NFL Power Rankings Post-Draft

[amfootball]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings/_/year/2015/week/0

 

ESPN power rankings post-draft. They have Seattle and NE at the top followed by GB and Denver. I would swap the Colts with Denver at 4. I would also put the Ravens ahead of the Cowboys and not have Arizona in the top 10.

[BullsColtsFan1]

I saw that too.  I thought the Colts should be 3 or 4.  Honestly power rankings don't matter tho.  It all goes thru the Pats from here on out until someone dethrones them imo.

[Nobody]

I've been burned too much to not put NE at 1 until they prove me otherwise, but I understand since they did lose some big pieces. I'd also put Indy at 4.

[shakedownstreet]

colts should be above the bronc-no's

[chad72]

Seattle would have been definitely at #1 with a healthy D and Graham. However, due to Earl Thomas and Jeremy Lane injuries, the Packers might get HFA this time and should start as #1.

 

I'd say the Packers are #1, Patriots at #2 and Seahawks at #3. Packers beat the Patriots with Revis and Browner, they were the team Belichick did not want to see in the SB due to Belichick's recent record of playing a team a second time in the playoffs since 2005. I think Aaron Rodgers and the Packers should be favorites to win the SB this year.

[BlueCollarColts]

How in the world is Denver ahead of us? We knocked them out of the playoffs, and added Andre Johnson, Trent Cole, Nate Irving, Kendall Langford, Todd Herremans, and Frank Gore.... Manning isn't getting any younger and Julius Thomas is gone. I can't figure that one out. 

[shakedownstreet]

I can't figure that one out. 

 

Entirely

Stupid

People

Network

[Swan Ronson]

I would say the Packers are number 1. They really should have won the Super Bowl last year.

[jvan1973]

Absolutely meaningless.

[COLTS449]

You can argue a few different things but not a bad list really. But we can absolutely be the best team in the league next year. What bothers me is wondering where we'd be ranked had we drafted Goldman or Collins in the 1st and signed a couple different defensive players in FA. I don't have to wonder, we'd be number 1 straight up IMO.

[COLTS449]

I would say the Packers are number 1. They really should have won the Super Bowl last year.

 

Yeah they should have, but the luckiest team in the history of the NFL done what they do.

[21isSuperman]

If Peyton can return healthy (which I think he will), I think the Broncos can be very dangerous.  The signing of Wade Philips as DC may have been the most underrated move of the offseason.

 

I think the Cowboys should be above the Colts.

[21isSuperman]

Yeah they should have, but the luckiest team in the history of the NFL done what they do.

 

I would say the Packers are number 1. They really should have won the Super Bowl last year.

No, they shouldn't have.  They completely collapsed.  Rodgers was able to beat their defense for 3 quarters, then they suddenly get scared and play not to lose instead of playing to win.  They deserved the loss

[ViriLudant]

I would say the Packers are number 1. They really should have won the Super Bowl last year.

With the number of turnovers they had against Seattle, they deserved to lose.

[dw49]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings/_/year/2015/week/0

 

ESPN power rankings post-draft. They have Seattle and NE at the top followed by GB and Denver. I would swap the Colts with Denver at 4. I would also put the Ravens ahead of the Cowboys and not have Arizona in the top 10.

 

 

Here's how the guys that take the bets see it. Not exactly a power rating as a teams "path" to get to the SB influences the odds a bit.But I think they are about right.. the 2 NFC teams are the best and considering the additions and subtractions NE and Indy , I have them about equal.

[amfootball]

Here's how the guys that take the bets see it. Not exactly a power rating as a teams "path" to get to the SB influences the odds a bit.But I think they are about right.. the 2 NFC teams are the best and considering the additions and subtractions NE and Indy , I have them about equal.

Yeah, I think the top 4 are set at Seattle, NE, GB, Indy. Kind of a crap shoot after that.

 

I was just listening to Mike and Mike and they were saying before the draft the Jets odds to win the SB were at 50-1. After the draft they fell to 60-1 which surprised me as I thought they had a nice draft and overall off-season. But the Vegas odds makers thought they would select a QB and when they didn't they dropped them down. Poor Gino. Goes to show how important QB is in winning a title ...

[braveheartcolt]

Absolutely meaningless.

Like 'post draft grades', what numbers the new players take, and How I Met Your Mother......

[Superman]

Interesting observation about the Packers: The Packers have used eight of their 10 first-round picks on defense since drafting Aaron Rodgers. The Packers haven't ranked higher than 13th in opponent PPG since winning the Super Bowl after the 2010 season.

 

Just some anecdotal evidence about the impact of drafting defense in the first round. Of course, we all know nothing's automatic in the NFL...

[21isSuperman]

Interesting observation about the Packers: The Packers have used eight of their 10 first-round picks on defense since drafting Aaron Rodgers. The Packers haven't ranked higher than 13th in opponent PPG since winning the Super Bowl after the 2010 season.

 

Just some anecdotal evidence about the impact of drafting defense in the first round. Of course, we all know nothing's automatic in the NFL...

