SI's Peter King article with an early ranking of the teams from 1-32. Bears @ #4. Hmmm...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...10/may11/2.html
J
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...10/may11/2.html
J
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Peter King's First Cut At Ranking The Teams... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
New England should be higher.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I'm thinking Minnesota at 15 is too low if they end up with Favre. Also surprised that the Panthers aren't even in the top half of the league.
Last edited by a moderator:
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
The first one that jumps out at me is Chicago is way too high.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Well here's what King said:
I can't take seriously a guy who grades a QB based on his completion percentage and his yards per game. Delhomme ranked 4th in the NFL in yards per attempt, 9th in the league in sack rate, and most importantly, 8th in adjusted net yards per attempt last year. Delhomme takes a ton of abuse based on that playoff game, but he led a very good passing offense all year long. Give all the credit to Steve Smith, if you want, but it's not like he won't be there again in '09. The Panthers passing game should be just fine -- last year, Carolina averaged more yards per completion than any team in the NFL.
jurrassic
Footballguy
Chicago is way to high. They may be good, but you could also argue they could finish third in their division. In today's column King justified this ranking by saying each year he likes to pick 1 or 2 teams that may make a jump. Seems more like a guess than any sort of concrete factual reason. I almost am getting the feeling with all the hype around Chicago that they may be the let down team of the year.
Last edited by a moderator:
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
I could poop a better list than Mr. King. Here is my list, FWIW:
New England Patriots
Pittsburgh Steelers
New York Giants
Indianapolis Colts
Baltimore Ravens
Carolina Panthers
Philadelphia Eagles
Tennessee Titans
San Diego Chargers
Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
New Orleans Saints
Dallas Cowboys
Green Bay Packers
Minnesota Vikings
Washington Redskins
Miami Dolphins
Chicago Bears
New York Jets
Buffalo Bills
Jacksonville Jaguars
Denver Broncos
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
San Francisco 49ers
Houston Texans
Cleveland Browns
Seattle Seahawks
Cincinnati Bengals
Kansas City Chiefs
St. Louis Rams
Oakland Raiders
Detroit Lions
New England Patriots
Pittsburgh Steelers
New York Giants
Indianapolis Colts
Baltimore Ravens
Carolina Panthers
Philadelphia Eagles
Tennessee Titans
San Diego Chargers
Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
New Orleans Saints
Dallas Cowboys
Green Bay Packers
Minnesota Vikings
Washington Redskins
Miami Dolphins
Chicago Bears
New York Jets
Buffalo Bills
Jacksonville Jaguars
Denver Broncos
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
San Francisco 49ers
Houston Texans
Cleveland Browns
Seattle Seahawks
Cincinnati Bengals
Kansas City Chiefs
St. Louis Rams
Oakland Raiders
Detroit Lions
roadkill1292
Footballguy
The No. 8 Ravens are about 5 spots too high. Locals will know what I'm talking about. Everything went right for them last year, except in those unfortunate Steeler games.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
I'll let you know when I put any stock into what Peter Queen thinks.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
But he has GREAT fantasy advice. Remember him shouting about taking Danny Wuerffel in the 1st round because of Spurrier?
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Don't bother attempting any level of non-serious business around switz.
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
oh its on
Bizkiteer
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
A
awesomeness
Guest
Nothing really to talk about in that list. He's basically saying that the 2009 season will be very similar to the 2008 season.
switz
Footballguy
Don't bother kidding around with JetsWillWin...
Reaper
Footballguy
It is conceivable that Wuerffel could throw for 3,600 yards and 26 touchdowns. Big fantasy numbers.But he has GREAT fantasy advice. Remember him shouting about taking Danny Wuerffel in the 1st round because of Spurrier?
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
Thank you, my friend. But I don't think I'm fat enough for the job.A far better job of rankings than Peter King's!
So 11 of last years 12 playoff teams are in the top 12 teams for this year? King may be an idiot about some things, but at least he doesnt take last years results and call it an article.
