cameroncrazy1984: netweavr: Zombie Neurosurgeon: netweavr: You know, I don't put it past Dallas to beat New England.

How? Dallas has only scored 30 points once. The Patriots have scored at least 30 in every game, and Dallas' defense isn't as good as Oakland or New York.

Dallas hasn't faced a defense nearly as bad as the Patriots'. They're also coming off a bye-week with a fire under their ass.

They will win. 35-30.

As long as Romo doesn't have to do anything in the last 2 minutes quarters.

The Bestest: I would like to contend that the Panthers are a better 1-4 team than the Eagles are.

This is one of the greatest travesties in football today. The carolina panthers have to be the best 1-4 team EVER in the NFL based on the numbers they are putting up

netweavr: Zombie Neurosurgeon: netweavr: You know, I don't put it past Dallas to beat New England.

How? Dallas has only scored 30 points once. The Patriots have scored at least 30 in every game, and Dallas' defense isn't as good as Oakland or New York.

Dallas hasn't faced a defense nearly as bad as the Patriots'. They're also coming off a bye-week with a fire under their ass.

They will win. 35-30.

Last time the Patriots played the Cowboys, Brady threw for almost 400 yards and 5 TD. Pats won 48-27. That Cowboys team was much better.

DamnYankees: IKanHazaBukkit: BTW NE isn't DFL in yards allowed anymore after Sunday's game.

Who is?

I thought it was the Raiders, but i was off by 11yds.

GO RAMS!

/straight to the bottom so we can have another number 1 pick
//can you draft an entire offensive line with one pick?

basemetal: [www.footiewallpapers.com image 640x416]

The Raider Nation still has a sad. A black hole left in their heart by the passing of their leader. This pain can only be relieved by the destruction of others. Our pain will be felt!

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

robsul82: cameroncrazy1984: I'd have to ask robsul82 since he's keeping stats for the year-end Jake.

Baltimore - Week 1
New York (Jets) - Week 2
Buffalo - Week 3
Baltimore - Week 4
Buffalo - Week 5

I guess we'll let Baltimore do it next week, since they were on a bye. Then again, we are playing the Giants so we might give them a run for their money.

Treygreen13: Duyogurt: Interesting bullshiat shot at Eli Manning on the Giants notes. Yeah, he threw 3 interceptions last week, but one was because his receiver slipped and another was an end of game heave downfield that meant nothing.

He had 4 turnovers, and the only reason it wasn't a blowout was because Victor Cruz made a 5-ring circus catch.

And? I was merely pointing out the writer's comment and its level of inaccuracy. I never said Manning had a great game nor did I mention anything about the game itself. Stating that Manning has been an accurate and effective QB for 4 weeks, and insinuating that he somehow was slinging the ball into the arms of defensive backs is just a minormer and disappointing from an ESPN reporter. Manning threw the ball where his receiver was supposed to be on one play and just chucked it on another with no time left. That is completely different than what the writer, Fox, said.

rickythepenguin: GAT_00: But hey, you got the over by half a point.

yeah, that was pretty freaking remarkable. vegas, man. 50.5, final tally was 51.


i always bring this up about vegas....last year, around week 6 or so, the Pats went ot Cleveland, in what i think was McCoy's second start. at the time, the Pats were something like 5-2 and the Browns were like, 2-5 or some shiat.

well, Vegas had the Colts favored by like, 4 or some shiat. Made no sense whatsoever. none. Just none. NONE.

Finals score? Browns, 34-14.

Vegas knew something. bizarre.

I'm assuming this was just a mistake by putting Colt McCoy in instead of the Browns. I hope so, because it doesn't make sense otherwise.

cameroncrazy1984: robsul82: cameroncrazy1984: I'd have to ask robsul82 since he's keeping stats for the year-end Jake.

Baltimore - Week 1
New York (Jets) - Week 2
Buffalo - Week 3
Baltimore - Week 4
Buffalo - Week 5

I guess we'll let Baltimore do it next week, since they were on a bye. Then again, we are playing the Giants so we might give them a run for their money.

So that means Brady and Sanchez have both won it. That must absolutely kill the folks at ESPN.

