ESPN power rankings post free agency

[sb1]

NFL Power Rankings 2021: Post-free-agency 1-32 poll, plus which teams made the best offseason moves (espn.com)

Pats at #19. Sounds about right. That's the ceiling until there's at least one decent QB on the roster.

 

[jah]

Having just quickly given each team a 1-5 rating and separated them into tiers based on that, I had the Patriots in the 3 (middle) tier which would have them ranked somewhere between 13 and 17 depending on where you place them within that group.

I'm much lower on LAC, DAL, SF, ARI than that article is.

 

[50-yard-line]

They talk about what teams picked up, but little on what they lost. Ranking KC ahead of Tampa Bay is really insulting to the Bucs, since they dominated the Chiefs on the biggest stage, A superbowl champ coming back whole should be number 1, period. But aside from that...

Show me a list of gains and losses from a team. The Patriots finished 17th last year.

On the OL, they lost Thuney, but picked up Brown and Karras.
At RB, they lost Burkhead (maybe), and added Bolden and Vitale.
At WR, they lost Byrd (maybe) and picked up Agholor and Bourne.
At TE, they lost Izzo and picked up Smith and Henry.

On DL, they lost Butler and picked up Judon, Godchaux, Anderson, and Adams.
At LB, they gained Hightower, Van Noy, and McMillan.
At DB, they lost Brooks and McCourty (maybe) and gained Mills.

Yeah, yeah, QB, I get it, but this is a much deeper, better, and more veteran team than last year. I won't even get into how they had so many 1st and 2nd year players (ho should improve) getting way more playing time than most other teams.

And they lost two places...with an easier, much easier, schedule.

Well okay then. I kind of like it. Hope the other 31 look at the Pats game as a gimme.

 

[patsfanfromoversea]

I'm lower on the Saints and the Rams. Rams lost Brockers, Defensive Coordinater, and the Safety. New QB and lost TE. LT is aging and don't have high picks. Saints lost for example Hendrickson, two DT, a DB and Sanders as well as Brees. I think we can all agree that it's a big downgrade from Brees to Winston

 

[moosekill]

I had figured around 15, team improved from last year with an easier schedule. If they trade for a qb they would move up, if they draft one, stay about there.

 

[VectorPrime]

When will people finally realize that you shouldn’t rank the Packers at the top?

 

[patsinthesnow]

bovada

T-10th superbowl odds
6th in AFC

draftkings

T-12th superbowl odds
7th in AFC

fanduel

T-14th superbowl odds
T-6th in AFC

19th is too low based on roster talent alone IMO.

 

[borg]

Very confused
Bucs are headlined at #2 but...... #4 in "way to early" category
Huh?
Was the ever insightful Max kellerman involved in this exercise in space-eating nothingness?

 

[50-yard-line]

When will people finally realize that you shouldn’t rank the Packers at the top?

About the same time the idiots on TV stop picking the Cowboys to win the Superbowl, I guess.

 

[Sicilian]

First, a disclaimer, power rankings are largely bull s**t. I'd bet my life savings that the person responsible for coming up with them at each company isn't taking the time to really dig into what each team has gained, lost, and likely has less insight into football as a sport than a good portion of people on your average message board.

That said, I think there's two things at play here:

1) Patriots fatigue. People finally got a chance to forget about Belichick and the Patriots last year, and they're loathe to return to a time when they're relevant, so they subconsciously dismiss them. This would have the secondary effect of ranking the Bucs below the Chiefs, even though they crushed them and have brought back basically the entire Super Bowl winning team. Brady fatigue is still real too.

2) There's a general distrust (and perhaps rightfully so) of Cam Newton. He trended DOWN over the course of the year, so there's probably an expectation that teams "figured out" how the Patriots were using him and that the early season success was a flash in the pan. I disagree on some level, because what they did with the offense was greatly hampered by the skillsets they had available in the WR/TE grouping, but I can hardly fault whatever writer of these articles takes the shorthand of looking at who the QB is and ranking them solely on that.

 

[jah]

About the same time the idiots on TV stop picking the Cowboys to win the Superbowl, I guess.

Believing in the Packers at least has some basis in recent history (strictly up until the conference championship round in which they inevitably **** themselves), whereas the Cowboys thing is almost religious in nature.

 

[jah]

First, a disclaimer, power rankings are largely bull s**t. I'd bet my life savings that the person responsible for coming up with them at each company isn't taking the time to really dig into what each team has gained, lost, and likely has less insight into football as a sport than a good portion of people on your average message board.

That said, I think there's two things at play here:

1) Patriots fatigue. People finally got a chance to forget about Belichick and the Patriots last year, and they're loathe to return to a time when they're relevant, so they subconsciously dismiss them. This would have the secondary effect of ranking the Bucs below the Chiefs, even though they crushed them and have brought back basically the entire Super Bowl winning team. Brady fatigue is still real too.

