Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Philly's 1 big win skews their stats heavily. They are +35 in 1 game and -18 in the rest of the games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course. But in terms of predictive power, whether it's DVOA or Sagarin or whatever, that doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I qgree with this. To use an extreme example to prove my point:

Say that a RB has had these many yards rushing in the first 10 games of the season:

11
17
9
18
22
250
8
24
11
19



Do you really think that hes more likely to rush for 40 yards(his average) than 15 yards in his 11th game of the season? I think eliminating the best and worst performances and then averaging it out may be a better idea, although obviously the season is too young for that right now.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After coughing up the game turning fumble, Santana Moss took himself out of the game, later explaining, "Something wasn't feeling right with me, and why go out there and keep another guy from helping us win?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, for their stud reciever this is something I don't want to hear. You are trying to tell me that you have no interest in your profession at the height of it no matter? Playing against a top team in the conference and watching two division rivals surge you can't get up for your job? That made me mad after reading that and I apologize for the rant, especially considering this is the first time I've seen it and don't know the whole story.

Fink I like the rankings this week. My gripe is I would have dropped Arizona to #9. But I'm sure that will work itself out when they go into Washington.

As for the polls, I like inside rushers and Peterson can do that. Jaguars, LDO, and Miami in the miracle upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I actually took it the exact opposite...I thought it was complete class and unselfishness. If you watched the game, you would know that he was clearly hurting the team by playing. To rather sit and help the team win than play and hinder the team shows character imo.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Philly's 1 big win skews their stats heavily. They are +35 in 1 game and -18 in the rest of the games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course. But in terms of predictive power, whether it's DVOA or Sagarin or whatever, that doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I qgree with this. To use an extreme example to prove my point:

Say that a RB has had these many yards rushing in the first 10 games of the season:

11
17
9
18
22
250
8
24
11
19



Do you really think that hes more likely to rush for 40 yards(his average) than 15 yards in his 11th game of the season? I think eliminating the best and worst performances and then averaging it out may be a better idea, although obviously the season is too young for that right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really depends on opponents and stuff, but there's no reason to think he'll be held to 15 yards if he's capable of putting up 250. That's the point. It's skewed to a certain extent, but the Eagles most likely are not as bad as their 1-3 record in games not against the Lions.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After coughing up the game turning fumble, Santana Moss took himself out of the game, later explaining, "Something wasn't feeling right with me, and why go out there and keep another guy from helping us win?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, for their stud reciever this is something I don't want to hear. You are trying to tell me that you have no interest in your profession at the height of it no matter? Playing against a top team in the conference and watching two division rivals surge you can't get up for your job? That made me mad after reading that and I apologize for the rant, especially considering this is the first time I've seen it and don't know the whole story.

Fink I like the rankings this week. My gripe is I would have dropped Arizona to #9. But I'm sure that will work itself out when they go into Washington.

As for the polls, I like inside rushers and Peterson can do that. Jaguars, LDO, and Miami in the miracle upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I actually took it the exact opposite...I thought it was complete class and unselfishness. If you watched the game, you would know that he was clearly hurting the team by playing. To rather sit and help the team win than play and hinder the team shows character imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way, you are your teams best and probably only big playmaker. Everyone has bad games or bad stretches, it doesnt make you magically horrible. I doubt he actually pulled himself, but if he did thats horrible. Hell, any reason other than him being hurt would be horrible.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After coughing up the game turning fumble, Santana Moss took himself out of the game, later explaining, "Something wasn't feeling right with me, and why go out there and keep another guy from helping us win?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, for their stud reciever this is something I don't want to hear. You are trying to tell me that you have no interest in your profession at the height of it no matter? Playing against a top team in the conference and watching two division rivals surge you can't get up for your job? That made me mad after reading that and I apologize for the rant, especially considering this is the first time I've seen it and don't know the whole story.

Fink I like the rankings this week. My gripe is I would have dropped Arizona to #9. But I'm sure that will work itself out when they go into Washington.

