Week 10 Calculated Power Rankings (1 Viewer)

[Berger]

Link to week 9

1 Patriots

2 Packers

3 Colts

4 Cowboys

5 Steelers

6 Jaguars

7 Lions

8 Titans

9 Chargers

10 Buccaneers

11 Giants

12 Bears

13 Broncos

14 Cardinals

15 Redskins

16 Saints

17 Eagles

18 Seahawks

19 Chiefs

20 Browns

21 Vikings

22 Panthers

23 Bills

24 Texans

25 Falcons

26 Ravens

27 Bengals

28 49ers

29 Raiders

30 Rams

31 Jets

32 Dolphins

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

The most flawwed team on this page is the Lions at #7

The Tennessee Titans on a neutral field would absolutely destroy them.

The Packer/Cowboy thing will work itself out here in a few weeks, I'm confident in being ranked below Green Bay, that will have no effect on what happens on the field in Dallas.

 

[NoCheese]

Last week the Cowboys at #6, this week the Packers at #2? Time will reveal the absurdities here.

 

[pollardsvision]

The most flawwed team on this page is the Lions at #7The Tennessee Titans on a neutral field would absolutely destroy them.The Packer/Cowboy thing will work itself out here in a few weeks, I'm confident in being ranked below Green Bay, that will have no effect on what happens on the field in Dallas.

the lions are certainly capable of an off day, but in general, i'm not sure how the titans would score the points necessary to win that game.

 

[Berger]

The most flawwed team on this page is the Lions at #7The Tennessee Titans on a neutral field would absolutely destroy them.The Packer/Cowboy thing will work itself out here in a few weeks, I'm confident in being ranked below Green Bay, that will have no effect on what happens on the field in Dallas.

What makes you so sure the Lions would lose to the Titans? Remember this is the same Lions team that beat the raiders(29) vikings(21) bears(12) buccaneers(10) bears(12) broncos(13)

 

[Berger]

Last week the Cowboys at #6, this week the Packers at #2? Time will reveal the absurdities here.

Something tells me you may be biased here. Carry on....

 

[fridayfrenzy]

14 Cardinals15 ...16 ...17 ...18 Seahawks

Seahwks have better record, more points for, less points against, better division record, better conference record.

 

[Berger]

14 Cardinals15 ...16 ...17 ...18 Seahawks

Seahwks have better record, more points for, less points against, better division record, better conference record.

And have looked really good against the worst teams in the league (exception the bucs): buccaneers(10) bengals(27) 49ers(28) rams(30) 49ers(28)

 

[ctdub]

Don't argue with Berger. These rankings have nothing to do with records or who the teams lose to. Only who they beat and what he has them ranked.

 

[BusterTBronco]

Nice job on the rankings. I was going to say that #13 seems high for the Broncos but it is true that they have not lost to any of the teams ranked below them.

 

[Berger]

Don't argue with Berger. These rankings have nothing to do with records or who the teams lose to. Only who they beat and what he has them ranked.

I'm simply giving my reasons for having a team ranked higher/lower than another team. Do you have one you would like to discuss?

 

[ctdub]

Don't argue with Berger. These rankings have nothing to do with records or who the teams lose to. Only who they beat and what he has them ranked.

I'm simply giving my reasons for having a team ranked higher/lower than another team. Do you have one you would like to discuss?

The top of the NFC should look like this...Dallas... Only loss to NE.. Beat ChiPackers... Only loss to ChiNYG... Only losses to Dallas and Green BayAfter that it's not as easy and I could see a case for what you have.

 

[Berger]

Don't argue with Berger. These rankings have nothing to do with records or who the teams lose to. Only who they beat and what he has them ranked.

I'm simply giving my reasons for having a team ranked higher/lower than another team. Do you have one you would like to discuss?

The top of the NFC should look like this...Dallas... Only loss to NE.. Beat ChiPackers... Only loss to ChiNYG... Only losses to Dallas and Green BayAfter that it's not as easy and I could see a case for what you have.

