The problem with most power rankings is that once you get out of the top 10 it becomes next to impossible to distinguish who’s better than whom. I mean, how do you decide between six, fringe, playoff teams (or even worse, 10 non-playoff teams) who are all within a couple of games of each other?
I'll leave that to the experts, like Pete Prisco...
...sorry, I couldn't even type that with a straight face.
I’ll be checking in with a couple more of these before the start of the regular season, but I'm not sure of the schedule as of yet. It depends on how much the list changes between now and the regular season.
Once the regular season starts, I’ll be updating the Power 10 every Wednesday.
1 (-) Patriots 16-0
I still think the Chargers are going to be the best team in the NFL this season, but they have to knock the Patriots off the AFC mountain before they can claim the top spot in the Power 10.
The Patriots’ signing of top pick Jerod Mayo is big—if only because I expect the rookie to get a ton of playing time in the middle with Tedy Bruschi getting a little long in the tooth. Training camp will be interesting.
If someone from that secondary doesn’t step up, it could be a long season for the back-end of the Patriots’ defense. On paper, the secondary is definitely their Achilles heel.
2 (-) Chargers 11-5
The Chargers have the Colts’ number, otherwise it would be Indy in the two spot. I have to admit, I hadn’t really put much thought into what the loss of backup running back Michael Turner would mean to LaDainian Tomlinson. His early-season workload will be something to keep an eye on.
As last year proved, if LT’s not healthy come playoff time, the Super Bowl dream ends with him sulking on the sidelines.
3 (-) Colts 13-3
Peyton Manning is going to miss the preseason after an oddly-timed surgery to remove an infected bursa sac from his knee.
He should return for the season opener, but the question is whether or not he’ll have Marvin Harrison to throw the ball to. Harrison missed most of last season with injuries, and he still has some legal issues hanging over his head since one of his guns mysteriously shot someone (or something like that).
Once healthy, Manning is going to need all of his weapons if he’s going to compete with the likes of the Patriots and Chargers.
4 (-) Cowboys 13-3
I forget where I read it, but apparently Wade Phillips isn’t the only Dallas Cowboy who has a history of losing in the playoffs.
We all know what happened in Tony Romo’s first two playoff games in a Dallas uniform. What you may not know is that when he was in college, his team (Eastern Illinois) lost each of its three first-round games in the Division I-AA playoffs.
So, to recap, the Cowboys have a head coach and a starting quarterback who both consistently come up small on the biggest stage.
My guess is that Dallas isn’t exactly looking forward to January.
5 (-) Jaguars 11-5
I liked the signing of Jerry Porter. It’s easy to second-guess the move considering his lack of production and off-field issues in Oakland.
Then again, I know another WR who had issues in Oakland...and he turned out OK.
The fact that he had to undergo surgery to repair a torn hamstring and is going to miss at least the preseason makes the move look even worse, but the Jags needed offensive help.
Their offense is, at times, slow and painful. They needed a receiving threat to take some of the pressure off the running game.
The Jags might be in the top four in the AFC. The problem is they play in the same division as the third best team in the AFC.
6 (-) Giants 10-6
Talk about a lack of respect. You win the Super Bowl, and in the very first edition of the Power 10, you’re not only the second NFC team on the list, but you’re the sixth overall team.
Well, yes.
The Giants still have an erratic quarterback, a defense that lost some key players this offseason, a head coach who’s a complete whack-job when things aren’t going well, and a star wide receiver that is unhappy with his contract situation.
But hey, at least they traded Shockey before the draft for a second and a fifth-round draft pick so they could fill some of those defensive holes this season, right?
What?
They held out for more?
What did they end up getting?
A second next season and a fifth the season after that?
Brilliant.
7 (-) Browns 10-6
It’s now or never for the Browns. For the first time since they returned to the NFL, they’re primed for a playoff run. They have good coaching, an explosive offense, a decent defense, and enough talent to keep the Steelers at bay.
Their lone weak spot is the quarterback position.
