Some Power Rankings for Ya.... OUTRAGEOUS!

[minibronco]

NFL POWER RANKINGS, by www.sportsline.com
Current Team Previous
1 Indianapolis Colts 1
Peyton Manning isn't putting up the big numbers, but does it matter? This team is winning with defense and a running game. Can you believe it?
2 Denver Broncos 3
Somehow that opening-day loss to the Dolphins doesn't look right. The Broncos are on a roll, but they do have to learn to put teams away.
3 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 5
They head to the break at 5-1, but now they must finish out the year with Chris Simms at quarterback. He'll be fine.
4 Cincinnati Bengals 7
Give this young team props for an impressive bounce-back victory on the road. Carson Palmer is the real deal.
5 Philadelphia Eagles 9
Here's wondering how many times T.O. looked at himself in the mirror during the bye week. The Eagles needed the time off, and now get a good Chargers team.
6 Dallas Cowboys 8
Dallas got away with one against the Giants, but those are the kind of games playoff teams need to win. They're a different team without Julius Jones.
7 Atlanta Falcons 10
The Falcons didn't play well against the Saints, which has to change as they move to the second half. Will Mike Vick be totally healthy at any time this season?
8 Jacksonville Jaguars 12
They go into their bye feeling pretty good about being 4-2. That was a big-time road victory at Pittsburgh.
9 Pittsburgh Steelers 2
If there was any doubt about the value of Ben Roethlisberger, there shouldn't be anymore; Tommy Maddox was awful.
10 Seattle Seahawks 14
They appear to be ready to challenge for superiority in the NFC. That offense will win a lot of games.
11 San Diego Chargers 15
The Chargers once again looked dominant against the Raiders, but now they have a tough road test at Philadelphia. Does it ever get easy for this team?
12 New England Patriots 4
There are troubles in New England, particularly on defense. There has been too much attrition.
13 Kansas City Chiefs 17
We still have doubts about the defense, and the offense isn't fully cranked up. But they did enough Sunday to win at home. It won't be the same if they play that way on the road.
14 Washington Redskins 6
Playing at Denver and at Kansas City on successive weeks is a tough task for any team. The Redskins played well in both games, which is a good sign.
15 Carolina Panthers 16
They're coming off two road victories, which is tough no matter what competition you're playing. But they're still not clicking just yet.
16 New York Giants 11
That was a tough loss at Dallas, but the Giants still have to feel good about their start. The defense played better, so that's a good sign.
17 Buffalo Bills 21
Don't look now but Kelly Holcomb has the Bills tied for first place. That quarterback move looks good now.
18 Miami Dolphins 13
Was their quick start a mirage? At some point, talent does have to do the job. It can't just be the coaching.
19 Baltimore Ravens 26
Was there any doubt the defense would turn it up a notch? Now maybe the offense can get going, too.
20 Chicago Bears 24
They were dominant against the Vikings, which is hard to gauge because the Vikings are so bad. We know the defense will show up every week.
21 St. Louis Rams 18
Losing Marc Bulger for a couple of weeks could really hurt this team's playoff chances. We know the defense won't be able to stop anybody.
22 Detroit Lions 19
At some point the offense has to produce in key situations. Are they waiting for Jeff Garcia to get healthy?
23 New York Jets 20
It looks like it's going to be a long season. Vinny Testaverde looked his age against the Bills.
24 Green Bay Packers 28
The week off might have done this hurting team a lot of good. Surprisingly, they're still in the race.
25 Oakland Raiders 22
This team just doesn't look right. With Randy Moss hurting, even the offense has issues now.
26 Cleveland Browns 23
We knew there would be days like they had Sunday. Give this young team time.
27 Tennessee Titans 27
The Titans hung around for a while with the Bengals, but couldn't close the deal in the end. It will be an up-and-down year.
28 New Orleans Saints 29
The officials owe them one for blowing that call late. The shock of the day was that Jim Haslett didn't kill the official who made the call.
29 Arizona Cardinals 30
Should it be Kurt Warner or Josh McCown at quarterback? Then again, does it really matter since they can't run the ball?
30 Minnesota Vikings 25
Poor Zygi Wilf. He buys this team and then has to deal with all this garbage? Mike Tice is done, no matter what Wilf is saying now.
31 San Francisco 49ers 31
The bye week was probably a good thing for this young team. Now it's time for Alex Smith to start making strides.
32 Houston Texans 32
That was pathetic Sunday night in Seattle. Can it get any worse?

NFL POWER RANKINGS, www.yahoo.com
THE TOP 12

1. Indianapolis Colts (6-0) – Subtract the special teams turnover and St. Louis' garbage-time touchdown, and the defense played pretty well. Then again, the Rams' offense never looked right after Marc Bulger was knocked out.

2. Denver Broncos (5-1) – Like everyone else, I was scratching my head when Mike Shanahan scooped up Cleveland's defensive leftovers. Now the Broncos have a defensive line that stays fresh and disruptive by rotating seven players.

3. Pittsburgh Steelers (3-2) – How did Charlie Batch not get a look in the second half against Jacksonville? Willie Parker has been ineffective for three straight weeks, so it might be time to get the Bus rolling again.

4. Cincinnati Bengals (5-1) – T.J. Houshmandzadeh's absence has opened opportunities for other players, but the Bengals need as much firepower as possible this week. The defense is giving up nearly 142 rushing yards a game the last three weeks.


5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5-1) – Carnell who? Joey Galloway and the defense look as sharp as ever, but injuries hammered this team last year. Brian Griese is out for the season, but isn't this why Jon Gruden drafted Chris Simms?


6. New England Patriots (3-3) – It looked like Tom Brady was going to pull out one more huge fourth-quarter win until his receivers started dropping balls. Now we know why Duane Starks was nearly cut during the preseason.


7. Philadelphia Eagles (3-2) – Terrell Owens' little radio show in Miami has become a must-listen event, unless you are a member of the Eagles' franchise.


8. Atlanta Falcons (4-2) – If Sunday was an indication of what Atlanta's run defense is going to look like without Edgerton Hartwell, the Falcons better start worrying. Warrick Dunn is having a career year rushing, but he's practically disappeared in the passing game.


9. Jacksonville Jaguars (4-2) – If you're looking for a reason why the passing game hasn't reached the next level, look at the mediocre production from the two first-round picks at wideout. Reggie Williams and Matt Jones have a combined 355 receiving yards and one touchdown.


10. Dallas Cowboys (4-2) – It's time for Peerless Price to step into a contributing role now that Patrick Crayton has gone down. Can Drew Bledsoe catch lightning in a bottle with another one of his former favorite targets?


11. Seattle Seahawks (4-2) – It was disappointing to see Ken Hamlin involved in a fight when it seemed his off-field troubles were behind him. The good news is that he's expected to recover from his injuries. The bad news is he likely won't be back on the field for Seattle.


12. Carolina Panthers (4-2) – Keary Colbert might be the most disappointing second-year player in the league. Raise your hand if you didn't realize Chris Weinke was still in the NFL.


RISING

Buffalo Bills (3-3) – Forget Kelly Holcomb for a second. In their three wins, the Bills have an average time of possession of over 37 minutes. But it's still disturbing that this defense is the third worst unit in the NFL against the run.

THE MUDDLED MIDDLE (in alphabetical order)

Baltimore Ravens (2-3) – Despite showing some marked improvement over the last two games, Anthony Wright will still be heading back to the bench when Kyle Boller's toe heals. The change should take place in Week 9.


Chicago Bears (2-3) – Thomas Jones is fighting his tail off to avoid giving Cedric Benson even one inch of opportunity to take the running back job. And the coaching staff loves it.


Cleveland Browns (2-3) – Remember when running back Reuben Droughns was talking about how he deserved a new contract? Um, yeah. Not this year.


Detroit Lions (2-3) – The Lions may not wait for Jeff Garcia's return to bench Joey Harrington. Can you say Dan Orlovsky? Steve Mariucci can, and probably will soon.


Kansas City Chiefs (3-2) – From Trent Green to Tony Gonzalez and the running game, the offense still looks out of sync. Former fourth-round pick Jared Allen continues to look like one of the biggest steals of the 2004 draft.


Miami Dolphins (2-3) – Something to keep in mind for free agency and the draft: Chris Chambers and Marty Booker are each averaging less than 50 receiving yards a game and have combined for only two touchdowns.


New Orleans Saints (2-4) – The officials pulled the rug out from under the Saints with their defensive holding call, which gave Atlanta a second chance to kick a game-winning field goal. After running for 211 yards against the Falcons, the rushing game may not be dead without Deuce McAllister.


New York Giants (3-2) – Tom Coughlin has to share the blame for rookie Brandon Jacobs' pivotal fumble against Dallas. It might be a good idea to get your short-yardage back some warm-up touches before giving him his first carry on the goal line.


New York Jets (2-4) – If they don't at least go 1-1 against Atlanta and San Diego in the next few weeks, fans can kiss the playoffs goodbye. So far, the Jets have gotten the short end of the Santana Moss-for-Laveranues Coles trade.


