NFL fans, by and large, love to see the new Power Rankings from various sites that come out every week after games are concluded, and I'm no exception to that rule. However, there's a bit of a differential. . .a schism, if you will. . .about where the Minnesota Vikings should be ranked, according to different sources.
For example, the folks at ESPN have declared the Vikings to be the #5 team in the NFL, with writer Jeffri Chadiha simply stating "So far, so good with Brett Favre in charge." SI.com's Peter King has even higher praise, saying that the Vikings are the second-best team in the NFL after two weeks, behind only the Baltimore Ravens.
"We just were ... the best word I can think of is slow,'' Brad Childress said over the phone from Detroit, alluding to the first few Sunday drives by the Vikings. But the Vikes woke up, and Brett Favre played like a 25-year-old. Or 35-year-old. Whatever. Imagine playing on the road, against a team with a fired-up crowd, indoors, and your 39-year-old quarterback has four incompletions all day.
Yes. . .hard to imagine. Or, at least, it would be if we hadn't all seen it with our own eyes on Sunday.
Pete Prisco at CBS Sports has the Beloved Purple at #7 in the league, but he wonders what will happen when the Vikings have to throw to win. I don't know, Pete. . .but I'm guessing the Vikings will be just fine. Also, having Adrian Peterson usually means that the occasions where you "have to throw to win" are relatively few and far between.
However, it wouldn't be an article about the Vikings and the media if there weren't at least a couple of people willing to throw water on the Vikings, would it? Don Banks from SI.com reminds us. . .as though we needed reminding. . .that the Vikings have beaten two teams "that combined to go 4-28 last year." Big deal. Winning road games is huge in the NFL, regardless of who they come against. Contrast that to the Packers. . .who Banks and everybody else in the media was in love with going into the regular season. . .playing two games at home, winning one because the opposing quarterback seemed to really, really like throwing the football to their team more than his own, and losing one to a team that went 4-11-1 in 2008, all while displaying what might be the worst offensive line in the league. (Seriously, I think Antwan Odom just sacked Aaron Rodgers again.) Or the Bears, who were fortunate enough to have Jeff Reed miss two field goals that he'd usually make on a sloppy track at Soldier Field.
Aren't the Vikings better than both their division rivals? Well. . .not if you ask Michael Silver of Yahoo! Sports.
In Silver's "32 Questions" column for this week, which also serves as his Power Rankings, Mr. Silver has given the Vikings a prestigious rank of. . .#16 in the NFL? Really? Behind such teams as. . .
-Dallas, whose quarterback looked absolutely craptastic in what has been the most hyped-up game of the year thus far
-Philadelphia, who just gave up 40+ points to Drew Brees and company at home
-New England, who just finished a game where they didn't score an offensive touchdown
-Green Bay AND Chicago, as noted above
Seriously. Power rankings are pretty subjective and everything, but I don't think there are many folks that are insane enough to propose that there are fifteen teams in the NFL right now that are better than the Minnesota Vikings. Probably because there aren't.