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!
Power Rankings are laughable (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BigTuna
- Start date
This_Is_Not_VRR
Footballguy
One thing is for sure, Michael Brown's power rankings are laughable.
Michael Brown
Footballguy
Most of the commentary following each team is basically me goofing on them in some form. Obviously, I don't really believe in a Madden curse and I don't REALLY think they're going to lose 10 games. But I also don't think they'll come close to repeating what they did a year ago.
Mark Wimer
Moderator
Brown's Power Rankings
There's a link for the subscribers to read what Michael Brown really wrote. Hint: he didn't predict double-digit losses, although he did imply that such a collapse might be possible, as I read it. Go read and judge for yourself.
MW
There's a link for the subscribers to read what Michael Brown really wrote. Hint: he didn't predict double-digit losses, although he did imply that such a collapse might be possible, as I read it. Go read and judge for yourself.
MW
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
There are a number of people who think Seattle is due for a serious fall. Such collapses have happened before. Why do you think it won't happen to Seattle?
colin
colin
jurb26
Footballguy
Probably because the division still suxor.
stevegamer
Footballguy
I'll give you my 3 main reasons:1. The 49ers.2. The Cardinals.3. The Rams.The Seattle D should be improved. The offense returns almost everyone - slight downgrade, but Arizona's D is probably above average, the Rams' mediocre, and the 49ers sucky.I really think people are forgetting that the SB loser does NOT have to fall off the planet. There's no rule, it's just been happeneing lately when a team suddenly succeeds or gets killed by injuries like the Eagles.
valhallan
Footballguy
Many of those collapses we've seen have been somewhat predictable. Seattle hasn't lost much, retains the same coaching staff and key personnel, and has added a few key players like Julian Peterson. It's very hard to imagine they'd suffer a "collapse".
Michael Brown
Footballguy
Very true, I just see signs of it coming between the loss of Hutchinson that I expect will greatly hinder the run game, and the health questions of the receiving game (D-Jax and Stevens). Seattle's defense caught up to the offense a bit late last year, so there is hope for them. And if they go out and prove me wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. I just don't see a ton of success for them this year because I don't think their offense is close to what it was a year ago.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
The offense doesn't return almost everyone. Hutchison is gone and D-Jax is an unknown commodity at this point. Also, they have a mildly difficult schedule, w/ 3 of their last 5 games looking like they could positively frightening. And that's IF no one else in the division gets any better.
I'm not predicing they fall to 5-11 or anything, but I certainly don't think it's "laughable" to presume they will take a step back.
Colin
I'm not predicing they fall to 5-11 or anything, but I certainly don't think it's "laughable" to presume they will take a step back.
Colin
BigTuna
Footballguy
Seattle will probably go 6-0 in the division. They need to pick up one more win to avoid the double digit losses that he predicts. That means after going undefeated in the NFC west they will need to beat one of the following Raiders in seattle, GB in seattle, Detroit, or Minn in seattle.
BTW these were his words regarding seattle's no 17 rank
"17. Seattle Seahawks 0-0 (-)
Banged-up receivers, loss of a stud lineman, coming off a Super Bowl loss, Madden cover jinx. Yup, it's pretty well set in stone that Seattle is in for double digit losses this year."
Like I said, he's gotta lay off the dope. .
BTW these were his words regarding seattle's no 17 rank
"17. Seattle Seahawks 0-0 (-)
Banged-up receivers, loss of a stud lineman, coming off a Super Bowl loss, Madden cover jinx. Yup, it's pretty well set in stone that Seattle is in for double digit losses this year."
Like I said, he's gotta lay off the dope. .
bostonfred
Footballguy
CapnJB
Footballguy
I think this view is being severely overplayed. Yes, Hutch is a premier guard and will be missed, but I'm fairly certain they are planning on putting someone in the gaping hole he left. The hawks brought in Ashworth so they could shuffle the line and make a decent attempt at shoring up a solid o-line. They didn't lose Jones... and anyone they fill in next to him will automatically shine a little brighter because of that. And Alexander isn't entirely comprised of the ability of the o-line either. Say he is a product of the system if you like... I'll disagree... and either way there is still a pretty solid system in place.
CapnJB
Footballguy
Since the merger in 1970, 26 of 36 teams have returned to the playoffs after losing the superbowl... and 7 of those times the team has returned to the superbowl.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Next you're going to tell me that Keven Federline is not, in fact, completely awesome. Did you see him rap?