As for the polls, I like inside rushers and Peterson can do that. Jaguars, LDO, and Miami in the miracle upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I actually took it the exact opposite...I thought it was complete class and unselfishness. If you watched the game, you would know that he was clearly hurting the team by playing. To rather sit and help the team win than play and hinder the team shows character imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way, you are your teams best and probably only big playmaker. Everyone has bad games or bad stretches, it doesnt make you magically horrible. I doubt he actually pulled himself, but if he did thats horrible. Hell, any reason other than him being hurt would be horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]
He has been hurt, this was his first game back and he played terribly. He had several drops as well as that fumble. He obviously thought he was ready to go today (and was fully recovered from injury), but then realized that he was not by his play. Don't really see the big deal. And the Redkins have plenty of playmakers. They destroyed the Lions just 2 weeks ago without him. Randle El filled in nicely as the #1, and Cooley = god.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After coughing up the game turning fumble, Santana Moss took himself out of the game, later explaining, "Something wasn't feeling right with me, and why go out there and keep another guy from helping us win?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, for their stud reciever this is something I don't want to hear. You are trying to tell me that you have no interest in your profession at the height of it no matter? Playing against a top team in the conference and watching two division rivals surge you can't get up for your job? That made me mad after reading that and I apologize for the rant, especially considering this is the first time I've seen it and don't know the whole story.

Fink I like the rankings this week. My gripe is I would have dropped Arizona to #9. But I'm sure that will work itself out when they go into Washington.

As for the polls, I like inside rushers and Peterson can do that. Jaguars, LDO, and Miami in the miracle upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I actually took it the exact opposite...I thought it was complete class and unselfishness. If you watched the game, you would know that he was clearly hurting the team by playing. To rather sit and help the team win than play and hinder the team shows character imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way, you are your teams best and probably only big playmaker. Everyone has bad games or bad stretches, it doesnt make you magically horrible. I doubt he actually pulled himself, but if he did thats horrible. Hell, any reason other than him being hurt would be horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you watch the game? I would be shocked if you said yes. He was hurting the team tremendously. I say with no hyperbole at all that it would've been better to have a DI college WR in the game. He was horrific. It helped the team to sit him....I'm a big Skins fan and I"m 100% certain of this.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

People laugh at Clark but the NFC East is really a lot better than the rest of the conference. Pack should be higher (I think them and TB is a tossup) but otherwise the 4 NFC East teams are all top 8.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

If he was still hurt then that's fine, but sitting yourself just because you dropped a few balls and fumbled the lead away is bad. You are a supreme reciever, go get it back. And I watched about 30% of the game, but it makes no difference.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
People laugh at Clark but the NFC East is really a lot better than the rest of the conference. Pack should be higher (I think them and TB is a tossup) but otherwise the 4 NFC East teams are all top 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that some people are forgetting that if it weren't for some terrible luck, the Eagles would have beat the Packers. They got outplayed by Washington, plain and simple. Obviously they looked terrible in the Giants loss, but that was much more a product of injuries than anything else. I'm not trying to claim they are at the top of the conference or will compete with Dallas, but to claim that they aren't top 6 is just wrong in my opinion. They have one true loss on the season.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

Little worried for the Skins. Thats now 2 games they have just simply given away. They SHOULD be undefeated now. I don't get how they let the Packers win, just like I don't get how they let the Giants win. They completely dominated the first half of both games, and the defense still played well, but the offense just completely collapsed. This loss especially may be the loss that keeps them from the playoffs.

With the NFC East apparently much stronger than anticipated, with the Giants suddenly looking like contenders, Redskins don't have an easy path to the playoffs anymore. @ NE, @ Tampa, 2x vs Cowboys and another vs the Giants. I really don't see them finishing better than 9-7 without some serious turnaround. I see 7 maybe 8 wins in this schedule, but I figure Skins will blow at least 2 of them.

Arizona
@ NE
@ NYJ
Philly
@ DAL
@ TB
Buffalo
Chicago
@ NYG
@ Min
Dallas

Assuming Was (vs ARI), NYG (vs SF), and DAL (vs MIN) all win this week, NFC East would have 6-1, 5-2, 4-2 teams, 3 of the top 4 teams in the conference.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

anyone disagree with the fact that if Phili or the Giants or the Skins go to Seattle, they beat Seattle ? I'd say 65% of the time those road teams win down there right now.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have put NYG @ 4, and then made a coinflip between WAS and SEA for 5/6, but that's just me.

[/ QUOTE ]

fgsafsddsg

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have put NYG @ 4, and then made a coinflip between WAS and SEA for 5/6, but that's just me.

