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)   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
    More: Cool, Bengals, NFL, Saints, bye week, Kenny Phillips, Drew Brees, Matt Cassel, Wes Welker  
•       •       •

3653 clicks; posted to Sports » on 02 Oct 2012 at 4:52 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2012-10-02 05:43:43 PM  

Bunny Deville: 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 Jello wrestle together?


Sho nuf
 
2012-10-02 05:49:02 PM  
Niners should be a bit higher...but no complaints here
 
2012-10-02 05:50:15 PM  

kmmontandon: 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.


If you read what I posted, and then clicked the link, you'd see that the 'good teams' I was referring to are the Eagles and Patriots, with the win over the Patriots coming on the road. That ignores the Cards win at home over the Seahawks, who are still ranked higher than every team the Texans have beat except the Broncos. And the Cardinals haven't even played the Lions.

Other than that, good post.
 
2012-10-02 05:51:45 PM  
Texans, Falcons and Cards are all pretenders. Cards are the only of those that have played serious opponents but they've scraped by. In about 10 games they'll all be closer to the middle of the pile than the top.
 
2012-10-02 05:54:34 PM  

Treygreen13: 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.


I would agree with the second part and would rank those 2 teams that way, yes. However, the phrases "how they are performing right now" and "including the outlook for the future" seem to contradict each other and I'm not sure I'm able to agree on that.

Sanity check: does anyone know off the top of their head if the top 12 spots at the end of the season are all playoff teams? That would seem to strengthen my guess (and yes, it is just a guess).

Wiki is not very insightful: " The power rating of a team is a calculation of the team's strength relative to other teams in the same league or division."
 
2012-10-02 05:57:06 PM  

spiderpaz: Texans, Falcons and Cards are all pretenders.


cache.vevo.com

You're the pretender!
What if I say that they'll never surrender?
 
2012-10-02 05:57:29 PM  

This Looks Fun: Sanity check: does anyone know off the top of their head if the top 12 spots at the end of the season are all playoff teams? That would seem to strengthen my guess (and yes, it is just a guess).


Most likely if you went back and checked, all 12 teams would be playoff teams.

However,
That year the Seahawks made it at 7-9 probably had them out of the top 12.
 
2012-10-02 06:00:27 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: 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.


The ranking of "most likely to beat everyone below them" makes sense as well. And as a feeling of the phrase, it speaks more truly to the idea of "Ranking by Power."

But I don't think ESPN is really doing that or they wouldn't rank the Cardinals above so many teams. They just aren't likely to beat the 27 teams below them. That's why I think they're using the power rankings as a way to rank by end of season finish. I'm not married to the idea and it's not important that my idea be accepted, just adding to the discussion.

/That "fool's errand" is what every sports writer ever does. Just sayin.
 
2012-10-02 06:01:59 PM  

Treygreen13: This Looks Fun: Sanity check: does anyone know off the top of their head if the top 12 spots at the end of the season are all playoff teams? That would seem to strengthen my guess (and yes, it is just a guess).

Most likely if you went back and checked, all 12 teams would be playoff teams.

However,
That year the Seahawks made it at 7-9 probably had them out of the top 12.


Touche: http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings/_/year/2010/week/18
 
2012-10-02 06:03:59 PM  

This Looks Fun: Treygreen13: ***snip***
Sanity check: does anyone know off the top of their head if the top 12 spots at the end of the season are all playoff teams? That would seem to strengthen my guess (and yes, it is just a guess).

Wiki is not very insightful: " The power rating of a team is a calculation of the team's strength relative to other teams in the same league or division."


Yes, they are. It's like QBR, we have no idea how it is calculated, but we are assured it is the best system possible.
 
2012-10-02 06:04:51 PM  

Here's the graph of the actual rankings, but only because I couldn't figure out how to make it spell out "I HATE FOOTBALL." At least not with the hangover


i.imgur.com



As you can see by the liney-wimeys on the graph, everything is terrible forever. Link goes to bigger in case you really wanna hold that magnifying glass up to Hitler's mustache. In other news:

Change from Week 1 to this week :
One 17 point drop: Saints
One 18 point jump: Cardinals

Four teams ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE (back at their Week 1 rankings): 49ers, Eagles, Stupid Bears, Broncos

Number of times rankings have changed:
21 teams have changed every week
9 teams have changed all but once
2 teams have only moved twice (Browns & Colts)

Difference between high rank & low rank:
Lowest fluctuation: Browns with 1
Highest fluctuation: Cardinals with 18
Average fluctuation: 6.969

Overall fluctuation travel:
Smallest: Browns with only 1
Highest: Redskins & Seahawks with 20

Teams hitting their highest rank this week: Bengals & Vikings

Teams hitting their lowest rank this week: Packers, Giants, Lions, Jets, & Panthers

Ten teams did not change rank: ESPN is lazy

And can I just say how super-pumped I am to have two whole weeks to stew rage-drink over this loss only to come back in Week 6 to face the Ravens in Baltimore. I hate football.
 
