jerseygiantfan Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 FOX SPORTS POWER RANKINGS ESPN POWER RANKINGS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BronxRik Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 NFL.com Power Rankings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Pretty accurate Imo... We need to come out and kick the crap out of Miami with extreme prejudice and continue with that momentum into New England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I still dont understand how the Bills are ranked higher than us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I still dont understand how the Bills are ranked higher than us? just because the dog likes to bang his own head on the wall... power rankings are stupid, but, if one is going to indulge in creating rankings, the following rules do apply... they are not based only on wins and losses... strength of schedule has to play a part... one loss does not diminish a season... health of a team will be considered (i.e., a great team who plays without two great players on a given week and loses will not drop significantly...)... if a team should happen to beat another, where they are in the rankings will impact whether or not the winning team passes the other (i.e., if the bills are ranked #8 and play the giants ranked # 15 at the time, and lose, the giants are not going to necessarily climb ahead of them as they were ranked so far below, and, once more, it depends on how the other teams ahead of them did that week as to whether or not they climb at all... if a team should happen to beat another that is significantly better than they are, this does not mean the winning team jumps the loser (i.e., if the vikings had upset the packers last weekend, they would not rank ahead of them)... should a goofy fan read the rankings, and not understand that it goes beyond a team beating another head to head, than the rankings should also include a watered down version much like a restaraunt provides a kids menu so that doltish fan can have another option to peruse based on their lower gocgnitive abilities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Like I said, I just dont get how the Bills can be ranked higher than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Like I said, I just dont get how the Bills can be ranked higher than us. and like the dog said, stick to the kids menu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I do agree with 1-5 up to this point, although I thoroughly believe SF is not for real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I was kind of disappointed with what Billick wrote about Oakland this week. It could been so much fun. Boller yanked for a guy who hasn't played since last season. I'm...stunned. Boller, you fuck, you owe me a CAREER!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Like I said, I just dont get how the Bills can be ranked higher than us. The Bills beat the Patriots. Just because we beat the Bills doesn't mean we should be ranked ahead of them. You'd find little argument around the league that the Patriots are actually the better football team than the Bills (hence them being ahead of the Bills even though the Bills took them down, no one would argue the Bills are the better football team). So by this logic, you would also be saying that the Giants are better than the Patriots, which they aren't, following solely the win-loss and head-to-head logic. So everything has to be taken with a grain of salt in these power rankings and to say one team is better than the other because they beat them (and by only 3 points, it was an excellent game and who knows if we pull it out had we been on the road) is flawed logic and doesn't take into account what makes a power ranking....a power ranking. Like Dog said, and I barely like the guy ( ), there are a ton of other factors such as strength of schedule, the strength of the teams you have beaten (or even lost to), and I would even be willing to bet teams like GB and New Orleans get a little bit of a bump in the power rankings simply because they have superstar QBs that are capable of winning with talent that lesser teams would lose with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelmo Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 The Bills beat the Patriots. Just because we beat the Bills doesn't mean we should be ranked ahead of them. You'd find little argument around the league that the Patriots are actually the better football team than the Bills (hence them being ahead of the Bills even though the Bills took them down, no one would argue the Bills are the better football team). So by this logic, you would also be saying that the Giants are better than the Patriots, which they aren't, following solely the win-loss and head-to-head logic. So everything has to be taken with a grain of salt in these power rankings and to say one team is better than the other because they beat them (and by only 3 points, it was an excellent game and who knows if we pull it out had we been on the road) is flawed logic and doesn't take into account what makes a power ranking....a power ranking. Like Dog said, and I barely like the guy ( ), there are a ton of other factors such as strength of schedule, the strength of the teams you have beaten (or even lost to), and I would even be willing to bet teams like GB and New Orleans get a little bit of a bump in the power rankings simply because they have superstar QBs that are capable of winning with talent that lesser teams would lose with. To me the funniest flaw in the whole we beat them and they beat so and so so we're better than so an so logic, is that it's always self-contradictory in the end... For example, from this season: Giants beat Bills...Bills beat Patriots....Patriots beat Cowboys...Cowboys beat 49ers...49ers beat Seahawks.... Yet the Seahawks beat the Giants, which makes the whole thing paradoxical and stupid. Also realize, that we play every one of the teams in that chain this year, and should we lose a single game to any of them it will just make the "paradox" worse. It's just stupid. -Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 To me the funniest flaw in the whole we beat them and they beat so and so so we're better than so an so logic, is that it's always self-contradictory in the end... For example, from this season: Giants beat Bills...Bills beat Patriots....Patriots beat Cowboys...Cowboys beat 49ers...49ers beat Seahawks.... Yet the Seahawks beat the Giants, which makes the whole thing paradoxical and stupid. Also realize, that we play every one of the teams in that chain this year, and should we lose a single game to any of them it will just make the "paradox" worse. It's just stupid. -Z I hate the BCS, too Imagine a Super Bowl determined by a computer, based on Power Rankings. That's College Football, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 To me the funniest flaw in the whole we beat them and they beat so and so so we're better than so an so logic, is that it's always self-contradictory in the end... For example, from this season: Giants beat Bills...Bills beat Patriots....Patriots beat Cowboys...Cowboys beat 49ers...49ers beat Seahawks.... Yet the Seahawks beat the Giants, which makes the whole thing paradoxical and stupid. Also realize, that we play every one of the teams in that chain this year, and should we lose a single game to any of them it will just make the "paradox" worse. It's just stupid. -Z Thank you Z. This is why I say we should be ranked higher. I understand all the reasons why a simple head to head win doesnt automatically mean youre better, but when you come back around to it, its the head to head matchup that makes the difference if you have the same record as that team. I mean, the Bills beat the Pats, we beat the Bills. The Bills lost to the Bungals, and we lost to the Seahawks..........they beat good teams and lost to a bad team, and so did we. So why wouldnt our rankings be based off of our head to head matchup since we have the same record.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 I hate the BCS, too Imagine a Super Bowl determined by a computer, based on Power Rankings. That's College Football, lol. Agreed. The whole BCS computer thing is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Thank you Z. This is why I say we should be ranked higher. I understand all the reasons why a simple head to head win doesnt automatically mean youre better, but when you come back around to it, its the head to head matchup that makes the difference if you have the same record as that team. I mean, the Bills beat the Pats, we beat the Bills. The Bills lost to the Bungals, and we lost to the Seahawks..........they beat good teams and lost to a bad team, and so did we. So why wouldnt our rankings be based off of our head to head matchup since we have the same record.? Why does the dog bother? just because. first, reread what everyone is posting...now, the bills have beaten the Patriots (5-1), the "bad" bengals (4-2), and Raiders (4-3), the chiefs (1-5) and the eagles (2-4). the giants have beaten the eagles (2-4), the cardinals (1-5), the rams (0-6) and the Bills (4-2). they beat the bills at home. one loss doesn't mean the giants get to jump ahead of everyone. If the giants were to somehow upset the packers and give them their first loss, should they skyrocket to the number 1 ranking? kids menu please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Hey guys, ever get the feeling youre being follwed???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazedDogs Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Why does the dog bother? just because. first, reread what everyone is posting...now, the bills have beaten the Patriots (5-1), the "bad" bengals (4-2), and Raiders (4-3), the chiefs (1-5) and the eagles (2-4). the giants have beaten the eagles (2-4), the cardinals (1-5), the rams (0-6) and the Bills (4-2). they beat the bills at home. one loss doesn't mean the giants get to jump ahead of everyone. If the giants were to somehow upset the packers and give them their first loss, should they skyrocket to the number 1 ranking? kids menu please... Um....no they didn't. And the Bengals are one of the weaker 4-2 teams you'll ever see (yes, for the same strength-of-schedule reasons that one could apply to the Giants). Marvin Lewis has put together a pretty good defense this year though, finally. I'd put the Giants ahead of the Bills in a power ranking...just a subjective opinion though. Seen a couple of their games this year, I just don't think they're that good a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Um....no they didn't. And the Bengals are one of the weaker 4-2 teams you'll ever see (yes, for the same strength-of-schedule reasons that one could apply to the Giants). Marvin Lewis has put together a pretty good defense this year though, finally. I'd put the Giants ahead of the Bills in a power ranking...just a subjective opinion though. Seen a couple of their games this year, I just don't think they're that good a team. Bravo, hence, both teams being placed where they are and not any higher. THEY BEAT POOR TO AVERAGE TEAMS. But yes, the Bills lost to, yet should have beaten the Bengals. At least they lost at the last second to a field goal. The Giants got dominated by a pretty below average Seahawk team that I would argue are a lot worse than the Bengals. I will say this though, the Bills have looked much better in their wins than the Giants have. MUCH better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazedDogs Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Bravo, hence, both teams being placed where they are and not any higher. THEY BEAT POOR TO AVERAGE TEAMS. But yes, the Bills lost to, yet should have beaten the Bengals. At least they lost at the last second to a field goal. The Giants got dominated by a pretty below average Seahawk team that I would argue are a lot worse than the Bengals. I will say this though, the Bills have looked much better in their wins than the Giants have. MUCH better. The two Bills games I've seen are their losses, so now you know where my opinion on them is coming from. The Bengals game felt to me like the Bills just didn't play well, had an off week, as much as the Patriots had an off week when they lost to the Bills. The Giants game the Bills just looked like the less talented team... and, honestly, as banged up as the Giants were, thats not how I expected that game to feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 The two Bills games I've seen are their losses, so now you know where my opinion on them is coming from. The Bengals game felt to me like the Bills just didn't play well, had an off week, as much as the Patriots had an off week when they lost to the Bills. The Giants game the Bills just looked like the less talented team... and, honestly, as banged up as the Giants were, thats not how I expected that game to feel. I thought they strayed from Fred Jackson way too soon. Kept trying to force the ball down the field to Stevie Johnson. They could use another wide receiver and a legit tight end. David Nelson is OK, but he's in between WR and TE area....no quite big enough to be an effective TE, and not quick enough to be a WR. I think it might have been a different story if Jackson had gotten more touches in the 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now