Michael Brown
Footballguy
Well, this might be the first time anyone has actually laughed at anything I wrote, so I guess I've got that going for me. And for the last time, I didn't predict double-digit losses. That comment was made tongue-in-cheek after referencing the Madden jinx for SA and mentioning the potential reasons why they could fall. I hardly think the team that finishes the year as the league's 17th best would be able to lose double digit games.
For the record, I have them going 8-8 with losses in the following games:
@ DET
vs. NYG
@ CHI
@ KC
@ DEN
@ ARZ
vs SD
@ TB
I'm giving them a win at Saint Louis, a place they're 1-3 since moving to the West. And that one win, if I'm not mistaken, took a miracle finish just to get it last season. And I don't think any of these other games could be said without question that it should be a win. I can see people questioning the Detroit game, but I like Detroit a lot this year. Even so, plug in a W there and it comes out to 9-7, which would likely not bump them as high as you guys would want them anyway.
For the record, I have them going 8-8 with losses in the following games:
@ DET
vs. NYG
@ CHI
@ KC
@ DEN
@ ARZ
vs SD
@ TB
I'm giving them a win at Saint Louis, a place they're 1-3 since moving to the West. And that one win, if I'm not mistaken, took a miracle finish just to get it last season. And I don't think any of these other games could be said without question that it should be a win. I can see people questioning the Detroit game, but I like Detroit a lot this year. Even so, plug in a W there and it comes out to 9-7, which would likely not bump them as high as you guys would want them anyway.
Michael Brown
Footballguy
Fixed.
This_Is_Not_VRR
Footballguy
And they're all talking out of their ###.
This is the best team that the Seahawks have ever fielded. Hasselbeck, Alexander, and Walter Jones are all in the prime of their careers. On the defensive side of the ball, they may just have the best young trio of linebackers in the league. This is a team that not only lead the league in scoring last year, they lead the league in sacks as well. In short, they are dominant on both sides of the ball, they play in one of the loudest stadiums in the league, and they have an incredibly favorable schedule. Anyone who doesn't think they'll make the playoffs is kidding themselves.The "Super Bowl Losers Curse" is just an execuse for hack journalists to ignore the hard evidence in front of them and hide behind a meaningless and short sighted trend. Never mind the fact that the Seahawks have made the playoffs for 3 straight years now (tops in the NFC) or that the Eagles made it to the NFC championship game 4 years in a row before finally "collapsing" the following year after losing to the Patriots. As far as I'm concerned, teams like the Eagles didn't suffer the Super Bowl loser's curse, they just wasted their best years trying to make it to the big game. The same can't be said of the Seahawks who are just now entering their prime and have all of the pieces in place.
CapnJB
Footballguy
Notice I didn't go there.Respect.
This_Is_Not_VRR
Footballguy
I also find it interesting that so many of you are willing to predict failure for a team that is lead by arguably the best QB in the NFC. Since when did QB play become such a non-issue?
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
The Hawks played practically all of last season without Jackson, and they did quite fine. The Hawks do not "need" Jackson to play to be good. The Offense from last year basically lost Hutchison and JJ, and will be getting back Darrell Jackson, and also adding Burleson and Ashworth.Womack is definately no slouch on the LG position as soon will come to see.The Defense has only gotten better with Julian Peterson and Hamlin in the lineup and another year of experience for Tatupu and Hill.
Last edited by a moderator:
stevegamer
Footballguy
So "extremely difficult" means we should see massive turnover from year to year in winners & losers? And parity has been firmly established in the NFL since 1970? You might want to tell the following groups this:Cardinals: 0 winning season from 1985-2005
Bengals: 0 winning seasons from 1999-2004
The Saints before Jim Mora
The Lions under pretty much anbody other than Fontes from mid-70's to now.
Bucs: 2 winnnig seasons from 1976-1996
Raiders: 1 losing season from 1970-1986
Dolphins: 1 losing season from 1977-2003
Broncos: 1 losing season under Shanahan 1995-2005
The dynasties of the 49ers, Cowboys, Steelers, Patriots during their SB years.
There have been teams that are consistently crappy and there are teams that are consistently good over long periods of time since the merger. There will continue to be such, since some teams have crappy front office staffs/coaches/players. Those teams change, but they do not not normally change wholesale or overnight.