2012-10-02 06:08:55 PM  

Di Atribe: ***snip***


GRAPH!!! SQUEEEEE!!!!

Already posted in the other thread, but I don't give a fark, sorry Di, better luck next time:

cdn.ksk.uproxx.com
 
2012-10-02 06:10:34 PM  
The Seahawks goin' for that sinusoidal wave.
 
2012-10-02 06:11:36 PM  
According to sources, McNabb is going to Tampa.
 
2012-10-02 06:12:48 PM  

spiderpaz: Texans, Falcons and Cards are all pretenders. Cards are the only of those that have played serious opponents but they've scraped by. In about 10 games they'll all be closer to the middle of the pile than the top.


Okay then, play head coach. How would you beat Houston? What would you attack?
 
2012-10-02 06:13:18 PM  

TheTrashcanMan: Ah yes, the real power rankings have returned to Fark.

also....


[farm9.staticflickr.com image 550x427]


It hurts me to see him. Please make it stop.
 
2012-10-02 06:19:26 PM  

ATRDCI: spiderpaz: Texans, Falcons and Cards are all pretenders. Cards are the only of those that have played serious opponents but they've scraped by. In about 10 games they'll all be closer to the middle of the pile than the top.

Okay then, play head coach. How would you beat Houston? What would you attack?


Arian Foster, for his hat, during an interview?
 
2012-10-02 06:20:49 PM  

eddievercetti: According to sources, McNabb is going to Tampa.


This makes me sad... that KC didn't get him. That's how bad it is.
 
2012-10-02 06:24:57 PM  
I love that the Chargers are flying under the radar.
 
2012-10-02 06:31:57 PM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: eddievercetti: According to sources, McNabb is going to Tampa.

This makes me sad... that KC didn't get him. That's how bad it is.


If you want Eagles' washouts, Vince Young is still kicking around somewhere
 
2012-10-02 06:32:22 PM  

ATRDCI: spiderpaz: Texans, Falcons and Cards are all pretenders. Cards are the only of those that have played serious opponents but they've scraped by. In about 10 games they'll all be closer to the middle of the pile than the top.

Okay then, play head coach. How would you beat Houston? What would you attack?


The same way they lost several games last season. They're the same team.
 
2012-10-02 06:34:48 PM  
Di, I feel your pain. Not only am I a Bills fan. But I also have Romo in my Fantasy league.
 
2012-10-02 06:36:53 PM  

Denver moved up to 13th! :D

i1182.photobucket.com

 
2012-10-02 06:38:13 PM  
So here's the first of our Win Percentage vs. Opponent Strength of Victory chart:

i.imgur.com

Linky to bigger. Great big thanks to RminusQ for doing the numbers for me. He's really nice.

So the higher you are, the better your actual win/loss record. The farther to the right you are, the tougher the teams you have played. So Indy has played the best teams so far. It's only been 4 weeks, though. The farther we get into the season, the more useful this one will be. It answers the "Yeah, but who have they beaten?" question.

While the Cowboys did play abysmally last night, they are tied with the Packers, Pats, & Jets. What does it mean?

i.imgur.com

Yeah
 
2012-10-02 06:39:00 PM  
Interesting only to me? Maybe: the vikings climbed the same number of spots this week as last week, making their velocity look even more impressive (and yes, unsustainable).
 
2012-10-02 06:40:38 PM  

RangerTaylor: Di, I feel your pain. Not only am I a Bills fan. But I also have Romo in my Fantasy league.


I'm sorry, my little muffin. Come on in. Let's hug the pain away.
 
2012-10-02 06:40:58 PM  
Congrats to the fans of the J-E-T-S, you'll be rid of rex ryan next year.
 
2012-10-02 06:43:49 PM  

Di Atribe: So here's the first of our Win Percentage vs. Opponent Strength of Victory chart:

[i.imgur.com image 850x582]

Linky to bigger. Great big thanks to RminusQ for doing the numbers for me. He's really nice.

