Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bananabucket

Your top-10 power rankings

Recommended Posts

The Packers will have a winning season but not be a top 10 team even if I'm wrong about Detroit. That's been the case more than once in their present era. People just fall for it every time they smack around their lame division.

The NFC East winner never stays on top. The Cowboys look good but when's the last time somebody won that division twice in a row?

In the past six seasons, the Packers have won more than 10 games four times and won 10 games one time. The only down season was 2013 when they won 8 because Rodgers broke his collarbone. So for the past six seasons with the exception of Rogers injury season they have not only been a top 10 team but also a top 5 team.

 

Just curious. Where do you see the big drop off coming this year exactly? The team should have been in the SB last year if not for the STs gaffe vs the Hawks. I have not really followed their off-season but have they lost a lot of talent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What dropoff? I'm predicting the same thing that always happens if Detroit doesn't maintain their success. They win the division and go 1 and done whether they win 15 games or 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What dropoff? I'm predicting the same thing that always happens if Detroit doesn't maintain their success. They win the division and go 1 and done whether they win 15 games or 8.

So how does that make them not a top 10 team? Only 6 teams from each conference make the post-season ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does that make them not a top 10 team? Only 6 teams from each conference make the post-season ...

So the Panthers were a top 10 (top 6?) team last year then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Panthers were a top 10 (top 6?) team last year then?

Huh? GB has had either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd or 4th best record in their conference for the last several years. How does that not make them top 10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? GB has had either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd or 4th best record in their conference for the last several years. How does that not make them top 10?

Yeah beating up on the Vikings, Lions and Bears. They can atleast win all of the easy games, I'll give them that. That hasn't necessarily been the case in division winners twice in the last several years you speak of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFC.

1. Colts (believe)

2. Broncos (Peyton not done yet)

3. Steelers (the B's have it)

4. Bills (don't laugh)

5. Texans (JJ gets help)

6. Ravens (free from distractions)

NFC.

1. Packers (weak division)

2. Seahawks (defense wins runner up medals)

3. Cowboys (o-line)

4. Falcons (very weak division)

5. Giants (OBJ)

6. Cardinals (Bruce)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFC.

1. Colts (believe)

2. Broncos (Peyton not done yet)

3. Steelers (the B's have it)

4. Bills (don't laugh)

5. Texans (JJ gets help)

6. Ravens (free from distractions)

NFC.

1. Packers (weak division)

2. Seahawks (defense wins runner up medals)

3. Cowboys (o-line)

4. Falcons (very weak division)

5. Giants (OBJ)

6. Cardinals (Bruce)

I like it. I'm not laughing about the Bills but I wouldn't pick them and leave New England out altogether, as hilarious as that would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power rankings

 

 

1. None

2. None

3. None

4. None

5. None

 

It's the off season. It's not even preseason yet. 

 

If you were to start a season of Tecmo Super Bowl and not play any games, and all the rankings at set tied at 0, that's how it looks right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power rankings

 

 

1. None

2. None

3. None

4. None

5. None

 

It's the off season. It's not even preseason yet. 

 

If you were to start a season of Tecmo Super Bowl and not play any games, and all the rankings at set tied at 0, that's how it looks right now.

Play along nicely now Bogie.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah beating up on the Vikings, Lions and Bears. They can atleast win all of the easy games, I'll give them that. That hasn't necessarily been the case in division winners twice in the last several years you speak of.

Again, who is talking about other teams? You said the Packers won't be a top 10 team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did I just say? Clearly you Patriot folks just don't like to toe the line.

The Bills are coming off their first winning season in a decade. They have a great defense and they have added some players. They will be formidable. We'll see how that translates to wins.

 

The Bills have a new head coach and new offensive and defensive coordinators. They start the season against the Colts and Patriots. September will be interesting.

 

As for not toeing the line, just call me a cheater. I'm used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, who is talking about other teams? You said the Packers won't be a top 10 team.

And you said that you don't understand that because they always win their division and have a top record. They only win their division and have a top record every year because their division is horrible. The NFCN is usually worse than the South or the West ever was. The only difference is there is 1 team that can usually win the easy games and that happens to be the Packers. When's the last time somebody else won atleast 8 games twice in a row in that division? Vikings maybe? When the division produced the game's only 0-16 team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Packers

2 Steelers

3 Cowboys

4 Seahawks

5 Broncos

6 Patriots

7 Colts

8 Chargers

9 Ravens

10 Eagles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bills are coming off their first winning season in a decade. They have a great defense and they have added some players. They will be formidable. We'll see how that translates to wins.

 

The Bills have a new head coach and new offensive and defensive coordinators. They start the season against the Colts and Patriots. September will be interesting.

 

As for not toeing the line, just call me a cheater. I'm used to it.

Cheater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dallas has a very good oline, one great WR and a decent QB.  they lost their RB, though and the D is nothing special.

