ESPN Power Rankings

[safariguy5]

Well Alex Smith has been in the league long enough, and I think he's terrible. The reality is that ability does not always dictate longevity in the league. If I were the GM of the Raiders, I would have cut Russell after 1 season, let alone 3.

So do I think Rex Grossman is a starter caliber QB? No. Is he better than John Beck? Yes. So yes, he beat out the competition, but to say he's even a league average QB is being overly generous. He just had the good fortune of competing against someone worse than he is.

[Crazyirishman]

As somebody pointed out to me earlier, Smith has had a different OC every year he's been in the league to that doesnt help his cause> and the Saint didnt start very well but kept fighting ans had a shot at the end

[spurgistan]

I'd bet that Stafford plays at least 12 games this season and that the Lions make the playoffs if he get's at least 12 games in. So I'd bump up Detroit a bit.

As for the redskins, an unexciting QB, unexciting WR's outside of Santana Moss, a TE coming back from injury, and not a real intimidating Defense. So, no, not impressed. If Grossman was a half decent quarterback, he's been in the league long enough by now to have showcased that.

I think Jackson is too inconsistent at QB to justify the Seahawks being ranked higher than Arizona. Fitzgerald may only be 1 man, but Kolb is a couple of tiers above Jackson in my book.

As for my 49er's, I'd love to be more optimistic, but I'd be very happy if they went 6-10 this year. If Alex Smith was worthy of being a #1 Pick, he's had enough chances to prove it. If the Niners sign Garrard, then I'd give them an outside shot at contending for the division. Otherwise, better luck next year.

Just so you know, and I'm not saying he's good or anything, but Grossman was half decent enough to take the Bears to the Super Bowl in 2006 (or 05, can't remember), and he's been in the league for about 7 or 8 seasons I think.

Could also be that they had a Top-5 defense that year and a solid running game. That's like giving Trent Dilfer credit for taking the Ravens to a Super Bowl: both he and Grossman did just enough not to lose the games.

Yea, but you could argue that he performed better than the other 4 defenses in the top 5.

Besides, the Bears has NO wide receivers.

Bears has? Come on, bro. Anyways, as a Bears fan - Grossman was a bust, but among the better quarterbacks the Bears have had. Sadly, it's not a huge compliment to say Cutler's the best we've had in a logn time.

[xxtig12683xx]

Well Alex Smith has been in the league long enough, and I think he's terrible. The reality is that ability does not always dictate longevity in the league. If I were the GM of the Raiders, I would have cut Russell after 1 season, let alone 3.

So do I think Rex Grossman is a starter caliber QB? No. Is he better than John Beck? Yes. So yes, he beat out the competition, but to say he's even a league average QB is being overly generous. He just had the good fortune of competing against someone worse than he is.

And thats why your not a GM, how can you give up on a prospect after one year?? Esp after you made him the number 1 pick...you can't. Now it turned out that he was a scrub but that's besides the point.

Being a die hard Niners fan, I could argue this to the death but as someone else mentioned 7 years 7 off. coord., how can anyone be expected to do well, not to mention that we have had one of the most dreadful O-lines in the league, and no real receivers. Also we have had two of the worst Head Coaches in the last 15 years. Smith has talent, not a great arm, but when protected has shown the ability to lead and win. This is his last shot for sure, but I expect 8-8 in the shitty excuse of a division.

To AOG, you must be drinking the lake water up there in LG, because your being a bitter Broncos fan to call Rivers overrated. I hate the guy but he is infinitely times better than anything that suits up in a Broncos uni.
66.0 comp % 4,710 yards 8.7ypc 30td 13int 101.8 rating

Any team in the league would take that season, but overrated right


-tig

[oVo]

No QB goes far without a decent offensive line to protect him
and it's no different for the Niners. Troy Aikman's career was
ended by a lacking O line and there's a few QBs out there this
season that could have a short year if some of the big guys
don't step up.

I'm hoping Detroit can keep Stafford on his feet
and let him actually play a full schedule for once.

Tony Romo's season ended with a missed block on a blitzer
and Drew Brees came close to the same thing last night.