So the higher you are, the better your actual win/loss record. The farther to the right you are, the tougher the teams you have played. So Indy has played the best teams so far. It's only been 4 weeks, though. The farther we get into the season, the more useful this one will be. It answers the "Yeah, but who have they beaten?" question.

While the Cowboys did play abysmally last night, they are tied with the Packers, Pats, & Jets. What does it mean?

[i.imgur.com image 500x280]

Yeah


SF is 2 and 2?
 
2012-10-02 06:43:49 PM  
So according to Di's last graph, the Cardinals are the best team in the league?

I like the Detroit image of Hello Kitty.
 
2012-10-02 06:44:41 PM  
The Eagles are too high. And I say that as a big Eagles fan. They're not way too high, just a bit too high. No way they are a better team than Green Bay. Not to mention Green Bay will have a much easier time winning their division than the Eagles will.

A match between them would be pretty interesting though. I'd like to see that in the post season.
 
2012-10-02 06:47:24 PM  

eddievercetti: spiderpaz: Texans, Falcons and Cards are all pretenders.

[cache.vevo.com image 640x464]

You're the pretender!
What if I say that they'll never surrender?


Horrible band. Just terrible.
 
2012-10-02 06:49:28 PM  
The Cards are not better than the Bears, or anyone else in the top 10. F*ck you ESPN. Just f*ck you...
 
2012-10-02 06:51:08 PM  

netweavr: SF is 2 and 2?


Nnnnnnnnnnnnnope that was my fault. Good catch, weavr!


Nadie_AZ: So according to Di's last graph, the Cardinals are the best team in the league?

I like the Detroit image of Hello Kitty.


I usually make fun of at least one team in the icons. I might have to change it up this year, depending on how the Loins do. I also have a cute little sheep I use for the Rams sometimes. We'll have to see who turns out to be the worst.


OK here we go. FIXED hopefully

i.imgur.com

Link
 
2012-10-02 06:55:43 PM  

mitchcumstein1: The Chiefs are an abomination.

/still better than the Raiders


Plus, 'Dat Schedule. It is NOT going to get better. Oak after the bye might be their only chance for a win before @Cle in December.
 
2012-10-02 06:58:21 PM  
Saints are camping in the corner.
 
2012-10-02 07:12:56 PM  

Di Atribe: OK here we go. FIXED hopefully


NO and Cleveland.
 
2012-10-02 07:13:32 PM  

Di Atribe: OK here we go. FIXED hopefully


KC and Car
 
2012-10-02 07:15:53 PM  
nm, SOV.

I'm an idiot.
 
2012-10-02 07:22:27 PM  

Di Atribe: I usually make fun of at least one team in the icons. I might have to change it up this year, depending on how the Loins do. I also have a cute little sheep I use for the Rams sometimes. We'll have to see who turns out to be the worst.


OK here we go. FIXED hopefully


I see Manningface
 
2012-10-02 07:31:53 PM  

Di Atribe: [Link][i.imgur.com image 850x1040]


I enjoy that they consistently have zero clue where the hell to put the Seahawks.

I don't enjoy the fact that I really don't, either.
 
2012-10-02 07:35:17 PM  
After week 4, here is the top 10 in my Totally Inaccurate Computer Rankings:

1. Houston -- 651 pts.
2. Atlanta -- 647 pts.
3. Arizona -- 615 pts.
4. Baltimore -- 515 pts.
5. Chicago -- 508 pts.
6. San Francisco -- 489 pts.
7. Minnesota -- 465 pts.
8. San Diego -- 461 pts.
9. Cincinnati -- 444 pts.
10. New England -- 408 pts.

Stats:

1. The Cardinals actually have had the "toughest" schedule of the undefeated teams in the first 3 weeks. Their opponents have 8 wins, compared to Atlanta's opponents' 7 and Houston's opponents' 5, giving them 80 second-level points (most of all teams) and the teams their opponents have beaten combine for 14 wins, giving Arizona 14 third-level points (again, most of all teams). The reason they're third is their low scoring output: 91 points vs. Houston's 126 and Atlanta's 124.

2. The Patriots, the highest 2-2 team, score higher than the Eagles, the lowest 3-1 team, on scoring output: The Patriots have scored 134 (that gives them 268 points) and given up 92 (that takes away 92 points), while the Eagles have scored 66 (+132) and allowed 83 (-83).

3. Pittsburgh and Indianapolis, both on byes this week, are the highest 1-win teams when you prorate them to 4 weeks. The Steelers have 269 1/3 prorated points (actual 202) and the Colts have 232 prorated points (actual 174).

