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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 420

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DaveA1102

      DaveA1102 1,864

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