Yes, teams suffer injuries and lose players, and the Seahawks are looking at both of those scenarios this year with Hutchinson & Jackson. Might they collapse, yes. If they do I think it will be a one year phenomenon due to injuries.
This_Is_Not_VRR
Footballguy
You can pencil the Seahawks down right now for 8 wins at home. They've gone undefeated at home in two out of the past 3 years, and they weren't even playing particularly good football while doing it. Now that they actually have a complete football team, look out. On a side note, I think the Giants o-line is already commiting false start penalties in anticipation for their game against the Seahawks. And do you smell that? That's the smell of Jay Feely soiling himself just thinking about returning to Seattle.
And Poor Philip Rivers will be in way over his head in Seattle.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
So you think the Eagles 6-10 record was a result of getting old?You don't think the fact that they had half their starters go on IR had anything to do with it?Same thing with the Panthers and the Rams the year after they went to the Superbowl, injuries really hurt them.For whatever reason the teams that lose in the Superbowl are beset by either age or injury the following year.
CapnJB
Footballguy
I like to word that as winning 24 of the last 27 home games
CapnJB
Footballguy
Well, this might be the first time anyone has actually laughed at anything I wrote, so I guess I've got that going for me. And for the last time, I didn't predict double-digit losses. That comment was made tongue-in-cheek after referencing the Madden jinx for SA and mentioning the potential reasons why they could fall. I hardly think the team that finishes the year as the league's 17th best would be able to lose double digit games.For the record, I have them going 8-8 with losses in the following gamesDETvs. NYG@ CHI@ KC@ DEN@ ARZvs SD@ TBI'm giving them a win at Saint Louis, a place they're 1-3 since moving to the West. And that one win, if I'm not mistaken, took a miracle finish just to get it last season. And I don't think any of these other games could be said without question that it should be a win. I can see people questioning the Detroit game, but I like Detroit a lot this year. Even so, plug in a W there and it comes out to 9-7, which would likely not bump them as high as you guys would want them anyway.
stevegamer
Footballguy
I think the Eagles got hurt, and had poor backup plans in place at certain spots.
It may bite them again at QB, I'm not sold on Garcia or re-signing Feeley. The WR moves help fix the loss of TO, and the guys they have are as good or better than the guys pre-Owens. OL/DL depth is improved, and they have the P & K back.
It may bite them again at QB, I'm not sold on Garcia or re-signing Feeley. The WR moves help fix the loss of TO, and the guys they have are as good or better than the guys pre-Owens. OL/DL depth is improved, and they have the P & K back.
This_Is_Not_VRR
Footballguy
Had the Eagles made it to the Super Bowl (and lost) in any of those first 3 years, I think they would have been a lock to return to the playoffs the following year. They had a great team and losing in the Super Bowl wouldn't have changed that, just as losing in the NFC title game 3 years in a row didn't stop them from finally making it to the big game.As far as injuries go, what's there to say? Teams get decimated by injuries every single year. It happens to the bottom feeders, it happens to perennial playoff teams, it happens to Super Bowl losers, and it happens to the Super Bowl winners. The Eagles had a 4 straight years where they were competing for a championship before injuries reared their ugly head. That's the kind of window of opportunity that most teams would kill for.