4. Two teams with wins (thus excluding the Saints and the Browns) have no second-level points: The Panthers and the Chiefs (both beat the Saints for their only win). Four teams have no third-level points: The Panthers, Chiefs, Bills (who beat the Browns and the Chiefs), and the Bucs (who beat the Panthers).

5. Your cellar-dweller is, naturally, the Browns, with 48 points (73 game points for (146) vs. 98 against). The Saints are 31st with 90 thanks to 110 PF (220 points) minus 130 against).
 
2012-10-02 07:37:50 PM  

Di Atribe: OK here we go. FIXED hopefully

[i.imgur.com image 850x582]


As I suspected. Weakest of the teams over .500, and going by the current standings we won't face another really quality opponent until... good Lord, the Chargers in Week 13? I'd be shocked (no pun intended) if they're still "quality" by then.
 
2012-10-02 07:43:27 PM  

spiderpaz: ATRDCI: spiderpaz: Texans, Falcons and Cards are all pretenders. Cards are the only of those that have played serious opponents but they've scraped by. In about 10 games they'll all be closer to the middle of the pile than the top.

Okay then, play head coach. How would you beat Houston? What would you attack?

The same way they lost several games last season. They're the same team.


I'll pass your comment along to starting quarterback T.J. Yates and whoever is filling in for Andre Johnson. Last year's team was almost good enough to win a playoff game in Baltimore with a third string quarterback.

So far, this year's Texans team has dominated both sides of the ball. Yeah, Tennessee "outgained" them by running up some yards against the prevent D when they were down by 31, but that's not saying much.

They probably won't win the Super Bowl, but I'm going to enjoy them this year every bit as much as I enjoyed the Sage Rosenfels Era and the years of Dom Capers and David Carr.
 
2012-10-02 07:49:55 PM  

RangerTaylor: Di, I feel your pain. Not only am I a Bills fan. But I also have Romo in my Fantasy league.


I benched him this week in favor of a Christian Ponder off the waiver wire (my backup was Andrew Luck, he was on bye, and I didn't want to part with him).

I think from this point forward, I'm just starting Luck. Aside from week 1, Romo's been terrible.
 
2012-10-02 07:52:59 PM  
I think it will be another 9-7 team winning the NFC East with the announcers all clamoring about how Manning, Romo, and RGIII are all top ten quarterbacks.

I'd love to see the Cardinals have a good year but they can have ZERO injuries on defense if they want to keep rolling.

New York Jets are the worst team in the NFL at the present time.
 
2012-10-02 07:55:42 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

Defense still blows
 
2012-10-02 08:04:06 PM  

Di Atribe: Here's the graph of the actual rankings, but only because I couldn't figure out how to make it spell out "I HATE FOOTBALL." At least not with the hangover

[i.imgur.com image 850x1040]

GRAF.


The top 5 teams are flat-lining! Bring me some of those paddle thingies that George Clooney uses!
 
2012-10-02 08:05:41 PM  

NetOwl: spiderpaz: ATRDCI: spiderpaz: Texans, Falcons and Cards are all pretenders. Cards are the only of those that have played serious opponents but they've scraped by. In about 10 games they'll all be closer to the middle of the pile than the top.

Okay then, play head coach. How would you beat Houston? What would you attack?

The same way they lost several games last season. They're the same team.

I'll pass your comment along to starting quarterback T.J. Yates and whoever is filling in for Andre Johnson. Last year's team was almost good enough to win a playoff game in Baltimore with a third string quarterback.

So far, this year's Texans team has dominated both sides of the ball. Yeah, Tennessee "outgained" them by running up some yards against the prevent D when they were down by 31, but that's not saying much.

They probably won't win the Super Bowl, but I'm going to enjoy them this year every bit as much as I enjoyed the Sage Rosenfels Era and the years of Dom Capers and David Carr.


To add to your point, T.J. was a rookie and three of their loses came after the Texans clenched a playoff spot.

/It's great to finally have a good Houston team to root for again
 
2012-10-02 08:06:49 PM  

Di Atribe: netweavr: SF is 2 and 2?

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnope that was my fault. Good catch, weavr!


Nadie_AZ: So according to Di's last graph, the Cardinals are the best team in the league?

I like the Detroit image of Hello Kitty.

I usually make fun of at least one team in the icons. I might have to change it up this year, depending on how the Loins do. I also have a cute little sheep I use for the Rams sometimes. We'll have to see who turns out to be the worst.


