made twice.


When I read "Bears: The offensive linemen should donate their checks to charity this week. (Walker)", I thought "Truer words have never been spoken (in ESPN Power Rankings).". Then I saw the Bill's double-quote, and was proved wrong.
 
2010-10-05 05:21:03 PM  
Kornchex: Plus, they're playing up there in shiathole north (as opposed to shiathole south where the Chargers play) and the place will be full of those freakazoid Raider fans. Not sure what to expect.

Stabbings? Drug deals gone bad?
 
2010-10-05 05:21:49 PM  
oh_please: Chargers -6.5 Raiders

I never bet on my Chargers, but this is easy money, and I've just gotta do it, damnit!

If the Chargers don't turn the ball over 4 times, they cover. Simple as that.

/someone talk me out of this, so I don't jinx 'em...please


On the contrary, load up and bet SD.

/Chiefs fan.
// Hope they tie
 
2010-10-05 05:23:31 PM  
Igor Jakovsky: Drumboardist
///GIVE OUR SECOND STRING RB THE BALL, OR MAKE HIM THE FIRST STRING DAGNABBIT

When ARE they going to make Charles the starter? Inquiring FFB dorks want to know.


Thomas Jones has been named a captain for the season... I wouldn't expect to see a captain be 2nd string.
 
2010-10-05 05:30:16 PM  
nunoyo: roflmaonow: I have to say that I've loved reading Spreadhead's posts, they are full of win. He's trolling everyone and his responses to the troll responses are golden.

he/she's been at it since a couple of days now.

/stops
//removes hook from mouth
...dammit...

Well done, Spreadhead. I admit defeat.


Thanks, just tried to channel Epiphany
 
2010-10-05 05:30:37 PM  
Ponzholio: Chiefs +8, Rams +3, Texans -3
 
2010-10-05 05:31:21 PM  
img15.imageshack.us
 
2010-10-05 05:33:30 PM  
Kornchex: oh_please: Chargers -6.5 Raiders

I never bet on my Chargers, but this is easy money, and I've just gotta do it, damnit!

If the Chargers don't turn the ball over 4 times, they cover. Simple as that.

/someone talk me out of this, so I don't jinx 'em...please

Every time the Chargers play the Raiders, the Raiders treat it like the farking Super Bowl.


Yeah, that's true. I just get the feeling the Chargers are gonna open up a Costco-size bag of whoopass on the Raiders this week.

seumasokelly:

Chargers were 3.5 point favorites over the Seahawks and couldn't win, let alone cover. Don't take the bet.

The Chargers turned the ball over 5 times, gave up 2 touchdowns on kick coverage, and still were in the game until the end. I don't think that's going to happen again.

/thanks for trying to talk me out of it though
/put the bet down at -6.5
 
2010-10-05 05:36:44 PM  
oh_please: I just get the feeling

This is a great way to lose at betting.
 
2010-10-05 05:37:19 PM  
Cute rankings, but the top-3 teams (IMHO) are as follows:

1.) Pittsburgh
2.) Baltimore
3.) NY Jets

Not surprisingly, they also happen to have the best defenses.
 
2010-10-05 05:37:25 PM  
netweavr: oh_please: I just get the feeling

This is a great way to lose at betting.


Heh, true.
 
2010-10-05 05:38:22 PM  
mitchcumstein1: They get two weeks before their next game, and the guy has been there for 6 years and won two Super Bowls with these people. I'm sure they're fairly familiar with each other.
=======================================================

Yeah...
 
2010-10-05 05:39:02 PM  
Spreadhead: nunoyo: roflmaonow: I have to say that I've loved reading Spreadhead's posts, they are full of win. He's trolling everyone and his responses to the troll responses are golden.

he/she's been at it since a couple of days now.

/stops
//removes hook from mouth
...dammit...

Well done, Spreadhead. I admit defeat.

Thanks, just tried to channel Epiphany


It was a masterpiece. Really great posts, I loved every one of them.
 