[safariguy5]

Well Alex Smith has been in the league long enough, and I think he's terrible. The reality is that ability does not always dictate longevity in the league. If I were the GM of the Raiders, I would have cut Russell after 1 season, let alone 3.

So do I think Rex Grossman is a starter caliber QB? No. Is he better than John Beck? Yes. So yes, he beat out the competition, but to say he's even a league average QB is being overly generous. He just had the good fortune of competing against someone worse than he is.

And thats why your not a GM, how can you give up on a prospect after one year?? Esp after you made him the number 1 pick...you can't. Now it turned out that he was a scrub but that's besides the point.

Being a die hard Niners fan, I could argue this to the death but as someone else mentioned 7 years 7 off. coord., how can anyone be expected to do well, not to mention that we have had one of the most dreadful O-lines in the league, and no real receivers. Also we have had two of the worst Head Coaches in the last 15 years. Smith has talent, not a great arm, but when protected has shown the ability to lead and win. This is his last shot for sure, but I expect 8-8 in the shitty excuse of a division.

To AOG, you must be drinking the lake water up there in LG, because your being a bitter Broncos fan to call Rivers overrated. I hate the guy but he is infinitely times better than anything that suits up in a Broncos uni.
66.0 comp % 4,710 yards 8.7ypc 30td 13int 101.8 rating

Any team in the league would take that season, but overrated right


-tig

How? By not drafting Russell in the first place. Bad work ethic, overdependence on athleticism. Let's face it, Davis has gotten kinda erratic in his drafts in recent years.

As for Smith, I love my Niners too, but the man cannot play under center. He's decent out of shotgun, but how do expect to have a credible running game if he can't play under center? That's not something you can coach into him I think. I think the Niners should have signed McNabb in the offseason or made an offer for Orton or something. Alex Smith shows flashes of brilliance, but ultimately he's just a big tease.

[whitestazn88]

Well Alex Smith has been in the league long enough, and I think he's terrible. The reality is that ability does not always dictate longevity in the league. If I were the GM of the Raiders, I would have cut Russell after 1 season, let alone 3.

So do I think Rex Grossman is a starter caliber QB? No. Is he better than John Beck? Yes. So yes, he beat out the competition, but to say he's even a league average QB is being overly generous. He just had the good fortune of competing against someone worse than he is.

League average and half-decent, as you said he wasn't originally, are two completely different things. I've repeatedly said, he's not that good, but he's still above half-decent.

[safariguy5]

Well Alex Smith has been in the league long enough, and I think he's terrible. The reality is that ability does not always dictate longevity in the league. If I were the GM of the Raiders, I would have cut Russell after 1 season, let alone 3.

So do I think Rex Grossman is a starter caliber QB? No. Is he better than John Beck? Yes. So yes, he beat out the competition, but to say he's even a league average QB is being overly generous. He just had the good fortune of competing against someone worse than he is.

League average and half-decent, as you said he wasn't originally, are two completely different things. I've repeatedly said, he's not that good, but he's still above half-decent.

So ok, what is he then? Just for reference, I direct you to Football Outsider's QB ratings.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

Rex Grossman ranks in the bottom third for both metrics. Alex Smith is a little bit better, but not by much. So no, I'm going to have to revise my original assessment to below half decent.

[whitestazn88]

Well Alex Smith has been in the league long enough, and I think he's terrible. The reality is that ability does not always dictate longevity in the league. If I were the GM of the Raiders, I would have cut Russell after 1 season, let alone 3.

So do I think Rex Grossman is a starter caliber QB? No. Is he better than John Beck? Yes. So yes, he beat out the competition, but to say he's even a league average QB is being overly generous. He just had the good fortune of competing against someone worse than he is.

League average and half-decent, as you said he wasn't originally, are two completely different things. I've repeatedly said, he's not that good, but he's still above half-decent.

So ok, what is he then? Just for reference, I direct you to Football Outsider's QB ratings.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

Rex Grossman ranks in the bottom third for both metrics. Alex Smith is a little bit better, but not by much. So no, I'm going to have to revise my original assessment to below half decent.