I’m sorry, but Derek Anderson throws too many interceptions for my liking. When you’re a borderline playoff team in a conference like the AFC, one bad interception may be the difference between playing and watching football come January.
8 (-) Steelers 10-6
I read a preview of the Steelers that claimed their unsettled ownership situation was going to effect the team and could end up costing them in what should be a close race with the Browns.
That’s complete hogwash.
Unless the checks start bouncing, the ownership situation isn’t going to impact anything. Who cares who owns the team?
9 (-) Packers 13-3
It’ll be interesting to see what the Packers get for Brett Favre.
I have no inside information, but I’m going to guess that they’ll have some type of deal worked out before Favre submits his reinstatement papers.
There’s no point in bringing him back as a backup—that would be WAY too much pressure to put on Aaron Rodgers, who’s already in a no-win situation.
It’s amazing that the Packers are fielding a team that’s favored to be one of the better teams in the NFC, yet they currently sit more than $30 million under the salary cap.
10 (-) Redskins 9-7
The Redskins leaped into the Power 10 with their tremendous trade for Jason Taylor. Taylor gives the Redskins' defense a playmaker like they haven’t had in a long time. Their defense is good enough to get them to the playoffs in a weak NFC.
Their offense, specifically their quarterback, is still a problem. But that’s a common theme in the NFC. Devin Thomas going down with a hamstring injury is an ominous beginning for an offense that has everything to prove.
Just Missed: Titans, Seahawks, Vikings
Dropped Out: Nobody
Sean Crowe is a Senior Writer and an NFL Community Leader at Bleacher Report. You can email him at scrowe@gmail.com. His archive can be found here. You can find everything he writes, including articles for other publications, here.
comments (50) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
I have an issue with pre-season power rankings. Shouldn't the team who won the Super Bowl the previous year be on top? I think they should be automatic number one. They are the team to beat, because they won it all last year.
That doesn't mean, however, that they will be the best this year. That, my friend, is where you hit the nail on the head.
Great work, Sean.
from 2 months ago
This makes no sense whatsoever. The Giants can't be number one because they have already lost several players, and they have no foundation to suggest that they can sustain their succes, a la the Patriots, Colts, etc.
from 2 months ago
Did you even read the second part of my comment?
from 2 months ago
The giants absolutely thrive by people not respecting them and saying the Minnesota Vikings would be in the playoffs last year and look what happened... Giants bELIeve in what they can accomplish as a team... Plax really doesn't need to practice, he caught 12 TD last year and only practiced on the Wednesday before the week 17 showdown with the Pats, besides that he only practiced in August
from 2 months ago
So if the Dolphins won the super bowl last year would u put them #1?
from 2 months ago
Who cares if the Giants are number one? Six is fine. And any poll that calls the trade for Jason Taylor "tremendous" is probably not one to be taken seriously anyway. I'm thrilled to death that the rumors abour the Giants seeking Taylor didn't come to fruition. Let the Skins have his for a year or two, I'll take the draft picks instead. And the "weak" NFC? That's ridiculous. Try the "very strong" NFC East. The Skins have to compete in the best division is football and may very well not make it at all to the playoffs.
from 2 months ago
Osi,
You're right! What team would want a guy who's totaled 77.5 sacks, 33 forced fumbles, 4 interceptions, and three touchdowns since 2002? Did I mention he hasn't missed a game and won defensive player of the year two years ago?
But you're right...
Did I mention that 77.5 sacks is more than any two New York Giants over that same period?
Also, the NFC is extremely weak. The Patriots, Colts, and Chargers at a minimum are better than anyone in the NFC. The Steelers, Browns, and Jags are arguably better than anyone. The Bills, Jets, Raiders, Titans, Texans, and Broncos are all solid playoff teams in the NFC.
So, yes, the NFC is weak. The NFC East is strong ... compared to the rest of the NFC. No team from the NFC East would make the playoffs in the AFC, with the possible exception of the Cowboys.
from 2 months ago
Those stats on Taylor are heavily weighted to the back end and the 18.5 sacks he had in 2002 -- SIX years ago! The Giants' top sack guys weren't even playing then because they hadn't been drafted yet because they won't be 34 when the season starts. Like I said, let the Skins have the aging (expensive) free agent. I prefer the picks (and the cap space). Taylor's good but he was a panic move by Snyder after a couple of injuries.
As for the other part, about the whole AFC-NFC thing, I never said anything to compare the two conferences. You said "weak" NFC and I pointed out that regardless the Skins play in the very tough NFC East, which right there gives them a hard road. But since you opened the door, let me point out how laughable it is to say that the previously 4-12 Jets and Raiders are "solid" playoff teams in the NFC. They make a few personnel moves and now all the of a sudden they're playoff quality? That is astonishingly stupid, showing a very shallow understanding of the game. All the arguments you make around here are based on paper, as in "on paper" this team is better than that team. But in the end none of it matters anyway because they don't give out silver trophies will shiny footballs on top for talk.
from 2 months ago
And might I also point out that you say that "No team from the NFC East would make the playoffs in the AFC, with the possible exception of the Cowboys." Yet two of your top six teams are from the NFC EAST. So were you wrong to put two NFC East teams in your top six or were you talking out your butt when you said that?
from 2 months ago
It's amazing how completely off-base you are.
The last three seasons, Taylor has had 12, 13.5, and 11 sacks. He's also played all 16 games in all three seasons. He's shown absolutely no signs of falling off.
The people who argue "the game is played on the field" in the off-season are typically doing so because their team can't win based on talent. I completely agree, once you're on the field intangibles can take over. But in August, no team has developed those intangibles yet.
Last season, the Giants didn't develop them until week 17.
As I've said to you before, everything anyone says about the NFL in the off-season is based on how teams look on paper. Should we just refrain from discussing any teams until the season starts?
Your homerism is outstanding. I'm glad you support your team.
But, for the record, I've not picked the Patriots to win the AFC any more than I'm picking the Giants to win the NFC. I'm not basing anything on last season. I'm looking at the teams, as constituted, and picking who I think is going to win. You are blinded by that trophy that the team you hated last November ended up winning...forgetting the fact that you spent four months last season hating your coach, wanting to bench your QB, and convinced that your defense couldn't stop the Cowboys.....
from 2 months ago
Also, the NFC East teams are in the top six for the same reason the Patriots will remain in the top two all season long...they get to beat up on crappy competition all season long.
The Giants finished with the same record as the Browns last season. The Browns played a much tougher schedule. The Browns didn't make the playoffs. The Giants won the Super Bowl.
If the Giants played in the AFC they would not have made the playoffs, Eli would have been benched, and they'd be starting this season with a new head coach....
from 2 months ago
You really do talk out of your butt don't you. Do you even stop for one moment to check and see if what you're saying is correct? The Browns and Giants had five common opponents last year (the four AFC East teams plus San Fran) with identical results (they both went 4-1 in those games, losing only to NE). But do you want to take a guess what the combined record of their other 11 opponents was? C'MON, TAKE A GUESS!
Giants 99-77
Browns 77-99
That's right, the Giants opponents last year had TWENTY TWO more wins that the Browns did. 22!!! In non-common games the Giants played only three games against teams with losing records while Cleveland played six.
Yet the Browns played a "much tougher" schedule. HA! And before you come back with some dumb argument about how the Browns had it harder by virtue of the fact they're in the AFC go look at the schedules of the two teams. It's not even close. The Browns played creampuffs and in a mediocre division as well. And the Giants started the season with two losses and went 10-4 the rest of the way, or 14-4 if you count the playoffs.
None of which means the Giants deserve a higher ranking in your list up above. It's just more proof that you spew inaccuracies left and right and don't know what the heck you're talking about. How anyone could take you seriously is beyond me with your statements about the Browns record or brilliants comments about how the Raiders and Jets are both solid playoff teams if they're in the NFC. You're totally ridiculous.
And BTW, Taylor shows no signs of falling off (yet, and as long as you don't compare him to 2002), and he's a good player yes, but he's not worth the draft picks and money that Washington gave up for him in their "tremendous" trade.
The Giants played in a division where the other teams went 13-3, 9-7 and 8-8. The other teams in the Browns division went 10-6, 7-9 and 5-11. The Giants played six games against playoff teams while the Browns played four. Two of the Giants' losses came in the first two weeks of the season, so they went 10-4 and really 14-4 the rest of the way (and those two losses plus two out of the other four were avenged in the playoffs).
from 2 months ago
Are you kidding me?
So what you did last season was read the paper after every game. You obviously didn't watch any games.
This season, please, watch the games. And I don't just mean Giants games, I mean a sampling of all the teams. It'll make you come off a heck of a lot more intelligent in these conversations.
The top half of the AFC is on a different level than the top half of the NFC. Your Giants lucked out in that they were able to play against the one division in the AFC that rivals the NFC in awfulness, the AFC East.
Don't kid yourself. The AFC is so much better than the NFC right now it's not close. Yes, the Browns played a tougher schedule because they played in the AFC. Period.
You think the Mets are playing a tougher schedule than the Red Sox because the teams they've played have better records??? Wait...I'm sure you do. Never mind.
from 2 months ago
The Mets? I only like the Mets when they lose. I couldn't care less about the Mets.
You're so incredibly thick-headed that I'm running out of ways to say so in language that's acceptable to a site like Bleacher Report. Look at this, genius:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl07.htm
Those are USA Today's final computerized rankings for the 2007 season. One of the things they rate is difficulty of schedule. The Giants are #2. The Browns are #30.
TWO vs. THIRTY! Do you get it now? IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE! You are so lame. Just admit that maybe you made a mistake. I have no trouble saying that overall the AFC is better than the NFC. I don't care about that, I only root for a team not a conference. But you just come on here spewing all kinds of garbage, if you had a real editor you'd be fired by now.
from 2 months ago
BTW, note that the Skins and Beagles were ranked #1 and #3 on that list. And all the NFC East teams were ranked in the top nine for overall power rankings. The Browns are ranked 18 overall and their division leading Steelers were 14.
Now please, PLEASE, tell me again how the Browns had it tougher last year. PLEASE!
You just don't know what you're talking about. But you're prolific, I'll give you that. You don't know what you're talking about but you do it a lot.
from 2 months ago
Osi,
Strength of schedule looks at opponent's records. The Giants (and all of the NFC East) had a skewed strength of schedule because they played the 16-0 Patriots and the 13-3 Cowboys (twice). Those two teams added a combined 42 - 6 to their opponents' record.
They were also able to feast on the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins (who were all awful last season) as well as each other (the Redskins and Eagles were entirely mediocre, the Giants were terrible against good teams until the playoffs).
The Giants were 1-5 against playoff teams in the regular season last year. Even those numbers were skewed, because the Redskins were only a playoff team by default in the NFC.
Hardly a "tough" schedule.
from 2 months ago
What's the matter? You dropped the argument about the Browns? C'mon, don't you want to tell me that their schedule wasn't "skewed" because the toughest non-common opponent they played was only 10-6?
You didn't even read the link apparently, so once again you're talking total untrue garbage. The strength of schedule rankings are, according to the site, based on opponents' power ranking (NOT schedule, as you claim) and location of game played. So again you're wrong. You even missed the one valid argument that you could have made, which is that the final USA Today rankings take into account playoff games. So the Giants end-of-regular-season difficulty-of-schedule ranking was probably lower than 2, but it couldn't have been much lower because the rest of the division's was so high. Even the Beagles, who didn't go to the playoffs, were #3, and they of course played almost the same schedule as the Giants.
You see, I can respect an opinion. I disagree with you on the Taylor trade but so be it. But I can't respect someone who's just intellectually dishonest and pretends he's really some kind of expert.
And whether the Giants lost during the regular season to playoff teams has no bearing on whether their schedule was tough or not. It's either tough or it's not. They beat most of those teams when they counted.
from 2 months ago
Jason Taylor would have been a nice pickup for the Giants. Had Jeremy Shockey not called Bill Parcells a "homo" maybe they would have made that deal....I can live with the Shockey deal. It would have been better had they made it before this year's draft, but I'll take it. Addition by subtraction. Shockey is right up there as the biggest baby in sports. He acted like a child. The Giants are in camp with ZERO distractions. No Strahan drama, no Shockey bull$%# ...only Plaxico's demand for a raise, which will be addressed.
I don't like these lists. Cowboy fans should hate them. They are always at the top and they are the team that implodes, not the others. The last time they won a playoff game, Monica Lewinsky's blue dress was free of stains. Since then the Giants have gone to 2 Super Bowls and the Eagles one....
2 months ago
I think the Vikings should be 5th or 6th but then again.. I have a love for all things Adrian Peterson so maybe my vision is clouded.
I'm curious as to why you have the Redskins over the Vikings, and even the Eagles in their own division. You really think they're top ten? It's just... I haven't heard that from anyone this season and it's interesting.
Nice rankings though. I definitely agree about the Chargers being the better team but first proving they can knock off the Pats.
from 2 months ago
You haven't heard that from anyone because people automatically assume that new coach = bad team.
And what do you mean, "even the Eagles in their division"? The Eagles aren't the team to beat in the NFC East. I wouldn't be afraid to add an "at all" to the end of that sentence, either.
from 2 months ago
I know the Eagles aren't the team to beat trust me.. they may not even be 2nd.. but what I was saying is that I haven't seen or heard from anyone putting the Redskins at 3rd, ahead of the Eagles.
2 months ago
Its hard to argue against rankings before the pre-season even starts. I will say this, if you think there are that many teams behind the Skins, then the NFL is really watered down this year.
The Skins underachieve every year and the addition of Taylor was to offset the loss of Daniels. Jason Campbell has proven nothing to date.
from 2 months ago
Last year was his first full season as a starter. If only people were aware of this...
from 2 months ago
Tanner, everyone is aware of this! That's exactly the point! You can't deny that he hasn'e proven anything.
2 months ago
Nice to see that the most competitive division in football is getting some respect. The NFC East will be great to watch this season.
One thing I'm curious about is why so many people are picking the Vikings to be such a power this season. Everyone bashes the Skins because of Jason Campbell and yet the Vikings have Tavaris Jackson. He hasn't exactly lit it up during his career.
The Skins had a top ten defense last year and will most likely have one again while the Vikings struggle to stop the pass. They do have a phenomenal front seven though. Meanwhile the Vikings weapons are offense Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor. That's it. You have to generate some sort of a passing game or else a good defense will shut you down. See the Skins game last season where we stopped AD all day. I just don's see how the Vikings are the better team.
However I wouldn't really put the Skins in the top ten either, but they definitely seem better than the Vikings.
from 2 months ago
True, but the Vikings don't need a QB. They have Adrian "All Day" Peterson.
from 2 months ago
Vikings have arguably the best defense in the NFL (the reason they let up pass yards is because they have the best rush defense so all anyone tries to do is pass), arguably the best running back in the NFL, and arguably the best O-line in the NFL. The skins do not.
from 2 months ago
Chris,
The Vikings were ranked #32 against the pass. I would say they have arguably the best defense in the league. To be the best you have to stop the run and the pass. They aren't even arguably the best defense in football. They gave up 4225 yards through the air. Their defensive starters in the backfield had a combined 7 INTs in 2007. That is bad.
As for the passing game the Vikings gave up 38 sacks in 2007, the skins gave up 29 with the right side completely composed of backups. Peterson had 1341 yards albeit he missed time while Portis rushed for 1262 with the banged up O-line and injuries to himself as well. I wouldn't say the Vikings surpass the Skins in many categories. Just the RB position.
The Vikings have no balance while the Skins had a solid defense against the run and pass 16 against the pass and 4 against the run. Much more balanced. I would say the Skins are better team coming into 2008.
from 2 months ago
Btw the Skins were ranked 8th on total defense and the Vikings were 20th. That kinda says something right there.
