Charles Robinson picks Pats 6th in AFC

[Murphys95]

Everyone is bashing the rankings but I don't hear anyone giving their own rankings?

Rankings are all just subjective anyway, but for the sake of argument, wouldn't you rank the defending champ as #1 in the AFC? And would you place Indy and Denver, two teams which defeated the Patriots last year, higher than New England?

Bottom line, I think we all believe the Pats still have the heart of a champion. But this guy's offseason rankings are primarily based on 2005, and where did the Pats finish at the end of '06?

 

[shmessy]

Everyone is bashing the rankings but I don't hear anyone giving their own rankings?

Rankings are all just subjective anyway, but for the sake of argument, wouldn't you rank the defending champ as #1 in the AFC? And would you place Indy and Denver, two teams which defeated the Patriots last year, higher than New England?

Bottom line, I think we all believe the Pats still have the heart of a champion. But this guy's offseason rankings are primarily based on 2005, and where did the Pats finish at the end of '06?

A: Way ahead of San Diego

 

[ilduce06410]

i'm lovin' it too

I love it all...dumb writers sumb predictions..more food for the no respet Pats....

that article will be up on the bulletin board all season.
i'll start concentrating on the word 'disrespected', beginning about 1 august.
BTW on general principle i don't think the patriots have the best roster in the AFC. IMO they never have.
the question, really since 2001, remains the same: who is gonna walk out onto a field and BEAT them?
(wild laughter)
eat yer hearts out, indy, pitchburg, kc, whoever. talk is talk, right? so who's gonna go out there and do it? patriots have been beating better teams for 5 years now. and beating them up, too.

 

[mgteich]

Why should anyone but homers rate us higher than Pitt at this point? We were in the playoffs, and we DID lose our coordinator. We DID lose Givens and are hoping that a draftee will replace him. And PITT win the Super Bowl. Around here, we used to believe that winning the Super Bowl counted for something, certainly a top rating since they replaced all their player losses.

Yes, I would rate us higher than SD. The writer implies that SD won't get to the playoffs unless Rivers is as good as SD expects. I agree.

Do you expect the media to understand that adding Mincey and losing McGinist will make the front seven stronger?

Do you expect the media to understand that Samuel, Hobbs and Gay are a proven set of cornerbacks, among the best in the conference?

We are who we are. At the end of last year, we weren't good enough to beat Denver, period.

I expect that we will improve more than the other teams and win the conference, but then I'm a homer.

Charles Robinson of YAHOO Sports has his rankings up, and picks the NE Patriots as the 6th best team in the AFC. Not in the NFL. In the AFC. The story is accompanied with a poll of who is Pittsburgh biggest challenge, and the Patriots are not even a choice in the poll.

I cannot WAIT for these morons to eat crow.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

He means, "not 6th out of 32 in the entire NFL, but 6th out of 16 in the AFC alone."

Of course, that more or less means 6th in the NFL.

 

[Bostonian1962]

Why should anyone but homers rate us higher than Pitt at this point? We were in the playoffs, and we DID lose our coordinator. We DID lose Givens and are hoping that a draftee will replace him. And PITT win the Super Bowl. Around here, we used to believe that winning the Super Bowl counted for something, certainly a top rating since they replaced all their player losses.

Yes, I would rate us higher than SD. The writer implies that SD won't get to the playoffs unless Rivers is as good as SD expects. I agree.

Do you expect the media to understand that adding Mincey and losing McGinist will make the front seven stronger?

Do you expect the media to understand that Samuel, Hobbs and Gay are a proven set of cornerbacks, among the best in the conference?

We are who we are. At the end of last year, we weren't good enough to beat Denver, period.

I expect that we will improve more than the other teams and win the conference, but then I'm a homer.

All valid points, but I am saying that they should know this stuff. It's their job.

My gripe is these mental midgets that rank based on the previous year.

See, I don't believe that philosopy or rationale at all. If you want to do it that way, why don't they just rank the teams in the opposite order of the draft rankings.

When I was heavy into Fantasy Football, I won my league for six straight years. I ranked the players how I thought they'd do in the upcoming season. I didn't mirror the rankings of the publications which basically based them totally off the previous year.

I am not saying ignore the past. Far from it. I'm saying think about more than that. The past would say that the Patriots just won three recent Super Bowls, so a teams ability to be the best of the best has a bearing. That's why Pitt should be number one. I never said they shouldn't.

A teams QB has a bearing. A teams recent draft can be taken into account. Key players coming back that were injured the year before. Somebody mentioned San Diego. Perfect team to compare. They lost their Pro Bowl QB. They, by most accounts had a lousy draft. Their coach doesn't win the big games. Indy lost one of their three headed monster at RB. They don't do well in big games. They can't beat the Patriots in the playoffs. Pitt deserves to be number one, but they don't do well against the Patriots. They have the top seed schedule. Cinncy had a lousy draft, and their QB is coming off a very serious injury.