OK here we go. FIXED hopefully

[i.imgur.com image 850x582]

Link


The Rams lost their Lamb Chop pic? I haz a sad.
 
2012-10-02 08:08:43 PM  

NetOwl: spiderpaz: ATRDCI: spiderpaz: Texans, Falcons and Cards are all pretenders. Cards are the only of those that have played serious opponents but they've scraped by. In about 10 games they'll all be closer to the middle of the pile than the top.

Okay then, play head coach. How would you beat Houston? What would you attack?

The same way they lost several games last season. They're the same team.

I'll pass your comment along to starting quarterback T.J. Yates and whoever is filling in for Andre Johnson. Last year's team was almost good enough to win a playoff game in Baltimore with a third string quarterback.

So far, this year's Texans team has dominated both sides of the ball. Yeah, Tennessee "outgained" them by running up some yards against the prevent D when they were down by 31, but that's not saying much.

They probably won't win the Super Bowl, but I'm going to enjoy them this year every bit as much as I enjoyed the Sage Rosenfels Era and the years of Dom Capers and David Carr.


They probably won't win the Super Bowl? No team is a lock for the SB, but the Texans have had the chance to play only one true quality opponent, on the road, with a quarterback known to cause the Texans problems, and they still get a 20-point lead.

Too bad the Jets game next Monday might still not be considered a proper test of the Texans.

/Manning is Manning
//Denver is a tough place to win
///The Green Bay and Chicago games are when it gets real
 
2012-10-02 09:25:04 PM  

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


FFMN*:

skrame.com

Fixed For Monday Night
 
2012-10-02 09:34:27 PM  
mmmm graphs

robsul shoulda waited for the real power rankings thread to unleash the jake.
 
2012-10-02 09:36:08 PM  

oh_please: I love that the Chargers are flying under the radar.


I love their 3rd place schedule. Cleveland, Ponies, Saints, Bucs and KC I think are (in the wrong order) their next five games.
 
2012-10-02 09:36:19 PM  

oh_please: I love that the Chargers are flying under the radar.


FTPR: The Chargers look good, but they were 3-1 last year, too. (Fox)

They're not under the radar; they're just going through their annual ritual.
 
2012-10-02 09:36:40 PM  

mikaloyd: mmmm graphs

robsul shoulda waited for the real power rankings thread to unleash the jake.


Who could have known there would be a real one? It's happened that way in the past.
 
2012-10-02 09:42:52 PM  

skrame: oh_please: I love that the Chargers are flying under the radar.

FTPR: The Chargers look good, but they were 3-1 last year, too. (Fox)

They're not under the radar; they're just going through their annual ritual.


skrame: oh_please: I love that the Chargers are flying under the radar.

FTPR: The Chargers look good, but they were 3-1 last year, too. (Fox)

They're not under the radar; they're just going through their annual ritual.


Except they have an actual defense this year.
 
2012-10-02 09:50:34 PM  

skrame: oh_please: I love that the Chargers are flying under the radar.

FTPR: The Chargers look good, but they were 3-1 last year, too. (Fox)

They're not under the radar; they're just going through their annual ritual.


Yeah, that 6 game slide of losing by one score really screwed them last year. Hopefully they don't repeat that.
 
2012-10-02 09:54:26 PM  

neuroflare: The Rams lost their Lamb Chop pic? I haz a sad.


Oh I can easily put that back. But you know, for next week.

I also have a pony for the Colts.
 
2012-10-02 09:56:28 PM  
It looks like the NFC West is the division to beat in terms of wins/toughness of schedule.
 
2012-10-02 10:04:28 PM  

Di Atribe: neuroflare: The Rams lost their Lamb Chop pic? I haz a sad.

Oh I can easily put that back. But you know, for next week.

I also have a pony for the Colts.


AND facepalming redskins!
 
2012-10-02 10:10:58 PM  
As a Texans fan, i'm loving the excitement, but I'm not ready to put us at #1 in the overall standings.

I am not looking forward to playing Green Bay or Baltimore at home in weeks 6-7. I don't care what Green Bay look like right now, that is just a formidable offense. Baltimore looks downright nasty. And Baltimore has had Houston's number for years. I think that's a game we lose. I hope I'm wrong.

I feel pretty good about week 8.

At this point, I think the Bears, Lions and Patriots away could all be losing games. I have more confidence against Chicago and Detroit, but I will never count out New England. Not until Brady and/or Belichick are out of business.