2 months ago
no eagles?? the redskins over the eagles? come on, thats insane. and they're definitely NOT top 10 worthy. and theres no way the browns are that high.
from 2 months ago
agreed
2 months ago
Okay, I was going to comment on how foolish of a prediction it was to have the Pat go 16-0 again, but then i noticed that all those records are from last year, and not a prediction of this year.
from 2 months ago
Wow... Good observation.
from 2 months ago
yeah i know, i was a little slow this morning, sorry.
2 months ago
Hate to bust your bubble, but as to my Browns, it's hardly "now or never". This team has been steadily improving and adding talent since 2005 and is now poised for what promises to be a solid three-year window of competition in the postseason. And their defense is going to surprise many people this year, just as the offense did last year because "it all starts up front" to quote Mr. Belichick. So, your description of their D as "decent" falls a mile short. Last year, during training camp, I predicted the Browns would go 9-7 and was just about laughed out of town. This year, I'm predicting that their offense will be in the top 5 and the D will improve from 27th overall to somewhere around #10 overall. Finally, your Steeler analysis is defective in that you describe criticism of them as centering around the ownership situation. The real rap on the '08 Steelers has to do with an aging D line and an O line which, after losing two solid multi-year pro-bowlers in two consecutive seasons, has failed to replace either. The trench warfare in the AFC North is traditionally pretty tough and the Steeler O line should have plenty of trouble with the D lines of Cleveland and Baltimore. Their own D line starters and primary backups average over 30 years old and, while that's not old for a nuclear physicist, it's getting long in the tooth for a trench warrior. Don't be surprised is you see repeats of such things as Hamtpon's hamstring acting up on him or Aron Smith's pec not being completely healed. I think the Steelers are in for one long, tough grind this year and I just don't see their lines holding up under it. We play, we see, but folks called me nuts for my take on the '07 Browns and I will not back off my prediction for the '08 defense and thus for even a better year than last year for the Browns.
from 2 months ago
Yikes...
I'm higher than most on the Browns. Not sure where this came from. By "now or never" I meant the front office is likely to clean house if they don't make the playoffs this season.
However, I expect them TO make the playoffs this season....
2 months ago
Not a bad list, though I can't stand pre-season lists and rankings, especially in the NFL where things change so much year to year.
That being said...
I am not sold on all the Phillip Rivers is a superstar talk this preseason, if LT or Gates gets banged up they will trouble scoring. They are as good as the Pats and Jags but not the Colts.
The Colts as usaul fly under the radar, but they will contend as always, even if Harrison cant contribute. Wanye is the real threat, Marvin has become a K.Johnson short route guy. If Sanders and Freeny stay healthy they will have another 7-8 wins in a row like they have done the last 3-4 years.
The Browns D is anything but decent. After owning Anderson, Edwards and Winslow in fantasy, I watched almost every game last season and the D is worse than Cincy. Thay dont cover or pressure the passer amd when the O struggles they have no chance. They will give the Steelers a run in division, but they will not beat good teams.
The Skins are a huge question mark. Campbell has the tools but has not showed he gets it, and while Taylor is a great player he is weak against the run and they still have question marks in the secondary with an aging and unhappy Springs and a struggling youngster in Rodgers at corner. Zorn is an unknown and Campbell's big windup doesn't seem to fit the quick drop, short route offense Zorn likes to run.
NY will be decent but they struggled the entire regular season last season, and have several key players who are unhappy with contracts or mangement. They will contend for the wild card, but I don't know that the defense can keep up their elite play of the playoffs.
Dallas is clearly the class of the NFC (on paper) but we do have almost an entire new staff and with high expectations comes alot of pressure. We will win the east, and if Westbrook/McNabb stays healthy I look for the Eagles to finish second with another strong D.
The Packers are the top coice to fall off the radar. Farve's moxy and experiance help turn an average group of WR into a top offense. Grant can run but without the threat of a spread under Farve, will he be able to find the holes against stacked fronts? Rodgers played well for one half but no one knows what he will do. Even if Farve returns they are not a top 10 team.
