|
|
#82
10-01-2007, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sluss\'s AFC Rankings (Week 3)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] nit alert: might as well say the top 11 were 3-8. [/ QUOTE ] I counted the Pats/Bengals game in my 2-7 record. [/ QUOTE ] Nit alert: could be 1-6-2. 
|
|
#83
10-01-2007, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s AFC Rankings (Week 3)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] nit alert: might as well say the top 11 were 3-8. [/ QUOTE ] I counted the Pats/Bengals game in my 2-7 record. [/ QUOTE ] Nit alert: could be 1-6-2. [/ QUOTE ] nit alert: bad weather could postpone the game
|
|
#84
10-01-2007, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s AFC Rankings (Week 3)
[ QUOTE ]
I think we can all agree that the claims of the AFC's dominance were vastly overstated. Really other then New England and Indy, I don't find that conference to be as good as many said. Chargers-Ravens-Bengals-Steelers aren't as good as people predicted. I think we're all expecting Colts-Patriots in AFC final. [/ QUOTE ] AFC VS. NFC 8-8. Who predicted the Steelers to be better than they have been?
|
|
#85
10-01-2007, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s AFC Rankings (Week 3)
Meh, I still think the gap is pretty wide. It's only 4 weeks so obv. there's a lot of variance in terms of who has played who where. The clear 2nd/3rd best teams in the NFC right now appear to be GB & Seattle. Those teams didn't exactly manhandle Cincy/SD (regardless if those teams are overrated). We'll see what happens when Seattle goes to Pittsburgh, etc.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
