Week 3 Power Rankings

[DonHutson]

As always when the topic of pro 'power rankings' comes up, I thank God that unlike college football, people's opinions don't mean shit in the NFL.

[HarveyWallbangers]

It's similar to the Vikings. The Cowboys (like the Vikings) have more elite players than the Packers, so people assume they'll be good (Vikes) or the best (Cowboys). The Packers have a good coaching staff with a good and deep roster. They have fewer weaknesses than most teams, but they aren't a sexy pick because of the lack of star power.

I think the Cowboys probably have a better team, but we'll see this week. The Cowboys have as much to prove as the Packers. They both went 13-3 and the Packers actually advanced further in the playoffs. However, the Packers have more to prove in this game because they got handled relatively easily by Dallas last year. Green Bay has to prove that they can beat the Cowboys.

[oregonpackfan]

ya, I agree. And the Pats might be better too. Cassel ain't bad, and will get better with some experience.

I heard some announcers say he hadn't started a game since HS? He went through college, and got into the NFL w/o starting? How the F do you do that???

Looked at his Wiki entry, and see he backed up a couple of pretty highly touted guys, but it's something else that NE took a flier on him. What did they do, look at his HS film?

How'd you like to be recruiting at USC and tell a prospect "even our backups get gigs in the NFL".

I have heard that quote can actually be used now with the Casell situation.

Another so-called recruiting tool for USC is something to the effect of "think of all the Hollywood stars and good looking women you will meet if you play for us."

There were all sorts of Hollywood stars/attractive women in the stands supporting USC when they played Ohio State.

[GBRulz]

I have no problem not being crowned as a paper champion.

[Joemailman]

The thing I remember most about the Dallas game last year was that so many things went wrong for the Packers and yet they came close to pulling it out. KGB, Jolly and Woodson didn't play. Favre played terribly before he got hurt. Al Harris played terrible. Colledge and Bush had to be benched for poor play. On paper, the Cowboys may be better. But I think they're better on paper than on grass. Probably because they have an average coach.

[Scott Campbell]

There were all sorts of Hollywood stars/attractive women in the stands supporting USC when they played Ohio State.

And who said moral victories were worthless.

[pbmax]

for harvey: I wouldn't even go so far as saying "elite players". Maybe "perceived as having more elite players". For at least 2 weeks, Thompson has proved he knows more about football than Michael Wilbon and Wilbon and his cohort certainly think the Cowboys have all the elite players in the NFC, except Justin Tuck, Adrian Petersen and Donovan McNabb.

Football Outsiders Week 2 Rankings
VOA means Value Over Average. Each play is broken down and compared to league averages in similar situations. After a few more weeks, these numbers will be adjusted based on strength of opponents defense. The numbers represent offensive success (pos) or lack of same (neg). If you go to their site for all the data, defensive numbers are better when negative.

     TEAM 	VOA 	LASTWK
01 	NYG 	70.0% 	9
02 	BAL 	69.6% 	6
03 	BUF 	56.1% 	5 
04 	DAL 	50.4% 	4
05 	PIT 	47.4% 	7
06 	GB 	 43.3% 	11
07 	ARI 	42.6% 	10
08 	PHI 	40.1% 	1 
09 	NE 	 37.7% 	8 
10 	TB 	 34.4% 	18
11 	TEN 	31.3% 	15
12 	DEN 	30.4% 	3 
13 	SD 	 15.7% 	13
14 	CHI 	 8.5% 	12
15 	WAS 	 1.6% 	24
16 	OAK    -0.6% 	30

[texaspackerbacker]

for harvey: I wouldn't even go so far as saying "elite players". Maybe "perceived as having more elite players". For at least 2 weeks, Thompson has proved he knows more about football than Michael Wilbon and Wilbon and his cohort certainly think the Cowboys have all the elite players in the NFC, except Justin Tuck, Adrian Petersen and Donovan McNabb.

Football Outsiders Week 2 Rankings
VOA means Value Over Average. Each play is broken down and compared to league averages in similar situations. After a few more weeks, these numbers will be adjusted based on strength of opponents defense. The numbers represent offensive success (pos) or lack of same (neg). If you go to their site for all the data, defensive numbers are better when negative.

     TEAM 	VOA 	LASTWK
01 	NYG 	70.0% 	9
02 	BAL 	69.6% 	6
03 	BUF 	56.1% 	5 
04 	DAL 	50.4% 	4
05 	PIT 	47.4% 	7
06 	GB 	 43.3% 	11
07 	ARI 	42.6% 	10
08 	PHI 	40.1% 	1 
09 	NE 	 37.7% 	8 
10 	TB 	 34.4% 	18
11 	TEN 	31.3% 	15
12 	DEN 	30.4% 	3 
13 	SD 	 15.7% 	13
14 	CHI 	 8.5% 	12
15 	WAS 	 1.6% 	24
16 	OAK    -0.6% 	30

This list, pbmax, seems to have a distinct bias toward defense oriented teams,

Scott, as somebody said after your post, it's the star power thing. There's a natural media favoritism for teams with big names--the same is true for some fans.