[/ QUOTE ]

fgsafsddsg

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
DID YOU READ THE OP? Or the post like 2 posts above you? ffs, top 4 teams = division winners (aka its in a playoff format). So NYG can't be 4.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

Semtex,

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone is going to say Adrian Peterson has a better future than Bush given his monster performance yesterday (though Bush's performance was no slouch).
The thing with Bush is he's been so much quicker than everyone since high school he's been made into a space runner, thats all he's ever practiced, and it worked because at USC and NO they've had another guy to do the heavy work (Lendale and Deuce). Now that he is forced to become the main back he will have to develop this part of his game, the so called 'in between the tackles' aspect. So while it might seem right now he has little future, if any, because he hasn't shown any promise in that aspect of the game, just give it time to develop. The guy has an unbelievable gift I can't really see that given enough time to work he can't become a multiple time pro bowler.

If Reggie is always going to be used like he is with a Deuce he is going to be splitting a lot of carries, so Peterson probably ends up having the better career numbers wise. But Bush already has a trip to the NFC championship game under his belt in his rookie year while he saw significant playing time. He also shined in the game even though they lost. How long before Peterson will be able to claim such an accolade?

[/ QUOTE ]

AP isn't human whereas Bush is a really freaky good human. I am not saying this b/c AP had a great game Sunday, I was saying this last year when he was at OU and some were trying to tell me differently and he has had a great season all year in his rookie season which is actually much different than Bush who actually struggled the majority of the season, was basically a non-factor until week 10 and for the entire season had 3 really good games--other than that he wasn't really that good...everyone was ga-ga though b/c of a couple of highlight runs and explosive stuff he did but the overall season really wasn't that great.

AP on the other hand in 5 games has one 200 yard game (did it in 20 carries, not even the most carries for Minn that day--Chester Taylor had 22), 3 100 yard games and a sub 100 yard game and his receiving numbers aren't bad either. He has been outstanding and the result is Minn is the best rushing team in the NFL.

The numbers are there but there is also more to it. Just watch him. He is a rare combination of Earl Campbell and Tony Dorsett, he can run around you, over you and by you. That 70+ yard run the Sunday was amazing b/c he ran right over the first couple guys, juked the next couple and then out ran the rest. He is a rare form of power, quickness and speed rolled into one.

He is going to be great if he stays healthy. Bush could be pretty good too but AP to me just punishes defenses.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

AP is truly Purple Jesus, but like almost half of his carries went nowhere Sunday.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
AP is truly Purple Jesus, but like almost half of his carries went nowhere Sunday.

[/ QUOTE ]Also if there was a Bears safety who could tackle, those two 65+ yard runs would have been for 10 yards and his 35 yard TD run would have also been for 10 yards if he was just pushed OB instead of Manning going for the strip.

All in all he is powerful, has some good moves and has a ton of speed. All some nice things to have in a running back.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

JoA,

You are going to have to do way better than that. He was averaging over 5 yards a carry if you take out his entire Sunday performance. He also has 10 receptions for 175 yds and a touch.

More importantly, his last two games look like this:

12 carries 112 yards 9.3 avg
20 carries 224 yards 11.2 avg
--he has had one "bad" game but he seems to be looking stronger and stronger, of course he most likely won't have a game like Sunday again this year (maybe ever) but he is definitely shaking the rookie rust off faster than most do.

AP on Sunday also had 4 kickoff returns for 128 yards continually getting them great field position. He also set an NFL rookie record for total yards in a game.

Basically, the game plan was for AP to win the game...I was completely shocked that Longwell was lined up for the game-winning 55 yard field goal and it wasn't AP kicking it.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

Sluss,

You can't tackle God you can only hope that he shows you mercy.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

Oh, I think he's definitely one of the best "pure runners" in football, but he was definitely boom and bust Sunday.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

JoA,

IMO, saying he was boom and bust on Sunday is the definition of nit-picking.

Chi loaded the line a lot Sunday b/c AP is all Minny has. He is just really good and was able to make something out of nothing on two of those big runs early in the run. Barry Sanders used to be "boom and bust" a lot as you say but that really doesn't have anything to do with anything other than stacking the box at the line of scrimmage--which is also why he had 3 big runs, once he got 10 yards deep there wasn't much left.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

Marshawn Lynch is also a beast. Good rookie running backs this year.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

lol @ dismissing AP as boom and bust.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

lol @ thinking I'm "dismissing AP."