Texans have a good playoff shot. I think we have a good chance at a spot in the AFC Championship. I'm NOT convinced we're Superbowl-bound.

/superbowl predictions after week 1 were San Fran/Baltimore
/not yet willing to call that a bad prediction
 
2012-10-02 10:58:09 PM  

WaywardSon: Baltimore looks downright nasty. And Baltimore has had Houston's number for years. I think that's a game we lose. I hope I'm wrong.


Eh, the Ravens and Texans are both playoff teams- at least, they are at this point in the season, barring injuries and/or those weird nosedives NFL teams occasionally take when they start believing their own pres. And it's really hard to beat a team twice in the same year. It's almost impossible to beat a divisional opponent three times.

A Week 7 loss is tough, but you pretty much forget about it by Wednesday. You say things like "well, we lost to the Ravens. You know what? There's no shame in that, they're pretty farking good. We've got a bye week, and then the Bills- let's get back on track." Playoff losses hurt worse. If I could give you the choice, right now, to have the Texans beat the Ravens in one game and lose in one, are you taking the win in Week 7, or the playoffs? More importantly, which one would you prefer to lose?
 
2012-10-02 11:04:49 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.


6-2 week 8
8-8 week 17
That's been my prediction since the schedule has been released.

Although the offense is surprisingly good. Really good. However the defense is surprisingly bad. Hopefully Zimmer can put something together. The resigining of Chris Crocker was a good move. The team is one defensive super-star from being a legit contender.
Dalton's Passer rating is about 4th in the league.
Cincinnati's defense is about 4th worst in Defensive Passer rating.
 
2012-10-02 11:10:03 PM  

Di Atribe: I usually make fun of at least one team in the icons. I might have to change it up this year, depending on how the Loins do. I also have a cute little sheep I use for the Rams sometimes. We'll have to see who turns out to be the worst.


Do you have a brown bag for the Aints?
 
2012-10-02 11:20:23 PM  

bionicjoe: Di Atribe: I usually make fun of at least one team in the icons. I might have to change it up this year, depending on how the Loins do. I also have a cute little sheep I use for the Rams sometimes. We'll have to see who turns out to be the worst.

Do you have a brown bag for the Aints?


The Browns bag it every week.
 
2012-10-02 11:22:24 PM  

oh_please: skrame: oh_please: I love that the Chargers are flying under the radar.

FTPR: The Chargers look good, but they were 3-1 last year, too. (Fox)

They're not under the radar; they're just going through their annual ritual.

Except they have an actual defense this year.


I don't doubt you; I haven't seen them play this year other than a few game highlights. Good luck to your team, unless they happen to play the Bears.
 
2012-10-02 11:32:43 PM  

CognaciousThunk: bionicjoe: Di Atribe: I usually make fun of at least one team in the icons. I might have to change it up this year, depending on how the Loins do. I also have a cute little sheep I use for the Rams sometimes. We'll have to see who turns out to be the worst.

Do you have a brown bag for the Aints?

The Browns bag it every week.


We should brown bag the last team to get out of the corner
 
2012-10-02 11:35:17 PM  
When you're done laughing at ESPN here are the real stats.
Link

ESPN "can't figure out how AZ keeps winning". All their pundits keep saying that.
It takes 23 yards of offense per point scored. No one else is above 20.
Their QB Passer rating is low, but it's still 13 points better than their opposition.

ESPN is an NFL wasteland of morons trying to figure out who is good based on useless volume stats. You analyze the NFL on a per play basis.

Fark it. Let's talk about Tebow some more.
 
2012-10-02 11:39:14 PM  

Di Atribe: While the Cowboys did play abysmally last night, they are tied with the Packers, Pats, & Jets. What does it mean?


4 mediocre teams that haven't separated into upper & lower mediocrity.
Packers & Pats are riding on reputation.
Jets are terrible but played Bills & Phins.
Dallas is......10-6 in waiting?
 
2012-10-02 11:45:15 PM  

bionicjoe: Dallas is......10-6 in waiting?


That's what I picked, honestly. I had us at 2-2 at the bye, so I'm on track to be correct (got the Giants & Seahawks games mixed up, but got the Bucs & Bears right). I don't think I need to explain to anyone why I'm not really feeling confident with that call at the moment.
 
2012-10-02 11:58:24 PM  

Gonz: . If I could give you the choice, right now, to have the Texans beat the Ravens in one game and lose in one, are you taking the win in Week 7, or the playoffs? More importantly, which one would you prefer to lose?


