Ranking the AFC contenders...

[Tunescribe]

lots of guys on this board are wayyyyy to results oriented.

I know what you're saying, but results are what it's all about in the final analysis. It's just as bad to be seduced by stats/reputation; too many underachieving teams have proven that. Quite often the best teams aren't the best teams on paper, and coaching can be a huge trump card that makes up for supposed lack of talent (or vice versa, re., Schottenheimer vs. Belichick).

My rankings thus far:

1). Colts
2). tie -- Patriots and Broncos
3). Chargers
4). Ravens

Contenders: Jets, Bengals, Chiefs, Jaguars, Titans

 

[PatsMyBoyz!]

In re: to coaching/management and in light of FA,it's interesting to revisit this article from Feb.22,07 (Pats as #1,Broncs as #2).
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006545951

 

[makewayhomer]

"but results are what it's all about in the final analysis."

no. maybe this is easier to think about in baseball terms:

Scenario 1:

bases loaded, Sox down by a run, 2 outs, bottom of 9th. Ortiz up at the plate. he swings, hits a low liner that goes 3 inches past the diving glove of Jeter. Sox win, Ortiz is a hero, Sox won b/c they were gritty and never gave up say the papers the next day.

Scenario 2:

bases loaded, Sox down by a run, 2 outs, bottom of 9th. Ortiz up at the plate. he swings, hits a low liner that Jeter makes a diving catch on. Sox lose, Jeter is a hero, Yankees win b/c they are clutchier than the Red Sox and came up with a great defensive play.

You know what the difference is in these scenarios? Luck. That's all. Sometimes the ball bounces your way, sometimes it doesn't. But it's folly to predict future performance b/c of a few random bounces of the ball, which is what you're doing if you base your predictions solely off of results.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."

-- Vince Lombardi, but what did he know.

Gentlemen, I understand your point on variance, "if you play that game 100 times," etc.

But that leaves us in a quandary as to what "best" means, and furthermore, the significance of being a "good" or even "great" team, if you do not win. And yes, that includes winning the big one.

The long and short of it is, one can not say that (for example,) 2006 was a horrible season, because we did not win the big one. But it will be, and should be, remembered as a season when we were one of 31 losing teams in the league. To what degree we were among the losing teams is a matter of draft position.

The best team, in retrospect, always won the game. Preparation, talent, luck, and the rest of it are important inasmuch as they influence results.

But that's what best means, in a football (or other rule/score-defined contest): the team that is best at creating the positive outcome. Two teams try to be the best, in any game, and only one can succeed. That is the drama, above all else, that keeps us watching. Who gives a damn about a football game where they don't have a score?

I think I know what you guys mean, and you know what I mean, so in a way I'm picking a semantic nit here. But in another way, I feel like I should emphasize it.

I remember the 70s through 90s, when the Pats were frequently good, but never great, never "the best." I'm a die-hard Pats guy, so I have a lot of love for Grogan's Heroes, the Al Groh shovel, all of it. I remember being the "best team in the league on paper" a time or two in the 70s.

But the only kind of paper football involves a little triangle of notebook paper, and a guy holding his fingers together and his thumbs in the air to make a goal post. Otherwise, "best" in football is defined as "winning."

You can bet in Vegas on "most likely to win...." but you can't go back to the bookie and say "no no, I bet on the "best" team, you're just misled by the scoreboard."

PFnV

 

[SamBam39]

I think people need to remember to separate last year from next year.

That was then, but this is now. Every year is completely different.

Last year, I'd rank them:
1)Chargers
2)Colts
3)Patriots
4)Ravens
5)Broncos
6)Bengals
7)Chiefs
8)Jaguars
9)Jets

But last year, the Ravens didn't have McGahee. The Jets didn't have Thomas Jones, The Chiefs still had a shaky Trent Green at QB, didn't have Donnie Edwards or Napoleon Harris, The Broncos didn't have Dre Bly and Travis Henry, The Chargers did have their coaching staff, and didn't have Norv Turner calling the shots, and the Pats didn't have Adalius Thomas, Wes Welker, and Donte' Stallworth. So how do we rank teams NOW is the question? How do we project these changes towards what we think could be NEXT YEAR'S RESULTS???

I see:
Pats as team to beat.
Colts, despite losing Dominic Rhodes, Nick Harper, Cato June, & Mike Doss, they are still a very good team and explosive on offense.
Chargers are going to have to prove they are not in dissarray after their coaching staff was dissassembled. If they're not, they go ahead of the colts and challenge the pats for the top spot.
Broncos are a strong team with Henry running and Bly defending.
Ravens are a force with an improved offense.
Bengals still lack toughness.
Chiefs should be better with Huard and a better D.
Jets will keep getting better and have a much stronger running back.
Jags are still missing a passing game.