2) There's a general distrust (and perhaps rightfully so) of Cam Newton. He trended DOWN over the course of the year, so there's probably an expectation that teams "figured out" how the Patriots were using him and that the early season success was a flash in the pan. I disagree on some level, because what they did with the offense was greatly hampered by the skillsets they had available in the WR/TE grouping, but I can hardly fault whatever writer of these articles takes the shorthand of looking at who the QB is and ranking them solely on that.

Adding onto this, the success of the Patriots made it so surprising when we went 7-9 that people forget it's the record of a middling team rather than one of the worst in the league. The person who ranked the Pats 19th could probably respond by saying "well, I gave them a middling ranking", but we were better than 19th at the end of last season when the roster was objectively worse than it is now.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

lol, the only reason they would rank the Chiefs ahead of the Bucs in power rankings is likely because of editorial oversight and wanting to push controversy

I think its insulting any year to have the defending champs not be #1, with rare exceptions where a team like the Broncos lose Manning to retirement immediately after SB or have their team totally decimated with free agent departures, etc.

ESPN Editorial Oversight Meeting:
BossPerson1: "I don't want the Bucs at #1, give me one good reason they should be there"
Writer1: "Well the Bucs are the defending champs, they completely dominated KC in the SB 2 months ago, were able to re-sign all 22 starters for the first time in the SB era and they had no offseason program/training camp/preseason last year to build chemistry. Meanwhile KC lost both their starting tackles and have only managed to sign an interior offensive lineman."
BossPerson1: "You're going to put KC at #1, lets get the people talking!"
Writer1: "/sigh"

 

[amfootball]

Bucs should be #1 by a mile. Ravens at 5 is a joke.

Pats at 19 is about right. We move up if we get a legit QB.

 

[Rob0729]

They talk about what teams picked up, but little on what they lost. Ranking KC ahead of Tampa Bay is really insulting to the Bucs, since they dominated the Chiefs on the biggest stage, A superbowl champ coming back whole should be number 1, period. But aside from that...

Show me a list of gains and losses from a team. The Patriots finished 17th last year.

On the OL, they lost Thuney, but picked up Brown and Karras.
At RB, they lost Burkhead (maybe), and added Bolden and Vitale.
At WR, they lost Byrd (maybe) and picked up Agholor and Bourne.
At TE, they lost Izzo and picked up Smith and Henry.

On DL, they lost Butler and picked up Judon, Godchaux, Anderson, and Adams.
At LB, they gained Hightower, Van Noy, and McMillan.
At DB, they lost Brooks and McCourty (maybe) and gained Mills.

Yeah, yeah, QB, I get it, but this is a much deeper, better, and more veteran team than last year. I won't even get into how they had so many 1st and 2nd year players (ho should improve) getting way more playing time than most other teams.

And they lost two places...with an easier, much easier, schedule.

Well okay then. I kind of like it. Hope the other 31 look at the Pats game as a gimme.

I believe that if you win the Super Bowl, you are #1 until you lose a game. And the Bucs will be pretty much the same team they were last year. You might have made the argument to drop the Bucs if they were gutted in free agency.

That said, I think on paper, the Chiefs are a better team. I think if the Chiefs were full strength with a healthy Mahomes, the game would have been different. The Bucs still may have won, but the game would have been far more competitive.

And I agree on paper the Pats should be rated higher than they were last year even with the question marks at QB.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

So theyre projecting us to be worse than last year? 32-15 (draft spot) = 17th best roughly, plus our additions... id have us top 15, competing for a playoff spot.

 

[Delicate Genius]

20-0

 

[mgteich]

bovada

T-10th superbowl odds
6th in AFC

draftkings

T-12th superbowl odds
7th in AFC

fanduel

T-14th superbowl odds
T-6th in AFC

19th is too low based on roster talent alone IMO.

So, you think that we are a favorite to be in the playoffs with Cam as quarterback? That is what the BETTORS above believe.

 

[tasmlab]

If the ranking was simply based on ordering teams by their 2020 win-loss record, I'd imagine 7-9 gets you to about 19th.

 

[Deus Irae]

In the AFC, the Patriots absolutely, positively should currently be rated behind:

Buffalo
Miami
Cleveland
Baltimore
Indianapolis
K.C.


In the NFC, the Patriots absolutely, positively should currently be rated behind:

Tampa Bay
Green Bay
Seattle
LA Rams
Arizona
S.F.


So that puts them down to being no higher 13 before things even begin to get questionable, and it doesn't mean that other teams aren't likely to be better than them. They're in a large group of "Well, we don't really know, because..." teams. So I have no particular problem with the rating. If it's off a few spots in either direction, on 3/30/2021, who really cares?