|
|
#11
10-09-2007, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 5)
1. The Cardinals don't suck.
2. Even if they suck, you have them below the Dolphins, the Bills, and the Chiefs. Other last week, the Bills have stunk it up badly. The Chiefs may have beat San Diego soundly (who you have, IMHO, too high), but they also got flat out beat by Chicago, Houston, and Jacksonville. And the Dolphins have lost every game they've played including to the jets. Also, Jaguars too low. 
|
|
#12
10-09-2007, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 5)
Having the dolphins above the broncos will probably lead people to assume your mentally retarded
|
|
#13
10-09-2007, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 5)
[ QUOTE ]
Having the dolphins above the broncos will probably lead people to assume your mentally retarded [/ QUOTE ] "you're" And that's fine. It's not my fault the Broncos have a worse MOV than any other team in the AFC. You do realize they just lost 41-3 to a team that's looked like crap all year, right?
|
|
#14
10-09-2007, 06:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 5)
[ QUOTE ]
1. The Cardinals don't suck. [/ QUOTE ] We disagree. My numbers say they suck. Edit: If you actually meant the Cardinals, I didn't say the Cardinals sucked. If you meant the Ravens, I stand by my statement. [ QUOTE ] 2. Even if they suck, you have them below the Dolphins, the Bills, and the Chiefs. [/ QUOTE ] They've been outscored 97-88 against the second easiest schedule in the AFC. [ QUOTE ] Other last week, the Bills have stunk it up badly. The Chiefs may have beat San Diego soundly (who you have, IMHO, too high), but they also got flat out beat by Chicago, Houston, and Jacksonville. And the Dolphins have lost every game they've played including to the jets. Also, Jaguars too low. [/ QUOTE ] The Bills have played the Steelers, Pats and Cowboys. Most teams would stink it up playing that schedule. SD is much higher than they would have been if they hadn't won 41-3. I have no idea why the Dolphins are where they are. They've had a relatively tough schedule and held their own against Washington. If I was doing this subjectively, though, I'd have them 16th, for sure. The Jaguars have been mildly impressive against a weak schedule. They've beaten 3 crappy teams and lost to one good team. Sounds about average to me.
|
|
#15
10-09-2007, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 5)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ravens way too low. [/ QUOTE ] The Ravens suck. They've won by a combined 13 points against the Cardinals, 49ers and Jets. They have absolutely zero offense. [/ QUOTE ] And the two teams they lost to are a combined 1-6 against everyone else.
|
|
#16
10-09-2007, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 5)
Yes but they hjave essentially a rookie QB, a running back who may be high, they lost two starters for the season on the o-line, their best player on offense was out. And their defense is having problems figuring out Jim Bates defense scheme.
true they did lose to one of the most talented teams in the nfl. But whats a bigger shock...one of the best teams from last year that is loaded with talent and a stud running game suddenly woke up and beat up on a team that is injured and in a rut when it comes to stopping the run. or A team that has been killing good and bad teams nearly got beat by a crappy team with a rookie QB making his second start. They aren't playing well but they are still a far superior team to Miami.
|
|
#17
10-09-2007, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 5)
[ QUOTE ]
My rankings: Pats Steelers Colts Titans Texans Chargers Browns Jaguars Bengals Chiefs Bills Dolphins Ravens Raiders Jets Broncos This should make some people angry. Heh. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]
|
|
#18
10-09-2007, 09:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 5)
[ QUOTE ]
Yes but they hjave essentially a rookie QB, a running back who may be high, they lost two starters for the season on the o-line, their best player on offense was out. And their defense is having problems figuring out Jim Bates defense scheme. [/ QUOTE ] All superb reasons why they should be at the bottom! [ QUOTE ] true they did lose to one of the most talented teams in the nfl. But whats a bigger shock...one of the best teams from last year that is loaded with talent and a stud running game suddenly woke up and beat up on a team that is injured and in a rut when it comes to stopping the run. or A team that has been killing good and bad teams nearly got beat by a crappy team with a rookie QB making his second start. They aren't playing well but they are still a far superior team to Miami. [/ QUOTE ] Like I said, I'm just running numbers and those are what the numbers spit out. I don't think the Broncos are the worst team in the AFC, though I do think they're in the bottom half.
|
|
#20
10-09-2007, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sluss\'s 2007 AFC Rankings (Week 5)
How sick is Albert Haynesworth? Anyone else have a DPOY through the "first quarter"? I don't.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
