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)   Week 5 NFL Power Rankings: Vikings take a huge leap, Bengals are knocking on the Top Ten's door, and the Saints are in the cellar. Which timeline is this?   (espn.go.com) divider line 137
    More: Cool, Bengals, NFL, Saints, bye week, Kenny Phillips, Drew Brees, Matt Cassel, Wes Welker  
•       •       •

3562 clicks; posted to Sports » on 02 Oct 2012 at 4:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 04:54:56 PM  
Cowboys are too damn high, suck

/Cowboys fan
 
2012-10-02 04:54:58 PM  
Oh hey, the REAL power rankings thread.
 
2012-10-02 04:55:02 PM  
Ah yes, the real power rankings have returned to Fark.

also....


farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-10-02 04:55:37 PM  
Thank FARK! A real rankings thread instead of a Yahoo one.
 
2012-10-02 04:55:56 PM  
Must be replacement admins today. Should have replaced the link of the earlier thread with this one, all the discussion is in the Yahoo thread.

Oh well, on with the Jake ceremony!
 
2012-10-02 04:56:54 PM  
Ah. HERE's the 4:00CST green of the power rankings that leaves little to no work time to waste discussing football on a Tuesday. I liked the timing of the imposter thread a lot better, but The Graphs and The Jake deserve better* than a Yahoo link.

*better meaning derpier
 
2012-10-02 04:59:53 PM  
I'm starting to believe in the Texans.

/help me!
 
2012-10-02 05:02:02 PM  

there their theyre: Cowboys are too damn high, suck

/Cowboys fan


So far this season I maintained that they should be in the 8-12 range. After last night's game I'm fully on board with the idea that they are ranked too high.

Put Romo in no huddle offense for the rest of the season otherwise it's another year where the playoffs are just a wish and another year off the primes of Witten and Ware.
 
2012-10-02 05:03:19 PM  
I didn't even see the Yahoo rankings thread, so I submitted this one. I hope you guys can understand my not wanting to peruse the sports tab today. Also, I am hungover. Still.

/ragedrinking
 
2012-10-02 05:04:12 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-10-02 05:05:48 PM  
The Jake has already been posted in the Yahoo thread, and it was glorious. (Near post 175)
 
2012-10-02 05:05:57 PM  
So, a repeat that's not a repeat about the Power Ranking that were not the Best Power Rankings. Is this a greater or lesser outrage than a slideshow?

/nothing is a greater outrage than a slideshow
 
2012-10-02 05:06:01 PM  

Di Atribe: I didn't even see the Yahoo rankings thread, so I submitted this one. I hope you guys can understand my not wanting to peruse the sports tab today. Also, I am hungover. Still.

/ragedrinking


Interesting that your headline ignores the MNF game
 
2012-10-02 05:06:12 PM  

Di Atribe: I didn't even see the Yahoo rankings thread, so I submitted this one. I hope you guys can understand my not wanting to peruse the sports tab today. Also, I am hungover. Still.

/ragedrinking


At least you're not waking up in jail, right?

/five picks
//Jesus...
 
2012-10-02 05:06:43 PM  

Di Atribe: ragedrinking


I didn't know there was any type of drinking other than ragedrinking. Especially after the Packers go down a spot and the writer even says they should be 3 and 1. (chuuuuug)
 
2012-10-02 05:06:47 PM  
Cardinals still ranked #5 with a 4-0 record and two 3-1 teams ahead of them. Cards have victories over the teams currently ranked 6 and 7. The best team the other two 4-0 teams have a victory over is Denver at 13.

Yes, the cardinals league wide ranks in yards gained and yards allowed is terrible. Yes, they've had 3 very close wins (so have the Eagles, who are inexplicably ranked 7). But maybe that's because the Cardinals have actually been getting wins over good teams, as opposed to the Texans and the Falcons who have been beating up on the dregs of the league.