You've proved your point. I accept defeat.

But we did get the win today, and the run game looked just as good as it did in the preseason (albeit against a banged up Giants defense).

[safariguy5]

Well Alex Smith has been in the league long enough, and I think he's terrible. The reality is that ability does not always dictate longevity in the league. If I were the GM of the Raiders, I would have cut Russell after 1 season, let alone 3.

So do I think Rex Grossman is a starter caliber QB? No. Is he better than John Beck? Yes. So yes, he beat out the competition, but to say he's even a league average QB is being overly generous. He just had the good fortune of competing against someone worse than he is.

League average and half-decent, as you said he wasn't originally, are two completely different things. I've repeatedly said, he's not that good, but he's still above half-decent.

So ok, what is he then? Just for reference, I direct you to Football Outsider's QB ratings.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

Rex Grossman ranks in the bottom third for both metrics. Alex Smith is a little bit better, but not by much. So no, I'm going to have to revise my original assessment to below half decent.

You've proved your point. I accept defeat.

But we did get the win today, and the run game looked just as good as it did in the preseason (albeit against a banged up Giants defense).

I concede that metrics aren't everything, and someone morphing into a good QB in 1 season is not unheard of.

Some decent Grossman propoganda here can't hurt either.

And the Redskins have a very winnable game next week, the Cards defense isn't anything special.

[whitestazn88]

And the Redskins have a very winnable game next week, the Cards defense isn't anything special.

LOL. You can say that again... Cam Newton was supposed to be some shithead horrible passer, and the dude put up 422 against them!

[maasman]

I honestly can't think of a passing defense that can slow down the packers very well right now. Plus, it looks like we might have a semblance of a running game this year as well. The saints game was a little close for comfort, but they have one of the best passing games in the nfl, so I'll take a win when we get it.

[oVo]

Now that they've actually played a game things settle in a bit, but it's still early.
The Top Ten has two surprises -- the Texans and Bears-- while the NFC South
went 0-4 in Week 1. Skins climb to #19 and the Colts drop to #23.

1. Green Bay
2. New England
3. Philadelphia
4. Baltimore
5. Jets
6. New Orleans
7. Chicago
8. Pittsburgh
9. San Diego
10. Houston
11. Atlanta
12. Detroit
13. Dallas
14. Tampa Bay
15.Jacksonville
[ . . . ]
25. Tennessee
26. Miami
27. Buffalo . . . the Bills stomp KC 41-7 and still rank 6 spots below them?
28. Denver
29. Carolina
30. Cincinnati
31. Seattle
32. Cleveland

[whitestazn88]

It's a little muddled at the bottom. I agree the Bills should be ranked higher than the Chiefs because it's week 1 and they beat them... but power rankings aren't just about head to head ranking. If that were the case, Skins would be higher than the Giants.

Bills will probably end up a lot shittier, especially since they end up playing the NFC East and the Jets and Pats twice. Chiefs are at least in a terrible division.

[Army of GOD]

No way GB is ahead of NE

[spurgistan]

It's a little muddled at the bottom. I agree the Bills should be ranked higher than the Chiefs because it's week 1 and they beat them... but power rankings aren't just about head to head ranking. If that were the case, Skins would be higher than the Giants.

Bills will probably end up a lot shittier, especially since they end up playing the NFC East and the Jets and Pats twice. Chiefs are at least in a terrible division.

Except that power rankings shouldn't take schedule into account. It's supposed to be which team would is better, i.e. favored to win on a neutral field. Given that the Bills beat Kansas City in KC by 34 points (a margin of victory greater than the total number of points in Jacksonville-Tennesse) it's difficult to extrapolate that the Chiefs are actually the better team.

[whitestazn88]

It's a little muddled at the bottom. I agree the Bills should be ranked higher than the Chiefs because it's week 1 and they beat them... but power rankings aren't just about head to head ranking. If that were the case, Skins would be higher than the Giants.

Bills will probably end up a lot shittier, especially since they end up playing the NFC East and the Jets and Pats twice. Chiefs are at least in a terrible division.