St. Louis Rams (2-4) – The running game was looking dominant against Indianapolis until the Rams were forced into a shootout. It looks like Steven Jackson is really going to get a chance to stretch his legs while Mike Martz is out.


San Diego Chargers (3-3) – The oblivious quote of the week came from 24-year-old Chargers safety Terrence Kiel after the win over Oakland: "Marty (Schottenheimer) hates the Raiders. I don't know why." Someone give Terrence a refresher on the history of the Chiefs.


Tennessee Titans (2-4) – The duo of Carson Palmer and Chad Johnson is just the latest in what will be a season of offenses picking on Pac Man Jones. And while he looked lost Sunday, it's far too early to label him a potential bust.


Washington Redskins (3-2) – The defense is stiff, but just imagine how good the unit would look if it actually notched a fumble or interception once in a while. The Redskins haven't forced an interception in four games, and a timely pick could have been the difference in the last two losses.

FALLING

Oakland Raiders (1-4) – It looks like Norv Turner got some quality pieces for the future in Kirk Morrison and Fabian Washington. But at this rate, he won't be coaching them beyond 2005.


THE BOTTOM FIVE

28. Green Bay Packers (1-4) – If Ahman Green can't break the 100-yard rushing mark against Minnesota this week, he may never do it again.


29. Minnesota Vikings (1-4) – The Love Cruise might be a good thing. It's keeping people from recognizing that Daunte Culpepper is the worst starting quarterback in the NFC North, and most grossly overpaid player in the NFL.


30. Arizona Cardinals (1-4) – Unlike some of the other coaches who are watching their teams struggle, Dennis Green's job is not on the line. Quietly, Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin are living up to every ounce of their hype.


31. San Francisco 49ers (1-4) – This is how a defense looks when almost none of your personnel fits a 3-4 scheme. Depending on success in the draft and free agency, as many as five defensive starters could be replaced this offseason.


32. Houston Texans (0-5) – If the Texans end up with the first overall pick in the draft, Dom Capers won't be the only one losing his job. Either David Carr gets dumped for Matt Leinart, or Domanick Davis gets pushed aside for Reggie Bush.

[minibronco]

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS POWER RANKINGS: Week 7, www.foxsports.com
Rk Team W-L Last Wk 2005 Only Offense Rk Defense Rk Sp. Tms Rk
1. COLTS 6-0 1 2 4 4 26
Last night, St. Louis showed that to beat the Colts, all you have to do is a) run the ball and b) waive Jamie Martin prior to the start of the season. Unfortunately for the Rams, they only did one of those things. NEXT: at HOU
2. BENGALS 5-1 3 1 3 8 10
Like the Colts, the Bengals still have a clear weakness against the run. They rank 28th in run defense DVOA and have been slashed by Fred Taylor and Chris Brown over the past two weeks. This week, they play their biggest game since 1990 against a team that loves to run the ball. Whatever could the game plan be? NEXT: vs. PIT
3. CHARGERS 3-3 4 3 2 18 7
Yes, they are this good. The Chargers have won three games big and lost three games by very small margins to three teams in the top 12. With the decline of the AFC East and the Kansas City offense, the hard schedule doesn't look quite as tough in the second half. Week 17 against Denver may determine division title. NEXT: at PHI
4. STEELERS 3-2 2 7 13 6 21
When we talk about Pittsburgh's stats for the rest of the season, we're going to have to give two numbers: full-season, and "not counting the Jacksonville game." NEXT: at CIN
Rk Team W-L Last Wk 2005 Only Offense Rk Defense Rk Sp. Tms Rk
5. GIANTS 3-2 5 4 6 17 1
The Giants currently rank fourth in run offense DVOA and seventh in run defense DVOA. Next week is the test, taking on a strong AFC opponent that can run the ball and stop the run. NEXT: vs. DEN
6. JAGUARS 4-2 11 5 18 2 6
Jaguars are the league's worst team running towards the right, averaging just 2.6 yards per carry on runs listed as right tackle or right end. NEXT: BYE, then at STL
7. SEAHAWKS 4-2 7 6 1 25 19
After next week, somebody will be for real, and somebody will not. Well, for the following seven days of television commentary, anyway. NEXT: vs. DAL
8. BUCS 5-1 8 9 19 3 12
Their week off could not come at a better time, giving Chris Simms two weeks to get ready to take over the offense while the rest of the team recovers from various nicks and scrapes. NEXT: BYE, then at SF with a healthy Cadillac coming out of the garage.
Rk Team W-L Last Wk 2005 Only Offense Rk Defense Rk Sp. Tms Rk
9. COWBOYS 4-2 12 8 11 10 9
We have a stat called "Adjusted Sack Rate" which measures sacks per pass play, adjusted based on down, distance, and opponent. Last year, Dallas was 26th in the league at 6.0%. This year, Dallas leads the league at 10.3%. NEXT at SEA
10. EAGLES 3-2 6 11 7 13 32
How does a team drop five spots during its bye week? Read the explanation below. NEXT: vs. SD
11. DOLPHINS 2-3 16 10 20 5 11
One of the reasons why the Miami run defense is stuffing is that the safeties (Lance Schulters and Tebucky Jones) are very quick to come up and tackle the ballcarrier on running plays. Unfortunately, this also makes them susceptible to long runs: the Dolphins have given up 22% of running yards on runs over double digits, the sixth-worst total in the league. NEXT: vs. KC, which has gained 21% of its running yards on runs over double digits, the sixth-best total in the league.
12. BRONCOS 5-1 15 13 9 16 23
Much, much more about the Broncos below. NEXT: at NYG
Rk Team W-L Last Wk 2005 Only Offense Rk Defense Rk Sp. Tms Rk
13. FALCONS 4-2 10 12 5 26 13
Their run defense gets worse every week. On Antowain Smith's touchdown run, he broke through the line and ran down the center of the field without a defender within ten yards of him. This was Atlanta's innovative new "eight men on the field" defense. NEXT: vs. NYJ
14. BILLS 3-3 14 14 25 12 2
The problem now faced by the Bills: when do you go back to J.P. Losman at quarterback? If the Bills make a run for the playoffs, they can't pull Holcomb, and if Holcomb leads them to a winning record, will they still start Losman next season? NEXT: at OAK
15. PANTHERS 4-2 13 17 23 9 18
Keary Colbert has three different games this season where he didn't catch a single one of the passes thrown his direction. NEXT: BYE, then vs. MIN
16. PATRIOTS 3-3 9 21 8 28 15
The good news is that the Patriots have two weeks to heal all their wounds before they go into the second half of the season. Everybody knew going into the season that the first six games would be difficult, and so nobody should be surprised that they were, in fact, difficult. New England is still in first place in the AFC East and has yet to play a single game against a division opponent. Six of the team's final ten games are at home, and it is getting colder. The bad news is that the Patriots aren't going to get that important first-round bye unless they run the table in these ten games, and Duane Starks has not yet been released. NEXT: BYE, then vs. BUF
Rk Team W-L Last Wk 2005 Only Offense Rk Defense Rk Sp. Tms Rk
17. REDSKINS 3-2 18 16 12 14 30
According to variance of game-to-game DVOA rating, Washington has been the most consistent team in the NFL. Of the five games, Washington lost its two best performances and won the other three. NEXT: vs. SF
18. CHIEFS 3-2 17 18 14 23 8
For all the talk about the new playmaking linebackers, the Chiefs are still the worst team in the league at preventing yardage on passes to running backs. They give up an average of 7.6 yards per pass, while league average is 5.5 yards per pass. NEXT: at MIA
19. BEARS 2-3 21 15 30 1 5
Chicago's defense has been impenetrable in the red zone this season, allowing just three yards per play with three turnovers. The only red zone touchdown against the Bears was thrown by this year's highest-rated quarterback, Carson Palmer, to this year's highest-rated receiver, Chad Johnson. NEXT: vs. BAL, in the first NFL game in history to have an over-under of zero.
20. RAIDERS 1-4 20 20 10 24 25
LaMont Jordan averages just three yards on first down. Come back next week for another episode of "Norv Turner, Offensive Genius." NEXT: vs. BUF
Rk Team W-L Last Wk 2005 Only Offense Rk Defense Rk Sp. Tms Rk
21. BROWNS 2-3 19 19 15 22 14
After the Giants struggled in the third quarter against Dallas, Cleveland took over as the top offense in the second half of close games. They didn't get a chance to demonstrate against Baltimore. NEXT: vs. DET
22. PACKERS 1-4 22 22 16 21 28
Research in our book Pro Football Prospectus 2005 showed that the biggest historical advantage after a bye week belongs to a team with a losing record playing another team with a losing record. Then again, another piece of research showed that Brett Favre's poor numbers indoors are actually just poor numbers in one specific indoor stadium: the Metrodome. NEXT: at MIN
23. RAVENS 2-3 24 24 27 11 24
Hey, Jamal, wake up buddy ... this is the regular season now. Hello, Jamal? NEXT: at CHI
24. TITANS 2-4 25 23 17 29 3
Titans have one of the top first-quarter offenses in the league, thus introducing the general storyline for the season: Tennessee scores early, defense gives it all back over the next 45 minutes. NEXT: at ARI
Rk Team W-L Last Wk 2005 Only Offense Rk Defense Rk Sp. Tms Rk
25. CARDINALS 1-4 26 25 24 20 17
Hello, Arizona? This is New England. This "Duane Starks" you sold us has turned out to be defective, and we're going to have to return it. NEXT: vs. TEN
26. LIONS 2-3 27 26 31 7 22
Note to Joey Harrington: when they are talking about sitting you for a fifth-round rookie from Connecticut, you are pretty much cooked. NEXT: at CLE
27. JETS 2-4 23 29 28 19 27
The Jets have seven interceptions, but not a single one has come on a pass intended for the opposing team's number one receiver. Perhaps they need to reconsider the idea of always putting Ty Law on one side and David Barrett on the other side, and instead let Law always cover the other team's top guy. NEXT: at ATL
28. SAINTS 2-4 30 27 21 27 31
As if the Saints had nothing else to worry about, they've had the worst kick and punt returns in the league this year, losing 13.8 points worth of field position on kick returns and 5.7 points worth of field position on punt returns. The Saints have fumbled a kick return every two games, and their average punt return has gone less than five yards. NEXT: at STL
Rk Team W-L Last Wk 2005 Only Offense Rk Defense Rk Sp. Tms Rk
29. VIKINGS 1-4 28 30 29 15 29
The team is a disaster, the players are fighting with each other and the coach has lost control. Green Bay takes a two-touchdown lead into the fourth quarter. Is there no hope for our heroes in purple? Just when things are darkest, the roof of the Metrodome splits open, revealing that legendary superhero of Vikings lore, Fran Tarkenton of Earth-2! The season is saved! NEXT: vs. GB
30. RAMS 2-4 29 28 2 31 20
Coming this fall on FOX: One's an ex-insurance salesman from down south. The other's a laid-back surfer from Orange County. Tommy Maddox and Jamie Martin are a mismatched pair of buddies on the run from a crowd of angry fans in television's next hit comedy, "Second Stringers." Then tune in to find out how long it takes a Harvard man to work his way to the top of the depth chart on the hit reality series, "Ivy League Quarterback." NEXT: vs. NO
31. TEXANS 0-5 31 31 26 32 16
The offensive line has become a complete joke, and anybody can score 40 points against them if they just keep the ball away from wherever Dunta Robinson is. Week 15 tilt against Arizona could be lowest-rated game in history of FOX Sports. NEXT: vs. IND
32. 49ERS 1-4 32 32 32 30 4
Just when you think it couldn't get any worse, 49ers lose scrimmage to Euroleague champion Maccabi Tel Aviv during bye week. NEXT: at WAS