BigTuna
Footballguy
They're going to beat Detroit, Arizona, NYG, and SD. I agree with you on KC, DEN, and TB. Chi is a push. So they'll go 12-4, which is a more realistic prediction. We'll find out this sunday how wrong you are. Then 2 weeks later, we'll prove it. My prediction - Seattle will be undeafeated going into Chi wk 4.Well, this might be the first time anyone has actually laughed at anything I wrote, so I guess I've got that going for me. And for the last time, I didn't predict double-digit losses. That comment was made tongue-in-cheek after referencing the Madden jinx for SA and mentioning the potential reasons why they could fall. I hardly think the team that finishes the year as the league's 17th best would be able to lose double digit games.For the record, I have them going 8-8 with losses in the following games
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Brown
Footballguy
I'd counter by saying that it's not realistic to expect ANY team to win 12 games. We know that some (or several) teams WILL. But to say confidently which ones is bad projecting. Just due to the nature of projections and predictions, you'd have to be awfully confident in a team to realistically say they should win that many. For your sake, I hope you're right about how good they are. And if I'm wrong, I'm not going to come up with stupid excuses and try to lay the blame on something out of my control. I'll man up and admit I was wrong. Anyone who read my picks last year would know it wouldn't be the first time!There doesn't have to be so much animosity surrounding it though, as these rankings are mostly for fun. Sure, I enjoy the back-and-forth as much as the next guy, but let's try to keep it civil. I'm confident in my prediction, you are confident in yours...one of us is probably going to be very wrong and the general consensus says it'll be me. So I guess we just do like you said, sit back and find out how right or wrong I am Sundays.They're going to beat Detroit, Arizona, NYG, and SD. I agree with you on KC, DEN, and TB. Chi is a push. So they'll go 12-4, which is a more realistic prediction. We'll find out this sunday how wrong you are. Then 2 weeks later, we'll prove it. My prediction - Seattle will be undeafeated going into Chi wk 4.Well, this might be the first time anyone has actually laughed at anything I wrote, so I guess I've got that going for me. And for the last time, I didn't predict double-digit losses. That comment was made tongue-in-cheek after referencing the Madden jinx for SA and mentioning the potential reasons why they could fall. I hardly think the team that finishes the year as the league's 17th best would be able to lose double digit games.For the record, I have them going 8-8 with losses in the following games
BigTuna
Footballguy
LOL Ok, I'll lay off ya, I'm probably a little sensitive when it comes to the seahawks. We're the rodney dangerfield of the NFL. I doubt even winning a super bowl will get the Hawks some respect. I watched "best damn sports show" the other day and all of them picked AZ to win the NFC west. Gimme a break. AZ has 2 chances slim and none. I feel sorry for edge. he's gonna suffer, just like emmitt did. They have stud WR's and an up and coming stud QB, but they need to address the lines, that's where they are lacking. Seattle will own them again this year. And I'm sure all the Seahawk fans down in Tucson and Pheonix will enjoy the new digs. And with all the draft pics all these lousy teams in the nfc west have picked up over the last several years, I see the seahawks having their work cut out for them them in 2-3 years. But not this year. Sorry about the drugs comment, i'm sure you were sober when you wrote that article.I'd counter by saying that it's not realistic to expect ANY team to win 12 games. We know that some (or several) teams WILL. But to say confidently which ones is bad projecting. Just due to the nature of projections and predictions, you'd have to be awfully confident in a team to realistically say they should win that many. For your sake, I hope you're right about how good they are. And if I'm wrong, I'm not going to come up with stupid excuses and try to lay the blame on something out of my control. I'll man up and admit I was wrong. Anyone who read my picks last year would know it wouldn't be the first time!There doesn't have to be so much animosity surrounding it though, as these rankings are mostly for fun. Sure, I enjoy the back-and-forth as much as the next guy, but let's try to keep it civil. I'm confident in my prediction, you are confident in yours...one of us is probably going to be very wrong and the general consensus says it'll be me. So I guess we just do like you said, sit back and find out how right or wrong I am Sundays.They're going to beat Detroit, Arizona, NYG, and SD. I agree with you on KC, DEN, and TB. Chi is a push. So they'll go 12-4, which is a more realistic prediction. We'll find out this sunday how wrong you are. Then 2 weeks later, we'll prove it. My prediction - Seattle will be undeafeated going into Chi wk 4.Well, this might be the first time anyone has actually laughed at anything I wrote, so I guess I've got that going for me. And for the last time, I didn't predict double-digit losses. That comment was made tongue-in-cheek after referencing the Madden jinx for SA and mentioning the potential reasons why they could fall. I hardly think the team that finishes the year as the league's 17th best would be able to lose double digit games.For the record, I have them going 8-8 with losses in the following games
I can't appologize for the laughter though, I seriously did laugh when I saw the number17 ranking and never bothered to look at the rest. I agree that most authors would not predict a team to win 12 games in a season, although I've seen it done. I'll stand by my 12-4 record, you can stand by your 8-8, we'll see who is closer - winner gets the bragging rights. sorry if I offended. I occationally jump on seahawk trashers, you just happened to be the flavor of the week.
