An EXTREMELY over-rated team

by mjmrad on Oct 3, 2009 9:03 PM CDT Comment 15 comments

I'm sure most of you don't pay much heed to the Power Rankings. However, in this case, I have to stop the insanity...

I'm referring to our Purple counterparts in the state of Mary.

Yes, folks, I'm talking about none other than the team we will see in two weeks--the Baltimore Ravens.

Come on, now--obviously this team has improved, but to rank them higher than the likes of Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, and Brett Favre (all of whom have 3-0 records, BTW)?

Let's evaluate the teams Baltimore has faced...

Kansas City (0-3)---LOL, that's all I can say about that
San Diego (2-1)---Wow, the Ravens win against an OLD, OVERRATED team with a failing defense, a has-been RB--SD BARELY won against Oakland
Cleveland (0-3)---LOL again

Hmm, the Ravens have faced teams with a combined 2-7 record, the LOWEST of all of the 3-0 teams in the entire league.

Still think I'm chasing the wrong rabbit? What do you all think? I think they should be 5-6, at the highest.

This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That's why Power Rankings don't mean a Thing Unit Week 6

After that, you can’t take them as more than a rough indicator. I think time will show your view to be correct.

by ChemErik on Oct 3, 2009 9:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I dunno, bert looks like he'd be good leader

see?

Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get. ~Homer Simpson

by thewild_viking_twins on Oct 3, 2009 9:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

hahaha

by cutlassbob on Oct 4, 2009 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

All I know is

I’ll be starting Mcgahee with AD on my fantasy team and the only reason I’m keeping
Flacco on my bench is because of this guy named Favre who is gonna kick ass!!!!!!!!!!

A bird in the hand is worth about 10.99 at KFC and makes me lick my chops
Yummy!!!!!

by kdog69 on Oct 3, 2009 9:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thank you!!

I’ve been saying this in all my rankings I’ve done. That defense is not what it used to be. Rivers went for 300+ on then Ravens, and the lowly Chiefs scored 24 points on them!

Their offense does look much better though. They have a two-headed monster in Rice and McGahee, and don’t like now but Flacco is looking like a damn good QB.

by packallday555 on Oct 4, 2009 3:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

As the Vikes have played some soft teams to start the season…Lions and Browns…as for the 9ers…they have a good D…but we should have won that game going away…The Ravens will be a very tough test imo…as all AFC teams are..but we may find out more about them after the pats game..and may find out more about our own Vikings team after Monday night.

by vikefan1969 on Oct 4, 2009 9:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Overrated....

Especially after the supposed laugher of a team in KC ran up over 500 yards against a supposedly superior D of Baltimore. While I dont think the Vikings take Baltimore lightly, they have had a few lesser teams dang near stick it to them already.

"That is the craziest sonofabitch I ever saw, how many more like him do you think are up there?"

by VikesFaninNM on Oct 4, 2009 10:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Did you downgrade the Vikings for losing 2 close games to the 0-16 Lions last year?

by KC Viking on Oct 4, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Careful

Everything you’ve said about the Ravens is true of the Vikings.
Common opponent: CLE, which you classified as LOL.
Worse opponent: DET, certainly a LOL with a 18 or 19-game losing streak then.
SD vs. SF? I think SD is the better team. Whether LT2 is washed up or not, Sproles and Michael Turner have both proven that SD can develop RBs in general. Philip Rivers is not old, and like the Ravens, they are a well balanced team. One could say that Vernon Davis was a LOL until he had his career best day ever vs. the Vikings last week, too.

At any rate, the Ravens are a top-5 team. You’d said so yourself, so how overrated can they be if people agree on that much?

by KC Viking on Oct 4, 2009 11:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

49ers/Chargers

I’m looking at this current year, and I have to say the 49ers are a far better team then the Chargers. With Gore out, they still dominated. They have a top 5 defense just from a physical presence. Rivers has lit up the sky. Not arguing any point, because I do believe the Ravens are capable of playing as a top 5 team. They’ve shown how good they can look when the defense and offense is clicking. The Vikings will have their work cut out for them. But really, i’m only concerned with this game tomorrow night.
SKOL

by PurpleJesuZ on Oct 4, 2009 11:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Power Rankings Shmauer Rankings

These things don’t mean much until midway through the season. It is easy to tear down or build up an argument for any team this early on. So while your argument was valid for the Ravens, especially after they lost last night, one could make a similar argument for Minnesota or the Saints or any other team. The Saints were handed a victory yesterday, got the Eagles without McNabb, and played two bunk teams.

I will say one thing though. If Minny wins tonight comfortably they should be considered a top 3 team for a while. Close win and they shouldn’t move.

by Sand0 on Oct 5, 2009 7:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Really

They don’t mean much period. It’s not like college where you get placed into a bowl game partly largely because of your ranking. The Cardinals at the end of the year were probably anywhere from 12th-15th last year (just a guess based off of how bad they looked after week 11) but still made the playoffs because they were and are in a weak division.

It’s just fun to rank all the teams but obviously everyone who does these rankings has biases which doesn’t always make for very realistic rankings.

by packallday555 on Oct 5, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

“I will say one thing though. If Minny wins tonight comfortably they should be considered a top 3 team for a while. Close win and they shouldn’t move.”

I think a lot of it depends on how you guys look tonight. Up to this point you guys have been fairly inconsistent. It seems to me you guys still aren’t playing your best football, or only are some of the time. When you start playing at your highest level and doing it consistently then you guys should be considered among the best.

Unless you beat us by 14 or more, I don’t think you’ll move much. We have probably been the most inconsistent team in football so far, and because of that you never really know what Packers team is going to show up.

by packallday555 on Oct 5, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What do "power rankings" rank?

Seriously, what does the word “power” mean in these power rankings? Obviously, the word is a placeholder for a multi-word concept, because there is no variable called “power” among NFL teams and no way to measure it, let alone define it.

Surely the word “power” in this context means something more than “favorite” or “popular.” Right?

My guess is it may be a hypothetical prediction as to who would win a game between two teams on any given Sunday/Monday/Thursday. The higher ranked team is the team that the ranker would predict would win a head-to head match-up. Is this right?

If so, then:

1. What do you do if you think team A would win at home and Team B would win at home? Rank them as a tie?

2. How do you account for match-up issues? I think the Vikes have a better chance of beating the Niners than most other teams because of our run D. I think the Vikes would have a tough time beating the Saints because our pass D is weak. But I think the Niners would have a good shot at beating the Saints, especially at home.

3. Why do we care what some writer predicts about hypothetical match-ups that will never occur during a season? Why do we care so much about predictions, as opposed to results?

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Oct 5, 2009 9:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs