Fox Sports stands firm on Power Rankings.. Pats #2

[Born_a_Patriot]

It is a fair assessment. Unless the Colts loose or fall apart before we meet they are #1. The Patriots have to prove they can beat the Colts on the field, just like the Colts had to prove they could beat us.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Colts are #1. When have the Pats beaten them lately. I would even rate the Broncos & Steelers ahead of the Pats too.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Wow, some refreshing responses! Like you say, who really cares? It means squat. Certainly, Pats look polished already. Who'da thunk that 30+ PPG would look BAD! Your D looks nice too, but the bigger surprise (to those outside of Indy) is that Colts looked to be improved from last season as well. Opponents so far have been a little stiffer for Colts than Pats, but it will even out in the end. It is going to be an exciting race!

I agree with most of what you stated. However, I'm not convinced the Colts look better than last year...yet. However, if Moss got hurt, I think it would negatively affect the Patriots more than if Harrison or Wayne got hurt.

Moss is just THAT good!

 

[PatriotsReign]

Colts are #1. When have the Pats beaten them lately. I would even rate the Broncos & Steelers ahead of the Pats too.

Why on earth would you rate Denver & Pittsburgh ahead of the Patriots?

 

[ClevTrev]

Whoa, thin skin. I put the Colts at #1 as well. They are the defending champs who have done nothing this season to show they aren't the team to beat. Gotta love having some potential bulletin board material for the Pats as well. In the grand scheme of things, I was made aware that only the games count, not the rankings.

In due time . . . . .

 

[denverpatsfan]

Simple. Pats can't beat the Broncos with Jake Plummer at QB. What makes you think they can beat Jay Cutler who is much better.

Steelers won it all two seasons ago.

While we are at it let's put Dallas ahead too.

I like the underdog role.

 

[JJDChE]

Hey, remember when the Pats were dead last in ESPN's power rankings after week 2 in 2001?

How'd that turn out?

 

[Fixit]

They've beaten better teams...

I beg to differ with this.

They beat an awful New Orleans team, they snuck by a 2006 non-playoff division team in Tennessee, and a 2006 6-10 division team.

The Pats smoked a non-playoff division team, a 10-6 playoff division team, and what many people believed to be the most talented team in the league that also sports the runaway league MVP.

 

[patsox23]

Colts deserve it. They've beaten better teams, though not as convincingly, they've had our number recently, and they're undefeated.

They HAVE? The Saints are awful. The Titans are okay and almost beat them. And the Texans (minus their #1 weapon) are looking better but are hardly as proven as the jets or Chargers. And if you're going with LAST YEAR as part of the criterion, then for consistency's sake you have to point to the Pats' opponents (two out of three were playoff teams) as far superior to the Colts'.

 

[JJDChE]

Along those lines:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_1666_Bonzo's_picks:_This_monkey_knows_his_s---.html

Essentially, an untrained monkey has been picking games better than all of CBS's "experts" so far, except for Prisco, who is tied with the monkey.

Wow, lucky for them it's not a trained monkey, they'd really be getting embarassed.

 

[TruthSeeker]

In the three years that we were defending champs, I always thought we should remain number one until someone beat us. I don't see any reason to change now. And, there's only one "Number One" that counts and that's who's number one in Phoenix in February.

And I've always been of the opinion (actually, it's a fact if anyone wants to look it up ) that all teams start 0-0. The purpose, IMO, of 2007 power rankings is to rate the 2007 teams, not a cross between the 2006 and 2007 teams.

But, other people think that 2006 should play into the 2007 power rankings. When they're the ones doing the rankings, they get the right to do it. Of course, they're wrong when they do it, but we're all allowed to make mistakes.

 

[JJDChE]

man who cares i hate ALL journos, they NEVER get the FACTS right.

Take a deep breath, dude.

There are no FACTS in a Power Ranking.

 

[godef]

They're called POWER rankings, and should be based on an analysis of what teams are doing now, not on any subjective look in the past. You're only as good as your current record.

That said, it's simply too early in the season to create valid power rankings. They're meaningless until teams of played a better sampling of different teams and some correlations can be made.

The Pats beat up on San Diego, right? But San Diego hasn't looked good in any of their games. However, they played a staunch Bear defense, and they played at Green Bay... people ask how ould they lose to Green Bay, but how do we know Green Bay isn't going to go 12-4 this year?

Pittsburgh is 3-0 and look great, especially on defense, but they have only played powder puffs; perhaps SF was the only notable challenge, but they had that game at home, and wasn't SF last in offense last yer (or close to it)?

Despite being taken to the limit in the last two games, Indy can claim they play in a strong division, which has not lost a non-division game. But what are those non-division games? Houston hosting KC. Indy hosting what now looks like a bad NO club. Houston at carolina (kudo's there). Jax hosting Atlanta. Jax winning at Denver (who barely beat the raides teh week before). Tennesse beating that same NO club.

There's a lot of ambiguity, so this time of year, the power ratings, if they are truly power ratings which the Fox ratings are not, are generally meaningless.