A
awesomeness
Guest
Maybe you should read over King's article one more time.
perry147
Footballguy
Do you like coffee?Excellent job with the rankings. I have the Texans a few places higher and the Rams surprising a few people.Thank you, my friend. But I don't think I'm fat enough for the job.A far better job of rankings than Peter King's!Maybe you could take him job?
Couch Potato
Footballguy
Well, for mentioning this again, but I had a really vivid dream a few weeks ago and posted to document it in case it comes true. In the dream, New Orleans beat Houston in the Super Bowl.
So...
1. Saints
2. Texans
3. Everybody else.
If not for the dream, I'd go...
1. Patriots
2. Eagles
3. Steelers
4. Giants
5. Eh.. I've lost interest in continuing.
By the way, as with most of this thread, I'm not a fan of King. I think he writes more for stirring up conversation than anything else most of the time.
for mentioning this again, but I had a really vivid dream a few weeks ago and posted to document it in case it comes true. In the dream, New Orleans beat Houston in the Super Bowl.So...
1. Saints
2. Texans
3. Everybody else.
If not for the dream, I'd go...
1. Patriots
2. Eagles
3. Steelers
4. Giants
5. Eh.. I've lost interest in continuing.
By the way, as with most of this thread, I'm not a fan of King. I think he writes more for stirring up conversation than anything else most of the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Terps2002
Footballguy
But he has GREAT fantasy advice. Remember him shouting about taking Danny Wuerffel in the 1st round because of Spurrier?
One good posting for every pro bowl he didn't make
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
Feel free to offer up your own rankings. I'm starting to think I may have Miami too low.
PizzaDeliveryGuy
extra sausage
Zero chance that Cleveland finishes as the worst team in the league.
Chase Stuart said:
Great analysis there Chase. Add in a ground game easily capable of 4.3+ per carry on 500+ carries and you've got a juggernaut on your hands. It should be a thrilling race between CAR and ATL in the NFC South, and they should both be top 10 picks for 2009, IMO.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
A couple of observations:
1) I don't think there are 19 teams between Chicago and New Orleans.
2) SF is being seriously overlooked IMO. Shaun Hill may not be Joe Montana/Steve Young, but he's competent enough and that division is still fairly weak. I sense Arizona coming back down to earth.
3) Dallas at #9? So T.O was the problem? They didn't run deeper than that? OOOOOOkay...
4) I'm not sure Albert Haynesworth will cure Washington's ills...but losing him will hurt Tennessee more than what's being forecasted here...particularly against Houston.
5) I know Pittsburgh won the SB. But I agree with NE being #1. When you get Tom Brady back, that means alot.
6) 5 teams better than Oakland? Especially after describing the lack of faith in Jamarcus Russell? I know they got Jeff Garcia...but this team is not Jeff Garcia away from being better than 5 teams.
1) I don't think there are 19 teams between Chicago and New Orleans.
2) SF is being seriously overlooked IMO. Shaun Hill may not be Joe Montana/Steve Young, but he's competent enough and that division is still fairly weak. I sense Arizona coming back down to earth.
3) Dallas at #9? So T.O was the problem? They didn't run deeper than that? OOOOOOkay...
4) I'm not sure Albert Haynesworth will cure Washington's ills...but losing him will hurt Tennessee more than what's being forecasted here...particularly against Houston.
5) I know Pittsburgh won the SB. But I agree with NE being #1. When you get Tom Brady back, that means alot.
6) 5 teams better than Oakland? Especially after describing the lack of faith in Jamarcus Russell? I know they got Jeff Garcia...but this team is not Jeff Garcia away from being better than 5 teams.
nxmehta
Footballguy
What i don't understand is he says the Saints D won't be good enough to win 8 games, even though they addressed(not necessarily fixed) the major problems from last season. So a team retuning it's entire #1 offense and what should be an improved defense can't win as many as last season. 
Not saying they can't loss 8, but his reasoning makes no sense.
Not saying they can't loss 8, but his reasoning makes no sense.
chook
Footballguy
Totally agree on these four. 1) Exactly - doesn't mean Chicago are way too high, but with the holes that the Saints filled they should be a good deal closer to the pointy end.2) Nice to know some not wearing the red & gold tinted glasses are thinking this. For the past few years I've really found it hard to be too excited about the Niners' prospects for the upcoming season, but this year it's different. Good chance they won't even make the playoffs, but they will give it a shake and will have a far more positive outlook for the following year than there has been in recent times.3) They are in for a HUGE fall. 4) Agree 100% with this. I don't want to take anything away from the great season the Titans had last year, but Haynesworth is a MASSIVE blow to that D; more of a blow to them than the lift he'll give the 'skins.Few observations of my own:A) Seattle is waaaay too high IMHO. I've always been a huge fan of Hass but I think he's done, and have a feeling TJ won't make the impact some others feel he will. B) Arizona are too low. I know it's the Cards, but they were inches away from winning the SB. After a few teething problems, Whisenhunt had them purring towards the end and they drafted well.C) Denver too high. They will fall in a heap, ending up in the bottom six.D) Indy too high. I love watching them play. I just have a feeling that this is the year their playoff streak will end.E) KC & Tampa too low. They'll surprise a few.
Getting Tom Brady pre-injury means a lot. Getting Tom Brady back post-injury means decent but questionable upgrade. Playoffs? yes. Number one team in the league? probably not. Heck, the Pats weren't even #1 when Brady was at his best.
Last edited by a moderator:
lyon812
Footballguy
In Seattle's defense, at the start of last year, they were picked by many to win the West. It's a bit unfair to judge them based on the horrible, injury-depleted team that took the field for most of last year, which included their entire OL, 7 or 8 receivers, and their QB. The defense was overworked and underachieved to a certain extent. If Hasselbeck comes back from injury, I think Seattle--which has improved on defense and can't help but improve on offense--could surprise people. 8-8 or 9-7 is entirely reasonable--and enough to win the West.
saintfool
Dead sexy
kind of my thinking too. we were an 8-8 team last year with a horrible defense. i think we improved in the offseason on that side of the ball. consequently, i think ranking us in the bottom third of the league seems slightly counter-intuitive.What i don't understand is he says the Saints D won't be good enough to win 8 games, even though they addressed(not necessarily fixed) the major problems from last season. So a team retuning it's entire #1 offense and what should be an improved defense can't win as many as last season.Not saying they can't loss 8, but his reasoning makes no sense.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Their in-division games should all be tough, and they play the AFC East and NFC East teams as well. They could very well be a better team but they may not have a better record.kind of my thinking too. we were an 8-8 team last year with a horrible defense. i think we improved in the offseason on that side of the ball. consequently, i think ranking us in the bottom third of the league seems slightly counter-intuitive.What i don't understand is he says the Saints D won't be good enough to win 8 games, even though they addressed(not necessarily fixed) the major problems from last season. So a team retuning it's entire #1 offense and what should be an improved defense can't win as many as last season.Not saying they can't loss 8, but his reasoning makes no sense.
Banger
Footballguy
Maybe it's just me but I think the Giants are going to take a step back this year. Their offense struggled quite a bit without Burress and they've done nothing yet to replace that void. Boss is an ok pass catcher but nothing great, the wr's are ok but not game breakers by any stretch. I understand that they are going to run and play defense but I think they still will need to throw to make some 1st downs.
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
That's how I feel too.
benson_will_lead_the_way
Footballguy
I don't like the Bears being that high honestly.
I remember when Peter King had them as #32 in his rankings and the Bears went to the Super Bowl.