Still, while it's nice that Miami has played some good teams, what the heck are they doing ahead of the Denver Broncos? In large part, it all goes back to Miami's 34-10 win over the Broncos on opening day.

Remove that game, and both teams look a lot different. Denver's total DVOA would shoot up from 7.6 percent to 22.6 percent, which would put them seventh for the year between Seattle and Pittsburgh. Miami's total DVOA would drop from 15.1 percent to 0.8 percent, which would tie them with Kansas City at number 18.

The problem is that you can't pretend that the Week 1 loss did not happen. It did happen. We can say we think it was a fluke, but nearly every team in the NFL has at least one bad loss this season. Remove every team's worst game from its rating, and Denver moves all the way up from 13th to 12th, a whopping one spot.

Of course, the Miami upset was the first week of the season. Since Denver has played so much better since, doesn't that make it clear that the game was a fluke? Perhaps, but if we're going to give the Broncos the benefit of that doubt, we have to give it to every other team as well. Do you think Seattle is the best team in the NFC? They are if you remove their opening day loss to Jacksonville -- without that game, they rank third in the league in DVOA. Remove Tennessee's opening day loss to Pittsburgh, and they move into the top half of the league.

So how many weeks have to go by before we can say that Miami's upset was just that -- a random upset, not indicative of how good the Dolphins and Broncos really are? We've actually studied that, and the answer is "eight weeks." Beginning after Week 9, these rankings become more predictive if you begin to lower the importance of early games. If Denver doesn't have another big loss before then, they'll shoot up the rankings at that point because we can be more confident in their consistency.

Meanwhile, in between shooting off angry e-mails to be full of misspelled curse words, Denver fans need to consider that their team has some very clear flaws. Duane Starks isn't going to be covering their receivers in every game this year.

For example, back in that first loss, Miami was only up 6-3 at halftime before they ran away with the game in the second half. Denver still has problems after halftime, and they let both Washington and New England back into each of their last two wins to make them a lot closer than they needed to be. Take a look at this table, which shows Denver's DVOA rating split into the first and second half, along with rank among the 32 teams. (To understand this table, people new to my writing need to know that DVOA for defense is better when it is negative, because this represents fewer yards and first downs.)


DENVER BRONCOS
Half Offense Rank Defense Rank
First Half 25.9% 4 -6.2% 13
Second Half -5.0% 19 6.2% 25



Denver currently ranks 25th in offensive DVOA inside the red zone, and 28th in defensive DVOA inside the red zone. Long Tatum Bell runs sure help bypass the former, but they won't help the Broncos get around their defensive problems.

The Broncos are also going to have to convert a third down once in a while. Denver ranks 30th in offensive DVOA on third downs, just ahead of those powerhouses in San Francisco and Houston. What makes their failure to convert third downs even more problematic is the fact that, because of their great running game, Denver faces an average of just 6.2 yards to go on third downs, the third-lowest number in the NFL.

A win in New York against the Giants would certainly do a lot to help Denver's objective statistical rating. A loss, ironically, would probably not drop their statistical rating as long as it was close, but it would hurt the team's standing in the subjective eyes of all the other power rankings out there.

[minibronco]

NFL TOP 12, by www.nfl.com

1. Indianapolis (6-0; unchanged): It doesn't seem fair that the Colts can dominate on both sides of the ball, but that's why they're the best team in the league.

2. Denver (5-1; unchanged): It took five weeks for the Broncos to be reminded that Jake Plummer can be a pretty good quarterback.

3. Cincinnati (5-1; 5): With big-play defense complementing big-time quarterbacking by Carson Palmer, the Bengals are hard to beat.

4. Tampa Bay (5-1; 6): Michael Pittman picked up the slack at running back; now it's up to Chris Simms to do the same at quarterback.

5. Jacksonville (4-2; 7): The Jaguars get to rest with the comfort of successive hard-fought victories over Cincinnati and Pittsburgh.

6. San Diego (3-3; unranked): As long as the Chargers let LaDainian Tomlinson do his running-catching-throwing thing, they'll continue to surge.

7. New England (3-3; 3): Even the Patriots have a hard time competing with no running game and not much of a defense.

8. Atlanta (4-2; unchanged): An electrified Monday Night Football crowd in the Georgia Dome should make the job of the Falcons defense that much easier vs. Vinny and the Jets.

9. Pittsburgh (3-2; 4): The Steelers can't get Ben Roethlisberger back healthy soon enough.

10. Dallas (4-2; 12): Back-to-back NFC East wins are impressive, but the Cowboys defense is in for a stern challenge at Seattle.