Except that power rankings shouldn't take schedule into account. It's supposed to be which team would is better, i.e. favored to win on a neutral field. Given that the Bills beat Kansas City in KC by 34 points (a margin of victory greater than the total number of points in Jacksonville-Tennesse) it's difficult to extrapolate that the Chiefs are actually the better team.

If that's what the power rankings actually are, then yeah, I completely agree. But I think there's a lot more that goes into it. I don't think that all the voters but 1 would pick GB to beat NE in a neutral field. That would be more of a toss-up to me. They gave GB 1, for example, because they were the reigning champs, and continued to play well. But given the show that Tom Brady put on, I don't think most people would bet against him. They went 5-wide on the 1 yard line, and looked like geniuses, despite the huge rush that Miami tried to put on TB.

[spurgistan]

It's a little muddled at the bottom. I agree the Bills should be ranked higher than the Chiefs because it's week 1 and they beat them... but power rankings aren't just about head to head ranking. If that were the case, Skins would be higher than the Giants.

Bills will probably end up a lot shittier, especially since they end up playing the NFC East and the Jets and Pats twice. Chiefs are at least in a terrible division.

Except that power rankings shouldn't take schedule into account. It's supposed to be which team would is better, i.e. favored to win on a neutral field. Given that the Bills beat Kansas City in KC by 34 points (a margin of victory greater than the total number of points in Jacksonville-Tennesse) it's difficult to extrapolate that the Chiefs are actually the better team.

If that's what the power rankings actually are, then yeah, I completely agree. But I think there's a lot more that goes into it. I don't think that all the voters but 1 would pick GB to beat NE in a neutral field. That would be more of a toss-up to me. They gave GB 1, for example, because they were the reigning champs, and continued to play well. But given the show that Tom Brady put on, I don't think most people would bet against him. They went 5-wide on the 1 yard line, and looked like geniuses, despite the huge rush that Miami tried to put on TB.

I might agree with the Pats looking better than the Packers, but it's week 1. Given that the Pack didn't disappoint, it's hard to justify knocking them down.

[safariguy5]

Not to mention that I think Green Bay played a tougher opponent. Miami's offense is nowhere near the offense that New Orleans is.

[oVo]

No way GB is ahead of NE

Way! The Packers are way ahead of the Pats. You are overlooking the Pats played the Dolphins and Green Bay took on the Saints. Chad Henne put up 416 passing yards with 2 TDs and ran in for another. The Miami/New England game was a lot closer than the final score... 31-17 with 5+ minutes to play in the 4th and the Dolphins are held at the Pats' 1 yd line. Then Brady beats the blitz on 1st down and hits Welker in stride who goes untouched 99 yards to seal the deal...

Had New Orleans been playing any team besides the Packers they'd be 1-0 right now.

[Crazyirishman]

Not to mention NE still has no concept of run defense, their strat is get up quickly and play the pass the whole game. which is why teams that run the ball have beat them in the playoffs the last few years.

[whitestazn88]

Not to mention NE still has no concept of run defense, their strat is get up quickly and play the pass the whole game. which is why teams that run the ball have beat them in the playoffs the last few years.

Ah, so then the Eagles are taking this strategy up as well. Glad to know they won't be winning a super bowl.

[oVo]

Well the Eagles have participated in the Super Bowl twice,
maybe a third time would be the charm?

There's still 15 games to go and a lot can happen in 5 months,
but maybe we'll see Green Bay face off against New England?

[whitestazn88]

Just throwing this one out there, not realistic, but I'd like to see it. Washington Baltimore. Ray Lewis gets caught this time for killing someone, and the Skins win because he also brought Ray Rice and Ed Reed with him for lifting/digging/driving duty.

[Gold Knight]

As a Packers fan, I cant see anyone being surprised at how the Bears rank. They were #2 in the NFC last year, and they didnt lose anyone. I think the NFC North is somewhat underrated, even with the Super Bowl champs and the WAY over-hyped Lions, but the Bears and Vikings also play everyone tough.

And again im biased, but ill agree with the others in that GB played a tougher opponent and dont neccessarily agree to be knocked off after beating a perennial power.