Honestly, not trying to be a homer, but with all the additions I see the pats now as the team to beat. I'm sure the draft is gonna make them even stronger in areas of concern. Looking forward to the new season!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think we all know the Pats, Colts, and Chargers are the top contenders, but better not sleep on the Broncos after they acquired Dre Bly and Travis Henry, and the Ravens after they acquired Willis McGaheee !! Here's how I see the ranking of the AFC's top contenders:

1)Patriots - filled all their holes and reloaded, plus still have 2 first rounders. They almost won it all last year, so look out.
2)Colts - defending champs, they're the best until they're beaten.
3)Chargers - you know they will be a very very determined team this year, and they have toms of talent.
4)Broncos - if Jay Payton comes of age, this team could explode. Bly and Henry are serious upgrades to an already terrific team.
5)Ravens - Don't look now, but that defense is getting an offense. MArk Clayton really developed last year, McNAir will be in his second year with the team, and they replaced the plodding Lewis with the explosive McGahee. Their defense is historic, so don't just assume they aren't that good.
6)Bengals - still gotta prove they can play tough D.
7)Jets - Thomas Jones was a GREAT pickup and they will get better through the draft as well. Mangini will keep them playing tough, smart, and disciplined.
8)Chiefs - with Huard at QB they will be better, and with Edwards and HArris added at LB they will defend better. Could become really tough if they ever get some WR's.
9)Steelers - can they win without Bettis, Porter, and Cowher ?? They still have Roethislberger, Ward, Parker, and a tough D, but they'll have to prove they can still hang with the big boys with a new coach.
10) Jaguars - tough D and good running game, they just can't seem to put it together in the passing game. If they ever do, they could arrive.
??Titans?? - not ready for prime time yet.

yes, we've filled in a lot of the holes and we're looking a lot better on paper, but we don't know how the new pieces are going to work together. for example, how long will it take brady to get in synch with his new WR's? one of the big hits in losing his best receivers in the same year was that TB had gotten comfortable with both of them over time. i don't think we should expect the new guys to be working really well with him until the middle of the season, at best. if our schedule is front-loaded with some tough games, that could be a problem. will maroney develop into the running back that we all think he can be, this year? etc.

for now, the champs are the champs and I'll put the colts first, as i expected us to be put first until someone knocked us off.

the chargers have had a lot talent but they've also had a lot of offseason turmoil, so i think i'd put the pats and bolts in a tie for second.

as for the rest, there are too many "ifs" and unknowns right now. i think you've got the right top ten, i just don't know how to rank them today. for example, if chad has a more typical "pennington year," then the jets are way down the list. if he plays out of his mind and jones steps up, they are way up. i agree with your assessment of the broncos and ravens, just don't know what it's going to mean. i think you're underestimating the steelers, tho. and i agree on the titans.

 

[Tunescribe]

"but results are what it's all about in the final analysis."

no. maybe this is easier to think about in baseball terms:

Scenario 1:

bases loaded, Sox down by a run, 2 outs, bottom of 9th. Ortiz up at the plate. he swings, hits a low liner that goes 3 inches past the diving glove of Jeter. Sox win, Ortiz is a hero, Sox won b/c they were gritty and never gave up say the papers the next day.

Scenario 2:

bases loaded, Sox down by a run, 2 outs, bottom of 9th. Ortiz up at the plate. he swings, hits a low liner that Jeter makes a diving catch on. Sox lose, Jeter is a hero, Yankees win b/c they are clutchier than the Red Sox and came up with a great defensive play.

You know what the difference is in these scenarios? Luck. That's all. Sometimes the ball bounces your way, sometimes it doesn't. But it's folly to predict future performance b/c of a few random bounces of the ball, which is what you're doing if you base your predictions solely off of results.

My mind glazes over via anything baseball related. But aside from that, the Patriots are perhaps the best example available of a team that consistently proves the pundits wrong by winning with allegedly "less talent." Winning consistently over time is what tells the tale. I think it honestly can be argued that the Pats were the best overall TEAM in 2001 although perhaps not the best aggregation of "talent" (on paper) compared to St. Louis.