Hopefully ESPN will keep disrespecting the Cardinals all the way to a 7 and 0 start. The Cards will need that kind of start, because after that they have San Fran, at GB, at Atl, which is a rough three game stretch (though they do have their bye week in there).
 
2012-10-02 05:07:41 PM  
Nothing's coming easy for the preseason No. 1, which should be 3-1 but now must fight from behind. (Graziano)

Then why rank them as a 2-2 team? If they had won the MNF game, you'd have them higher.
 
2012-10-02 05:07:55 PM  

Talondel: Hopefully ESPN will keep disrespecting the Cardinals all the way to a 7 and 0 start.


It's ESPN, they'll hate the Cards even if they go to the Super Bowl
 
2012-10-02 05:07:59 PM  
The Chiefs are an abomination.

/still better than the Raiders
 
2012-10-02 05:09:20 PM  
This seems as good a thread as any to mention it. So... Remember when Kevin Ogletree was the new Miles Austin back in week 1? Good times
 
2012-10-02 05:12:36 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: This seems as good a thread as any to mention it. So... Remember when Kevin Ogletree was the new Miles Austin back in week 1? Good times


I told everyone to put down the crack and lay off the waiver wire on him. But would they listen? No.
He wasn't getting it done last season or the season before and one game does not a fantasy stud make.

And this week he pops up a pass for an INT.
 
2012-10-02 05:13:08 PM  
Also, something I brought up on Monday: the Texans are 24 spots higher than the next best team in their division. The all-time record differential (so far proven) was in 2007, week 7 when the Pats were 27 spots higher than the next best team. Last year, the Niners had a 25-26 spot edge around week 3 over 2nd place.
 
2012-10-02 05:14:13 PM  

mitchcumstein1: The Chiefs are an abomination.

/still better than the Raiders


When your fanbase is voting for Brady Quinn to take over for your starter at a 4 to 1 ratio, I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

/Sad Chefs fan.
//Fire Pioli
///Keep Cassel, but leave him on the bench where he belongs
 
2012-10-02 05:14:29 PM  

eddievercetti: Talondel: Hopefully ESPN will keep disrespecting the Cardinals all the way to a 7 and 0 start.

It's ESPN, they'll hate the Cards even if they go to the Super Bowl


True.
 
2012-10-02 05:15:00 PM  

Di Atribe: I didn't even see the Yahoo rankings thread, so I submitted this one. I hope you guys can understand my not wanting to peruse the sports tab today. Also, I am hungover. Still.

/ragedrinking


You are a trooper.
 
2012-10-02 05:15:15 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Nothing's coming easy for the preseason No. 1, which should be 3-1 but now must fight from behind. (Graziano)

Then why rank them as a 2-2 team? If they had won the MNF game, you'd have them higher.


I'm not normally one to rationalize ESPN's dartboard ranking method, but I'd guess it's because the standings have GB 2-2, which means they're a full game back from MIN and a half game back from CHI, so they'll have a tougher slog of it going forward.
 
2012-10-02 05:16:11 PM  

eddievercetti: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 612x612]


Sweets.
 
2012-10-02 05:16:24 PM  

Di Atribe: I didn't even see the Yahoo rankings thread, so I submitted this one. I hope you guys can understand my not wanting to peruse the sports tab today. Also, I am hungover. Still.

/ragedrinking


My boys are in the basement, and the laughingstock of the NFL. Shall we cry together?
 
2012-10-02 05:16:36 PM  

Jubeebee: Nadie_AZ: Nothing's coming easy for the preseason No. 1, which should be 3-1 but now must fight from behind. (Graziano)

Then why rank them as a 2-2 team? If they had won the MNF game, you'd have them higher.

I'm not normally one to rationalize ESPN's dartboard ranking method, but I'd guess it's because the standings have GB 2-2, which means they're a full game back from MIN and a half game back from CHI, so they'll have a tougher slog of it going forward.


I thought they were ranking the best teams, not standings. I mean, you've 2 3-1 teams in front of the Cardinals.
 