Rwa2play: Super Chronic: Eli Manning had been so steady, with just two interceptions in four games, and then he threw three in a meltdown against Seattle. (Fox)

That's not exactly fair. One was on a pass where the receiver slipped and fell, tipping the ball into a defender's hands; another was in desperation/garbage time.

Still, there do seem to be a number of apologists willing to discount those two interceptions and take his 420 yards and 3 TDs at face value, which also isn't fair. If the INTs were improbable, then so were about 100 of the yards on two insane catches; and another 30 or so came in the aforementioned garbage time. On balance he had a very solid, but not great, game that the team would have won if it had any semblance of a running game.

I mean, the play sequence speaks for itself: most teams, when they get to the opponent's 10 with under 2 minutes remaining and a 5-point deficit, pound it in and kill the clock. The Giants couldn't because their running game sucked, and that's how the INT happened.

That loss was in...ex...cusable. Sorry, the farking Seahawks?! Really?!?!?! LSU or Alabama would kill the Seahawks.

UGH! I hated that game, just another reason why Gilbride should be canned.

Also not true. This weekend we learned that the Giants are not as good as people thought, but also that the Seahawks are not as bad as people thought. They're not world-beaters by any stretch, but their run defense is legit, they have dangerous special teams*, they have some offensive skill-position weapons and their line is improving. Not contenders, but not "suck for Luck" candidates either.

*week 1 breakdown notwithstanding

rickythepenguin: i sold Bradford stock all year last year. all year.

the sad thing is he will be blamed for the rookie slump, "i told you he was overrated, bradford sucks!", when he's not the problem. He's getting David Carr'd in STL.

Hard to complete a pass when you're on your back with three lineman sitting on your chest.

Not to mention the fact when he does manage to get off a pass the receivers act as if they've never seen a football before.

The sad thing is the amount they invested in the O-line this offseason. It was supposed to be one of their greatest strengths. Simply amazing.

Is this the thread where everybody complains that the 2nd best team in the league is ranked 2nd in the power rankings?

/Not a Pats fan

ddam: Duyogurt: Interesting bullshiat shot at Eli Manning on the Giants notes. Yeah, he threw 3 interceptions last week, but one was because his receiver slipped and another was an end of game heave downfield that meant nothing.

Do we also deduct the 70 yards (or about that) and 1 TD because Cruz made that circus catch that wouldn't regularly be a catch? I understand that the route was a timing route and by the time Eli saw the guy slip he either threw the ball already or was already committed to it that he couldn't bring it back but that pick should be counted.

If a QB is awarded the yards after a catch as "passing yards" they get to keep the INTs that are most likely caused by the WR.

I really don't understand why people are being combative regarding an aanlysis of Manning's INTs. No one, particularly myself, is talking about awarding and taking away yards based on what happened Sunday. I am talking about the writer's insinuation that somehow Manning was ineffective and was picked off badly three times. Two of the three were not examples of his level of play on Sunday and the writer did not mention it. I'd estimate that if you didn't watch the game, you'd assume that Manning had a terrible game. I find his comment misleading. That's it.

RminusQ: NaziKamikaze: What sense does it make to have first, third, and eighth place? They share the places, so it's first, second, third. If you skip rankings, then it gets confusing when looking at individual ranks and defeats the entire purpose of the system. As in:

"Why is Cam ranked third in rushing TDs with 5 when AP and wells are ranked first with 6? It's impossible to have 5.5 TDs..."

It will all wash out by the end of the season anyway.

You are wrong. If you give two people first place, and five people second place, and six people third place, you then have 13 people who are "top 3", which is obviously retarded.

Not to mention he is ignoring how ranking is ALWAYS DONE.

DamnYankees: Shaggy_C: Wow, Colts at dead last. Can't say I'm surprised, but they've been far more competitive the last three weeks than they were the first two. Why are they dropping when they're playing better?

They have the worst record in the NFL. Even as their fan I can't justify them ranking higher.

Ah, yeah, you're right. I knew they weren't the only winless team, but they've played an additional game. Well, I guess it's about time to start dusting off the old "Dolts" paper bags from circa 1991.

Stupid Colts are going to make a serious run for Luck. The league needs to take mercy on my Dolphins and just give us the first pick. Aside from one short season with Chad Pennington we haven't had a decent QB in 12 years.

rickythepenguin: Shrugging Atlas: Not to mention the fact when he does manage to get off a pass the receivers act as if they've never seen a football before.


i said last year that the Rams were 2-3 drafts away from being scary. they're on track for that.

