Silliness with PFT power rankings

[Guiness]

Pro Football Talk has the Pack at #8 in their preseason power rankings. The seven teams ahead of them? NE, SF, Seattle, Denver, Cincinnati, Balt and Atl.

I know, I know, they're less than meaningless. But I'm not buying it on at LEAST a few of those teams. Matty 'ice cold in playoffs'? Cincy? Seattle is a reach. Baltimore is a shadow of the team they were last year. NE, we'll see if they get their house in order.

[3irty1]

Cincy deserves it more than Atl IMO.

[Cheesehead Craig]

By many accounts Cincy is the real deal this year. After all those laughable seasons, it's good to see.

[hoosier]

Pro Football Talk has the Pack at #8 in their preseason power rankings. The seven teams ahead of them? NE, SF, Seattle, Denver, Cincinnati, Balt and Atl.

I know, I know, they're less than meaningless. But I'm not buying it on at LEAST a few of those teams. Matty 'ice cold in playoffs'? Cincy? Seattle is a reach. Baltimore is a shadow of the team they were last year. NE, we'll see if they get their house in order.

Right now this sounds about right to me, and I would much rather be reading this than reading how the Packers are destined to roll through the NFC and into the SB. Why does it sound right? SF, Denver and Cincinnati have rosters that clearly have as much talent or more than the Packers. Atlanta is close to or on par with GB, and with a healthy Stephen Jackson they will be more balanced than 2012 version. Baltimore is probably overrated because of their SB win, but they might not regress as much as people expect them to. If Dumervil stays healthy and Upshaw emerges the defense will be much better than 2012. NE and Seattle are the two on the list that I would pick as most likely to disappoint, but with those two teams ahead of GB in the preseason race we don't need to worry about the Packers underperforming also.

[mraynrand]

Right now this sounds about right to me, and I would much rather be reading this than reading how the Packers are destined to roll through the NFC and into the SB. Why does it sound right? SF, Denver and Cincinnati have rosters that clearly have as much talent or more than the Packers. Atlanta is close to or on par with GB, and with a healthy Stephen Jackson they will be more balanced than 2012 version. Baltimore is probably overrated because of their SB win, but they might not regress as much as people expect them to. If Dumervil stays healthy and Upshaw emerges the defense will be much better than 2012. NE and Seattle are the two on the list that I would pick as most likely to disappoint, but with those two teams ahead of GB in the preseason race we don't need to worry about the Packers underperforming also.


The key to success is lowered expectations

[MadtownPacker]

I'm predicting the Pack will lose that game in Cinncinatti. Of course the G&G will go on to win the Superbowl regardless.:bump:

[pittstang5]

I'm predicting the Pack will lose that game in Cinncinatti. Of course the G&G will go on to win the Superbowl regardless.:bump:

I agree, loss.

[packer4life]

I just don't see Andy Dalton as a difference maker. He is middle-of-the-pack, and in this league that doesn't get you very far.

ARod will be running for his life in that game though...

[Guiness]

I guess I have trouble believing Cincy is anything but what they've been for as long as I can remember (well, not quite, I remember the Icky Shuffle). But I guess the perenial bottom feeders all put together a little run every now and then. Hell, St-Louis even won a Super Bowl before slipping back into mediocrity.

[Bretsky]

I would rate Houston higher than some of the teams they put ahead of Green Bay

[Upnorth]

I don't really care where opinion put the packers, but I do care where performance puts the packers. Power rankings are fun and all but I prefer FO dvoa, Advancednflstats.com EP and WPA and coldhardfootballfacts.com rankings. They aren't perfect but I like numbers and they do tell a story