Why does only loss matter? What if a team plays and beats the worst 8 teams in the NFL and then loses to the best team? Do they default to be the second best team? Makes no sense to me. No, you cant fault a team for its schedule, but to me, a team that plays a tough schedule and wins 8 out of 9 is more proven than a team that plays a soft schedule. The Boys will definitely have their chance to move up but lets not forget they've only beaten two teams that have winning records (Giants11 and Bills23). To me 4 is a pretty fitting ranking.Cowboys noncommon wins:dolphins(32) bears(12) rams(30) bills(23) Packers noncommon wins: chargers(9) redskins(15) broncos(13) chiefs(19)

 

[((Morpheus))]

The Bills are way too low.

 

[Berger]

Don't argue with Berger. These rankings have nothing to do with records or who the teams lose to. Only who they beat and what he has them ranked.

I'm simply giving my reasons for having a team ranked higher/lower than another team. Do you have one you would like to discuss?

The top of the NFC should look like this...Dallas... Only loss to NE.. Beat ChiPackers... Only loss to ChiNYG... Only losses to Dallas and Green BayAfter that it's not as easy and I could see a case for what you have.

Why does only loss matter? What if a team plays and beats the worst 8 teams in the NFL and then loses to the best team? Do they default to be the second best team? Makes no sense to me. No, you cant fault a team for its schedule, but to me, a team that plays a tough schedule and wins 8 out of 9 is more proven than a team that plays a soft schedule. The Boys will definitely have their chance to move up but lets not forget they've only beaten two teams that have winning records (Giants11 and Bills23). To me 4 is a pretty fitting ranking.Cowboys noncommon wins:dolphins(32) bears(12) rams(30) bills(23) Packers noncommon wins: chargers(9) redskins(15) broncos(13) chiefs(19)

Think of it like this, assign a fair point value for beating each of the above teams. Who comes out on top?

 

[ctdub]

You are defending your rankings by using them as the data input.

Until Green Bay beats Dallas they should not be ranked ahead of them. Dallas won @ Chicago, Green Bay lost to Chicago @ Green Bay. Outside of the Pats game the Cowboys have beaten everyone else on their schedule.

Also, you defend your rankings using your rankings. That is logic fallacy.

I appreciate you putting time into this and I enjoy looking at them. However, I disagree with them at this time... No disrespect intended.

ETA: Are these rankings or year end predictions? Two similar but different categories.

 

[cowboysin07]

Don't argue with Berger. These rankings have nothing to do with records or who the teams lose to. Only who they beat and what he has them ranked.

I'm simply giving my reasons for having a team ranked higher/lower than another team. Do you have one you would like to discuss?

The top of the NFC should look like this...Dallas... Only loss to NE.. Beat ChiPackers... Only loss to ChiNYG... Only losses to Dallas and Green BayAfter that it's not as easy and I could see a case for what you have.

Why does only loss matter? What if a team plays and beats the worst 8 teams in the NFL and then loses to the best team? Do they default to be the second best team? Makes no sense to me. No, you cant fault a team for its schedule, but to me, a team that plays a tough schedule and wins 8 out of 9 is more proven than a team that plays a soft schedule. The Boys will definitely have their chance to move up but lets not forget they've only beaten two teams that have winning records (Giants11 and Bills23). To me 4 is a pretty fitting ranking.Cowboys noncommon wins:dolphins(32) bears(12) rams(30) bills(23) Packers noncommon wins: chargers(9) redskins(15) broncos(13) chiefs(19)

Think of it like this, assign a fair point value for beating each of the above teams. Who comes out on top?

Again, don't really want to argue because I am biased but you don't take anything into account with the score difference. These are all pro teams (except NE which is out of the world good) and beating a pro team by an average of 20 should mean something. It will work itself out going forward but I'm interested to hear why you don't take how impressive the win is into account.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I love how the Cowboys fans in here are so simultaneously condescending (i.e. "it will work itself out") and obviously upset about something so arbitrary.

 

[Berger]

You are defending your rankings by using them as the data input. Until Green Bay beats Dallas they should not be ranked ahead of them. Dallas won @ Chicago, Green Bay lost to Chicago @ Green Bay. Outside of the Pats game the Cowboys have beaten everyone else on their schedule. Also, you defend your rankings using your rankings. That is logic fallacy. I appreciate you putting time into this and I enjoy looking at them. However, I disagree with them at this time... No disrespect intended.