Michael Brown
Footballguy
It's cool.LOL Ok, I'll lay off ya, I'm probably a little sensitive when it comes to the seahawks. We're the rodney dangerfield of the NFL. I doubt even winning a super bowl will get the Hawks some respect. I watched "best damn sports show" the other day and all of them picked AZ to win the NFC west. Gimme a break. AZ has 2 chances slim and none. I feel sorry for edge. he's gonna suffer, just like emmitt did. They have stud WR's and an up and coming stud QB, but they need to address the lines, that's where they are lacking. Seattle will own them again this year. And I'm sure all the Seahawk fans down in Tucson and Pheonix will enjoy the new digs. And with all the draft pics all these lousy teams in the nfc west have picked up over the last several years, I see the seahawks having their work cut out for them them in 2-3 years. But not this year. Sorry about the drugs comment, i'm sure you were sober when you wrote that article.I'd counter by saying that it's not realistic to expect ANY team to win 12 games. We know that some (or several) teams WILL. But to say confidently which ones is bad projecting. Just due to the nature of projections and predictions, you'd have to be awfully confident in a team to realistically say they should win that many. For your sake, I hope you're right about how good they are. And if I'm wrong, I'm not going to come up with stupid excuses and try to lay the blame on something out of my control. I'll man up and admit I was wrong. Anyone who read my picks last year would know it wouldn't be the first time!There doesn't have to be so much animosity surrounding it though, as these rankings are mostly for fun. Sure, I enjoy the back-and-forth as much as the next guy, but let's try to keep it civil. I'm confident in my prediction, you are confident in yours...one of us is probably going to be very wrong and the general consensus says it'll be me. So I guess we just do like you said, sit back and find out how right or wrong I am Sundays.They're going to beat Detroit, Arizona, NYG, and SD. I agree with you on KC, DEN, and TB. Chi is a push. So they'll go 12-4, which is a more realistic prediction. We'll find out this sunday how wrong you are. Then 2 weeks later, we'll prove it. My prediction - Seattle will be undeafeated going into Chi wk 4.Well, this might be the first time anyone has actually laughed at anything I wrote, so I guess I've got that going for me. And for the last time, I didn't predict double-digit losses. That comment was made tongue-in-cheek after referencing the Madden jinx for SA and mentioning the potential reasons why they could fall. I hardly think the team that finishes the year as the league's 17th best would be able to lose double digit games.For the record, I have them going 8-8 with losses in the following games
I just didn't want to see this turn into a "no I'M right...no I AM RIGHT!" type of thing. And don't worry about the comments that were made. If my team had just gone to the Super Bowl after a terrific season, played a good game once there, and then were ranked outside the top-5 (let alone top-10) going into the following season, I'd question my sanity too!Trust me, it wasn't an easy decision to pick Arizona. I just think Edge made the o-line in Indy look better than it actually is, and he'll have a fine time in the desert. But that's, as they say, why they play the games.And for the record, a good-looking Week 1 victory over Detroit would likely move them up significantly and I'm not against quickly admitting I'm wrong about a team. If Seattle comes out like gangbusters the first two weeks, you'll see them quickly leap up the rankings.
Last edited by a moderator:
Browns Rule!
Footballguy
Oh come on, those rankings are crap, all I had to do was find the Browns. How much thought got put into the Browns being far worse than last year when they have only added pieces to their team?
I do like the Prison Break reference though (I love that show).
I do like the Prison Break reference though (I love that show).
Last edited by a moderator:
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
Mike's stated more than once that these rankings are more for fun & to jump-start dialogues, even though there's no doubt in my mind that he can defend them with valid opinions. It's one thing to discuss the rankings & another to take offense at them when your team is ranked lower than you think they should be.
Anyway - Mike, I have a question on your ranking method as the season progresses. Just about every newspaper in the country does this in one form or another, and I've seen the person doing the ranking change them in one of two ways: a) they use their week one rankings as a baseline & move teams up or down based on their original predictions or b) they start their rankings over from scratch each week, only basing them on what they've seen ytd.
I was wondering which method you used.
Anyway - Mike, I have a question on your ranking method as the season progresses. Just about every newspaper in the country does this in one form or another, and I've seen the person doing the ranking change them in one of two ways: a) they use their week one rankings as a baseline & move teams up or down based on their original predictions or b) they start their rankings over from scratch each week, only basing them on what they've seen ytd.
I was wondering which method you used.
Slingblade
Footballguy
Horrible rankings. My 5 year old brother could of come up with better rankings.
M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
is this sig legal?repeat tool - 30 days.
Similar threads
