BleedGreenNblue
New member
Hawks #4...KC #1
POWER RANKINGS
- Thread starter BleedGreenNblue
- Start date
Joey13091
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 887
- Reaction score
- 2
I'm guessing they got Broncos and Colts ahead of us.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
How are we supposed to know which of the dozen+ sites that put out weekly power rankings you're referring to? We're ranked #2 on NBC's, and they have a pretty damned funny comment about us, too.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ankings-3/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ankings-3/
OP
OP
BleedGreenNblue
New member
ESPN
OP
OP
BleedGreenNblue
New member
Yea. KC. COLTS, BRONCOS, HAWKSJoey13091":3fjzu40q said:
Tech Worlds
Active member
Tech Worlds power rankings have the Seahawks in at #1.
All you need to know.
All you need to know.
Joey13091
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 887
- Reaction score
- 2
I'm fine with that. It's not a real stat just opinion. But I would have the Chiefs at #1 also.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
I feel like we don't deserve #1 until we put together two consecutive largely-mistake-free games. What's the "odometer" think about that?Tech Worlds":1iy3sj85 said:
Smelly McUgly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 0
ESPN has us absurdly low. Also, the Chiefs being #1 is just terrible. On the other hand, Shutdown Corner has us at #1 and PFT has us at #2 (despite Florio kind of hating Richard Sherman and thus us by default in general). I'd say #2 is about right. It's us, the Saints, and the 49ers, basically. The Broncos aren't that good, and neither are the Chiefs or Colts. They are probably #4-#6.
C-Dub
New member
If KC played our schedule or the Coltss or Whiners' scedule, they'd probably be 4-3 or 5-2 if they got lucky. No way the Chiefs are anywhere close to the most powerful team in football.Smelly McUgly":18cvoit9 said:
Denver has some big problems on defense that need fixing. So I think they're downgraded to #3. The Colts lost Reggie and the Packers are injured everywhere. NE is still not very dominant but the Gronk will help. San Fran is playing incredible football right now. Dominant everywhere. We're struggling a little with the line, but I think we'll be fine in a few weeks.
Currently my power rankings are this...
1) San Fran
2) Seattle (tied with San Fran at top)
3) Denver
4) NO
5) Colts
6) Packers
7) NE
8) KC
and after that it get's pretty bad.
C-Dub":231tom46 said:
I have a hard time putting SF at #1 purely based on their record. We beat them. If anything, they need to win or surpass us in wins before I place them on a list higher than the Seattle Seahawks. If they do either of those things, I have no issue w/ them being higher in a power ranking.
E.C. Laloosh":2b9enjpl said:
That's fair but I'm willing to bet an inferior record and a loss to a common playoff opponent didn't stop you and many others from placing Seattle above sf after the season ended.
The team that goes farther in the playoffs is the better team.
Smelly McUgly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 0
NINEster":20hpfnbl said:
That's a heck of a strawman there. You made up an argument E.C. didn't make and then attacked it.
That's also not an example that is equivalent. Power rankings are a snapshot of how things are NOW, as of Week Seven, not a projection of how teams will end up. So based on our understanding of what things are like now, no, SF should not be above Seattle as they are 0-1 against the Seahawks at this point and have a worse record at this point.
Also, "the team that goes farther in the playoffs is the better team," is a bad way to rank teams.
DavidSeven
New member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2013
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 0
C-Dub":2ih9obcp said:
I'm not sure how you make this argument.
SF gets blown out by SEA, blown out by INDY at home and plays a tight game at home vs. AZ.
SEA should have beat INDY on the road and looked better vs. AZ on the road. They are statistically better than SF on both offense and defense.
drdiags
New member
It is just someone's opinion whether you agree or not. This isn't the BCS. There is a true playoff system that matters, everything else with these polls is just for debating style points and eyeball tests.
Texans home and away could have something in bringing the comparisons closer, if that is what motivated C-Dub.
Texans home and away could have something in bringing the comparisons closer, if that is what motivated C-Dub.
DavidSeven":3cvmqkjl said:
As of now I'll concede that the Seahawks are a bit better than SF, but a good amount of that has to do with injuries and Seattle having a Better and more consistent identity now (although the latter gap IMHO is closing).
And while your analysis is logical , when applied to last year (sf beating GB and NE convincingly on the road vs sea doing it at home) and other shared opponents it was dismissed.
Look, we are all homers to an extent, let's not kid ourselves.
If there's something I need to see to convince me that the Seahawks are the undeniable best team in the NFC , I'd like to see them beat the 49ers at candlestick and finish at least .500 if not better on the road. Although the former is probably enough.
Lot of football left.
NINEster":20vpvuz4 said:
Take your "but" and move along. If I were a Niner fan I'd be more in need of convincing from my own team. They're the ones who have lost in blowouts (on the road AND at home), not the Seattle Seahawks. As for your comments about injury, I'd love to see Squidward and Gore carry a team with three starting offensive lineman injured.
Here's my only issue with the #1 and #2 rankings.
#1 KC = Last undefeated team, but didn't really beat any quality opponents. This ranking would mean that overall record matters.
#2 Indy = Okay this team beat quality opponents, San Fran, Seattle AND the Broncos. I mean how could you note rate this team #1 or #2, BUT given KC is #1, it means overall record matters. and Indy has two losses, last I checked Seattle, The Broncos and the Saints all have only 1 loss.
That's my only issue is the different mindsets that would go into the two rankings.
#1 KC = Last undefeated team, but didn't really beat any quality opponents. This ranking would mean that overall record matters.
#2 Indy = Okay this team beat quality opponents, San Fran, Seattle AND the Broncos. I mean how could you note rate this team #1 or #2, BUT given KC is #1, it means overall record matters. and Indy has two losses, last I checked Seattle, The Broncos and the Saints all have only 1 loss.
That's my only issue is the different mindsets that would go into the two rankings.
Smelly McUgly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 0
Some (most?) Niner fans just can't take that their return to the "dynasty days" likely lasted all of two years. I am literally shaking my head right now, but even if I were doing so figuratively, I would still write this: SMH.