I'm with you. A loss to a decent team in the next few games would be GOOD for the Texans. Hell, a loss to the Ravens might be a prelude to a playoff game with them, and I'd feel comfortable doing a lose one win one with the Ravens, so long as the second game was the win in the playoffs.

Sure, the Texans don't deserve first place status with the early easy games, and I certainly don't envy Jets fan this week, but the Jets and the Broncos and even the Titans weren't supposed to be pushover teams when the schedule was put down.
 
2012-10-03 12:36:42 AM  
What in the wide, wide world o' sports is a goin' on here? Two power rankings threads? Graphs in one, Jake in the other? Goddamn communist abortion if you ask me.

/Farking replacement admins.
//Love you, admins. :)
 
2012-10-03 02:33:07 AM  

skrame: oh_please: skrame: oh_please: I love that the Chargers are flying under the radar.

FTPR: The Chargers look good, but they were 3-1 last year, too. (Fox)

They're not under the radar; they're just going through their annual ritual.

Except they have an actual defense this year.

I don't doubt you; I haven't seen them play this year other than a few game highlights. Good luck to your team, unless they happen to play the Bears.


Lets be honest. The Chargers will crash and burn half way through the season. It's tradition. The Bears will improve, make the playoffs and be embarrassed in the first game. My Vikes will either make it to the NFC Championship, where I they'll make sure to lose thanks to a dozen fumbles and ints, OR they won't even make the playoffs.
 
2012-10-03 03:19:51 AM  

digistil: My Vikes will either make it to the NFC Championship, where I they'll make sure to lose thanks to a dozen fumbles and ints, OR they won't even make the playoffs.


On the plus side, if you do give up a dozen turnovers in a conference championship game, you'll be a lock for Jake of the Year.

On second thought, that might not be a plus.
 
2012-10-03 08:28:34 AM  

Harv72b: What i+++++++++++++++
POST DELETED BY ORDER OF COMMUNIST ADMINS

/Harv72b has been nailed inside a leaky box & set adrift in the river.

 
2012-10-03 08:52:39 AM  
Some other interesting stats:

Home teams are 39-24 so far this year.

The higher ranked (ESPN Power Rankings) teams are 36-27 this year.

Using my not so scientific method (45% power rankings, 15% home field, and 40% random), my picks are 33-30.

Week 5 Picks:
thegreiners.org 

Yes, i am using SQL Server for this...
 
2012-10-03 09:13:03 AM  

Pick13: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x600]

Defense still blows


Counting on it in a few weeks.
 
2012-10-03 09:23:37 AM  
Well with GB in their predicament, I'm looking forward to them Unleashing their Playbook. Their conservative playing squeaking-by is great for the post season shock & awe, but at this rate they won't get there!
 
2012-10-03 10:08:44 AM  

Lord Jubjub: NetOwl: spiderpaz: ATRDCI: spiderpaz: Texans, Falcons and Cards are all pretenders. Cards are the only of those that have played serious opponents but they've scraped by. In about 10 games they'll all be closer to the middle of the pile than the top.

Okay then, play head coach. How would you beat Houston? What would you attack?

The same way they lost several games last season. They're the same team.

I'll pass your comment along to starting quarterback T.J. Yates and whoever is filling in for Andre Johnson. Last year's team was almost good enough to win a playoff game in Baltimore with a third string quarterback.

So far, this year's Texans team has dominated both sides of the ball. Yeah, Tennessee "outgained" them by running up some yards against the prevent D when they were down by 31, but that's not saying much.

They probably won't win the Super Bowl, but I'm going to enjoy them this year every bit as much as I enjoyed the Sage Rosenfels Era and the years of Dom Capers and David Carr.

They probably won't win the Super Bowl? No team is a lock for the SB, but the Texans have had the chance to play only one true quality opponent, on the road, with a quarterback known to cause the Texans problems, and they still get a 20-point lead.

Too bad the Jets game next Monday might still not be considered a proper test of the Texans.

/Manning is Manning
//Denver is a tough place to win
///The Green Bay and Chicago games are when it gets real


A couple of things. I like what the Cards have done on Defense, and yeah, there is an arguement to who the #1 team is.

Covering things here in Houston -- This team is scary, and they haven't played their best game offensively yet. The right side of the line is still a bit of a mess, so the running game has taken off like it should have. Arian Foster is on pace for 400+ carries, and there is some concern in this town, as the history of NFL backs shows when a guy gets past that number in a season, he's looked broken down since.