2012-10-02 05:19:33 PM  
Lions should be nearer the bottom. This team is on the verge of true awfulness.
 
2012-10-02 05:21:42 PM  
Are the Bengals too damn high? Seems like they are, considering who they've beaten so far (CLE, @WSH, @JAX). And they'll have a few more chances to buff their stats before the bye. Next week they get the LOLphins, then their annual field trip to the Factory of Sadness, and finally a home game against a surprisingly meh Steelers team. I don't think we'll know if these guys are for real until mid-November.
 
2012-10-02 05:22:42 PM  

Nadie_AZ: I thought they were ranking the best teams, not standings. I mean, you've 2 3-1 teams in front of the Cardinals.


I've always had the power rankings as "the ranking of teams by their likely finish at the end of the season." A big way to do that is to judge them by their W/L, but then from there you slide them up or down based on performance beyond score.

/At least that's my interpretation.
 
2012-10-02 05:23:17 PM  

Nadie_AZ: eddievercetti: Talondel: Hopefully ESPN will keep disrespecting the Cardinals all the way to a 7 and 0 start.

It's ESPN, they'll hate the Cards even if they go to the Super Bowl

True.


Then again, it is the Cardinals... ESPN is hedging their bets that the Cardinals will drop the ball against the Rams or Seahawks in a stroke of Kolb-ism.
 
2012-10-02 05:24:07 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Are the Bengals too damn high? ... I don't think we'll know if these guys are for real until mid-November.


But if they win every game until then and maybe split the difficult ones from mid-nov on, they're poised for playoffs, and possible success, so it's hard to say that the ranking isn't fair based on that.
 
2012-10-02 05:24:46 PM  
Jets should be lower even with a 2-2 record. They have neither Revis, Holmes or a real QB.
 
2012-10-02 05:25:02 PM  

This Looks Fun: Nadie_AZ: I thought they were ranking the best teams, not standings. I mean, you've 2 3-1 teams in front of the Cardinals.

I've always had the power rankings as "the ranking of teams by their likely finish at the end of the season." A big way to do that is to judge them by their W/L, but then from there you slide them up or down based on performance beyond score.

/At least that's my interpretation.


I assumed it was how they are performing right now, including the outlook for the future and taking into consideration strength of schedule and how the games they have already played have worked out.

So you could have 2 god-awful teams with the same record and a bleak outlook, but if one team has lost by a combined 10 points and the other has lost by a combined 50, the team that is getting spanked goes at the bottom.
 
2012-10-02 05:25:50 PM  

kbotc: Nadie_AZ: eddievercetti: Talondel: Hopefully ESPN will keep disrespecting the Cardinals all the way to a 7 and 0 start.

It's ESPN, they'll hate the Cards even if they go to the Super Bowl

True.

Then again, it is the Cardinals... ESPN is hedging their bets that the Cardinals will drop the ball against the Rams or Seahawks in a stroke of Kolb-ism.


Oh I'm not arguing they are too high or too low, just pointing out that the rankings aren't based on W / L record, but it seemed Green Bay was lowered because of it (basing this on their comment).
 
2012-10-02 05:26:50 PM  

This Looks Fun: I've always had the power rankings as "the ranking of teams by their likely finish at the end of the season." A big way to do that is to judge them by their W/L, but then from there you slide them up or down based on performance beyond score.


I always thought it was "most likely to win their next game." Hence ESPN naming them by the upcoming week of games.
 
2012-10-02 05:28:07 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: This Looks Fun: I've always had the power rankings as "the ranking of teams by their likely finish at the end of the season." A big way to do that is to judge them by their W/L, but then from there you slide them up or down based on performance beyond score.

I always thought it was "most likely to win their next game." Hence ESPN naming them by the upcoming week of games.


Let me rephrase. "Who would beat who next week." To factor out strength of schedule considerations.
 
2012-10-02 05:28:36 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: I always thought it was "most likely to win their next game." Hence ESPN naming them by the upcoming week of games.


