hawker84
Well-known member
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... rs-descend
But i do get enjoyment seeing SF knocked down to 8th.
But i do get enjoyment seeing SF knocked down to 8th.
Yes another worthless weekly power ranking
- Thread starter hawker84
- Start date
I read them from the bottom up as part of my delayed gratification practice.
Another thing I do from time to time, is freeze the tv just as RW or the opposition qb get's the ball, and watch the play develope frame by frame.
Anyone else?
Another thing I do from time to time, is freeze the tv just as RW or the opposition qb get's the ball, and watch the play develope frame by frame.
Anyone else?
SeaWolv
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,231
- Reaction score
- 525
Broncos over Chiefs? Not sure about that one. Guess we'll see who's better this weekend. Hawks should #2 over the Broncos.
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,612
SeaWolv":1s5ia31j said:
Hawks should be #1.
I see the Chiefs losing at least three games down the stretch, they haven't played anybody yet this year......................and the Broncos with a gimpy Manning looked very mortal against an average SD team last week.
But Power Rankings = who cares.
drdiags
New member
Can you make the Seahawks #1 based on a hunch that the Chiefs are going to lose 3 games down the stretch or because the Broncos looked mortal against the Chargers? Seahawks looked mortal against a winless Tampa Bay.
This is all opinion based but if one is sitting in a neutral position the above line doesn't seem evenly balanced.
This is all opinion based but if one is sitting in a neutral position the above line doesn't seem evenly balanced.
ivotuk
Well-known member
Nearpost":2u25rx5o said:
Genius! I'm going to try that with sex!
RichNhansom
Active member
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,256
- Reaction score
- 5
Well considering the Chiefs and Bronco's are unproven with only having played one game between the two of an oppononent with even a 500 record and Seattle has. Beaten two of the teams in the top ten while missing key players returning or showing up for the first time Sunday, I don't see it as a reach to pur Seattle over any other team including the Cheifs and Broncos.
Remember those teams we struggled against we still made the proper adjustments and won those games and one of them was from 21 points down.
Remember those teams we struggled against we still made the proper adjustments and won those games and one of them was from 21 points down.
mikeak
Well-known member
ivotuk":201zcuvr said:
I wanted to do that as well but was told I wasn't allowed to record it.....
loafoftatupu
Active member
mikeak":1tij24xn said:
Jose Cuervo is a great negotiator in those situations.
C-Dub
New member
They need to rename they stupid ranking to "record" rankings, because this is not "power" rankings.
It's sad when WalterFootball seems to be the most accurate when determining a true "power" ranking. AKA...looking forward, who's gonna win in a neutral site.
Something like this makes sense...
1. Seahawks - getting Percy and 3/5ths of the online back, dominant performance, top tier defense, top 10 offense, top tier ST, complete team
2. Denver - Peyton....wow!, #1 offense by a lot, pedestrian defense drops them in rankings, top 10 ST, questions about Manning health as the season progresses
3. 49ers - getting Crabs back, VD should be back, Smith will be playing normal snaps. I've dropped them from #1, because offense is stuck in neutral
4. Saints - #2 offense, only offense that has chance to keep up with Peyton, almost top 10 defense, tough schedule coming up will be a good test
5. Patriots - the defense is top 10 and keeping them legit, the offense is progressing, top ST unit
6. Panthers - #1 defense that can keep them in any game, offense is anywhere from great to bad depending on Newton
7. Packers - top tier offense, bottom tier defense and ST, with Rodgers this team can beat most teams and is nearing return
8. Colts - top tier passing offense, bottom tier rushing offense, average defense and ST, Luck can flat out dominate, pocket refs help this team
9. Lions - poor man's Packers with a stout D-line, beat the bad teams and lose to the good teams
10. Chiefs - solid defense, below average offense, noodle arm QB that won't win a Super Bowl, top tier ST, beats the bad teams and hasn't even played an average team
Bengals fallen out, Lions moved in.
It's sad when WalterFootball seems to be the most accurate when determining a true "power" ranking. AKA...looking forward, who's gonna win in a neutral site.
Something like this makes sense...
1. Seahawks - getting Percy and 3/5ths of the online back, dominant performance, top tier defense, top 10 offense, top tier ST, complete team
2. Denver - Peyton....wow!, #1 offense by a lot, pedestrian defense drops them in rankings, top 10 ST, questions about Manning health as the season progresses
3. 49ers - getting Crabs back, VD should be back, Smith will be playing normal snaps. I've dropped them from #1, because offense is stuck in neutral
4. Saints - #2 offense, only offense that has chance to keep up with Peyton, almost top 10 defense, tough schedule coming up will be a good test
5. Patriots - the defense is top 10 and keeping them legit, the offense is progressing, top ST unit
6. Panthers - #1 defense that can keep them in any game, offense is anywhere from great to bad depending on Newton
7. Packers - top tier offense, bottom tier defense and ST, with Rodgers this team can beat most teams and is nearing return
8. Colts - top tier passing offense, bottom tier rushing offense, average defense and ST, Luck can flat out dominate, pocket refs help this team
9. Lions - poor man's Packers with a stout D-line, beat the bad teams and lose to the good teams
10. Chiefs - solid defense, below average offense, noodle arm QB that won't win a Super Bowl, top tier ST, beats the bad teams and hasn't even played an average team
Bengals fallen out, Lions moved in.
rsm650
New member
hawker84":9pzwc48w said:
Doesn't look too ridiculous. I'm okay with it.
However, that comment section is atrocious. I don't know why I continue reading those. "Seattle is overrated" yeah, we're more overrated than KC and Denver "Percy Harvin is overrated" uhh okay :roll: I stopped reading them since those were only the first 10 comments...
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
I have no clue about what this surperb owl is that you speak of....but I do believe in results. So if you mean Superbowl? I am in.blkhwk":2ka3xkve said:
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
Personally I prefer spice over sweet and while fear is sweet Russell and Percy are so spicy...rsm650":enhx4v9x said:
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
That's scary spot on, now I am officially paranoid. This isn't good.C-Dub":3k0pqzmu said:
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
Personally I prefer spice over sweet and while fear is sweet Russell and Percy are so spicy...rsm650":2cqdzc5b said:
SeaWolv
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,231
- Reaction score
- 525
Sgt. Largent":2i02opgo said:
Agreed. However in the eyes of the media they're not going to put a one loss Hawks team ahead of an undefeated Chiefs team. Especially if that Hawks team hasn't been blowing every team out like they expected. Of course some of those close games now look more impressive, like Carolina and St. Louis, when you look at who they've beaten. What they don't seem to factor into their rankings is that the Hawks have gotten where they are with 4 offensive starters out for significant amounts of playing time. That has an affect not only on offensive performance but defensively as well in terms of TOP and keeping the D fresh.
muxpux
Active member
KCHawkGirl":2lnabk6d said:I have no clue about what this surperb owl is that you speak of....but I do believe in results. So if you mean Superbowl? I am in.blkhwk":2lnabk6d said:
Similar threads