11. Philadelphia (3-2; 9): It doesn't get any easier for the Eagles with the Chargers coming to town.

12. Seattle (4-2; unranked): Shaun Alexander and the Seahawks could run away with the NFC West.



2005 Power Rankings: Week 7, by ESPN.com
RK (LW) TEAM REC COMMENT
1 (1) Colts 6-0-0 Colts put up highest point total of the season against the Rams, but again, it was the defense leading the way.
2 (2) Broncos 5-1-0 Who would have ever thought that the Broncos would have one of the NFL's best defensive lines with four castoffs from Cleveland?
3 (5) Bengals 5-1-0 Carson Palmer had his ninth straight game with a passer rating of 100.0 or better, tying Indianapolis' Peyton Manning for the league record.
4 (7) Falcons 4-2-0 He's never going to put up the yards of the top-echelon backs, but Warrick Dunn is certainly on that level.
5 (9) Buccaneers 5-1-0 Joey Galloway (31 receptions for 499 yards and four TDs) has been huge for the Bucs this year. But will that continue with Chris Simms at QB?
6 (6) Eagles 3-2-0 The bad news just keeps rolling in: DE Jerome McDougle is out for the season.
7 (14) Cowboys 4-2-0 There was a lot of ugly to it, but at the end of the day the Cowboys jumped to 4-2 and first in the NFC East.
8 (3) Steelers 3-2-0 Anyone think all Ben Roethlisberger does is manage games? If anyone needed it, Sunday was a pretty good example of how much better the Steelers are with Big Ben behind center.
9 (8) Chargers 3-3-0 LaDainian Tomlinson is just fun to watch. There's a chance he's going to do something special every night.
10 (12) Jaguars 4-2-0 The Jags definitely give the extra effort. They're 3-0 in overtime during the past two seasons.
11 (16) Seahawks 4-2-0 Shaun Alexander just finds the end zone. From 2001-2004 he's scored between 16-20 TDs every year and he's well on his way this year with 12 scores through six games.
12 (4) Patriots 3-3-0 Duane Starks is the guy who got burned (twice), but he's just one part of a Patriots secondary that hasn't been able to overcome the loss of Rodney Harrison.
13 (13) Panthers 4-2-0 Even though Steve Smith still led the way, the Panthers finally did a good job of getting their other WRs involved.
14 (10) Giants 3-2-0 Second-guessing is natural, but it's hard to rip the Giants for giving a 6-foot-4, 265-pound back the ball in a goal-line situation.
15 (15) Chiefs 3-2-0 So much for Willie Roaf's return making life better for Tony Gonzalez. The TE caught just two passes for 13 yards.
16 (11) Redskins 3-2-0 What do you think the odds were that Mark Brunell to Santana Moss would be one of the NFL's top QB/WR combos?
17 (19) Bills 3-3-0 After stumbling out of the gate, the Bills are suddenly 3-3 and right back in the race in the weaker-than-expected AFC East.
18 (18) Bears 2-3-0 Bad knee or not, Thomas Jones (89 yards rushing and two TDs) just isn't going to give Cedric Benson the chance to take any of his carries.
19 (18) Rams 2-4-0 Rams got off to a great start against the Colts, but it was pretty much over as soon as Marc Bulger went down with a shoulder injury.
20 (17) Dolphins 2-3-0 Ricky didn't pick a great team to make his comeback against. The Bucs are No. 1 in the NFL against the rush, giving up just 62 yards per game.
21 (30) Ravens 2-3-0 Maybe instead of waiting for Jamal Lewis to find his legs the Ravens need to start getting Chester Taylor the ball more.
22 (20) Jets 2-4-0 Curtis Martin's first big game of the year (148 yards on 18 carries) wasn't enough to get the Jets a much-needed win in Buffalo.
23 (23) Lions 2-3-0 It seems inevitable that the Joey Harrington era in Detroit is getting close to coming to an unhappy ending.
24 (22) Titans 2-4-0 Just what an already ailing offense needs: Drew Bennett being ruled out indefinitely following shoulder surgery.
25 (21) Browns 2-3-0 Domination at the hands of the struggling Ravens is not the type of effort Romeo Crennel anticipated coming off the bye week.
26 (26) Packers 1-4-0 Three games under .500, but just one game out of first place. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
27 (28) Saints 2-4-0 It's gonna cost him a few bucks, but we're guessing sounding off on the refs following the Saints' loss to the Falcons probably made Jim Haslett feel a little better. Of course, it didn't change the fact that the Saints lost.
28 (29) Cardinals 1-4-0 Dennis Green isn't naming his starting QB, but based on what he did in the last two games, it has to be Josh McCown.
29 (24) Raiders 1-4-0 Randy Moss goes down. Team drops to 1-4. Uh, is there another 4-12, 5-11 season on the horizon?
30 (25) Vikings 1-4-0 Yuck. What else can you really say besides that? Both on the field and off it.
31 (31) 49ers 1-4-0 Last in defense; 31st in offense. Thank God for the Texans.
32 (32) Texans 0-5-0 When you're averaging 215.8 yards per game and just 10.8 points, you're probably going to be 0-5.


NBA'S BOTTOM TWELVE, as by www.sportsline.com

18 Philadelphia 76ers 14
There are lots of 'ifs' associated with the squad, from Chris Webber's durability to the continued maturation of Samuel Dalembert and Andre Iguodala. The potential for a breakout season is there.
PRIMER
19 Minnesota Timberwolves 17
Although a new backcourt and a new coach are in place, it's hard to say Minnesota will be significantly better than they were last year. Perhaps 2004's trip to the Western Conference finals was an aberration after all.
PRIMER
20 New York Knicks 24
If Larry Brown can't help Isiah Thomas get this ship righted, it's hard to imagine anyone can. There are some solid pieces in place, but immediate success shouldn't be expected.
PRIMER
21 Boston Celtics 10
The Celtics are rebuiliding with an eye on immediate success, but don't let last year's division title fool you -- rebuilding is rebuilding is rebuilding.
PRIMER
22 Milwaukee Bucks 25
From the return of T.J. Ford to the debut of Andrew Bogut, the once-boring Bucks will have plenty of themes worth monitoring.
PRIMER
23 Orlando Magic 23
A happier Steve Francis, healthier Grant Hill and an improved Dwight Howard should translate into more success, but the preseason goal of a playoff berth still seems far-fetched.
PRIMER
24 L.A. Clippers 20
Depth will be a concern, but more optimism surrounds this season than any other the Clips have had this decade.
PRIMER
25 L.A. Lakers 21
Jack Nicholson's in for a long season. But if he likes gossip and drama, he should at least be entertained.
PRIMER
26 Atlanta Hawks 30
The process of bringing Joe Johnson over from Phoenix was ugly, but there's nothing ugly about his ability to score points from the perimeter. He'll join forces with a young roster that includes the No. 2 overall pick, Marvin Williams.
PRIMER
27 New Orleans Hornets 29
The Chris Paul era is under way. He's an exciting young point guard who will breathe life into a rebuilding effort. Jamaal Magloire and Arvydas Macijauskas add a zesty kick.
PRIMER
28 Toronto Raptors 22
Jalen Rose provides veteran leadership, while Chris Bosh represents the face of the future. Will the trade that sent Rafer Alston to Toronto for Mike James pay off?
PRIMER
29 Portland Trail Blazers 26
Is youngster Sebastian Telfair ready to lead this team? Is Zach Randolph ready to go after March knee surgery? New coach Nate McMillan will have a lot of questions to answer as the new season approaches.
PRIMER
30 Charlotte Bobcats 28
Emeka Okafor is the new leader of this team, and he'll have more support with the additions of Sean May and Raymond Felton. The re-signings of Kareem Rush, Gerald Wallace and Brevin Knight offer more depth.
PRIMER

[ZachKC]

Orange Mane - Power Rankins Center Of The Information Super Highway!!!!

[minibronco]

Orange Mane - Power Rankins Center Of The Information Super Highway!!!!

YOU SAID IT!

[Dr. Broncenstein]

The fact one loss accounts for so much..... yet 5 wins against teams that rank higher than us count for so little.... reminds me of why I don't give a **** about power rankings... but I must admit that I'd rather be ranked 13 on some a-hole's list than #2....

[minibronco]

The fact one loss accounts for so much..... yet 5 wins against teams that rank higher than us count for so little.... reminds me of why I don't give a **** about power rankings... but I must admit that I'd rather be ranked 13 on some a-hole's list than #2....

better to be underrated than overrated. that's for sure.

[Ratboy]

lol, 12th.

[24champ]

Meanwhile, in between shooting off angry e-mails to be full of misspelled curse words, Denver fans need to consider that their team has some very clear flaws. Duane Starks isn't going to be covering their receivers in every game this year.

:hitself: yeah talk about flaws buddy look at your own damn poll, you have 3 teams we beat ahead of us! what a fvcking idiot! :pity:

[watermock]

The crow eating fest is starting....

Who would have ever thought that the Broncos would have one of the NFL's best defensive lines with four castoffs from Cleveland?

Certainly not your stupid melon. There were alot here that loved "The Plan" as it unfolded, and we have a truckload of draft picks.

I said three months ago these clowns would be eating crow or worse, and they are finally figuring out how stupid they are. Well...kinda...

BTW....how is Cleveland doing this year?

[-Slap-]

Quote:
Meanwhile, in between shooting off angry e-mails to be full of misspelled curse words...

Hard to believe someone who's paid to write for a living could craft a sentence so poorly. Also ironic that he's criticizing others for their grasp of the language at the same time.

[minibronco]

Good Lord!

Aaron Schatz : Idiot :: Snow : Cold

[DarkHorse30]

Good Lord!

Aaron Schatz : Idiot :: Snow : Cold

Right on the money. Schatz thinks that Bill James sabremetrics (sp?) can be applied to football. And then he talks about DVOA while IGNORING The strength of the defense teams are playing.

[DomCasual]

Every time Football Outsiders posts their rankings, it is like they are preemptively justifying where they have put the Broncos.

How am I ever going to be able to sleep tonight, with this kind of ranking? If only we had lost a few more games, so that we could be ranked a little higher!

[Raidersbane]

I dare anyone to bet the house using the DVOA as their meter.......

[maven]

Denver is 5-1 and if they were 32nd in power rankings I could care less.

[yavoon]

I dare anyone to bet the house using the DVOA as their meter.......

outsiders has an entire article on betting with it(tho it was never made for betting).