Never really seen it that way. Hence why you could have a 15-0 team going into the last week, most likely resting starters or playing a tough opponent and they would still be #1.
 
2012-10-02 05:29:22 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: Interesting that your headline ignores the MNF game


I didn't know that was a requirement.


tnpir: At least you're not waking up in jail, right?

/five picks
//Jesus...


Actually, THAT was a close call. Unlike the f'ing game last night. [insert all of the expletives here]


thecpt: I didn't know there was any type of drinking other than ragedrinking. Especially after the Packers go down a spot and the writer even says they should be 3 and 1. (chuuuuug)


Oh yes. There's happy drinking like what I should've been doing last night after the Rangers clinched the AL West but oh no, they had to just PILE IT ON didn't they.
 
2012-10-02 05:31:14 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Are the Bengals too damn high? Seems like they are, considering who they've beaten so far (CLE, @WSH, @JAX). And they'll have a few more chances to buff their stats before the bye. Next week they get the LOLphins, then their annual field trip to the Factory of Sadness, and finally a home game against a surprisingly meh Steelers team. I don't think we'll know if these guys are for real until mid-November.


Have to agree. Still, it's nice to see that Dalton hasn't hit any kind of sophomore slump yet (although he's gotta quit with the dumb picks), and the defense should improve when the DBs get healthy.
 
2012-10-02 05:31:52 PM  
I hope Big Ben & Co. are nice and rested and ready to get their shiat together. Otherwise, this is going to be a long( and by that I mean short), painful season.
 
2012-10-02 05:32:10 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Let me rephrase. "Who would beat who next week." To factor out strength of schedule considerations.


I think it's just an overall gauge about the teams. Not necessarily even a "would this team beat all the teams below them."

It takes into account so many variables. Hence why I think the Cowboys are way too high, considering how poorly they have played for 3 straight games. But their 2-2 record is propping them up.
 
2012-10-02 05:32:29 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Seems like they are, considering who they've beaten so far (CLE, @WSH, @JAX).


I have a graph for that, too. Somewhere.


Bunny Deville: My boys are in the basement, and the laughingstock of the NFL. Shall we cry together?


Yes, let's.
 
2012-10-02 05:34:06 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Olympic Trolling Judge: This Looks Fun: I've always had the power rankings as "the ranking of teams by their likely finish at the end of the season." A big way to do that is to judge them by their W/L, but then from there you slide them up or down based on performance beyond score.

I always thought it was "most likely to win their next game." Hence ESPN naming them by the upcoming week of games.

Let me rephrase. "Who would beat who next week." To factor out strength of schedule considerations.


That's how I always think of it.
 
2012-10-02 05:37:46 PM  
geek-news.mtv.com

this is obviously the worst timeline.
 
2012-10-02 05:38:33 PM  

Talondel: But maybe that's because the Cardinals have actually been getting wins over good teams,


Yes, they should erect a statue after defeating the Dolphins juggernaut ... in overtime ... at home.

And I don't think beating the desiccated corpse of the Lions really counts.

as opposed to the Texans and the Falcons who have been beating up on the dregs of the league.

That's true, though.
 
2012-10-02 05:41:23 PM  

RoosterCogburn: [geek-news.mtv.com image 600x339]

this is obviously the worst timeline.


THANK YOU reference validated
 
2012-10-02 05:42:03 PM  

Treygreen13: Olympic Trolling Judge: Let me rephrase. "Who would beat who next week." To factor out strength of schedule considerations.

I think it's just an overall gauge about the teams. Not necessarily even a "would this team beat all the teams below them."


Obviously it's not going to be perfect. Some lower-ranked teams are division rivals who have their higher-ranked opponents' number, and weird things can happen on any given Sunday. My point was more to rebut This Looks Fun's idea that these guys are trying to project final standings. As often as players get injured in this league, it's a fool's errand to try and forecast any further than next week.
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report