Back when PFT did their "Power Rankings" they ranked the Packers as the 31st team in the league. Second worst, only worse than the Bills. They gave their reasons (which I thought were moronic) so I accepted their ranking. I have seen rankings just like that for the Packers and have gotten used to people underestimating them.
But now it sounds like they're changing their tune. They have the Packers going 7-9 on the season and finishing 3rd in the division. They have 11 teams ranked worse than them, which, by my math (which I'll admit is sketchy at times) puts them, at worst, as the 21st ranked team in the league. Thats a little bit far from the 31st team, don't ya think? In addition to the 11 worse teams than them, there are 4 teams with equal records. So again, at worst, they are the 21st team in the league and at best they are the 17th ranked team in the league.
Didn't I get laughed at when I ranked the Packers as the 15th team in the league?? But it's ok for PFT to rank them as one of the best-worst teams in the league??
Kansas City was ranked 14th in the power rankings, but they are going to finish the season with the same record as the 31st ranked Packers? Same for the Giants who were ranked at #11. Washington was in at #8, but yet, they still tie with the 31st ranked Packers.
I don't know, it makes me question how they do their rankings and their analysis. It's just amazing to me that in just 2 months, as team could improve from 2nd worst in the league to almost top half of the league, but a Top 10 team like Washington, could slide from #8 to 17-21 in just a month.
those were pre-season rankings....maybe instead of Green Bay being so much "better" in his eyes....maybe some teams are just looking worse than previously expected....I can think of 5 or 6 that have been worse than I expected
lost in iowa wrote: those were pre-season rankings....maybe instead of Green Bay being so much "better" in his eyes....maybe some teams are just looking worse than previously expected....I can think of 5 or 6 that have been worse than I expected
A grand total of two teams have played in regular season and yet 5 or 6 or not what you expected? Please dont tell me you base this off of preseason action.
And another thing, are not all predictions "pre-season"?
Sounds to me that either A) PFT needs to go back and reorganized its preseason ranks to match the records or B) Re-Read there "pre-season" rankings before deciding on how the games will turn out.
those were pre-season rankings....maybe instead of Green Bay being so much "better" in his eyes....maybe some teams are just looking worse than previously expected....I can think of 5 or 6 that have been worse than I expected
A grand total of two teams have played in regular season and yet 5 or 6 or not what you expected? Please dont tell me you base this off of preseason action.
And another thing, are not all predictions "pre-season"?
Sounds to me that either A) PFT needs to go back and reorganized its preseason ranks to match the records or B) Re-Read there "pre-season" rankings before deciding on how the games will turn out.
Thats what I was trying to say. It is still preseason, only two teams have actually played. I just want to know how they are justifying moving the Packers so far up the rankings and then moving a team like the steelers or redskins so far down. When something that actually matters happens (like a real game) then I will judge the teams.
Nothing says that Green Bay went from 31st to 20th, just that Mike's OPINION of Green Bay went from 31st to 20th.
Relax, breathe.
Yeah but what is he basing his opinions on? What made Green Bay suddenly get so much better? Did he just randomly assign season records to teams and not really evaluate the teams, or he did a half a$$ job evaluating teams in his "Power Rankings"? Something tells me it's a little of both.
Just because he has has them going 7-9 doesn't mean that he thinks they are better than the 31 rank he gave them. Just means they have favorable matchups during the season.
Just because he has has them going 7-9 doesn't mean that he thinks they are better than the 31 rank he gave them. Just means they have favorable matchups during the season.
If they are 7-9, and there are 11 teams with worse records, then that means they're not the 2nd worst team in the league. That's how rankings work. You rank from best to worst, using their season record as the measure of how good they are. If the worst team is 3-13 and the best team was 13-3 (or whatever it was), and there are 11 teams closer to 3-13 than the Packers, then that must mean he thinks they are better than those 11 teams.
Saying 30 teams are better than your team, means he thinks that 20 other teams could beat that team.
The schedule came out in what, June? He knew then what matchups the Packers had. He knew what "favorable" matchups they had. If they were so bad and the 31st ranked team, then the favorable matchups should have been with the teams facing the Packers (except the Bills).
okay...call the rankings pre-preseason....they came out before preseason games. While the outcome of preseason games mean nothing, the play in them does. Some teams didn't look as good as people assumed, therefore thier rating was higher before the preseason than any predictions made after pre-season games....maybe the Packers looked slightly (1 or 2 spots)better than anticipated and other teams looked worse
Just because he has has them going 7-9 doesn't mean that he thinks they are better than the 31 rank he gave them. Just means they have favorable matchups during the season.
If they are 7-9, and there are 11 teams with worse records, then that means they're not the 2nd worst team in the league. That's how rankings work. You rank from best to worst, using their season record as the measure of how good they are. If the worst team is 3-13 and the best team was 13-3 (or whatever it was), and there are 11 teams closer to 3-13 than the Packers, then that must mean he thinks they are better than those 11 teams.
Saying 30 teams are better than your team, means he thinks that 20 other teams could beat that team.
The schedule came out in what, June? He knew then what matchups the Packers had. He knew what "favorable" matchups they had. If they were so bad and the 31st ranked team, then the favorable matchups should have been with the teams facing the Packers (except the Bills).
-- Edited by Grave Digger at 18:25, 2006-09-08
By that logic, the 32nd ranked team should have zero wins because every team they will play is better? I don't think I've ever seen a prediction publication where a team was thought to have zero wins in the season.
What I want to know is if PFT has the BALLS to show its weekly predictions based on what they generated the team records with? I am not talking about having them pick winners/loser weekly. I am talking about the current list they have.
If they have predicted all 256 nfl games, let see them.
