Power Rankings

[Biggems]

I know they are not all that important, but still, some common sense should prevail. After week 1, all 16 winners should be ranked 1-16, then the 16 losers 17-32. I dont care about the matchups, the fact is, after week 1, nobody really knows anything other than some are 1-0 and others are 0-1.

On ESPN, Dallas is ranked behind 2 or 3 teams that lost. Baltimore got blown off the field, no way they should be ranked ahead of Dallas. The Falcons got beat by the Saints. The Bengals got upset by Chicago. The Packers D looked horrible in their loss to SF.

The Cards and Bills should be ranked much higher, definitely above Pitt, Minnesota, and Carolina.

But what do I know, I am just a regular football fan, not some mediot working for ESPN

 

[Gameover]

I'm not sold on the Cowboys.

Link?

 

[theogt]

I know they are not all that important, but still, some common sense should prevail. After week 1, all 16 winners should be ranked 1-16, then the 16 losers 17-32. I dont care about the matchups, the fact is, after week 1, nobody really knows anything other than some are 1-0 and others are 0-1.

I think this* is what you're looking for:

http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=league&season=2013-REG

*What you're describing are "standings" not "rankings".

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I think this* is what you're looking for:

http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=league&season=2013-REG

*What you're describing are "standings" not "rankings".

Yea, I'd bet anyone dollars to doughnuts that Tennessee doesn't finish with a better record than Atlanta

 

[The Natural]

I think this* is what you're looking for:

http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=league&season=2013-REG

*What you're describing are "standings" not "rankings".

OP is talking about the ESPN power rankings after week 1

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings/_/year/2013/week/2

 

[DFWJC]

I don't agree at all with OP.
No disrespect, but I am not ranking teams like Green Bay and Atlanta out of the top 16 just because they lost close games on the road to very good teams....even the potential SuperBowl winner.
That's preposterous

 

[d_dub88]

The writers can't move the teams around to much from their original placements because it makes them look like idiots.

 

[Mookie]

CBS has us at #5.

 

[RS12]

Not interested in power rankings until nov dec. At this point it is about winning games you should win and avoiding injuries.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

You can't put a good team who simply lost to another good team in the 17th and below range. Had the Packers played anyone else they would've won. Its far too early to tell but if we're basing it on what teams did last year and this year? Its correct.

 

[sacase]

the espn rankings are crap. GB could have won, thats a 50/50 game. Falcon's lose to the saints, who are ranked lower than GB, but the Falcons remain higher than GB? Come on. Bronco's at #3? They looked better than the Seahawks or 49ers.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The only power rankings worth anything are these:

http://miketanier.sportsonearthblog...able-pinpoint-accurate-week-1-power-rankings/

 

[Biggems]

well, I got more responses than I thought I would get.

 

[coult44]

Did anyone read that BS quote. "Bill Callahan kept things short for Tony Romo. Romo threw two-thirds of his passes 5 yards or fewer downfield," That's crap and had nothing to do with Callahan. WHere do they come up with this stuff?