2010-10-05 05:39:35 PM  
robsul82: Nabb1: mitchcumstein1: Saints are lucky they're not 0-4

If they were lucky they'd be 4-0. And would actually have some healthy safeties.

This. A blown chip shot FG and an idiot not falling down after picking off Matty Ocre is the difference between 1-3 and 3-1.


The Saints have squeaked by three bad teams and got beat by the only decent team they've played, how do they deserve to be #2, over the team they farking lost to?
 
2010-10-05 05:40:59 PM  
mitchcumstein1: robsul82: Nabb1: mitchcumstein1: Saints are lucky they're not 0-4

If they were lucky they'd be 4-0. And would actually have some healthy safeties.

This. A blown chip shot FG and an idiot not falling down after picking off Matty Ocre is the difference between 1-3 and 3-1.

The Saints have squeaked by three bad teams and got beat by the only decent team they've played, how do they deserve to be #2, over the team they farking lost to?


Because no one farks with the Breesus.
 
2010-10-05 05:48:13 PM  
drkdstryer: Spreadhead: nunoyo: roflmaonow: I have to say that I've loved reading Spreadhead's posts, they are full of win. He's trolling everyone and his responses to the troll responses are golden.

he/she's been at it since a couple of days now.

/stops
//removes hook from mouth
...dammit...

Well done, Spreadhead. I admit defeat.

Thanks, just tried to channel Epiphany

It was a masterpiece. Really great posts, I loved every one of them.


It was good, and unfortunately believable. I'm related to lifelong niner fans, who keep saying that Singletary is the 2nd coming. When asked what he's done to make them think so, they say he's really whipped the team into shape and taken care of the bad attitudes. Whether that's true or not (it's not), he's not there to make everyone get along, he's there to win games.
 
2010-10-05 05:58:58 PM  
murp0837: Cute rankings, but the top-3 teams (IMHO) are as follows:

1.) Pittsburgh
2.) Baltimore
3.) NY Jets

Not surprisingly, they also happen to have the best defenses.


Any reason you have Pittsburgh over the Ravens even though the Ravens just beat them at Heinz field?

/Giants fan
//No idea what to expect from my team besides consistent inconsistency (especially from the offense)
///Of course 8-8 could be good enough for the playoffs this year in the NFC (L)east
 
2010-10-05 06:06:47 PM  
Junzi Nicuzn: netweavr: ESPN realized that the Chiefs have a strong running game at the core of their offense and they're playing Indy.

Indy has no running defense. It'll either be a shootout or KC is going to slaughter the Colts. Either way, KC is going to look good.

I'm a Chiefs fan and hope they pull this off. But I can't help but remember that was the same logic people were running before the Chiefs' last two playoff losses.


It's been a while, but if I remember right, the second to last one was a shootout, and the last one was Bob Sanders' return. He really shored up the Colt run defense. Plus Herm ran Larry Johnson right into the middle of the line every single farking down. Fat Charlie's got to be more clever than that.
The thing I'm worried about is Manning taking advantage of the young and aggressive Chief secondary, especially Eric Berry. But I was reading something today about Manning going to Tennessee the past few years to work with the Vols, so I'm hoping Berry might be a little more aware than he's been the first three games.
 
2010-10-05 06:07:18 PM  
oh_please: Kornchex: oh_please: Chargers -6.5 Raiders

I never bet on my Chargers, but this is easy money, and I've just gotta do it, damnit!

If the Chargers don't turn the ball over 4 times, they cover. Simple as that.

/someone talk me out of this, so I don't jinx 'em...please

Every time the Chargers play the Raiders, the Raiders treat it like the farking Super Bowl.

Yeah, that's true. I just get the feeling the Chargers are gonna open up a Costco-size bag of whoopass on the Raiders this week.

seumasokelly:

Chargers were 3.5 point favorites over the Seahawks and couldn't win, let alone cover. Don't take the bet.

The Chargers turned the ball over 5 times, gave up 2 touchdowns on kick coverage, and still were in the game until the end. I don't think that's going to happen again.

