NFL Midseason Rankings - Page 3

tdarko · #21 11-07-2007, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
umm, yeah...the idea is that they are 2-6 partially b/c they've played a really hard schedule. put them on a neutral field with the 6-2 Lions and I think you have a close game

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, no. They have played a middle of the road schedule and have played like crap, they are team that is splitting at the seams in the locker room, some of their key players from the past are starting to show age and they just aren't very good.

W Bal bad team.
L Cle middle of the road--maybe slightly above avg
L Sea avg team
L NE teh best eva
L KC tough to define-terrible some days tough others--avg team
W NYJ awful team
L Pit really good team
L Buf below avg team

Middle of the road. SOS 18th.

Kneel B4 Zod · #22 11-07-2007, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
umm, yeah...the idea is that they are 2-6 partially b/c they've played a really hard schedule. put them on a neutral field with the 6-2 Lions and I think you have a close game

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, no. They have played a middle of the road schedule and have played like crap, they are team that is splitting at the seams in the locker room, some of their key players from the past are starting to show age and they just aren't very good.

W Bal bad team.
L Cle middle of the road--maybe slightly above avg
L Sea avg team
L NE teh best eva
L KC tough to define-terrible some days tough others--avg team
W NYJ awful team
L Pit really good team
L Buf below avg team

Middle of the road. SOS 18th.

[/ QUOTE ]

per dvoa, their schedule has been 4th hardest in the league. now, if you don't like dvoa, ok.

tdarko · #23 11-07-2007, 02:06 PM

DVOA also has Philly rated too high.

I watch the games and can determine for myself what a team can and can't do. I think I could throw for a couple scores against Cincy right about now--the rest of that defense plays dead too.

Jack of Arcades · #24 11-07-2007, 02:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Jack- I would put Det, No, Cle, Was ahead of Philly without much hesitation. The fact that DVOA has them ahead of all these teams makes me think what I have always thought about DVOA--that it serves its purpose, it is a good measuring tool but that it definitely has its holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, of course it has holes. Here's what Aaron wrote on the Eagles this week:

[ QUOTE ]
The greatness of the top four teams is screwing with our perceptions of the rest of the league. Let me give you an example: the Philadelphia Eagles. Every week, the Eagles seem to look worse and worse and yet they stay high in DVOA. This is the second straight year this has happened, but all the declining veterans are a year older now and it sure doesn’t seem like there is a late-season surge coming. DVOA ranks the Eagles 12th, and that team I saw on the field at the Linc Sunday night sure didn’t look like one of the top dozen teams in football.

However, the Eagles looked that bad in large part because the Cowboys are so good. The middle of the league is pretty bunched together right now. It seems ridiculous to have them 12th, but look at the teams ranked below them and ask yourself: which of these teams would you really favor to beat the Eagles on a neutral field? The Chargers, maybe… but the Chargers are ahead of the Eagles in weighted DVOA anyway. The Redskins? Jason Campbell is struggling as much as Donovan McNabb lately. I don’t think the Eagles are really better than the Browns. Brian Westbrook is the kind of player who should kill the Bills defense. The Bengals don’t even have a defense. The Lions? Didn’t the Eagles totally beat them down a few weeks ago? Remember, that game counts in the ratings too.

Once you look closer at the rest of the league, Philadelphia being 12th in regular DVOA and 13th in weighted DVOA really isn’t that strange.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I mean, you'd put 4 teams ahead of Philly that aren't there now? I mean, you're gonna move Philly down like 4 spots. The biggest jump would be Detroit who Philly destroyed, but DVOA still only considers Philly to be about 2.5 points better than.

The way this season has gone there's a well defined top 4, and you know a team like TEN and GB are in the top 10, but what else? Pretty much every team outside of the bottom 8 or so has looked wildly inconsistent. It's hard to tell what's real and what's not.

SL__72 · #25 11-07-2007, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Second, would people please stop saying McNabb is above average? He is well below average. He is a rich man's Steve McNair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is way off.

First, just based on his stats this year he is pretty average for a starting QB.

Second, his receiving core sucks, like bottom 5.

Third, the Eagles pass blocking has been terrible this year, again, like bottom 5.

capone0 · #26 11-07-2007, 02:42 PM

Eagles found a way to win last year with Garcia at the helm, and Stallworth wasn't really available.

Last year Phi was middle of the pack passblocking and they really just had 1 outlying game without Thomas at line that has skewed the stats. I don't think McNabb has had a lack of time. I honestly just don't like how he's throwing the ball this year.

Curtis is actually pretty solid according to FO. Might again be the 1 outlying game against Det. Brown is pretty blah. Last year they found a way to win with Brown and Stallworth. Curtis this year > Brown last year and Brown seemed to have regressed this year.

Their WR are terrible but that hasn't changed really much from year to year e/c the TO year. They still have WB.

prohornblower · #27 11-07-2007, 02:42 PM

Vikings 7 slots higher than Lions!?

dlk9s · #28 11-07-2007, 02:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Vikings 7 slots higher than Lions!?

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Ranking them #8 seems to be a bit of an overreaction to AP's record setting game. Sorry, but you can't be a top ten team with a losing record halfway through the season.

kyro · #29 11-07-2007, 02:52 PM

Of Cinci's 4 games at home, they won two of them, and lost the other two to the Pats and Steelers (1st and 4th in DVOA).

Of their 4 games on the road, they've lost to 4 average teams, (two of which have notoriously difficult stadiums to play at).

Maybe the Bengals aren't good, but they're not as bad as some of you people looking at only their record are making them out to be.

capone0 · #30 11-07-2007, 02:54 PM

They are not that good without a good 3rd WR. Maybe things will turn around with Henry coming back and CJ's probable return. Their D is terrible though but that might be a function of their O being pretty mediocre so far. They really don't have great RB play nor do they have a good TE. They also lost a lineman in the offseason to Cleveland who seem to be on the up and up.