I expect constructive criticizm, its cool. But I think you've misunderstood my explanations. To put it simply:Each win gives a team points. The same points are given to all teams that beat a particular team. For example the Buccs and Texans have both beaten the Panthers. They both receive x for that win. All of the points are added up for each team to come up with the rankings.

 

[Berger]

Don't argue with Berger. These rankings have nothing to do with records or who the teams lose to. Only who they beat and what he has them ranked.

I'm simply giving my reasons for having a team ranked higher/lower than another team. Do you have one you would like to discuss?

The top of the NFC should look like this...Dallas... Only loss to NE.. Beat ChiPackers... Only loss to ChiNYG... Only losses to Dallas and Green BayAfter that it's not as easy and I could see a case for what you have.

Why does only loss matter? What if a team plays and beats the worst 8 teams in the NFL and then loses to the best team? Do they default to be the second best team? Makes no sense to me. No, you cant fault a team for its schedule, but to me, a team that plays a tough schedule and wins 8 out of 9 is more proven than a team that plays a soft schedule. The Boys will definitely have their chance to move up but lets not forget they've only beaten two teams that have winning records (Giants11 and Bills23). To me 4 is a pretty fitting ranking.Cowboys noncommon wins:dolphins(32) bears(12) rams(30) bills(23) Packers noncommon wins: chargers(9) redskins(15) broncos(13) chiefs(19)

Think of it like this, assign a fair point value for beating each of the above teams. Who comes out on top?

Again, don't really want to argue because I am biased but you don't take anything into account with the score difference. These are all pro teams (except NE which is out of the world good) and beating a pro team by an average of 20 should mean something. It will work itself out going forward but I'm interested to hear why you don't take how impressive the win is into account.

Because I think teams and coaches have different styles. Some don't shut down and although it may be riskier (from an injury perspective) it is, to most, more "impressive", to win by 30 than by 10. One team may try to kill the clock with a 7 point lead and another might throw deep to go up by 14.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Nice job on the rankings. I was going to say that #13 seems high for the Broncos but it is true that they have not lost to any of the teams ranked below them.

True. Out of their nine games this season, seven of the Broncos opponents are currently over .500.

 

[wadegarrett]

Link to week 9

18 Seahawks

19

20 Browns

 

[Berger]

Link to week 9

18 Seahawks

19

20 Browns

Agree, I'm a Browns homer, but cmon, look at who they've beaten.bengals(27)

ravens(26)

dolphins(32)

rams(30)

seahawks(18)

 

[wadegarrett]

Link to week 9

18 Seahawks

19

20 Browns

Agree, I'm a Browns homer, but cmon, look at who they've beaten.bengals(27)

ravens(26)

dolphins(32)

rams(30)

seahawks(18)

Same can be said for Seattle: Bengals (27), Bucs (10), 49ers (28) twice and the Rams (30).

 

[Berger]

Link to week 9

18 Seahawks

19

20 Browns

Agree, I'm a Browns homer, but cmon, look at who they've beaten.bengals(27)

ravens(26)

dolphins(32)

rams(30)

seahawks(18)

Same can be said for Seattle: Bengals (27), Bucs (10), 49ers (28) twice and the Rams (30).

Right, which is exactly why they're two spots ahead of the Browns.

 

[wadegarrett]

Link to week 9

18 Seahawks

19

20 Browns

Agree, I'm a Browns homer, but cmon, look at who they've beaten.bengals(27)

ravens(26)

dolphins(32)

rams(30)

seahawks(18)

Same can be said for Seattle: Bengals (27), Bucs (10), 49ers (28) twice and the Rams (30).

Right, which is exactly why they're two spots ahead of the Browns.

Your calculated power rankings need recalculating.

 

[Berger]

Link to week 9

18 Seahawks

19

20 Browns

Agree, I'm a Browns homer, but cmon, look at who they've beaten.bengals(27)

ravens(26)

dolphins(32)

rams(30)

seahawks(18)

Same can be said for Seattle: Bengals (27), Bucs (10), 49ers (28) twice and the Rams (30).

Right, which is exactly why they're two spots ahead of the Browns.

Your calculated power rankings need recalculating.