/thanks for trying to talk me out of it though
/put the bet down at -6.5


I wouldn't lay money against the Chargers in that game, with that line. Let's just say that if I was standing at the betting window staring at the boards, I'd take a different game. Probabaly take the Packers or the Jets based on the odds listed above.
 
2010-10-05 06:07:18 PM  
Nabb1: mitchcumstein1: robsul82: Nabb1: mitchcumstein1: Saints are lucky they're not 0-4

If they were lucky they'd be 4-0. And would actually have some healthy safeties.

This. A blown chip shot FG and an idiot not falling down after picking off Matty Ocre is the difference between 1-3 and 3-1.

The Saints have squeaked by three bad teams and got beat by the only decent team they've played, how do they deserve to be #2, over the team they farking lost to?

Because no one farks with the Breesus.


Fair enough.
 
2010-10-05 06:07:27 PM  
Dr Quest DFA: murp0837: Cute rankings, but the top-3 teams (IMHO) are as follows:

1.) Pittsburgh
2.) Baltimore
3.) NY Jets

Not surprisingly, they also happen to have the best defenses.

Any reason you have Pittsburgh over the Ravens even though the Ravens just beat them at Heinz field?

/Giants fan
//No idea what to expect from my team besides consistent inconsistency (especially from the offense)
///Of course 8-8 could be good enough for the playoffs this year in the NFC (L)east


here's why:
http://www.nfl.com/standings

as you can see, Pittsburgh has more points for, less points against, more TD's than Baltimore. Add on top of that the fact that they were down to their 4th string QB, and you can begin to see why they're ranked #1.

not that it makes any damn sense whatsoever. I still don't understand why, but hey, wtf do I know?
 
2010-10-05 06:24:21 PM  
Jets in the top 5, that sounds about right.
 
2010-10-05 06:31:24 PM  
Di Atribe: eagles95: No way GB is 3. I'm a Packer fan and at best we are #10. Crap D. Horrific special teams. And no running game. And our head coach is a moran

Everybody loves your QB.


we do too. too bad he has no running game besides running for his life
 
2010-10-05 06:48:30 PM  
Di Atribe: Quasar: So fair enough, perhaps I won't knock down the Saints and Packers much, but they've been pretty darn shaky the last few weeks.

I agree. I just wanted you to back yourself up. :P

In other news, GRAPH



I like the really awesome clusterfark right around #12 between weeks 2 & 3. It's like a jacked up pinwheel.


Is this graph something you just do for fun, or is it taken from somewhere. Either way its a cool representation.
 
2010-10-05 06:53:29 PM  
mitchcumstein1: The Saints have squeaked by three bad teams and got beat by the only decent team they've played, how do they deserve to be #2, over the team they farking lost to?

Because you lost if Hartley does his job correctly and again if Clements isn't an idiot. Neither of those things have anything to do with Atlanta being good, just lucky, but hey, credit given on stripping said idiot, as I always say when the usual chorus of "turnovers are just luck" bullshiat starts against my team, forced turnovers aren't luck. But seriously, nobody farks with the Breesus.

We can argue all day on this, better question - you agree with Clayton's mindfarkery of a ranking? Are you a Clayton lover?
 
2010-10-05 06:58:30 PM  
seumasokelly: oh_please: Kornchex: oh_please: Chargers -6.5 Raiders

I never bet on my Chargers, but this is easy money, and I've just gotta do it, damnit!

If the Chargers don't turn the ball over 4 times, they cover. Simple as that.

/someone talk me out of this, so I don't jinx 'em...please

Every time the Chargers play the Raiders, the Raiders treat it like the farking Super Bowl.

Yeah, that's true. I just get the feeling the Chargers are gonna open up a Costco-size bag of whoopass on the Raiders this week.

seumasokelly:

Chargers were 3.5 point favorites over the Seahawks and couldn't win, let alone cover. Don't take the bet.

The Chargers turned the ball over 5 times, gave up 2 touchdowns on kick coverage, and still were in the game until the end. I don't think that's going to happen again.