He had 7 runs for zero or negative yardage and 3 carries that combined for 175 yards. I mean, is there any better example of being boom and bust?

I'm not trying to diminish his accomplishments here, but just put it in perspective. He clearly took over the game, but it still all came on 3 runs.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Marshawn Lynch is also a beast. Good rookie running backs this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, Lynch is also very good.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

JoA,

They spent the entire game w/ eight in the box and Minny had to keep running it b/c that is all they have, of course he is going to have some zero and neg runs...that has nothing to do w/ him. It wasn't that he didn't see a hole, or accelerate through it or whatever, it wasn't there. That is all I am trying to say.

Also, his back was more sore than his legs on Monday from carrying his team around all day.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

How can anyone with a cream of the crop honestly say that Dallas isn't the boulesac?

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People laugh at Clark but the NFC East is really a lot better than the rest of the conference. Pack should be higher (I think them and TB is a tossup) but otherwise the 4 NFC East teams are all top 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that some people are forgetting that if it weren't for some terrible luck, the Eagles would have beat the Packers. They got outplayed by Washington, plain and simple. Obviously they looked terrible in the Giants loss, but that was much more a product of injuries than anything else. I'm not trying to claim they are at the top of the conference or will compete with Dallas, but to claim that they aren't top 6 is just wrong in my opinion. They have one true loss on the season.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you guys wonder why I get on Eagles fans all the time. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL at "1 true loss." The Redskins were missing THEIR ENTIRE OFFENSIVE LINE on Sunday...was that not a true loss?

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Little worried for the Skins. Thats now 2 games they have just simply given away. They SHOULD be undefeated now. I don't get how they let the Packers win, just like I don't get how they let the Giants win. They completely dominated the first half of both games, and the defense still played well, but the offense just completely collapsed. This loss especially may be the loss that keeps them from the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]
It might be because I'm a Packer fan, but I don't understand how the Skins should have won. The refs literally stole 2 TDs from the Pack. You were lucky it was as close as it was.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Little worried for the Skins. Thats now 2 games they have just simply given away. They SHOULD be undefeated now. I don't get how they let the Packers win, just like I don't get how they let the Giants win. They completely dominated the first half of both games, and the defense still played well, but the offense just completely collapsed. This loss especially may be the loss that keeps them from the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]
It might be because I'm a Packer fan, but I don't understand how the Skins should have won. The refs literally stole 2 TDs from the Pack. You were lucky it was as close as it was.

[/ QUOTE ]
Skins had more first downs (18-13), yards (301-225), and time of possession (32:48-27:12). Jason Campbell outplayed Brett Favre (21/37, 217 yards, 1 td 1 int + a rush td vs 19/37, 188 yards, 2 ints). But the Redskins had more penalties and had those fumbles, basically giving the game away despite outpaying Green Bay on both sides of the ball.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seattle is just always the least-bad team, its totally retarded. Put any team from the East in that division and they easily win.



[/ QUOTE ]

Seattle needs to turn things around quickly, but with their schedule, and return of their top two WRs it can.

Seattle recently has OWNED the NFC East. Seattle has beaten Dallas the last 2 meetings and 3 of the last 4.

These are the most recent NFC East meetings.

Seattle 21 Dallas 20......Playoff Game
Seattle 42 NYG 30......Seattle led 42-7 at the Half
Seattle 20 WASH 10......Playoff Game
WASH 20 SEA 17.. at WASH, lost in OT
Seattle 13 Dallas 10
Seattle 24 NYG 21
Seattle 42 Philly 0...At Philly, on MNF

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People laugh at Clark but the NFC East is really a lot better than the rest of the conference. Pack should be higher (I think them and TB is a tossup) but otherwise the 4 NFC East teams are all top 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that some people are forgetting that if it weren't for some terrible luck, the Eagles would have beat the Packers. They got outplayed by Washington, plain and simple. Obviously they looked terrible in the Giants loss, but that was much more a product of injuries than anything else. I'm not trying to claim they are at the top of the conference or will compete with Dallas, but to claim that they aren't top 6 is just wrong in my opinion. They have one true loss on the season.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you guys wonder why I get on Eagles fans all the time. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL at "1 true loss." The Redskins were missing THEIR ENTIRE OFFENSIVE LINE on Sunday...was that not a true loss?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that they don't have three losses, or that they should have four wins. I'm just saying that a lot of people look at the 2-3 record and say "LOL the Eagles aren't good." I'm saying you have to take into account why they lost those games. They were missing five starters against the Giants. Four of those guys will be starting next week, and should be starting the rest of the way through the season. I think you took the words "true loss" too literally, dude.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

Rofl, should be starting and eagles players really shouldn't be in the same sentenace.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seattle is just always the least-bad team, its totally retarded. Put any team from the East in that division and they easily win.