If they draft well, then probably...and assuming Bradford survives too. The question is whether Kroenke has the patience to wait that long with the current leadership. Almost the entire team came in under Spags and/or Devaney. They'll have some explaning to do at the very least if this season doesn't turn around.

This Lions bandwagon has gotten totally out of hand. They are overrated and are only 5-0 due to their soft schedule so far.

@TB (3-2)
KC (2-3)
@MIN (1-4)
@DAL (2-2)
CHI (2-3)

What a run of mediocrity. Put the Lions on the field next Sunday against any of these teams and they will lose: GB, NE, NO, BAL, ATL, PIT, SD, and will very likely be 5-1 after getting embarrassed by the superior 49ers on Sunday.

robsul82: MayoSlather: Stupid Colts are going to make a serious run for Luck. The league needs to take mercy on my Dolphins and just give us the first pick. Aside from one short season with Chad Pennington we haven't had a decent QB in 12 years.

[cdn.bleacherreport.net image 278x400]

TOTALLY worth it.

Why do you want to hurt me? So painful to think we could have had Drew friggin Brees...but no the genius of Nick Saban insisted on Culpepper.

NaziKamikaze: What sense does it make to have first, third, and eighth place? They share the places, so it's first, second, third. If you skip rankings, then it gets confusing when looking at individual ranks and defeats the entire purpose of the system. As in:

"Why is Cam ranked third in rushing TDs with 5 when AP and wells are ranked first with 6? It's impossible to have 5.5 TDs..."

It will all wash out by the end of the season anyway.

I absolutely refuse to believe this is a serious post.

RminusQ: NaziKamikaze: What sense does it make to have first, third, and eighth place? They share the places, so it's first, second, third. If you skip rankings, then it gets confusing when looking at individual ranks and defeats the entire purpose of the system. As in:

"Why is Cam ranked third in rushing TDs with 5 when AP and wells are ranked first with 6? It's impossible to have 5.5 TDs..."

It will all wash out by the end of the season anyway.

You are wrong. If you give two people first place, and five people second place, and six people third place, you then have 13 people who are "top 3", which is obviously retarded.

No, I'm not.

This isn't power rankings with some subjective decision to have a clear 1-X ranking. You have finite numbers with no weight to them. They simply are. If multiple people have it, then they share the rank.

What point does it do to skip ranks? Are you planning for AP to take the lead and Wells to automatically take 2nd? That's not how it works. Cam could easily jump to first, which makes your skipped ranking unnecessary.

HERE and NOW, Cam has the second most rushing tds in the league. Therefore, second rank.

We're not playing golf here or running a race. We are ranking players by their individual TDs through rushes. The competition is between the teams to win the game so the retarded ranking system you and mika are putting up is just clumsy.

Certainly there is a place for your view of rankings, but not here, even though I disagree with the use entirely due to it's confusion (i.e. it inherently doesn't tell you the exact place a person is in just by their ranking - you have to view EVERYONE'S ranking to understand where an individual is placed and that's why it's less useful).

This Looks Fun: NaziKamikaze: What sense does it make to have first, third, and eighth place? They share the places, so it's first, second, third. If you skip rankings, then it gets confusing when looking at individual ranks and defeats the entire purpose of the system. As in:

"Why is Cam ranked third in rushing TDs with 5 when AP and wells are ranked first with 6? It's impossible to have 5.5 TDs..."

It will all wash out by the end of the season anyway.

I absolutely refuse to believe this is a serious post.

What you found there is Matt Millen-level intelligence.

Apples01: Is this the thread where everybody complains that the 2nd best team in the league is ranked 2nd in the power rankings?

/Not a Pats fan

Second-best team in their division, maybe. But not in the league.

/seriously
//they are second in their own division.

My favorite thing about these ESPN power rankings threads is how the exact same people show off extreme amounts of butthurt about the exact same things only to come back a week later shocked and flabbergasted that the things they were flabbergasted about last week are still flabbergasting.

Arbitrary list of meaningless and biased rankings are not placed in an order commensurate with my own arbitrary bias rankings?! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

/meh
//See you next Sunday