[Lidderer]

I dare anyone to bet the house using the DVOA as their meter.......


ya and actually it works sort of well.

here were the best dvoa bets for last week:
1. Chicago -3
2. Chicago/Minn UNDER 37.5
3. Seattle -9
4. Pitt/Jax OVER 34
5. Cleveland +6
6. Pittsburgh -3
7. Cincy -3
8. Cleveland/Bal OVER 34.5
9. KC/Was OVER 43
10. Sea/Hou OVER 46
11. Car/Det UNDER 41.5
12. TB/Mia UNDER 35

They went 8-4, or 66%, or Retirement percentage.

[yavoon]

After six weeks, two teams were miles ahead of the rest of the league. Those two teams, New England and Philadelphia, eventually met in the Super Bowl.

The highest-ranked team without a winning record was San Diego, ranked ninth with a record of 3-3. The Chargers went 11-1 over the rest of the season.

The highest-ranked team with a losing record was Buffalo, ranked 12th despite a record of 1-4. They went 8-3 over the rest of the season. Right behind them you'll find Kansas City, ranked 13th despite a record of 1-4. They went 6-5 over the rest of the season.

The lowest-ranked team without a losing record was Cleveland, ranked 22nd with a record of 3-3. The Browns lost their next nine games in a row.

Three other teams rank in the lower half of the league despite winning records: Minnesota (4-1, 17th), Detroit (3-2, 18th), and St. Louis (4-2, 20th). Each of those teams had a losing record for the remainder of the year.

[Lidderer]

After six weeks, two teams were miles ahead of the rest of the league. Those two teams, New England and Philadelphia, eventually met in the Super Bowl.

The highest-ranked team without a winning record was San Diego, ranked ninth with a record of 3-3. The Chargers went 11-1 over the rest of the season.

The highest-ranked team with a losing record was Buffalo, ranked 12th despite a record of 1-4. They went 8-3 over the rest of the season. Right behind them you'll find Kansas City, ranked 13th despite a record of 1-4. They went 6-5 over the rest of the season.

The lowest-ranked team without a losing record was Cleveland, ranked 22nd with a record of 3-3. The Browns lost their next nine games in a row.

Three other teams rank in the lower half of the league despite winning records: Minnesota (4-1, 17th), Detroit (3-2, 18th), and St. Louis (4-2, 20th). Each of those teams had a losing record for the remainder of the year.


so we're gonna swoon again basically

[yavoon]

so we're gonna swoon again basically

well there are things dvoa misses(most notably future schedule and injuries). I just think it should be pointed out that its not so bad either. certainly more credible IMO than everyone just shuffling ppl up and down the rankings every week(which is pretty much what other power rankings do).

[Lidderer]

well there are things dvoa misses(most notably future schedule and injuries). I just think it should be pointed out that its not so bad either. certainly more credible IMO than everyone just shuffling ppl up and down the rankings every week(which is pretty much what other power rankings do).

ftr: I've been frequenting their site for the last 2 years and am probably the biggest proponent of F.O. on this board aside from you. So ya, I agree. Plus, they do seem to be going out of their way to explain the denver ranking, which suggests they're also somewhat concerned about its validity.

[Raidersbane]

ya and actually it works sort of well.

here were the best dvoa bets for last week:
1. Chicago -3
2. Chicago/Minn UNDER 37.5
3. Seattle -9
4. Pitt/Jax OVER 34
5. Cleveland +6
6. Pittsburgh -3
7. Cincy -3
8. Cleveland/Bal OVER 34.5
9. KC/Was OVER 43
10. Sea/Hou OVER 46
11. Car/Det UNDER 41.5
12. TB/Mia UNDER 35

They went 8-4, or 66%, or Retirement percentage.

So thousands of people must be killiing the bookies right now.........I suggest you get a bank loan and become a millionare.

[DarkHorse30]

ftr: I've been frequenting their site for the last 2 years and am probably the biggest proponent of F.O. on this board aside from you. So ya, I agree. Plus, they do seem to be going out of their way to explain the denver ranking, which suggests they're also somewhat concerned about its validity.

Well, if they fail to see that they've missed the boat....but keep ranking Denver down the scale because of one terrible game, then they aren't really worth paying attention to, IMO.

If you're into fantasy football, maybe a site like FO is the way to go, but they really look like a buncha hacks when they keep apologizing for their Denver ranking...every week. So, eventually Denver will lose a game.....and they'll be right? Brilliant!

I disagree with the math-stat-method of judging football, as opposed to baseball. There are too many variables, the most obvious one being turnovers and scoring on defense. Baseball has nothing to compare to that one stat.....yet it is likely the biggest reason for wins and losses. Denver is plus 6 on turnovers and FO is completely overlooking this....why? Because they can't find their own keister with both hands and a map...that's why.

[azbroncfan]

No team has ever won anything due to power rankings. I hope denver is overlooked by the KC's and SD's of the league.

[ZachKC]

No team has ever won anything due to power rankings. I hope denver is overlooked by the KC's and SD's of the league.
What on earth could make KC overlook Denver and vice versa.

[ludo21]

No team has ever won anything due to power rankings. I hope denver is overlooked by the KC's and SD's of the league.


me too.

Being 12th on PR is no problem for me. I like being down there. We are #2 on every list and should be, but sure sux we cant fly under the radar any more.


The Charger ranking is correct tho, especially according to the Wichita Theory....;D

[westcliffe]

It has been said before and I will say it again. I could care less about anyone's rankings. As long as the Broncos win I will be happy and if someone ranks them lower or higher than I think they deserve, who cares??

[Darkdoc]

Power rankings? Media accounts?

Too many people here want to be recognized by the national press and sports writers. Whatsa matter? Feeling insignificant and unappreciated?

Well let it go, get some reality in life.

Our team is winning. And also based in reality, is the truth that the Broncos still have some weak spots that could come back to haunt us. But if they keep winning, somehow, someway, I don't care if the rest of the country recognizes the team. It's OUR team, and we can love them anyway.

Enjoy what we have - I don't remember anyone, even posters on this site, putting us at 5-1 at this point in the season. It's great for Bronco fans. Don't spoil your enjoyment of this by worrying about power rankings and the media.

[Lidderer]

Well, if they fail to see that they've missed the boat....but keep ranking Denver down the scale because of one terrible game, then they aren't really worth paying attention to, IMO.

If you're into fantasy football, maybe a site like FO is the way to go, but they really look like a buncha hacks when they keep apologizing for their Denver ranking...every week. So, eventually Denver will lose a game.....and they'll be right? Brilliant!

I disagree with the math-stat-method of judging football, as opposed to baseball. There are too many variables, the most obvious one being turnovers and scoring on defense. Baseball has nothing to compare to that one stat.....yet it is likely the biggest reason for wins and losses. Denver is plus 6 on turnovers and FO is completely overlooking this....why? Because they can't find their own keister with both hands and a map...that's why.


1. look at yavoon's post 4 before this one.
2. FO has almost nothing to do with fantasy football; you keep saying it does, but it makes no sense. Last year Lamont Jordan was the best runner with DVOA, and that guy probably tallied 22 fantasy points all year, so stop labelling them as something they clearly aren't.
3. The fact that they don't just change denver's ranking speaks to their intergrity, and their faith in their system. Also, they do note that if Denver plays well through week 9 that the lose to miami will no longer reflect in the rankings(this doesn't mean they go undefeated, either).
4. Turnovers, by and large, are lucky. Especially fumbles recovered, which we've had our fair share of. FO tries to look past that kind of fortune.
5. Read the explanation of DVOA. Now read it again.
6. Keep reading.

[DomCasual]

3. The fact that they don't just change denver's ranking speaks to their intergrity, and their faith in their system. Also, they do note that if Denver plays well through week 9 that the lose to miami will no longer reflect in the rankings(this doesn't mean they go undefeated, either).
4. Turnovers, by and large, are lucky. Especially fumbles recovered, which we've had our fair share of. FO tries to look past that kind of fortune.

3) The comments about Miami are what cost them the most credibility, in my book. Tell me, does their statistical analysis take into account the temperature and humidity the day of the game? Does it take into account the bizarre aversion the Broncos have to winning in Miami? Does it take into account Miami's historical record in the month of September?

All of those things affect the outcome of the game - significantly affect it! So, unless they have come up with some way to measure intangibles (which, by nature, would render them no longer intangibles), then I say their rankings are beyond seriously flawed.

The '85 Bears went into Miami and got soundly defeated. I suppose they would have been ranked #12 with DVOA, as well?

4) Turnovers are lucky? Wow. You should probably spend less time plugging through statistics and more time watching football. Turnovers are not lucky.

[Lidderer]

3) The comments about Miami are what cost them the most credibility, in my book. Tell me, does their statistical analysis take into account the temperature and humidity the day of the game? Does it take into account the bizarre aversion the Broncos have to winning in Miami? Does it take into account Miami's historical record in the month of September?

All of those things affect the outcome of the game - significantly affect it! So, unless they have come up with some way to measure intangibles (which, by nature, would render them no longer intangibles), then I say their rankings are beyond seriously flawed.

The '85 Bears went into Miami and got soundly defeated. I suppose they would have been ranked #12 with DVOA, as well?

4) Turnovers are lucky? Wow. You should probably spend less time plugging through statistics and more time watching football. Turnovers are not lucky.


