Power Rankings time!

[rsm650]

No way. :141847_bnono:

It's called "Power Rankings". This isn't "Record Rankings". The most powerful teams are the ones that win, beat great teams, show dominance in different facets of the game. Losses to good teams don't hurt a lot and wins against bad teams don't help a lot. Then you can factor in different things like getting someone back from injury or losing a player to injury.

Accurate "Power Rankings" are something like this...

1. 49ers - dominating right now, hence very powerful, injured players getting healthy
2. Broncos - loaded on offense, defense has issues, could be as high as 1
3. Seahawks - dominating defense, injuries on the line and WR, getting healthier, could be as high as 1
4. Pats - looking better and better each week, getting healthier
5. Saints - Injury to Sproles hurt, but still dominant team
6. Colts - Too much help from refs, defense not great, very dependent on Luck, Wayne hurt
7. Packers - Significant injuries to Rodgers (3 weeks?) and many others, will hurt team in long run, I'd have them at #4 if healthy
8. Chiefs - Haven't beaten 1 good team, dominant defense, offense can barely put enough points on the board to beat bad teams

You have valid points and I agree. However, I don't think the Chiefs are the 8th best team...by that logic, the pundits are right for putting the Colts ahead of us because we "just" beat the Bucs, Rams, Titans, and Jaguars. Harvin, Okung, and Giac are probably not going to be active at Atlanta. If you're making a "season power ranking" instead of a weekly one, then you're pretty much spot on at this point.

Can't wait for the Denver-KC game to solve the mystery for us :thirishdrinkers:

 

[JustTheTip]

Fox is better. 49ers move up 4 spots on bye to #2 "because they are getting some weapons at wide receiver" while the Hawks drop 2 spots to #4 after a win.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings/2013/9

IMO Billick's pretty spot on. I like that he's not just blind to KC being undefeated and putting them up top like other Power Rankings, he's actually taking into account who's playing really well RIGHT NOW, strength of schedule, injuries, guys getting healthy, etc.

KC's played what, like one team with winning record all year (Dallas)? I see at least 3-4 losses during the 2nd half of their schedule.

As far as SF is concerned, they are playing well of late, and are getting back some key players. Right now would you take the Hawks over SF on a neutral field with the way we're playing? It'd be hard to.

I agree it would be hard to, but he didn't move SF up for anything other than starting to get healthy. I actually don't have a problem with SF being ranked higher than Seattle, in the last 3 weeks they have looked better than the Seahawks. But then they should have been moved up last week, not on a bye week while stating getting healthy for the reason while moving Seattle down and ignoring the fact that their two starting OTs and Harvin should be back in the next couple of weeks.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Fox is better. 49ers move up 4 spots on bye to #2 "because they are getting some weapons at wide receiver" while the Hawks drop 2 spots to #4 after a win.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings/2013/9

IMO Billick's pretty spot on. I like that he's not just blind to KC being undefeated and putting them up top like other Power Rankings, he's actually taking into account who's playing really well RIGHT NOW, strength of schedule, injuries, guys getting healthy, etc.

KC's played what, like one team with winning record all year (Dallas)? I see at least 3-4 losses during the 2nd half of their schedule.

As far as SF is concerned, they are playing well of late, and are getting back some key players. Right now would you take the Hawks over SF on a neutral field with the way we're playing? It'd be hard to.

I agree it would be hard to, but he didn't move SF up for anything other than starting to get healthy. I actually don't have a problem with SF being ranked higher than Seattle, in the last 3 weeks they have looked better than the Seahawks. But then they should have been moved up last week, not on a bye week while stating getting healthy for the reason while moving Seattle down and ignoring the fact that their two starting OTs and Harvin should be back in the next couple of weeks.

He's not ignoring this fact. The fact is they're NOT back like SF's players. When they finally do come back and we win some games convincingly (instead of by the hair of our chins to bad teams), then I'm sure Billick will move us back up to the top where we rightfully belong.

 

[Tech Worlds]

After the way we played the last few weeks I am surprised we are in the top ten

 

[RolandDeschain]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... oa-ratings

We're still #2 overall in DVOA, but we now have the #2 defense instead of #1, with Arizona taking the crown, and Carolina rising up to both 3rd overall in DVOA, and 3rd in defense.

Our rating is going down each of the last couple of weeks per DVOA, for obvious reasons.