JJ Watt is an absolute beast. He's a 3-4 defensive end that has 7.5 sacks in 5 games. A DE in that scheme isn't supposed to be doing what he's doing. They are meant to fill the gaps while the rushing linebackers tally up the sacks. He dominates inside and outside. At some point they will double him on the edge, freeing up Barwin and Reed. And the pass defense has been outstanding. I ragged on Kareem Jackson for being so bad, but will eat crow and say he's played great the first 4 games.

Schaub has really managed the offense well. He hasn't made the mistakes he's been known for, where at least twice a game you can expect really forced throws that lead to picks or near picks.

The run defense inside has looked a little soft, but that comes with the type of defense Wade Phillips runs.

The biggest concern still is the right side of the line, and their run blocking. It's been bad, and Arian and Ben Tate haven't looked comfortable and confident in finding holes.

IMO the Texans are the most complete of the three undefeated teams. The stretch where they face the Packers, Ravens, Bills and Bears will be tough. But this city is abuzz, and it'll be great if they do make it to New Orleans, as I already have my plans locked in to be there.
 
2012-10-03 10:20:22 AM  

Tsu Dho Nimh: Some other interesting stats:

Home teams are 39-24 so far this year.

The higher ranked (ESPN Power Rankings) teams are 36-27 this year.

Using my not so scientific method (45% power rankings, 15% home field, and 40% random), my picks are 33-30.

Week 5 Picks:
[thegreiners.org image 220x286] 

Yes, i am using SQL Server for this...


It would be interesting to compare the home team winning percentage with the replacement ref and the home team winning percentage with the normal refs moving forward.
 
2012-10-03 10:40:27 AM  

Di Atribe: So here's the first of our Win Percentage vs. Opponent Strength of Victory chart:

[i.imgur.com image 850x582]

Linky to bigger. Great big thanks to RminusQ for doing the numbers for me. He's really nice.

So the higher you are, the better your actual win/loss record. The farther to the right you are, the tougher the teams you have played. So Indy has played the best teams so far. It's only been 4 weeks, though. The farther we get into the season, the more useful this one will be. It answers the "Yeah, but who have they beaten?" question.

While the Cowboys did play abysmally last night, they are tied with the Packers, Pats, & Jets. What does it mean?

[i.imgur.com image 500x280]

Yeah


It means FOOTBALL WOOOOOO!!!!, but not much else. MOAR GRAPH!!! MOAR!!!
 
2012-10-03 10:43:04 AM  

Jjaro: It would be interesting to compare the home team winning percentage with the replacement ref and the home team winning percentage with the normal refs moving forward.


Week 1-3: 31-17 (.646)
Week 4: 8-7 (.533)

Would be interesting with some larger sample sizes...
 
2012-10-03 11:14:55 AM  
i cannot believe the jets are ranked that high
 
2012-10-03 11:29:33 AM  

Tsu Dho Nimh: Would be interesting with some larger sample sizes...


If you're bored then you could go back and compare it to 3-week periods from the last couple seasons.
 
2012-10-03 12:15:54 PM  

digistil: skrame: oh_please: skrame: oh_please: I love that the Chargers are flying under the radar.

FTPR: The Chargers look good, but they were 3-1 last year, too. (Fox)

They're not under the radar; they're just going through their annual ritual.

Except they have an actual defense this year.

I don't doubt you; I haven't seen them play this year other than a few game highlights. Good luck to your team, unless they happen to play the Bears.

Lets be honest. The Chargers will crash and burn half way through the season. It's tradition. The Bears will improve, make the playoffs and be embarrassed in the first game. My Vikes will either make it to the NFC Championship, where I they'll make sure to lose thanks to a dozen fumbles and ints, OR they won't even make the playoffs.


I'll believe the Chargers are for real if and when they beat the Broncos.
 
2012-10-04 04:12:04 AM  

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.


So farking true. The channels are always biased against the Cards.

Remember when Cris Collingsworth dismissed the Cardinals as being a fluke to qualify for the playoffs and then the Cards went to the frickin' Super Bowl against Pittsburgh that year and gave us one of the best SB games ever?!

Collingsworth, as best as I can recall, never retracted his comments about the Cards not deserving it.

Prick.

/Totally ruined my support for the HBO analysts' "predictions."
 
2012-10-04 01:57:20 PM  

eddievercetti: According to sources, McNabb is going to Tampa.


To do what, be ridden like a manatee?
 
Displayed 137 of 137 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

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