3. Oh, so you were the guy after the miami loss who thought we were probably gonna be 5-1 come week 7. Good call.

Plus, how can one take into account "the bizzare aversion"? Are you really suggesting that cbs, cnnsi, espn, etc., are thinking to themselves whilst 'power-ranking': "hmm, ya know, denver DID lose to Miami, but given the temperature, that peculiar thing about how the broncs lose to the fins, and miami's historic record, I think I'm gonna put denver at 2 instead of 3."?

4. RECOVERING a fumble is a matter of luck. Sure, if a guy makes a key strip and hustles to the ball it's not luck, but by and large whether or not the D falls on a loose ball is a matter of luck(bounce, placement of players, etc.). Instead of spending all your time watching football you should maybe read a little bit about the sport.

[yavoon]

Well, if they fail to see that they've missed the boat....but keep ranking Denver down the scale because of one terrible game, then they aren't really worth paying attention to, IMO.

If you're into fantasy football, maybe a site like FO is the way to go, but they really look like a buncha hacks when they keep apologizing for their Denver ranking...every week. So, eventually Denver will lose a game.....and they'll be right? Brilliant!

I disagree with the math-stat-method of judging football, as opposed to baseball. There are too many variables, the most obvious one being turnovers and scoring on defense. Baseball has nothing to compare to that one stat.....yet it is likely the biggest reason for wins and losses. Denver is plus 6 on turnovers and FO is completely overlooking this....why? Because they can't find their own keister with both hands and a map...that's why.


did they look like hacks last year ranking minnesota at 17th w/ a 4-1 record. or keeping carolina up in the rankings w/ a 1-7 record. thats ur problem is u think the rankings MUST reflect the win/loss record.

also outsiders is so much more complex than fantasy football that its comical.

[DomCasual]

3. Oh, so you were the guy after the miami loss who thought we were probably gonna be 5-1 come week 7. Good call.
Actually, I don't recall making any predictions, but I was in here rambling on and on about how it was an anomaly, and how the season wasn't over based upon one game. You can go back and verify it, if you'd like. I was even labeled, on more than one occasion, a homer. To which I replied (in reference to the label under my avatar), "Well, duh!"

Plus, how can one take into account "the bizzare aversion"? Are you really suggesting that cbs, cnnsi, espn, etc., are thinking to themselves whilst 'power-ranking': "hmm, ya know, denver DID lose to Miami, but given the temperature, that peculiar thing about how the broncs lose to the fins, and miami's historic record, I think I'm gonna put denver at 2 instead of 3."?
Well, that is exactly my point. You CAN'T take it into account - with statistics. At least with opinion-based rankings, you can consider it - even if it is in the deep recesses of your mind.

And we aren't talking about a difference between 2 and 3. We are talking about a difference between 2 and 12. It's ludicrous.

4. RECOVERING a fumble is a matter of luck. Sure, if a guy makes a key strip and hustles to the ball it's not luck, but by and large whether or not the D falls on a loose ball is a matter of luck(bounce, placement of players, etc.). Instead of spending all your time watching football you should maybe read a little bit about the sport.
Okay, I disagree with this. But let's say, for argument's sake, that recovering a fumble is based upon luck; and thus, over time, it becomes something of a 50-50 proposition. Then the team with the most fumble recoveries is the team that causes the most fumbles. By your analysis, causing fumbles is a skill-based proposition. As such, "turnovers, by and large, are lucky," as you originally said, is completely inaccurate.

And, by the way, recovering fumbles is not lucky. If you've played football at any level - from Pop Warner to the pros - you know that. It's about coaching and practice. Some teams go through fumble drills at some point during every practice.

[Lidderer]

1. Actually, I don't recall making any predictions, but I was in here rambling on and on about how it was an anomaly"


2. Well, that is exactly my point. You CAN'T take it into account - with statistics. At least with opinion-based rankings, you can consider it - even if it is in the deep recesses of your mind.


3.And, by the way, recovering fumbles is not lucky.

1. So you were that rare guy amongst many who claimed that the public perception was wrong? Hmmm.

2.There was mention that if you erased denver's worst game and erased the worst game of all other teams you'd still have denver ranked only 12th. I obviously don't think denver is only the 13th best team, but to disregard their model outright because of this seems a bit odd. Also, outside of that KC game we haven't really blown anyone away, and the games could have gone the other way just as easily. The stats take into account every play, and this seems something oft-overlooked.

3. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=202&cat=1

[DarkHorse30]

1. look at yavoon's post 4 before this one.
2. FO has almost nothing to do with fantasy football; you keep saying it does, but it makes no sense. Last year Lamont Jordan was the best runner with DVOA, and that guy probably tallied 22 fantasy points all year, so stop labelling them as something they clearly aren't.
3. The fact that they don't just change denver's ranking speaks to their intergrity, and their faith in their system. Also, they do note that if Denver plays well through week 9 that the lose to miami will no longer reflect in the rankings(this doesn't mean they go undefeated, either).
4. Turnovers, by and large, are lucky. Especially fumbles recovered, which we've had our fair share of. FO tries to look past that kind of fortune.
5. Read the explanation of DVOA. Now read it again.
6. Keep reading.

I'm ignoring yavoon, sorry.

Look, you think FO is great...I don't. Turnovers may be "lucky"....but you don't win many games if you don't win the turnover battle. FO chooses which stats to overlook....and I think they miss the completely obvious ones. DVOA ignores that Denver has played and won more games against tough defenses than any other team....yet their ranked near the bottom half? Again...Brilliant.

Any fool knows that Denver has played one of the toughest schedules in football and has won more games against top-10 opponents (with good defenses) than any other team. So, you've got this FO hack that wants to deny what everybody else can see.....because of a loss AT Miami? Carolina also lost at miami (oops, but they were an NFC SB pick) ....and miami is 2-0 at home.....and Denver rarely wins at Miami.....yet FO makes that loss the crux of their whole issue. Duckin' Fum if you asked me...

[Lidderer]

I'm ignoring yavoon, sorry.

Look, you think FO is great...I don't. Turnovers may be "lucky"....but you don't win many games if you don't win the turnover battle. FO chooses which stats to overlook....and I think they miss the completely obvious ones. DVOA ignores that Denver has played and won more games against tough defenses than any other team....yet their ranked near the bottom half? Again...Brilliant.

Any fool knows that Denver has played one of the toughest schedules in football and has won more games against top-10 opponents (with good defenses) than any other team. So, you've got this FO hack that wants to deny what everybody else can see.....because of a loss AT Miami? Carolina also lost at miami (oops, but they were an NFC SB pick) ....and miami is 2-0 at home.....and Denver rarely wins at Miami.....yet FO makes that loss the crux of their whole issue. Duckin' Fum if you asked me...

1. The panthers are ranked 15th.
2. While we have played some good Ds, our offense hasn't exaclty done anything special against them. Our best O output was vs a NE squad that has more holes than terrence kiel. Sd has an awful pass D(Bailey scored a TD for us), we got basically 2 runs vs washington, and while I'm content with the performance vs jax, it was a team that had already given up some big run games this year.
4. yes, you don't win many games unless you win the turnover battle. And since turnovers are somewhat lucky, the thinking is that we might not have won those games were it not for some fortunate fumble recoveries(no one is saying INTs are luck, btw)

[DomCasual]

1. So you were that rare guy amongst many who claimed that the public perception was wrong? Hmmm.

2.There was mention that if you erased denver's worst game and erased the worst game of all other teams you'd still have denver ranked only 12th. I obviously don't think denver is only the 13th best team, but to disregard their model outright because of this seems a bit odd. Also, outside of that KC game we haven't really blown anyone away, and the games could have gone the other way just as easily. The stats take into account every play, and this seems something oft-overlooked.

3. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=202&cat=1
1) It's easy to verify. Go back and do a search using my name and the date range of the week after the Miami game. You might argue that I was still optimistic because I am a fan, and you might be right in that argument. Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that they have, indeed, played pretty well since that game.

2) I would argue that the Jacksonville game was a route, in that Jacksonville got nothing going, and never made any realistic run at the game.

3) So you are replying to my criticism about a source that isn't credible with more commentary from the same source? Seriously?

[Arkie]

Enjoy what we have - I don't remember anyone, even posters on this site, putting us at 5-1 at this point in the season. It's great for Bronco fans. Don't spoil your enjoyment of this by worrying about power rankings and the media.

We should have beat Miami, but then again, we were supposed to lose to Jacksonville. We are supposed to be 5-1. I went down the schedule after the preseason, and I had them at 5-1 with the only loss coming against Jacksonville. I thought the 2nd loss will come against the Giants, and the Broncos will finish 11-5.

[Lidderer]

1) It's easy to verify. Go back and do a search using my name and the date range of the week after the Miami game. You might argue that I was still optimistic because I am a fan, and you might be right in that argument. Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that they have, indeed, played pretty well since that game.

2) I would argue that the Jacksonville game was a route, in that Jacksonville got nothing going, and never made any realistic run at the game.