They're kind of picking and choosing their data.  If you want to look at their drafts since drafting Rodgers, you'd think they'd also look at defenses since drafting Rodgers.  They drafted Rodgers in 2005.  In 2007, they were a top 10 scoring defense.  In 2009, they were a top 10 scoring defense (they had drafted Clay Matthews and Raji this year).  In 2010 they were the 2nd best scoring defense.  In 2011, they led the league in interceptions.  In 2012, they were top 10 in interceptions and top 5 in sacks.  I'm not trying to say the Packers have had a continually stellar defense or anything, but the talent they've added hasn't been for nothing.  For the author to say they haven't ranked higher than 13th in opponent PPG (while true), doesn't give the whole story, in my opinion

[Superman]

They're kind of picking and choosing their data.  If you want to look at their drafts since drafting Rodgers, you'd think they'd also look at defenses since drafting Rodgers.  They drafted Rodgers in 2005.  In 2007, they were a top 10 scoring defense.  In 2009, they were a top 10 scoring defense (they had drafted Clay Matthews and Raji this year).  In 2010 they were the 2nd best scoring defense.  In 2011, they led the league in interceptions.  In 2012, they were top 10 in interceptions and top 5 in sacks.  I'm not trying to say the Packers have had a continually stellar defense or anything, but the talent they've added hasn't been for nothing.  For the author to say they haven't ranked higher than 13th in opponent PPG (while true), doesn't give the whole story, in my opinion

 

Yeah, it's not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

But we know the Packers haven't been a particularly strong defense. They've had their bright spots, but that's kind of it. I can point out Colts stats: in 2014, we were the 2nd best third down defense, 6th in completion percentage against, and were tied at 10th in interceptions and total takeaways.

 

My point is that the use of first rounders doesn't really dictate which part of your team will be the strongest, best, deepest. That's especially true when you have a top notch QB; you're probably always going to have a better offense than defense, in that case, because of how important the QB is.

[21isSuperman]

Yeah, it's not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

But we know the Packers haven't been a particularly strong defense. They've had their bright spots, but that's kind of it. I can point out Colts stats: in 2014, we were the 2nd best third down defense, 6th in completion percentage against, and were tied at 10th in interceptions and total takeaways.

 

My point is that the use of first rounders doesn't really dictate which part of your team will be the strongest, best, deepest. That's especially true when you have a top notch QB; you're probably always going to have a better offense than defense, in that case, because of how important the QB is.

Agreed.  Not only that, but there are so many stats that we keep track of in the NFL that you could pick and choose the stats to say any team has a good defense.  3rd down defense, QB rating, takeaways, interceptions, fumbles, tackles for loss, time of possession, etc.

[chad72]

Agreed.  Not only that, but there are so many stats that we keep track of in the NFL that you could pick and choose the stats to say any team has a good defense.  3rd down defense, QB rating, takeaways, interceptions, fumbles, tackles for loss, time of possession, etc.

 

I always liked passer rating differential, they call it the mother of all stats - here is a synopsis on CHFF on the final four prior to the conference championship games:

 

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/final-four-proves-winning-nfl-all-about-the-quarterback/32860/

 

If not for a blown onside kick, Packers would be holding the Lombardi, IMO.

[21isSuperman]

I always liked passer rating differential, they call it the mother of all stats - here is a synopsis on CHFF on the final four prior to the conference championship games:

 

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/final-four-proves-winning-nfl-all-about-the-quarterback/32860/

 

If not for a blown onside kick, Packers would be holding the Lombardi, IMO.

That's an interesting one, but it goes on the implication/assumption that passer rating is a reliable stat for judging a player.  If you don't think passer rating is a reliable stat, then passer rating differential becomes meaningless

[amfootball]

I always liked passer rating differential, they call it the mother of all stats - here is a synopsis on CHFF on the final four prior to the conference championship games:

 

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/final-four-proves-winning-nfl-all-about-the-quarterback/32860/

 

If not for a blown onside kick, Packers would be holding the Lombardi, IMO.

I was thinking all off-season how sick Rodgers must be over that game. They dominated Seattle and let it slip away in the final minutes. The Pack had also beaten the Pats earlier in the season and would have IMO matched up better with them defensively than Seattle. I know that seems strange to say as Seattle has the better defense personnel wise but GB has better coaching which was showcased in the Nov game at Lambeau.

[chad72]

That's an interesting one, but it goes on the implication/assumption that passer rating is a reliable stat for judging a player.  If you don't think passer rating is a reliable stat, then passer rating differential becomes meaningless

 

True. At least it is not the passer rating publicized and pushed for by BSPN.

[chad72]

I was thinking all off-season how sick Rodgers must be over that game. They dominated Seattle and let it slip away in the final minutes. The Pack had also beaten the Pats earlier in the season and would have IMO matched up better with them defensively than Seattle. I know that seems strange to say as Seattle has the better defense personnel wise but GB has better coaching which was showcased in the Nov game at Lambeau.

 

Yep. From an offensive and defensive point of view, Seahawks are more about execution than formations.