 

[fourthandmiles]

There are no FACTS in a Power Ranking.

It looks like Fox is not using Fottball Outsiders Power Rankings this year. So this is very true. Fox and the readers probably like the "paparazzi factor" that Football Outsiders does not include.

After next week the preseason does not have as much weight. So I am interested in the rankings on F.O. at that point.

I like the way F.O. does their rankings because it is based on stats. And the fun thing about it (and any other rankings I suppose) is you can compare two teams that might not play each other. Since the stats are league wide it is a pretty good indicator.

 

[ColtsTroll]

They HAVE? The Saints are awful. The Titans are okay and almost beat them. And the Texans (minus their #1 weapon) are looking better but are hardly as proven as the jets or Chargers. And if you're going with LAST YEAR as part of the criterion, then for consistency's sake you have to point to the Pats' opponents (two out of three were playoff teams) as far superior to the Colts'.

Hey clown, the saints were destroyed 41-10, which is what good teams do to bad teams (see your wins this year). Colts beat AFC South rivals on the road back to back. AFC South, the toughest division in the league.

You guys haven't beaten a top 20 defense yet. Top 20!!! Get over yourselves. Pats and Indy are both good. But until proven otherwise, Indy is better. Simple as that.

 

[godef]

You guys haven't beaten a top 20 defense yet. Top 20!!! Get over yourselves. Pats and Indy are both good. But until proven otherwise, Indy is better. Simple as that.

Hey Bozo, there's only been 3 games, which means any stats are skewed by one third because they involve one of the teams in questions.

Would San Diego's D be ranked #12 instead of 20 or worse if they hadn't played the Patriots? Would the Pats O be ranked 5 levels lower had they played Pittsburgh instead of San Diego?

But to say Indy is better until proven otherwise is sheer nonsense. Either they are or they aren't, we just don't know yet.

A lot of people thought New Orleans was going to be a powerhouse. Now we know they aren't. Did your Colts have something to do with that? More importantly, were the Saints really a powerhouse up to the second half of the season opener? Of course not. They probably sucked already, we just didn't know it yet.

And if tthe Pats should go into Indy in November and win, and finish with an equal or better record, then we look back and say that, yes, after the 3rd week of the season, the Pats probably were the better team. We just didn't know it yet. Or vice versa, but perhaps with a bit of ambiguity if the Colts barely beat the Pats at home.

 

[fourthandmiles]

You guys haven't beaten a top 20 defense yet. Top 20!!! Get over yourselves. Pats and Indy are both good. But until proven otherwise, Indy is better. Simple as that.

Maybe they are not Top 20 because we rolled right over them.

 

[He Ban Me]

I agree with most of what you stated. However, I'm not convinced the Colts look better than last year...yet. However, if Moss got hurt, I think it would negatively affect the Patriots more than if Harrison or Wayne got hurt.

Moss is just THAT good!

Well, it IS still early, but defensively it's a no brainer, they are much better. This is the most physical we've been since 1995. Faster than ever. Still green, I know. I think folks are giving David and Harper TOO much credit, and not giving enough to guys like Keiaho and Ed Johnson. The only reason (IMO) that the pass defense looked good last year was because the run D sucked so bad. They were never tested. Even in years prior, I was stunned that other teams did not pick up on this, and I was NOT so stunned when Big Ben came out throwing in '05 playoffs.

Our ST's may be the death of us. Amazing really that they have won most their games when an opponent returns for a TD (last loss probably '03 in the dome to NE).

Offensively, even if Addai plays 16, we absolutely need a solid number 2. I was UNAWARE that Chris Brown got no takes in the off-season. He "settled for less" and stayed with Texans. Would have been a nice addition. I really think Ugoh will be fine, and hopefully Charlie Johnson gets back to 100%. Gonzo will start to get more and more looks and should be a key down the stretch. I still worry about our goal line offense. When you get inside the 5, you gotta get 6 3 out of 4 times. Also, nice thing is, I no longer feel like the offense has to score every possession. I actually LOOK FORWARD to watching the D.

As for you guys, I haven't seen a bunch, but obviously Brady is on fire, and Moss is every bit as good as he has ever been. I still think you can be scored on, but Big Sey and Rodney will, I'm sure, be welcome sights. So far, looks like you guys made a ton of right moves.

I wouldn't mind blowing you guys out, but at this point, I hope it's just one whale of a game. No way we want to get to 21-3 again, cause if we do, it's over.

Good luck and can't wait til the 4th.

 

[Deus Irae]

If these two teams were playing this week, I'd expect New England to win by a minimum of 3 touchdowns. New England, right now, is the better team at every level of the field, on both sides of the ball. But, they're not playing this week and things change. We'll see how it all shakes out, soon enough.

 

[Imperator]

I generally prefer Vic Carucci's power rankings over at NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d802b093f&template=with-video&confirm=true

He focuses on what teams are doing NOW. Not including what happened last season into his decision.