3) So you are replying to my criticism about a source that isn't credible with more commentary from the same source? Seriously?


1. You're missing my point. You're saying that you felt the loss to miami was not that important, meanwhile everyone else was disgusted and feeling like this was a harbinger of things to come. The public perception was doom and gloom. You saw it in a different light. Does this not sound familiar? Is this not the very same case as people lambasting F.O. because they are taking a different stance? I'm sure you did say that the game was an anomaly. But really, that only strengthens the point.

2. Okay.

3. Because you said the source is not credible(and your reasons for this are sketchy and a bit lame) does not mean it's not credible. Take this for example: Jimmy says DomCasual is always wrong. DomCasual replies "No, I'm not". Jimmy says "omg wtf DomCasual, that proves my point!".

[DomCasual]

1. You're missing my point. You're saying that you felt the loss to miami was not that important, meanwhile everyone else was disgusted and feeling like this was a harbinger of things to come. The public perception was doom and gloom. You saw it in a different light. Does this not sound familiar? Is this not the very same case as people lambasting F.O. because they are taking a different stance? I'm sure you did say that the game was an anomaly. But really, that only strengthens the point.

2. Okay.

3. Because you said the source is not credible(and your reasons for this are sketchy and a bit lame) does not mean it's not credible. Take this for example: Jimmy says DomCasual is always wrong. DomCasual replies "No, I'm not". Jimmy says "omg wtf DomCasual, that proves my point!".
I think we just disagree on this. I appreciate your making the argument - because you obviously have justification as to why you feel as you do. But I just don't see it the same way.

So we just agree to disagree, I guess.

Even though my position makes more sense.

Bastard. ;D

[Lidderer]

I think we just disagree on this. I appreciate your making the argument - because you obviously have justification as to why you feel as you do. But I just don't see it the same way.

So we just agree to disagree, I guess.

Even though my position makes more sense.

Bastard. ;D

the only way your position makes more sense is if I fumble.

regardless: we both agree that denver is a top 5 team.

[yavoon]

I'm ignoring yavoon, sorry.

Look, you think FO is great...I don't. Turnovers may be "lucky"....but you don't win many games if you don't win the turnover battle. FO chooses which stats to overlook....and I think they miss the completely obvious ones. DVOA ignores that Denver has played and won more games against tough defenses than any other team....yet their ranked near the bottom half? Again...Brilliant.

Any fool knows that Denver has played one of the toughest schedules in football and has won more games against top-10 opponents (with good defenses) than any other team. So, you've got this FO hack that wants to deny what everybody else can see.....because of a loss AT Miami? Carolina also lost at miami (oops, but they were an NFC SB pick) ....and miami is 2-0 at home.....and Denver rarely wins at Miami.....yet FO makes that loss the crux of their whole issue. Duckin' Fum if you asked me...

man u can't read. 1)FO sez fumble recoveries, not turnovers are based mostly on luck. and 2)FO never said that the miami game is the sole reason for denver being low, lidderer and I have both pointed out that if u removed EVERYONE'S worst game denver only moves up one spot.

[DarkHorse30]

1. The panthers are ranked 15th.
2. While we have played some good Ds, our offense hasn't exaclty done anything special against them. Our best O output was vs a NE squad that has more holes than terrence kiel. Sd has an awful pass D(Bailey scored a TD for us), we got basically 2 runs vs washington, and while I'm content with the performance vs jax, it was a team that had already given up some big run games this year.
4. yes, you don't win many games unless you win the turnover battle. And since turnovers are somewhat lucky, the thinking is that we might not have won those games were it not for some fortunate fumble recoveries(no one is saying INTs are luck, btw)

So...."anything special" against a good D means what? Winning? Not turning the ball over? That's why I kept mentioning fantasy football, because it seemed that "performing" against good defenses doesn't always mean having your QB jacking up the statboard. Plummers low numbers are what is driving FOs ranking......just what it looks like to me. Also, creating fumbles is a skill...whether you recognize it or not. And this stat has become a huge part of the game.....but FO ignores it....while concentrating on Denver's mediocre second half performance VERSUS MIAMI AT THE END OF THE FREAKIN' SUMMER!

Sorry Lid, but these comments don't wash with me. I respect your opinion of FO, but I don't hold the same opinions.

It's hilarious to me that FO ranks the Giants at #5...and then says that face a stiff challenge from a team that can run and stop the run.....Gee, why is that Aaron? Hmmmmm.....running and stopping the run......seems like the way to win a few football games.

We could debate this all day, but the bottom line is that you like FO...I think their opinions belong in the round file.

[yavoon]

So...."anything special" against a good D means what? Winning? Not turning the ball over? That's why I kept mentioning fantasy football, because it seemed that "performing" against good defenses doesn't always mean having your QB jacking up the statboard. Plummers low numbers are what is driving FOs ranking......just what it looks like to me. Also, creating fumbles is a skill...whether you recognize it or not. And this stat has become a huge part of the game.....but FO ignores it....while concentrating on Denver's mediocre second half performance VERSUS MIAMI AT THE END OF THE FREAKIN' SUMMER!

Sorry Lid, but these comments don't wash with me. I respect your opinion of FO, but I don't hold the same opinions.

It's hilarious to me that FO ranks the Giants at #5...and then says that face a stiff challenge from a team that can run and stop the run.....Gee, why is that Aaron? Hmmmmm.....running and stopping the run......seems like the way to win a few football games.

We could debate this all day, but the bottom line is that you like FO...I think their opinions belong in the round file.


still a retard. FO never said creating fumbles wasn't a skill, u have a reading disorder. also it appears u have absolutely no concept of how FO calculates its dvoa and appear to think that because plummer didnt have a 300 yard game that is why the broncos are down in the rankings.

[Merlin]

1)FO sez fumble recoveries, not turnovers are based mostly on luck.
Yavoon,
You know (and they should know) enough stastics to know this is not entirely true. There are teams that are good at fumble recoveries and there are teams that are poor at it. A simple statistical analysis would show that the Bucs SB team was much better at fumble recoveries than Denver last year. It has to do with how defenses are designed to create and pursue fumbles. Does that mean a team can predictably know it will recover a fumble? No, but you can see probabilities that would indicate certain types of Defense are more likely to recover it than others.

[yavoon]

Yavoon,
You know (and they should know) enough stastics to know this is not entirely true. There are teams that are good at fumble recoveries and there are teams that are poor at it. A simple statistical analysis would show that the Bucs SB team was much better at fumble recoveries than Denver last year. It has to do with how defenses are designed to create and pursue fumbles. Does that mean a team can predictably know it will recover a fumble? No, but you can see probabilities that would indicate certain types of Defense are more likely to recover it than others.

the sample size is too small to say that(in other words the bucs SB team had too few chances to recover/not recover fumbles to say one way or the other). and even if its partially true u could use an approximation. it is very possible to get a string of 6's rolling a dice but it does not mean that u r better at rolling 6's. just statistically that is one of the possibilities, just like statistically it is possible for a team(especially over a shorter period of time) to come up w/ a large amt of the fumbles.

I would off the top of my head say whichever team caused more fumbles in their secondary would probably recover the most. I mean u can try and break this down, but its likely u wont arrive at anything statistically meaningful.

[Merlin]

the sample size is too small to say that(in other words the bucs SB team had too few chances to recover/not recover fumbles to say one way or the other)... I would off the top of my head say whichever team caused more fumbles in their secondary would probably recover the most. I mean u can try and break this down, but its likely u wont arrive at anything statistically meaningful.
I agree that the sample size is small, but you could take a number of teams that have had excellent records and displayed similar styles and then compare them to teams that don't. If you honestly think what you are suggesting would not be statistically meaningful, do a thought experiment. Are there styles of D that are more conducive to producing fumbles? The answer is a simple yes. Are there players that historically have been associated with fumble recoveries and others that have not? Again the answer is yes. Do the players that fall into each grouping share certain playing characteristics? Again the answer is yes. As you can see, it is not pure luck. Yes there is an element of luck, but there is also an element of design.

[yavoon]

I agree that the sample size is small, but you could take a number of teams that have had excellent records and displayed similar styles and then compare them to teams that don't. If you honestly think what you are suggesting would not be statistically meaningful, do a thought experiment. Are there styles of D that are more conducive to producing fumbles? The answer is a simple yes. Are there players that historically have been associated with fumble recoveries and others that have not? Again the answer is yes. Do the players that fall into each grouping share certain playing characteristics? Again the answer is yes. As you can see, it is not pure luck. Yes there is an element of luck, but there is also an element of design.

we are not talking about the number of fumbles produced. but the probability that any particular fumble is recovered. sorry if u didnt get that. and honestly there are a lot of anecdotal associations that have never held statistical merrit, for example espn did a thing on theories of what wins games in the postseason for baseball and the vast majority of them were more or less statistically insignificant.

[Merlin]

we are not talking about the number of fumbles produced. but the probability that any particular fumble is recovered. sorry if u didnt get that.
So was I. But I'm also suggesting that Defenses that are geared to producing them and use certain types of players are more likely to recover fumbles.