That doesn't make sense to you? A team that beats the 10 team should be ranked higher than a team that beats the 18 team, all else equal?

 

[ctdub]

That doesn't make sense to you? A team that beats the 10 team should be ranked higher than a team that beats the 18 team, all else equal?

This is circular reasoning or logic fallacy. You are defending your rankings with your rankings. Defend them some other way and it might make more sense to us.

 

[wadegarrett]

Link to week 9

18 Seahawks

19

20 Browns

Agree, I'm a Browns homer, but cmon, look at who they've beaten.bengals(27)

ravens(26)

dolphins(32)

rams(30)

seahawks(18)

Same can be said for Seattle: Bengals (27), Bucs (10), 49ers (28) twice and the Rams (30).

Right, which is exactly why they're two spots ahead of the Browns.

Your calculated power rankings need recalculating.

That doesn't make sense to you? A team that beats the 10 team should be ranked higher than a team that beats the 18 team, all else equal?

All else equal? The Browns BEAT the Seahawks. IMO, that far outweighs what other teams they beat.

 

[Berger]

Link to week 9

18 Seahawks

19

20 Browns

Agree, I'm a Browns homer, but cmon, look at who they've beaten.bengals(27)

ravens(26)

dolphins(32)

rams(30)

seahawks(18)

Same can be said for Seattle: Bengals (27), Bucs (10), 49ers (28) twice and the Rams (30).

Right, which is exactly why they're two spots ahead of the Browns.

Your calculated power rankings need recalculating.

That doesn't make sense to you? A team that beats the 10 team should be ranked higher than a team that beats the 18 team, all else equal?

All else equal? The Browns BEAT the Seahawks. IMO, that far outweighs what other teams they beat.

Should the Broncos be ahead of the Steelers? Should the Vikings be above the Chargers?Try ranking all 32 teams without putting a team above a team it lost to. Ready Set GO!

 

[Berger]

That doesn't make sense to you? A team that beats the 10 team should be ranked higher than a team that beats the 18 team, all else equal?This is circular reasoning or logic fallacy. You are defending your rankings with your rankings. Defend them some other way and it might make more sense to us.

Each win gives a team points. The same points are given to all teams that beat a particular team. For example the Buccs and Texans have both beaten the Panthers. They both receive x for that win. All of the points are added up for each team to come up with the rankings.

 

[NoCheese]

Last week the Cowboys at #6, this week the Packers at #2? Time will reveal the absurdities here.

Something tells me you may be biased here. Carry on....

Possibly, but ranking GB ahead of Dallas and Indy is just plain silly, IMO. I would put them 5th behind Pittsburgh.

 

[wadegarrett]

Link to week 9

18 Seahawks

19

20 Browns

Agree, I'm a Browns homer, but cmon, look at who they've beaten.bengals(27)

ravens(26)

dolphins(32)

rams(30)

seahawks(18)

Same can be said for Seattle: Bengals (27), Bucs (10), 49ers (28) twice and the Rams (30).

Right, which is exactly why they're two spots ahead of the Browns.

Your calculated power rankings need recalculating.

That doesn't make sense to you? A team that beats the 10 team should be ranked higher than a team that beats the 18 team, all else equal?

All else equal? The Browns BEAT the Seahawks. IMO, that far outweighs what other teams they beat.

Should the Broncos be ahead of the Steelers? Should the Vikings be above the Chargers?Try ranking all 32 teams without putting a team above a team it lost to. Ready Set GO!

Of course not. But IMO, when teams are ranked so close (Seatlle at 18 and the Browns at 20), more weight should be given to the team that actually beat the other.

 

[Berger]

Last week the Cowboys at #6, this week the Packers at #2? Time will reveal the absurdities here.

Something tells me you may be biased here. Carry on....

Possibly, but ranking GB ahead of Dallas and Indy is just plain silly, IMO. I would put them 5th behind Pittsburgh.

Surprised you'd put them that high, nocheese.

 

[Berger]

Link to week 9

18 Seahawks

19

20 Browns

Agree, I'm a Browns homer, but cmon, look at who they've beaten.bengals(27)

ravens(26)

dolphins(32)

rams(30)

seahawks(18)

Same can be said for Seattle: Bengals (27), Bucs (10), 49ers (28) twice and the Rams (30).