I feel where you're missing the boat is failing to account for intangibles beyond raw talent, such as system, philosophy (including front office) and coaching. So really, results over time are the only reliable yardstick.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

My mind glazes over via anything baseball related. But aside from that, the Patriots are perhaps the best example available of a team that consistently proves the pundits wrong by winning with allegedly "less talent." Winning consistently over time is what tells the tale. I think it honestly can be argued that the Pats were the best overall TEAM in 2001 although perhaps not the best aggregation of "talent" (on paper) compared to St. Louis.

I feel where you're missing the boat is failing to account for intangibles beyond raw talent, such as system, philosophy (including front office) and coaching. So really, results over time are the only reliable yardstick.

Well put, Tune. And they knew everything had to click to win in 2001. They knew they needed to finish incredibly strong. They knew they had to be incredibly prepared. They knew they had to play high-risk, high-reward against the Rams in the SB. BB turned to someone after that game, reportedly, and said "Can you believe we won with this bunch?"

Yeah, I like what this offseason has done for our chances, but I can't see saying the Chargers were the best team in the league last year, as somebody has just said.

By the way, all this talk about playing the game 100 times is speculation. Playing the game once is reality. You can say what you think would happen, what should happen, and what happens on your Madden console. But what happens once on a football field is all we have data for.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanSince74]

My mind glazes over via anything baseball related. But aside from that, the Patriots are perhaps the best example available of a team that consistently proves the pundits wrong by winning with allegedly "less talent." Winning consistently over time is what tells the tale. I think it honestly can be argued that the Pats were the best overall TEAM in 2001 although perhaps not the best aggregation of "talent" (on paper) compared to St. Louis.

I feel where you're missing the boat is failing to account for intangibles beyond raw talent, such as system, philosophy (including front office) and coaching. So really, results over time are the only reliable yardstick.

i completely agree with you. the patriots have won, have beaten teams with more "on paper" talent, by digging deeper at the toughest times when they were exhausted and hurt, when no one else believed in them but themselves, knowing that everybody HAD to gut it out and come through if they were going to win, from Brady and Seymour to the Practice Squad, getting that edge that makes the difference. now that we've added some visible "talent" for a price, i hope that they don't lose that, because it is what has set them apart. i hope that a feeling that there are "other guys who are paid a lot more than me" who have to do the job doesn't gradually creep in.

because, when we've won, we've won it in the trenches, at the most difficult times. watch brady's drive in SB XXXVI. the rams know what's happening but they're powerless to stop it. watch brewski strip the ball in the snow in Foxboro. watch troy brown strip the ball when all seems lost in san diego. that's what this team is about and that's why it's won. if we lose it, we're just another bunch of rich guys playing for the FA bonus or to hit their incentive numbers.

 

[makewayhomer]

My mind glazes over via anything baseball related. But aside from that, the Patriots are perhaps the best example available of a team that consistently proves the pundits wrong by winning with allegedly "less talent." Winning consistently over time is what tells the tale. I think it honestly can be argued that the Pats were the best overall TEAM in 2001 although perhaps not the best aggregation of "talent" (on paper) compared to St. Louis.

I feel where you're missing the boat is failing to account for intangibles beyond raw talent, such as system, philosophy (including front office) and coaching. So really, results over time are the only reliable yardstick.

it appears I can't communicate the fact that luck is a crucial part in sports, and you are being extremely shortsighted in only "analyzing" results, if that's what you want to call it.

let's try it this way:

Super Bowl XXV was won by the Giants. So they were the best team, right? Now, what if Norwood had made that FG at the end? Then the Bills would have been the best team - is that what you are saying?

 

[makewayhomer]

But that leaves us in a quandary as to what "best" means

exactly!! who "the best" team is is not an easy question to answer. once you come to grips with the fact that the best team is not always the one holding the trophy at the end (b/c of various things like referees calls, bounces of the ball, etc), you'll be able to analyze sports in a much more interesting intelligent way.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

too results oriented? the problem with invoking luck or happenstance as a big decider is that if a team deserves to win it will put the game away and remove late ame luck from the equation. If San Diego had not made other mistakes then NE would never have been in that game. If NE could have held a 21 point lead we wouldn't have watched as an Indy receiver fumbled just to have the ball fall right back into his arms, and we wouldn't have started swearing about how freaking lucky Indy was.

Colts are #1 as evidenced by the trophy they're displaying and the fact that Peyton, Dungy, Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Sanders, etc. are returning. Did they lose a couple guys? Yes. Are the losses they suffered devastating? No.

As for the Chargers, we have no idea how they'll respond to last year's failure and a new coaching staff. They can put it all together or fall apart. They cannot play as undisciplined as they did against NE and expect to defeat NE and Indy in the playoffs.