Minninsota is solid but lack playmakers and AP can only do so much. TB is a sleeper if Garcia/Galloway are healthy, Garcia is a master in the West Coast and as much as I cant stand him, he wins games.
2 months ago
Patriots won't go 16-0 after losing both their starting cornerbacks.
Packers won't go 13-3 without Favre.
Browns and Steelers will have a hard time going 10-6 with their more than ridiculously hard schedules. Especially the Steelers, who play the Chargers and Patriots.
I'm not so sure 9-7 is good enough to get into the playoffs in the NFC anymore. The conference has been slowly improving.
I think the Jaguars are better than 11-5.
from 2 months ago
Oh my goodness.
2 months ago
Firstly, no one needs to make another bonehead comment contesting the records mentioned in the pre-season rankings because they AREN'T part of the predictions.
Secondly, how in the world do you justify stating that the Brown's weakness is at quarterback when they indeed have two starting quarterbacks? Derek Anderson? Brady Quinn?
2 months ago
Vinny I was just pointing out in my post that the Vikings have to have some sort of passing game or they will be shut down by good defenses. The Skins did it to them last year. Read the whole post.
2 months ago
Great article, Sean. I was wondering, what is your take on the Carolina Panthers this season. Please put a post on my bulletin board with your answer.
2 months ago
On principle I gave you one star. Power rankings are useless, and preseason ones especially so.
2 months ago
Hmmm, I wonder where the Bears are on your list. Obviously 11th. Nice job, maybe an article with the teams 11th through 32nd. Also, just pointing out that my Bears thing is a joke, I really don't see the Bears as 11th, they are 12th.
2 months ago
LOL! The Chargers Super Bowl dreams ended with an injured Antonio Gates, Philip Rivers, Nate Kaeding, Jamal Williams, AND Tomlinson. Not just Tomlinson. Get real. Hell if just Nate Kaeding (he of the 20 yard kickoffs) was healthy, the Chargers could have won it. When Tedy "Soles of Stone" Bruschi is is covering Antonio Gates one on one in the red zone and being effective doing it... You know that ain't right.
I still think that the world needed to see those sore losers Tom Brady and Bill Belichick get beat by the Rex Grossman of the NFC East to show us all that cheaters never win (at least not 4 times). :) Just kidding.
from 2 months ago
If Tomlinson's healthy, the Chargers beat the Patriots...even with the other injuries.
The Rex Grossman of the NFC East...lol
from 2 months ago
You are right about cry-baby Brady. When I watched them beating Joe Gibb's Redskins by 3 touchdowns and Brady throwing pump-fake bombs late in the game, that made me a hater! How come Peyton Manning's in every third commercial you see in Brady's in NONE? He even had his teeth porcelained!!!
2 months ago
I have heard the argument quite a bit about the Giants being the best team because they won the Super Bowl. They had a hell of a run and won the last game of the season but that does not make the m "the best" team. Hence the six losses and allowing more than 30 points five times. Not taking anything away from them, that last game was a hell of a game.
The Patriots lost the last game of the season but they were the better (best) "team" last season. Other than Stallworth riding an bike on the sidelines in Cleveland now rather than New England there isn't enough change on that offense to think they won't keep clicking. Maybe not like they were but even if Brady throws 15 less TD's he still has 35. The secondary took some hits and the LB's are another year older so the D will be a little different.
Enough babble...you get my point. I would have more of a beef with the Browns being as high as they are.
2 months ago
Too much faith in the Steelers. Big Ben has been the product of a fantastic offensive line. Last year the line wasn't so fantastic and Ben was mediocre. This year their line will be even weaker and so will Ben's performance.
2 months ago
By the way, the Brown's have the best tandem of quarterbacks in the league. Their weakness is at cornerback. Both starters are very young and very short. I think their corners are both well under 6'. That is a BIG problem. Without a pass-rush, they'll have to score plenty against a team with big receivers.
write a new comment