 

[razgriz737]

The Colts drop to like #10 if they play with a good officiating crew.

 

[formido]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2013/week-9-dvoa-ratings

We're still #2 overall in DVOA, but we now have the #2 defense instead of #1, with Arizona taking the crown, and Carolina rising up to both 3rd overall in DVOA, and 3rd in defense.

Our rating is going down each of the last couple of weeks per DVOA, for obvious reasons.

Yep, and some power rankings actually DO mean something. The ones voted on by a handful of "experts" don't, but Football Outsiders do. They've shown themselves to be predictive of future results.

Any power ranking that has Seattle below 2 deserves all the scorn they get from the Seahawks fans that it irritates, because Seattle has objectively played as one of the top 2 teams in the NFL. We've even beaten the #3 team by DVOA, Carolina. On the road.

And just for confirmation, Vegas has us as a close second favorite to win the Super Bowl.

 

[kearly]

The problem with power rankings is that they put too much stock in what happened the past week. A close win against a bad team or a tough loss to a good team doesn't change the teams season-wide performance all that much.

Pundits may celebrate some teams in the moment, but is anyone putting money on the Chiefs and Colts for the SB right now? I didn't think so.

Also, I think it's kind of silly that the media is seemingly aware of Seattle's injury problem on offense and yet they still dismiss an 8-1 record.

 

[formido]

The problem with power rankings is that they put too much stock in what happened the past week. A close win against a bad team or a tough loss to a good team doesn't change the teams season-wide performance all that much.

Pundits may celebrate some teams in the moment, but is anyone putting money on the Chiefs and Colts for the SB right now? I didn't think so.

Also, I think it's kind of silly that the media is seemingly aware of Seattle's injury problem on offense and yet they still dismiss an 8-1 record.

At least the play-by-play guy last game mentioned it at once point, how amazing it was Seattle was leading the NFC despite being hit with a ton of injuries.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

An interesting statistic I heard this Monday by a radio sports guy was the fact that an NFL teams' chances of losing being down 21 points in the first half is 95%. Talk about having the odds stacked against you!!!
And RW was not phased!! Amazing!!

 

[DavidSeven]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2013/week-9-dvoa-ratings

We're still #2 overall in DVOA, but we now have the #2 defense instead of #1, with Arizona taking the crown, and Carolina rising up to both 3rd overall in DVOA, and 3rd in defense.

Our rating is going down each of the last couple of weeks per DVOA, for obvious reasons.

On the bright side, we put on an offensive display against the #1 defense in the NFL (Arizona). The 10am win over Carolina is also looking more remarkable by the week.

 

[C-Dub]

No way. :141847_bnono:

It's called "Power Rankings". This isn't "Record Rankings". The most powerful teams are the ones that win, beat great teams, show dominance in different facets of the game. Losses to good teams don't hurt a lot and wins against bad teams don't help a lot. Then you can factor in different things like getting someone back from injury or losing a player to injury.

Accurate "Power Rankings" are something like this...

1. 49ers - dominating right now, hence very powerful, injured players getting healthy
2. Broncos - loaded on offense, defense has issues, could be as high as 1
3. Seahawks - dominating defense, injuries on the line and WR, getting healthier, could be as high as 1
4. Pats - looking better and better each week, getting healthier
5. Saints - Injury to Sproles hurt, but still dominant team
6. Colts - Too much help from refs, defense not great, very dependent on Luck, Wayne hurt
7. Packers - Significant injuries to Rodgers (3 weeks?) and many others, will hurt team in long run, I'd have them at #4 if healthy
8. Chiefs - Haven't beaten 1 good team, dominant defense, offense can barely put enough points on the board to beat bad teams

You have valid points and I agree. However, I don't think the Chiefs are the 8th best team...by that logic, the pundits are right for putting the Colts ahead of us because we "just" beat the Bucs, Rams, Titans, and Jaguars. Harvin, Okung, and Giac are probably not going to be active at Atlanta. If you're making a "season power ranking" instead of a weekly one, then you're pretty much spot on at this point.

Can't wait for the Denver-KC game to solve the mystery for us :thirishdrinkers:

For that reason, I dislike most "power rankings". Weekly just doesn't do much for me.

I have the Hawks up that high not because of who we played, but because of people we'll be getting back.

Currently...we're probably around #15 with the Oline and no Havin.\

I bet Denver destroys KC.