[DomCasual]

we are not talking about the number of fumbles produced. but the probability that any particular fumble is recovered. sorry if u didnt get that. and honestly there are a lot of anecdotal associations that have never held statistical merrit, for example espn did a thing on theories of what wins games in the postseason for baseball and the vast majority of them were more or less statistically insignificant.
Okay, I can't believe I have sucked myself into this again, but I have to disagree with at least this one point.

In the most simple terms, let me give you a comparison. You have two players going for a fumble. One has been coached to "smother" the football, then get up and run with it only after it is in his possession. The other has been coached to try and scoop up the football while he is still on his feet (not that any coach would ever teach this). The one who smothers the football is going to get the fumble far more often than the one that scoops it.

Take that a step further. Two players are going for a fumble. One plays for a team that spends ten minutes every practice on fumble drills. The other practices them once every week or so. Who is going to be more likely to get the fumble?

There is an element of luck to it, because the football is odd-shaped, and can bounce unpredictably. But beyond that element of luck, sound coaching and practice is what makes one team more likely to recover fumbles than the other. And whether you want to believe it or not, there is a disparity of sound coaching from one team to another in the NFL. Some teams are much more sound than others with fundamentals as simple as knowing how to go after a fumble.

[yavoon]

So was I. But I'm also suggesting that Defenses that are geared to producing them and use certain types of players are more likely to recover fumbles.


like I said its possible u could try to look into that but my bet is u would not find anything statistically significant in it.

[yavoon]

Okay, I can't believe I have sucked myself into this again, but I have to disagree with at least this one point.

In the most simple terms, let me give you a comparison. You have two players going for a fumble. One has been coached to "smother" the football, then get up and run with it only after it is in his possession. The other has been coached to try and scoop up the football while he is still on his feet (not that any coach would ever teach this). The one who smothers the football is going to get the fumble far more often than the one that scoops it.

Take that a step further. Two players are going for a fumble. One plays for a team that spends ten minutes every practice on fumble drills. The other practices them once every week or so. Who is going to be more likely to get the fumble?

There is an element of luck to it, because the football is odd-shaped, and can bounce unpredictably. But beyond that element of luck, sound coaching and practice is what makes one team more likely to recover fumbles than the other. And whether you want to believe it or not, there is a disparity of sound coaching from one team to another in the NFL. Some teams are much more sound than others with fundamentals as simple as knowing how to go after a fumble.


but is any of this statistically significant. what if one player has been coached to smother it and the other to pick it up but the other is randy moss? what coaches in the league dont teach their big men to smother fumbles?

like I said to merlin u could try and break this down but my guess is if u did real statistical analysis u would have a hard time seeing anything but random data. its all well and good to stand out here in qualitative land and say things like "coaching" and "innate player skill." but when u have to start staring at sheets of numbers u quickly realize its hard to discern all things.

[DomCasual]

but is any of this statistically significant. what if one player has been coached to smother it and the other to pick it up but the other is randy moss? what coaches in the league dont teach their big men to smother fumbles?

like I said to merlin u could try and break this down but my guess is if u did real statistical analysis u would have a hard time seeing anything but random data. its all well and good to stand out here in qualitative land and say things like "coaching" and "innate player skill." but when u have to start staring at sheets of numbers u quickly realize its hard to discern all things.
I think it would be statistically significant, although I am only speculating (No one has that data, that I know of.)

You should be right that every coach should teach his players the proper way to recover a fumble. But every year, there are teams who are more fundamentally sound than others. Some teams tackle better, have less penalties, etc. (Penalties is a good one, because it is easily quantifiable.) Some coaching staffs just stress fundamentals better than others, and recovering fumbles is one of those fundamentals.

It would be interesting to look at, say, the last ten years of fumbles caused and fumbles recovered, by defense. I would bet that you would see a significant difference between the top and the bottom teams. And generally, the yearly statistics would follow the same outline as the ten-year numbers. In other words, for the most part, the same teams would be at the top and the same teams would be at the bottom, year in and year out.

Now, go ahead and do that, and let me know what you come up with.

[DarkHorse30]

I'm waiting for the FO crew to say something like..."Well, the final score is statistically insignificant. You can't really gauge anything on the results of a football game....except the stats we choose not to ignore."

[DomCasual]

I'm waiting for the FO crew to say something like..."Well, the final score is statistically insignificant. You can't really gauge anything on the results of a football game....except the stats we choose not to ignore."
I said after last week's rankings that we should just do away with the playoffs and Super Bowl. Play 16 weeks and have these guys award the Lombardi Trophy, is what I say!

Your 2005 World Champions: The Houston Texans!

[azbroncfan]

What on earth could make KC overlook Denver and vice versa.
Not by the teams and fans but the media. ESPN has picked KC every year for past 10 or some stupid number to win superbowl. Blueprint for superbowl yeah I'm tired of hearing that F@@@@ing story. SD yeah they are a threat but they have 3 losses too.

[Jens1893]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/dr_z/10/19/ranks.week7/index.html

dr z strikes

[Atlas]

After six weeks, two teams were miles ahead of the rest of the league. Those two teams, New England and Philadelphia, eventually met in the Super Bowl.

The highest-ranked team without a winning record was San Diego, ranked ninth with a record of 3-3. The Chargers went 11-1 over the rest of the season.

The highest-ranked team with a losing record was Buffalo, ranked 12th despite a record of 1-4. They went 8-3 over the rest of the season. Right behind them you'll find Kansas City, ranked 13th despite a record of 1-4. They went 6-5 over the rest of the season.

The lowest-ranked team without a losing record was Cleveland, ranked 22nd with a record of 3-3. The Browns lost their next nine games in a row.

Three other teams rank in the lower half of the league despite winning records: Minnesota (4-1, 17th), Detroit (3-2, 18th), and St. Louis (4-2, 20th). Each of those teams had a losing record for the remainder of the year.

Wow good find yavoon

[DomCasual]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/dr_z/10/19/ranks.week7/index.html

dr z strikes
What in the hell is with the comments he makes after each team? Some of them look like they came out of some sort of crazy Dr. Z magic 8-ball. "Against the Patriots they found the long ball. It was disguised as a salami."

Huh? Are you dipping into the hallucinogens again?

Seriously, some columnists just get to a point where they lose sight of their own insignificance. They almost become their own Saturday Night Live skit - probably best played by Will Ferrell. Who gives a crap about what your friggen wife told you last night in your friggen post-coital bliss. I don't care where you had a great cup of coffee last week, or which airport gate agent was rude to you.

I'm glad I could get all this off my chest.

Bastards.

[watermock]

Well, I for one don't miss the Shyster's food reviews. He's certainly been quiet. I doubt he really loves Salami...seems like to would upset his tender tummy that seems to want mother's milk.

[DomCasual]

Well, I for one don't miss the Shyster's food reviews. He's certainly been quiet. I doubt he really loves Salami...seems like to would upset his tender tummy that seems to want mother's milk.
This is exactly what I am talking about. What possessed him to all of a sudden decide he was going to bless us with his feelings about food? Is there anyone that is reading a football column, when they all of a sudden think, "Gosh, this guy really knows his X's and O's. I wish I knew what he thought of Miguel's Beanery in Castle Rock?"

[watermock]

This is exactly what I am talking about. What possessed him to all of a sudden decide he was going to bless us with his feelings about food? Is there anyone that is reading a football column, when they all of a sudden think, "Gosh, this guy really knows his X's and O's. I wish I knew what he thought of Miguel's Beanery in Castle Rock?"

Shyster was well known for his inability to handle mexican food. I'm not sure he could handle a steak with a dash of A-1. Remember when he had to go to the hospital after barely finishing the Boston Marathon when he had semi renal failure from dehydration on the flight back? Just maybe he shouldn't of been wearing a fleece jumpsuit and might of considered drinking a little gatorade or water from a stand along the way. It's not like the guy was a contender! Sheesh! Speaking of mothers milk...he's probably lactose intolerant as well. He always sounded like someone that would prefer french food.

[yavoon]

I think it would be statistically significant, although I am only speculating (No one has that data, that I know of.)

You should be right that every coach should teach his players the proper way to recover a fumble. But every year, there are teams who are more fundamentally sound than others. Some teams tackle better, have less penalties, etc. (Penalties is a good one, because it is easily quantifiable.) Some coaching staffs just stress fundamentals better than others, and recovering fumbles is one of those fundamentals.

It would be interesting to look at, say, the last ten years of fumbles caused and fumbles recovered, by defense. I would bet that you would see a significant difference between the top and the bottom teams. And generally, the yearly statistics would follow the same outline as the ten-year numbers. In other words, for the most part, the same teams would be at the top and the same teams would be at the bottom, year in and year out.

Now, go ahead and do that, and let me know what you come up with.


that would be of zero use. that would only correlate teams that have already won w/ recovering fumbles(if it were true). thats like working off the answer. u'd need to find out WHAT makes them recover more fumbles(certainly having more wins than losses does not cause u to recover more fumbles).