[/ QUOTE ]

Seattle needs to turn things around quickly, but with their schedule, and return of their top two WRs it can.

Seattle recently has OWNED the NFC East. Seattle has beaten Dallas the last 2 meetings and 3 of the last 4.

These are the most recent NFC East meetings.

Seattle 21 Dallas 20......Playoff Game
Seattle 42 NYG 30......Seattle led 42-7 at the Half
Seattle 20 WASH 10......Playoff Game
WASH 20 SEA 17.. at WASH, lost in OT
Seattle 13 Dallas 10
Seattle 24 NYG 21
Seattle 42 Philly 0...At Philly, on MNF

[/ QUOTE ]
What do games from 3 years ago have to do with anything this season? 3 years ago Sean Alexander wasn't awful and the Seahawks were good.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

sean alexander is overrated- he's not the same back he was before they got rid of his probowl offensive line

and now hes even more f*cked without mack strong

[ QUOTE ]
Seattle 24 NYG 21

[/ QUOTE ]
-this game the giants kicker shanked 3 easy field goals

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
sean alexander is overrated- he's not the same back he was before they got rid of his probowl offensive line


[/ QUOTE ]

He's the same as he was before they got the probowl OL.

b

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People laugh at Clark but the NFC East is really a lot better than the rest of the conference. Pack should be higher (I think them and TB is a tossup) but otherwise the 4 NFC East teams are all top 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that some people are forgetting that if it weren't for some terrible luck, the Eagles would have beat the Packers. They got outplayed by Washington, plain and simple. Obviously they looked terrible in the Giants loss, but that was much more a product of injuries than anything else. I'm not trying to claim they are at the top of the conference or will compete with Dallas, but to claim that they aren't top 6 is just wrong in my opinion. They have one true loss on the season.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you guys wonder why I get on Eagles fans all the time. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL at "1 true loss." The Redskins were missing THEIR ENTIRE OFFENSIVE LINE on Sunday...was that not a true loss?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that they don't have three losses, or that they should have four wins. I'm just saying that a lot of people look at the 2-3 record and say "LOL the Eagles aren't good." I'm saying you have to take into account why they lost those games. They were missing five starters against the Giants. Four of those guys will be starting next week, and should be starting the rest of the way through the season. I think you took the words "true loss" too literally, dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were the last two eagles wins vs the giants last yr "true wins"? That Giant team had a worse injury situation than the Eagles do now, and played better vs the Eagles in the playoff game than the Eagles played vs the Giants a few weeks ago. Did you go "oh well the Giants had 10 starters out, this game doesn't count?" Don't think so.

And the Eagles had a bunch of starters back vs the Jets and still almost lost. And was the 70 yard Curtis TD with the play clock at zero luck? And Mangini made a horrible play call at 4th and 1 to tie. Does that not count as a win now?

I can stomach the Eagles at 8, maybe, but saying they are top 6 is insane homerism.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People laugh at Clark but the NFC East is really a lot better than the rest of the conference. Pack should be higher (I think them and TB is a tossup) but otherwise the 4 NFC East teams are all top 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that some people are forgetting that if it weren't for some terrible luck, the Eagles would have beat the Packers. They got outplayed by Washington, plain and simple. Obviously they looked terrible in the Giants loss, but that was much more a product of injuries than anything else. I'm not trying to claim they are at the top of the conference or will compete with Dallas, but to claim that they aren't top 6 is just wrong in my opinion. They have one true loss on the season.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you guys wonder why I get on Eagles fans all the time. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL at "1 true loss." The Redskins were missing THEIR ENTIRE OFFENSIVE LINE on Sunday...was that not a true loss?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that they don't have three losses, or that they should have four wins. I'm just saying that a lot of people look at the 2-3 record and say "LOL the Eagles aren't good." I'm saying you have to take into account why they lost those games. They were missing five starters against the Giants. Four of those guys will be starting next week, and should be starting the rest of the way through the season. I think you took the words "true loss" too literally, dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were the last two eagles wins vs the giants last yr "true wins"? That Giant team had a worse injury situation than the Eagles do now, and played better vs the Eagles in the playoff game than the Eagles played vs the Giants a few weeks ago. Did you go "oh well the Giants had 10 starters out, this game doesn't count?" Don't think so.