 

i dont see why they would be better than the colts next season

Romo is much better than decent. And who cares about losing a RB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

colts

colts

colts

colts

colts

colts

colts

colts

colts

colts

 

did I miss anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romo is much better than decent. And who cares about losing a RB?

i know this forum hates running backs but they can be the difference between a good O or a bad/mediocre one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you said that you don't understand that because they always win their division and have a top record. They only win their division and have a top record every year because their division is horrible. The NFCN is usually worse than the South or the West ever was. The only difference is there is 1 team that can usually win the easy games and that happens to be the Packers. When's the last time somebody else won atleast 8 games twice in a row in that division? Vikings maybe? When the division produced the game's only 0-16 team?

Again, what does their division have to do with them being top 10? As you said, they win their division and still have to play 10 other games outside of it. They finished second in the NFC last year and most have them as the second best team heading into this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Raiders

2. Rams

3. Bucs

4. Bears

5. Jags

6. Titans

7. Browns

8. Giants

9. Redskins

10. Falcons

SB Browns and Redskins in a shoutout, Redskins win 69 to 52 in quadruple OT using their 3rd string QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sigh...........   This is beyond really frustrating.    You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done.     That's very Irish of you.    Really annoying.      You ask for benefit of the doubt while never giving it out yourself.   I've put certain things into bold.   I'll try taking them one at a time.   Your first bold...   that this is not me saying that teams that aren't doing this are stupid.    I'm sorry, but when you declare that you've come up that you think is clearly and obvously better,  that you think you've re-invented the wheel and sliced bread,  it certainly feels like you're casting a disapporving eye toward any team that's not doing things your preferred way as a matter of course.   Then you claim,  that I want Ballard in the building ASAP,  but not before January.    Let me see if you understand this word.....   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!   Was that clear enough for you?       If Irsay had decided in the spring of 16 to fire Grigson and hire Ballard in the spring, I would've been ok with it.   It's not desirable,  but if Irsay made that call THEN,  I'd be ok with it.     Where YOU mis-read me,  is that roughly 95 of owners make this decision during the season.    They see things they don't like and they decide during the season to make a change -- typically when the season ends.    Sometimes, an exec will be fired during the season and someone like Dorsey comes in during the season to oversee things and learn about the organization.    I'm fine with that.  There's no record of me opposing that.   I start with January,  because that's when the business season starts for front office and coaches.   Period.   The NFL views it as preferrable.    But making the switch in the spring is doable, as I've said in every post, and which you have ignored or confused badly.    But if Ballard had been hired in the spring of 16,  I'd have been fine with it.   This isn't the first time I've said some version of this.    This is not some ah-ha moment.   As to the bold declaring that there are tons of qualified guys and that CHOOSING the best guy is another story.   Here's my reponse to that.   No.   nonsense.     They are the same story.    They are connected.    Because you play down the fact that most GM's and most HC's fail.   They get fired before their 4 or 5 year contracts expire.   The owner has seen enough and makes a change.   Saying there are always qualified guys is meaningless.    Because FINDING the best guy who will succeed, isn't just important,  it's EVERYTHING.   All 32 teams can announce they hired a qualified guy.    That isn't hard.    But the vast majority of teams are introducing his successor in a few years.    That's why a franchise like Pittsburgh has very little turnover either in HC or the front office.   While franchises like the Jets or Buffalo or Miami are introducing someone new so often, you can practically set your watch to it.     Generally speaking,  the new GM has a long history of scouting and evaluating talent.   The new HC has a history of success, both as a position coach and a coordinator.   They can easily be called qualified,  (though new guys like Kliff Kingsbury and Zack Taylor do NOT have a long track record of success)  But the vast majority of hires...   are soon enough fired.   That doesn't speak well to their qualifications.      As to you meaning what you're saying...   Of course you mean what you say and I stated that clearly.  I don't know why this should rub you the wrong way.  I literally wrote that I know you mean what you say.    I said what I said as a rhetorical point,  not an attacking point.    My ultimate point was made at the end of my first post to you.   You typically write persuasive arguments.    You're able to frequently made me see your viewpoint.    But not here.    You accuse me of not considering your argument.    I'm sorry,  I am considering what you write.   But I don't see the typical high quality Superman argument.   I don't see points that connect.    Your argument feels like the one you'd make for doable.   It doesn't convince me at all that it's preferable.  
    • Yeah, Ballard said he's a patient guy, and he doesn't mind waiting to pick. We almost traded back from 34 as well if Rock wasn't there. I personally love the "trade back" strategy at the end of round 1, and wouldn't mind doing it in most every draft. A late 1st for a mid-second and early/mid second (from the Redskins) over two drafts is fine with me!
    • Haven't done research on the 2020 draft yet, but if it ends up having an elite WR or OT, I wouldn't mind trading up this year. We'll have to see where we finish (hopefully 32 ), and make a decision from there. Ballard landing the Redskins 2nd rounder may be a brilliant move.
    • I had us 9-7 just based on guessing/hoping/predicting Luck would be healthy and play great. I was right but a lucky guess, I guess  . I thought that would get us a 6th seed. We won 10 games which got us in.
    • For the first time in a while, I am impressed with the Colts development of players. If this current trend continues, a lot of opinions will change. 
  • Members

    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfeva

      coltsfeva 1,110

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IndyEric07

      IndyEric07 8

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfanej

      coltsfanej 159

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 22

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CoachLite

      CoachLite 369

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...