/thanks for trying to talk me out of it though
/put the bet down at -6.5

I wouldn't lay money against the Chargers in that game, with that line. Let's just say that if I was standing at the betting window staring at the boards, I'd take a different game. Probabaly take the Packers or the Jets based on the odds listed above.


Packers, no way. Jets, maybe....
 
2010-10-05 07:27:21 PM  
Okay, the Ravens are ranked behind the Steelers, that they beat, and the Jets, that they beat.

Look, I'm not a Ravens apologist or anything. I'm more of a casual fan than a die hard one team guy, but I really can't see how this makes any sense at all.

The Saints have the "ability" to be a top three team, but they are injured right now. You can't reserve a spot in the top three for when a team will eventually get healthy. Remember the Steelers without Polamalu last year? What if they reserves the #1 spot for the Steelers until he got healthy?

Sure Brees is carrying the team right now, but how long can he do that?

Then we have the apologists talking about how they could be 4-0. The Ravens could be 4-0 as well. Take away a phantom tripping penalty when Ray Lewis was shoved down in front of the QB by an offensive lineman and the Bengals don't get their game winning FG and that's despite having four turnovers.


Of course we have to move onto the Steelers. Saying the Steelers didn't have Ben is a poor excuse when the Ravens didn't have Reed. With Ed Reed, the Ravens are good for at least one INT from the secondary. Without Ed Reed, the secondary has no INT. Ray Lewis and Haloti Ngata have forced more turnovers than anyone in the Ravens secondary. That's a pretty sad stat (not that Lewis or Ngata are bad players). The closest thing they have to an Ed Reed factor is Haruki Nakamura and he isn't an every down safety.

The Jets? People are saying "Sanchez is looking much better now". Well he isn't facing the Ravens D now. Perhaps that could be a small factor in his increased efficiency? On that note Joe Flacco is also looking much better now. So who has gotten better on a whole, Flacco who has had to deal with three top five defense week or Sanchez who has had to deal with two top ten defenses (lets see what the Ravens are able to do with the Bills when the time comes) ?

The sad fact of the matter is the only player that has been able to do anything against the Ravens D this year is Peyton Hillis. Everyone else has fallen flat on their face. The Ravens offense has had to gift teams good field position with turn overs for them to even have a chance.

So now you have a sixth ranked team that has beaten the #1 team and the #3 team. It sounds like a big joke to me.

Sadly, the Fox Sports power ranking is the one closest to reality IMO.
 
2010-10-05 07:39:31 PM  
degenerate-afro: Saying the Steelers didn't have Ben is a poor excuse when the Ravens didn't have Reed.

I was almost with you till then.
 
2010-10-05 07:47:19 PM  
Ninja Wicked: Di Atribe: Quasar: So fair enough, perhaps I won't knock down the Saints and Packers much, but they've been pretty darn shaky the last few weeks.

I agree. I just wanted you to back yourself up. :P

In other news, GRAPH



I like the really awesome clusterfark right around #12 between weeks 2 & 3. It's like a jacked up pinwheel.

Is this graph something you just do for fun, or is it taken from somewhere. Either way its a cool representation.


She's done it for over a year now. I'm pretty convinced ESPN stole it from her.
 
2010-10-05 07:49:16 PM  
Ninja Wicked: Is this graph something you just do for fun, or is it taken from somewhere. Either way its a cool representation.

I make it because I'm a sick individual who loves making graphs. I have lots. You may also enjoy this one. A pie chart showing the NFL affiliations of these here farkers.

i27.photobucket.com

And just to pimp it one more time (psha right), if you're not on this list (new window), go here (new window) and add yourself to this spreadsheet and I'll add you to the Super Duper List of Awesome Farkers who like Football and like and the such as.
 
2010-10-05 07:51:27 PM  
oh_please: degenerate-afro: Saying the Steelers didn't have Ben is a poor excuse when the Ravens didn't have Reed.

I was almost with you till then.


Look at the Ravens turn over stats with Reed and without Reed.
 
2010-10-05 07:56:17 PM  
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report