Right, which is exactly why they're two spots ahead of the Browns.

Your calculated power rankings need recalculating.

That doesn't make sense to you? A team that beats the 10 team should be ranked higher than a team that beats the 18 team, all else equal?

All else equal? The Browns BEAT the Seahawks. IMO, that far outweighs what other teams they beat.

Should the Broncos be ahead of the Steelers? Should the Vikings be above the Chargers?Try ranking all 32 teams without putting a team above a team it lost to. Ready Set GO!

Of course not. But IMO, when teams are ranked so close (Seatlle at 18 and the Browns at 20), more weight should be given to the team that actually beat the other.

They're only ranked close because the Browns beat them. If the Browns lost they would look like this:10 Seahawks

.

.

.

.

26 Browns

That game was huge for the Browns.

eta: yes, this is the recalculated results

 

[wadegarrett]

They're only ranked close because the Browns beat them. If the Browns lost they would look like this:10 Seahawks....26 BrownsThat game was huge for the Browns.eta: yes, this is the recalculated results

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[tikitime]

Here's my top 32 rankings:

NE

Ind

Pitt

Dall

NYG

Tenn

TB

Minn

GB

Phil

Sea

Wsh

SD

Det

Denv

Jac

Atl

Miami

Balt

Carolina

AZ

Houst

Buff

Cinc

KC

Oak

Chicago

NO

Cleve

SL

NYJ

SF

Special secret formula.

 

[ctdub]

Here's my top 32 rankings:NEIndPittDallNYGTennTBMinnGBPhilSeaWshSDDetDenvJacAtlMiamiBaltCarolinaAZHoustBuffCincKCOakChicagoNOCleveSLNYJSFSpecial secret formula.

Wow Tiki. Did you do any research before listing these teams?

 

[ctdub]

Without doing a bunch of research here is how I think the top few tiers should look.

A Class of their own

Pats

Better than the rest

Indy

Dallas

Green Bay

Pitt

Pretty Good but looking over their shoulder

Giants

Jags

Chargers

Titans

Lions

Bucs

Make or break Time

Browns

Seahawks

Broncos

Saints

Bills

Eagles

Skins

Panthers

Cards

Bears

Chiefs

 

[tikitime]

Here's my top 32 rankings:NEIndPittDallNYGTennTBMinnGBPhilSeaWshSDDetDenvJacAtlMiamiBaltCarolinaAZHoustBuffCincKCOakChicagoNOCleveSLNYJSFSpecial secret formula.

Wow Tiki. Did you do any research before listing these teams?

Quite a bit actually.Based on my research, these teams are much better than advertised:MinnesotaMiamiPhilAtlTBand these teams are headed for a fall or are even worse than advertisedClevelandBuffaloJacksonvilleNOChicago

 

[Phurfur]

The most flawwed team on this page is the Lions at #7The Tennessee Titans on a neutral field would absolutely destroy them.The Packer/Cowboy thing will work itself out here in a few weeks, I'm confident in being ranked below Green Bay, that will have no effect on what happens on the field in Dallas.

Last week the Cowboys at #6, this week the Packers at #2? Time will reveal the absurdities here.

You are defending your rankings by using them as the data input. Until Green Bay beats Dallas they should not be ranked ahead of them. Dallas won @ Chicago, Green Bay lost to Chicago @ Green Bay. Outside of the Pats game the Cowboys have beaten everyone else on their schedule. Also, you defend your rankings using your rankings. That is logic fallacy. I appreciate you putting time into this and I enjoy looking at them. However, I disagree with them at this time... No disrespect intended.ETA: Are these rankings or year end predictions? Two similar but different categories.

What is with the Dallas fans? You would think these rankings are used to choose the SB participants. This is a meaningless ranking. No wonder Cowboy fans have a hard time getting respect.

 

[Berger]

Last week the Cowboys at #6, this week the Packers at #2? Time will reveal the absurdities here.

Something tells me you may be biased here. Carry on....

Possibly, but ranking GB ahead of Dallas and Indy is just plain silly, IMO. I would put them 5th behind Pittsburgh.

How bout now?