|
|
#12
10-02-2007, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 4)
[ QUOTE ]
Because that's how he's doing his rankings dummy. The same way PF does the NFC rankings. [/ QUOTE ] I realize this dummy. So next time answer the question dummy. I asked why it is being done that way b/c according to the way I pointed it out it sounds stupid to me. 
|
|
#13
10-02-2007, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 4)
because it's way more fun to spend half the thread wondering about how the teams are ranked or correcting others who are wrong about the ranking rules than to actually discuss team strength.
|
|
#14
10-02-2007, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 4)
Because they (or just Fink) aren't trying to traditionally rank teams based on strength, but rather how they will end up in terms of entering the playoffs at the end of the year.
|
|
#15
10-02-2007, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 4)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Because that's how he's doing his rankings dummy. The same way PF does the NFC rankings. [/ QUOTE ] I realize this dummy. So next time answer the question dummy. I asked why it is being done that way b/c according to the way I pointed it out it sounds stupid to me. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] I know PF does it so he can predict the playoff teams. It's just a different way of looking at things. I like the way he does it.
|
|
#16
10-02-2007, 01:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 4)
[ QUOTE ]
Actually I don't think Sluss does it my way, it's just a coincidence this week. [/ QUOTE ] Every week he's had 4 division winners as the top 4, and I thought I read him say he was going to model it after yours. I could be mistaken, but I doubt it due to how awesome and right I usually am.
|
|
#17
10-02-2007, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 4)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Actually I don't think Sluss does it my way, it's just a coincidence this week. [/ QUOTE ] Every week he's had 4 division winners as the top 4, and I thought I read him say he was going to model it after yours. I could be mistaken, but I doubt it due to how awesome and right I usually am. [/ QUOTE ] In Week 2 he had the Chargers 3rd and the Broncos 4th.
|
|
#18
10-02-2007, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 4)
[ QUOTE ]
Actually I don't think Sluss does it my way, it's just a coincidence this week. [/ QUOTE ] I don't. I just couldn't workout in my head how to jump up the Titans and Jags without them playing. Does a team get better when they sit at home? Though if the Jags play like they did week three, and not like week one or two, this week they will jump the Broncos. I still think when DVOA gets a little more worked out you'll be able to see how good the Broncos are. They play well, they just have some red zone issues, that they have been improving on. The Broncos played really well this week and played the Colts just as tough if not tougher than the Titans did. They were also missing their # 1 WR. The Ravens and Chargers, though falling, still have alot of talent and not too many injuries (though the Ravens are a little banged up) and that makes it hard for me to just put them with teams like the Browns and Chiefs that are overachieving. Browns over the Jets could be right.
|
|
#20
10-02-2007, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 4)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Actually I don't think Sluss does it my way, it's just a coincidence this week. [/ QUOTE ] Every week he's had 4 division winners as the top 4, and I thought I read him say he was going to model it after yours. I could be mistaken, but I doubt it due to how awesome and right I usually am. [/ QUOTE ] In Week 2 he had the Chargers 3rd and the Broncos 4th. [/ QUOTE ] In other news, I know nothing and should stick to not posting. I'd definitely have the Titans and Jaguars above the Broncos then.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