The Broncos have a big question mark at QB. They look really good and they can win it all but I cannot put them ahead of NE, Indy, or even SD with a questionable QB situation.

Baltimore has a geriatric quarterback in charge of an awful offense. Their defense is good but not enough to carry that offense. They'll beat bad teams do well against good teams, but can't match up with teams that have both good offenses and defenses. And when you get to the playoffs those are the teams you play.

The Jets will fall back a little this year and I cannot take KC seriously. Jacksonville will continue to hover in the good-but-not-great realm, with an upside of making the playoffs and winning one game at most.

 

[PatsMyBoyz!]

You don't need the "best" assemblage of talent to win,the Pats have proven that. But the only true predictors we have are results. You can't predict the effect intangibles may have on winning,you can't predict the breaks along the way but you can make reasonable assumptions based upon certain measurables and past results/experiences.
In many ways the 01 TEAM was my favorite,but I didn't necessarily predict them to beat the Rams at that time but they did. Therefore they were the best. Utilizing talent,coaching,intangibles,heart,guts,confidence all came into play. I'm proudest of that team. Compare to the 04 TEAM who was the best in all phases, and the results confirmed that.
Based upon all that we know already,predicting the Pats is sound as is predicting the Broncs as a close 2nd or tied.
Also,based upon past experiences/results we know how unlikely it is to repeat a SB. We also know that the Colts haven't been able to upgrade much because of the cap situation so we can probably safely predict they won't do it again but the immeasurables and the breaks have yet to be determined because they can't be at this time. That's why it ends up being about results.

 

[SamBam39]

I agree that the pats win in ways that aren't easy to understand to the media. most people just look at talent. the pats have a great philosophy, team approach, they out-work people, they practice situational football and are sometimes better prepared, and they have the best coahing there is. They have incredible gameplans and make great adjustments - that's all part of the formula that produces winiing - not just talent.

but we can't look at those things and just say therefore - that the pats should be the favorites every year despite lesser apparrant talent, so what we do when projecting for the coming season, is simply look at talent, and then sometimes the pats win anyway because of all those other things.

that's why I ranked the chargers the highest last year, because purely based on talent, with all those probowlers and play makers, they were hte 'best on paper'. I realize that doesn't make them the best, and that's why the pats won, and the colts won it all, but that's just what we use to rank them.


by the way, when you have us ranking the pats as the team to beat on paper before a season like some of us may be doing now, and then you combine all those other ingreients that they have - the intangibles that help them win, they start to look pretty formidable for the coming year.

Remember, last year they lost Branch after the season started and were surprised. This year, they have from now until the season starts to practice.
Stallworth, Welker, and Washington will be doing pretty well already by the time the season starts, and remember we'll still have Caldwell and Gaffney who are already in sync. we'll be fine and ready to go when the season starts.

I think the pats are gonna rock next season!

 

[Tunescribe]

Super Bowl XXV was won by the Giants. So they were the best team, right? Now, what if Norwood had made that FG at the end? Then the Bills would have been the best team - is that what you are saying?

OK, you tell me: You're suggesting that Buffalo was better and lost on bad luck. So, what made the Bills the better team that year? Player talent? Player talent doesn't always equate to the best team. A team is more than that, as I said -- chemistry, system, philosophy, front office acumen and coaching are just as important. An excellent argument could be made that the Giants were the better TEAM in Super Bowl XXV because of how Belichick's innovative defensive game plan kept a powerful Bills offense in check.

Certainly, luck can play a factor and occasionally it decides outcomes, but it is not a CONSISTENT indicator of who is a better team. Consistency of results over time shows who the best team is.

Back to Super Bowl XXV: I think when it gets to playoffs and championship games, the better overall team almost always wins. Cream rises to the top, and at that level the differences aren't that great. One team might have great talent and average coaching, another might have average talent and great coaching. One might not be obviously better than the other, so yes, had Buffalo won SB XXV they legitimately could have laid claim to being the better team.

 

[PatsMyBoyz!]

Here's one intangible that's really not so "intangible" so I'll factor it into my "prediction"... for a multitude of reasons the Pats are absolutely driven this year. Actually "driven" may be too mild a word. Whatever it is,jmo but I'm not sure we'd have it to this degree if we'd won in 05 or 06.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

it appears I can't communicate the fact that luck is a crucial part in sports, and you are being extremely shortsighted in only "analyzing" results, if that's what you want to call it.

let's try it this way:

Super Bowl XXV was won by the Giants. So they were the best team, right? Now, what if Norwood had made that FG at the end? Then the Bills would have been the best team - is that what you are saying?

