PokerFink's 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 6)

[duracell]

[ 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.

[capone0]

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

[Nonfiction]

[ 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.

[scorcher863]

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

[bernie]

[ 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

[Franchise 60]

[ 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.

[duracell]

[ 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.

[Artdogg]

[ 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.

[lastchance]

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).

[dlk9s]

[ 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.