My only point is, respectfully, is it's not just about the year before. A monkey can rank teams that way. I'm out.

 

[shakadave]

Why should anyone but homers rate us higher than Pitt at this point?

We are who we are. At the end of last year, we weren't good enough to beat Denver, period.
QUOTE]

a) Nobody said rate us higher than Pit, but for goodness' sake we're higher than 6th in the AFC. (We're also higher than 4th in the AFC.)

b) Las Vegas says we're ahead of Pit.

c) We absolutely were good enough to beat Denver at the end of the year. That is proven by the fact that the point spread was like 2 points or less. What you mean is we absolutely didn't beat Denver that day. If we had played Denver in a 7-game series, we would have won about 4 out of 7. That was with ridiculous injuries, so next year we should be further ahead of Denver --- or of course riddled with injuries again.

d) Pit showed how beatable Indy was. Indy showed how beatable Pit was. (So did the Pats early in the season.)

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

CJ says that Addai will make an impact while Maroney won't. That's funny.

Well Addai will likely have to start this year. Maroney could/will be behind Dillon. I think that was his point.

 

[mgteich]

And the next round of Kool-aid is on me. The following statements were said with tongue firmly in cheek!

"Do you expect the media to understand that adding Mincey and losing McGinist will make the front seven stronger?"

"Do you expect the media to understand that Samuel, Hobbs and Gay are a proven set of cornerbacks, among the best in the conference?"

I don't beleive this. And I don't think Pees or bb beleive this either.

I don't think anyone here would have believed before the draft that adding a couple of 6th rounders was sufficient to make the front seven STRONGER. Some beleived that the adding of couple of 4th/5th rounders MIGHT make the front seven as strong. Maybe some have changed their minds and believe that someone they've seen is a starter, and others are quality 2006 backups. Maybe we simply beleive bb and pass the Koolaid, leaving all logic aside (not unreasonable).

All valid points, but I am saying that they should know this stuff. It's their job.

My gripe is these mental midgets that rank based on the previous year.

See, I don't believe that philosopy or rationale at all. If you want to do it that way, why don't they just rank the teams in the opposite order of the draft rankings.

When I was heavy into Fantasy Football, I won my league for six straight years. I ranked the players how I thought they'd do in the upcoming season. I didn't mirror the rankings of the publications which basically based them totally off the previous year.

I am not saying ignore the past. Far from it. I'm saying think about more than that. The past would say that the Patriots just won three recent Super Bowls, so a teams ability to be the best of the best has a bearing. That's why Pitt should be number one. I never said they shouldn't.

A teams QB has a bearing. A teams recent draft can be taken into account. Key players coming back that were injured the year before. Somebody mentioned San Diego. Perfect team to compare. They lost their Pro Bowl QB. They, by most accounts had a lousy draft. Their coach doesn't win the big games. Indy lost one of their three headed monster at RB. They don't do well in big games. They can't beat the Patriots in the playoffs. Pitt deserves to be number one, but they don't do well against the Patriots. They have the top seed schedule. Cinncy had a lousy draft, and their QB is coming off a very serious injury.

My only point is, respectfully, is it's not just about the year before. A monkey can rank teams that way. I'm out.

 

[arrellbee]

Does this mean we are 'disrespected' and 'underdogs' ?? ?? ??

Oh, GOODY !! !! !!

 

[flutie2phelan]

sweet, we get to play the "no respect" card this year. I love it. We play better when people don't respect us.

This is so good ...
i think this Robinson chap
is on the Pats' payroll.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Power rankings rather than record or strength rankings.

I have to force myself to step back and realize that this guy is not predicting the finish of the 2006 seasn or even the playoff particpants. He is discussing raw team power.

Heck he could even be right but its academic.

BB has shown that 53 good players can dominate a squad of 15 or 20 stars and a balance of scrubs.

Nor is he predicting ending records either; the best records generally go to the teams that have little divisional competition. The AFCW is a three way war between SD, KC and Denver; This year the AFCS will be a two team war between Indy and Jax along with a pair of slightly better pattycakes. The AFCN will be a two or three way contest witha big two of Pitt and Cincy while Baltimore mixes it up and RAC upsets a few with his Browns.

And then there is the real pattycake division. Two easy pattycakes and only a middling Miami club weak in the lines, without the wherewithal to get better this offseason, offer nothing but an improved winning percentage for the Patriots.

Four clubs will be Divisonal champs: Pats, Pitt, SD and Jax.

The WC are a question ? I'll chose a two team division runnerup for a WC, in Cincy. I should pick Indy but I think they fall far and fast. Great Os don't last long. I'll go with Denver as the other WC.

Records? Pats 16-0; Pitt 12-4; Jax 12-4; SD 11-5; Cincy and Denver at 10-6. NE over SD at the Razor for the AFC crown and the right to play whatever bum emerges from the minor league NFC for the Vince.