IMO, they were the team that played better in the 60 minutes they both had. were they the better team that day, or the best team in the NFL? i don't know and the record book doesn't care. were the patriots or the chargers the better team in san diego in January? i'd argue that the chargers were, but that the patriots played better, when it counted, that day. and, yes, they had a little luck especially when that brady fumble fell at his own player's feet.

luck and intangibles play a big part in this which is why Bob Carroll or K. C. Joyner or Football Outsiders can only take us so far with their analyses (which I enjoy and respect and only wish I had more time to dig into). They all give us a way to quantify the talent on the roster from different perspectives, but it is only predictive of part of what will actually happen on the field.

 

[makewayhomer]

OK, you tell me: You're suggesting that Buffalo was better and lost on bad luck. So, what made the Bills the better team that year? Player talent? Player talent doesn't always equate to the best team. A team is more than that, as I said -- chemistry, system, philosophy, front office acumen and coaching are just as important. An excellent argument could be made that the Giants were the better TEAM in Super Bowl XXV because of how Belichick's innovative defensive game plan kept a powerful Bills offense in check.

Certainly, luck can play a factor and occasionally it decides outcomes, but it is not a CONSISTENT indicator of who is a better team. Consistency of results over time shows who the best team is.

Back to Super Bowl XXV: I think when it gets to playoffs and championship games, the better overall team almost always wins. Cream rises to the top, and at that level the differences aren't that great. One team might have great talent and average coaching, another might have average talent and great coaching. One might not be obviously better than the other, so yes, had Buffalo won SB XXV they legitimately could have laid claim to being the better team.

no, I'm not suggesting anything about who was better - I'm saying that you need to look past the final score of one game if you want to get an idea of who the better team is.

on one hand who the "best team" is doesn't matter, b/c fans care about getting the trophy.

on the other hand, if you want to try to predict what's going to happen over the next 16-19 games, then you're making a huge mistake to look at the "undisciplined Chargers who were lost to the Patriots" and ignore the Chargers that destroyed their opponents last year, were the best team in football over 16 games, leading the league in point differential.

 

[evendelae]

From a Bronco fan...

Hopefully this is welcomed. There's so many question marks and intangables surrounding the Broncos this year, I really don't think you can rank them accurately. They have a brand new QB, new additions to te offense in Henry, Graham, and offensive line personnel changes; and in defense, you have the addition of Bly (who knows how driven to play well he is), and "Big Daddy" Wilkinson, who might retire due to knee concerns. Add to that the huge amount of speculation that Shanahan wants to move into the top ten (no, not just normal speculations, it's coming from all over. Apparently there's already been two deals made and they fell through at the last minute, involving the #2 and #6 picks). And lastly, this team will be dealing with the deaths of two teammates this offseason.Darrent Williams died in Javon Walker's lap, so who knows how he'll do this year. Another WR, Brandon Marshall (very talented, I really hope it doesn't screw him up) was reportedly there when both teammates died. So this team is a true question mark. Absolutely no one knows what the Denver Broncos will do in 2007. It's really almost impossible to predict.

 

[Kontradiction]

I'm going to take a lot of flack for this list, but...

1. COLTS: Defending NFL champions. They are the best until next February.

2. BRONCOS: I've listed them at number two because they made the most offseason moves right next to us. And, the bottom line is that they have our number until we do something about it. Look for Jay Cutler to really come on next year.

3. PATS: We've improved at our weakest position last year (WR) which, along with LB, took the most blame for our loss against Indy. I think the defense will improve during the draft and next year will be a very good year for us. We'll probably start off a little slow (3-1, 4-2) but I think we'll come on at the end of the season.

4. RAVENS: A stout defense and McNair in his second year. Clayton grew up at the end of last season. Billick will have a full season to call the plays. But McNair is aging. He will lead them to the second round of the playoffs, but no further.

5. STEELERS: Talk about a team that isn't getting any respect. This team won the Super Bowl two years ago. The only reason they blew last year was because of the kind of year that Roethlisberger had off the field. Very talented team and a very stiff defense. They have two holes... the first being Joey Porter and the second being Bill Cowher. If they can replace them, watch out.

6. CHARGERS: Well, Rivers will be in his second year, LT is there, and the defense is pretty much the same. However, they lost more than half of their coaching staff from last year and that's going to be pretty tough to overcome. I can't wait to watch the Pats beat the **** out of them.