 

Green Bay coach Mike McCarthy and Saints coach Sean Payton test you with formations you have not seen and McCarthy's usage of his #3 wideout Davante Adams, who was coming along real well would have caused headaches for Belichick because Rodgers does not throw it up like Russell Wilson and has a higher completion rate underneath to move the chains and control tempo. So Nelson, Cobb and Adams would have caused more issues for Belichick than the Seattle wide outs. Plus, Brady's OL got better as the game went on (helps that Avril goes out too:)) while Peyton's OL never stood a chance vs a healthier and deeper Seattle DL last year (even if they were coached right, which would never happen with John Fox and company, LOL). 

 

It took a while for Seattle to realize it had to be their #3 wide out in Chris Mathews that had to be used to cause damage while not defended by Revis and Browner. When Mathews was defended by Browner later on, Seahawks did not make the adjustments as well, IMO and if not for a circus catch by Kearse, the Seahawks don't make it that close (did I already tell you Russell Wilson is the Joe Flacco of the NFC with the fact he throws it up for his wideouts to go get it??? )

[Superman]

That's an interesting one, but it goes on the implication/assumption that passer rating is a reliable stat for judging a player.  If you don't think passer rating is a reliable stat, then passer rating differential becomes meaningless

 

Passer rating isn't perfect, but it's hard to ignore the correlation that exists between PRD and winning. No stat is conclusive, but that one is pretty doggone strong when it comes to determining which teams will win and which won't.

[dw49]

With the number of turnovers they had against Seattle, they deserved to lose.

 

 

You OK ? 

[Andrew Luck's Beard]

With the number of turnovers they had against Seattle, they deserved to lose.

With the number of turnovers Russell Wilson had, the Seahawks deserved to lose.

[jskinnz]

I would say the Packers are number 1. They really should have won the Super Bowl last year.

 

I think a key factor in saying a team "should have won" the Super Bowl is that they actually are in the Super Bowl to begin with.  

[Swan Ronson]

I think a key factor in saying a team "should have won" the Super Bowl is that they actually are in the Super Bowl to begin with.  

Not really, the Super Bowl doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[jskinnz]

Not really, the Super Bowl doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

Totally confused by that answer.

 

But personally, and maybe this is just me, but I think that really the only teams that can lay claim to having should have won the Super Bowl are the Pats and Seahawks.  But even then, can Seattle really say they should have won given the fact, that well - they didn't?

 

[Swan Ronson]

Totally confused by that answer.

 

But personally, and maybe this is just me, but I think that really the only teams that can lay claim to having should have won the Super Bowl are the Pats and Seahawks.  But even then, can Seattle really say they should have won given the fact, that well - they didn't?

It means the Super Bowl isn't a stand alone game, there is a whole season that leads up to it and the Packers were involved in it. So while they weren't in the actual game itself, they were in the competition.

 

The Seahawks can absolutely say they should have won, given all they had to do was hand the ball to Lynch to get one yard. What they couldn't do is say that they did win, given the fact that they didn't.

[braveheartcolt]

It means the Super Bowl isn't a stand alone game, there is a whole season that leads up to it and the Packers were involved in it. So while they weren't in the actual game itself, they were in the competition.

The Seahawks can absolutely say they should have won, given all they had to do was hand the ball to Lynch to get one yard. What they couldn't do is say that they did win, given the fact that they didn't.

No guarantees that Lynch would have scored. Goal line stands are not uncommon.

[Swan Ronson]

No guarantees that Lynch would have scored. Goal line stands are not uncommon.

Of course not, but it is reasonable to say that he should get the yard.

[jskinnz]

It means the Super Bowl isn't a stand alone game, there is a whole season that leads up to it and the Packers were involved in it. So while they weren't in the actual game itself, they were in the competition.

 

The Seahawks can absolutely say they should have won, given all they had to do was hand the ball to Lynch to get one yard. What they couldn't do is say that they did win, given the fact that they didn't.

 

The Super Bowl is in fact a stand alone game played by only two teams.  The season and playoffs helps eliminate teams from competing in the Super Bowl, including Green Bay who simply did not make enough plays to be able to play in the Super Bowl.  Therefore making the comment they "should have won" a game they did not even compete in completely wrong and frankly just funny.

[Swan Ronson]

The Super Bowl is in fact a stand alone game played by only two teams.  The season and playoffs helps eliminate teams from competing in the Super Bowl, including Green Bay who simply did not make enough plays to be able to play in the Super Bowl.  Therefore making the comment they "should have won" a game they did not even compete in completely wrong and frankly just 

Well I'm glad you had a laugh. I still maintain that the Packers should have been the eventual champions of whatever you want to call the season as a whole.

[jskinnz]

Well I'm glad you had a laugh. I still maintain that the Packers should have been the eventual champions of whatever you want to call the season as a whole.

 

It is funny so thanks for entertaining me.

[OLD FAN MAN]

How in the world is Denver ahead of us? We knocked them out of the playoffs, and added Andre Johnson, Trent Cole, Nate Irving, Kendall Langford, Todd Herremans, and Frank Gore.... Manning isn't getting any younger and Julius Thomas is gone. I can't figure that one out. 

their new dc wade Phillips puts them way ahead of us

[BlueCollarColts]

their new dc wade Phillips puts them way ahead of us

Not sure if serious...