And the Eagles had a bunch of starters back vs the Jets and still almost lost. And was the 70 yard Curtis TD with the play clock at zero luck? And Mangini made a horrible play call at 4th and 1 to tie. Does that not count as a win now?

I can stomach the Eagles at 8, maybe, but saying they are top 6 is insane homerism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The comprehension on this board is horrendous. I'm not ysaing that games where a team has injuries shouldn't count. I'm saying that you can't strongly take into account losses due to short-term injuries when deciding the overall strength of a team. If all the Eagles injuries were long-term injuries, then obviously that should have a large impact on their ranking.

Let's suppose Brady was out the next three games for the Patriots, and they lost all three of those games. When he returned after those three games, the Pats won't be too low in the power rankings, because we know that the Pats aren't a 10-6 team with Brady.

Maybe we just have a different opinion on what power rankings should be. I tend to rank teams on the season outlook going forward. The Cowboys, Redskins, Giants, Packers, and probably the Bucs all have a better outlook for the Eagles for the rest of the season. But do you seriously think Seattle, Arizona, Detroit, and Carolina do?

Carolina and Arizona both have terrible QB situations right now. Detroit has shown that they can't play defense. Maybe I just have a terrible opinion of Seattle, but I really don't think that team is at all good.

Meh, I really think you guys are jumping on questionable wording, and not trying to understand my point.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seattle is just always the least-bad team, its totally retarded. Put any team from the East in that division and they easily win.



[/ QUOTE ]

Seattle needs to turn things around quickly, but with their schedule, and return of their top two WRs it can.

Seattle recently has OWNED the NFC East. Seattle has beaten Dallas the last 2 meetings and 3 of the last 4.

These are the most recent NFC East meetings.

Seattle 21 Dallas 20......Playoff Game
Seattle 42 NYG 30......Seattle led 42-7 at the Half
Seattle 20 WASH 10......Playoff Game
WASH 20 SEA 17.. at WASH, lost in OT
Seattle 13 Dallas 10
Seattle 24 NYG 21
Seattle 42 Philly 0...At Philly, on MNF

[/ QUOTE ]

Both Dallas games were flukes, as was one NYG game. Plus all of the wins were at home other than the one against the gimp Philly team. Plus they are worse than they were last year and the year before and all the NFC East teams are probably equal or better.

If they beat any team on the road in the playoffs I will eat my shirt.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

The Dallas playoff game was kinda weird, but Seattle didn't really get outplayed.

There is very little relevance in stuckarack's post except to remind you that Seattle was really, really good 2 years ago. Remember that? That was pretty awesome (except for the SB).

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Little worried for the Skins. Thats now 2 games they have just simply given away. They SHOULD be undefeated now. I don't get how they let the Packers win, just like I don't get how they let the Giants win. They completely dominated the first half of both games, and the defense still played well, but the offense just completely collapsed. This loss especially may be the loss that keeps them from the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]
It might be because I'm a Packer fan, but I don't understand how the Skins should have won. The refs literally stole 2 TDs from the Pack. You were lucky it was as close as it was.

[/ QUOTE ]
Skins had more first downs (18-13), yards (301-225), and time of possession (32:48-27:12). Jason Campbell outplayed Brett Favre (21/37, 217 yards, 1 td 1 int + a rush td vs 19/37, 188 yards, 2 ints). But the Redskins had more penalties and had those fumbles, basically giving the game away despite outpaying Green Bay on both sides of the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and kind of feel that the Packers are now all square after losing to Chicago. Won one they shouldn't have, lost one they should not have.

At the same time, the refs DID take away two TD's from Green Bay. So, while Washington shot themselves in the foot with some dropped 1st down passes and fumbles, one could say that this was evened out with Green Bay's lost TD's.

Again, I do think Washington played better overall than Green Bay, but Green Bay stepped up and scored when they needed to, while Washington did not.