As for the list of teams some have mentioned as deserving to be rated above the Packers, I'd say a big no way for the Giants. They have gotten fat against weak teams. They're still the same fluke that won out by fortunate circumstances last season--actually weaker than last season, personnel-wise.

The Cowboys and Eagles LOOKED like super teams last night. Time will tell, however, to what degree that was super offense we saw, and to what degree, it was flawed defenses. Next Sunday night should give us some insight into that.

I honestly don't see ANY team that is clearly better than the Packers. The Steelers might be, but Roethlisberger has some injury issues, and they didn't look all that great against the Browns--who Dallas trounced. The Cowboys have been assumed to be better than the Packers, and they really haven't done anything to indicate otherwise. Like an NCAA #1, they are it until they get beat--which could happen Sunday night.

Beyond that, I don't see anybody else worthy of consideration. New England would probably be #5 after Dallas, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia--in approximately that order. Indianapolis, of course, is a sharp Manning away from returning to the highest level too. Beyond that, well, There isn't much. Maybe Denver, Minnesota, the Bears, or Carolina round out the top ten.

[pbmax]

tpb, I knew I should have just posted all the details. The list, after two weeks might look biased toward defense, but consider:

Two of the best offenses, Denver and San Diego (both top 5 Off) also have bottom 10 defenses. That hurts. Of the other eight teams with top ten offenses, all are in this overall top ten.

RNK	TEAM 	T DVOA 	LSTWK 	DAVE 	RANK 	W-L 	O VOA 	ORANK 	D VOA 	DRANK 	STDVOA 	STRANK
1 	 NYG 	 70.0% 	 9 		 22.1% 	6 	  2-0 	36.7% 	 4	    -27.4% 	3 		  5.9% 	8
2 	 BAL 	 69.6% 	 6 		  9.8% 	12 	 1-0 	13.6% 	 12	   -58.0% 	1 		 -2.0% 	22
3 	 BUF 	 56.1% 	 5 		  3.1% 	16 	 2-0 	19.8% 	 7	    -26.3% 	5 		 10.0% 	3
4 	 DAL 	 50.4% 	 4 		 21.3% 	7 	  2-0 	48.9% 	 2	      3.3%	 16 		 4.8% 	10
5 	 PIT 	 47.4% 	 7 		 16.8% 	9 	  2-0 	18.8% 	 8	    -26.6% 	4 		  2.0% 	14
6 	 GB 	  43.3%  	11 	   38.2% 	1 	  2-0 	28.3% 	 6	     -7.1%	 9 		  7.9% 	6
7 	 ARI 	 42.6%  	10 	    9.7% 	13  	2-0 	18.4% 	 9	    -22.0% 	6 		  2.2% 	13
8 	 PHI 	 40.1%  	1  		35.0% 	2   	1-1 	40.0% 	 3	      0.1%	 14 		 0.2% 	17
9 	 NE 	  37.7%  	8  		27.6% 	3   	2-0 	15.7% 	 10	   -13.8% 	8 		  8.2% 	5
10 	TB 	  34.4%  	1 8 	  23.5% 	5   	1-1 	10.0% 	 14	   -20.3% 	7 		  4.1% 	12
11 	TEN 	 31.3% 	 15 	    5.9% 	14 	 2-0 	-2.7% 	 22	   -47.5% 	2 		-13.5% 	31
12 	DEN 	 30.4% 	 3 	 	 9.8% 	11 	 2-0 	51.5% 	 1	     10.8%	 22		-10.3% 	29
13 	SD 	  15.7%  	13 		23.8% 	4   	0-2 	31.0% 	 5	     28.1%	 28		 12.8% 	1
14 	CHI 	 8.5% 	  12 		 0.5% 	19 	 1-1  	0.7% 	 17	    -6.3%	 10		  1.5% 	15
15 	WAS 	 1.6% 	  24		 -6.6% 	22 	 1-1 	15.4% 	 11	    -0.3%	 13		-14.1% 	32
16 	OAK 	 -0.6% 	 30		-17.9%	 24 	 1-1 	-0.3% 	 20	    10.0%	 21		  9.7% 	4

[vince]

At the bottom of everyone's rankings, there's the woeful Rams... This is kinda funny from Football Outsiders - unless of course you're a Rams fan.

One of the reasons we have not yet been able to update the Premium section with the 2008 stats is that the macro crashed while we were running the data output. Why the crash? Because the Rams have not had a single play in the red zone yet this year. That's right: The Rams suck so bad that they broke our programs.

[SnakeLH2006]

ya, I agree. And the Pats might be better too. Cassel ain't bad, and will get better with some experience.

I heard some announcers say he hadn't started a game since HS? He went through college, and got into the NFL w/o starting? How the F do you do that???

Looked at his Wiki entry, and see he backed up a couple of pretty highly touted guys, but it's something else that NE took a flier on him. What did they do, look at his HS film?

Well then again, he WAS a 6th round pick.