I remember when Peter King had them as #32 in his rankings and the Bears went to the Super Bowl.
saintfool
Dead sexy
24th best team though? that's the part that doesn't make sense to me. lumping NO in the bottom tier of the league is either ignorant or disrespectful. there are teams that have similar, if not bigger, question marks like GB that are ranked higher. GB really at 14?Their in-division games should all be tough, and they play the AFC East and NFC East teams as well. They could very well be a better team but they may not have a better record.kind of my thinking too. we were an 8-8 team last year with a horrible defense. i think we improved in the offseason on that side of the ball. consequently, i think ranking us in the bottom third of the league seems slightly counter-intuitive.What i don't understand is he says the Saints D won't be good enough to win 8 games, even though they addressed(not necessarily fixed) the major problems from last season. So a team retuning it's entire #1 offense and what should be an improved defense can't win as many as last season.
wadegarrett
FFA Legend™
PizzaDeliveryGuy said:
jurb26
Footballguy
I'm very surprised at how little respect NO is getting right now. Maybe it's because teams like Car and Atl vastly improved last year and they are the easy picks? Either way, I think this team is much better than they are getting credit for. Anytime you have an elite QB in the NFL you have a legit shot at the playoffs. NO has that. On top of an elite QB they have several offensive weapons around him and a solid Oline. They are getting their best WR back healthy this year in Colston. The D is still average of slightly bellow average, but it is certainly improved from last year. IMO Jenkins was the best defensive player in the draft. He only slipped because his 40 time was not where it needed to be to get drafted top 5. NO got a really good football player with him and he will pay immediate dividends for them this year. On top of Jenkins NO also received upgrades in the secondary via Greer and Sharper. The Sharper pick up is much bigger than anyone is giving it credit for IMO. Sure Sharper is on the tail end of his career and not the same player he was a few years ago. However he still has more ability than anyone NO has playing S last year and his leadership will be critical to turning around this putrid performing unit. He will take on the responsibility of making sure the right coverages are called and people are in the proper positions. I can't tell you how many times the NO secondary was beat last year simply because they were out of position. I like NO to win the NFC south this year.saintfool said:24th best team though? that's the part that doesn't make sense to me. lumping NO in the bottom tier of the league is either ignorant or disrespectful. there are teams that have similar, if not bigger, question marks like GB that are ranked higher. GB really at 14?David Yudkin said:Their in-division games should all be tough, and they play the AFC East and NFC East teams as well. They could very well be a better team but they may not have a better record.saintfool said:kind of my thinking too. we were an 8-8 team last year with a horrible defense. i think we improved in the offseason on that side of the ball. consequently, i think ranking us in the bottom third of the league seems slightly counter-intuitive.Zigg said:What i don't understand is he says the Saints D won't be good enough to win 8 games, even though they addressed(not necessarily fixed) the major problems from last season. So a team retuning it's entire #1 offense and what should be an improved defense can't win as many as last season.Not saying they can't loss 8, but his reasoning makes no sense.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
but, Saints have no defense, they're actually a bit higher than they should be..they throw the ball so much because they have to mask that lousy defense.. They've done little in the off-season to bolster that defense, so it'll be marginally improved.NE is way to high..I mean, that defense is in transition , out with the old, in with the new..seems teams have learned how to defend Randy Moss, who only caught 69 balls last season..Cassel or not, Moss looks like he could be in decline.
he is 32 yrs old.
Ne will be a good team again, but I doubt they'll be #1.
Indy is too high, new HC , weak defense..
I like the Chicago ranking! they have a star RB, star QB, decent WR's , good TE, and a solid defense.
Philly will be a playoff team so the #6 ranking is good.
Dallas I don't agree with, I think they slip considerably in 2009..the lack of T.O. will throttle that passing offense..
Houston and GB rankings are great at #13 and #14..
Denver at #20 is a joke.they will probably be the single-worst team in the NFL this season..hard to see them winning more than 4 games. they have NO QB, NO defense, and 1500 RB's. will see nothing but 8-man fronts. will lead the league in INTs, they're likely to finish dead-last in yards from scrimmage,time of possession, points scored, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
