Where I Again Have An Issue With Pete Prisco
I don't like Pete Prisco of CBS Sports. . .I'll put that disclaimer on this post from the very start. Late in this past season, I went over how completely nonsensical his NFL Power Rankings were, and you can tell from reading his stuff just how anti-Viking the guy is.
Well, now he's actually come up with a decent idea for a column. . .and, this time, he's managed to completely undervalue the Vikings as a franchise, rather than just dump on their efforts in one particular game.
Prisco has put together what he calls his "Ultimate Power Rankings," where he takes all 32 NFL teams and ranks them based on their history and whatever other arbitrary junk he wants to throw in there. How did the Vikings do? Much worse than they should have, in my opinion.
It's actually really hard to make an argument against most of Prisco's top ten, to be honest. It's once we get into that middle tier where winning championships seems to make a difference for some teams, and doesn't matter at all for others. Keep in mind that, since they were born in 1961, the Minnesota Vikings' winning percentage of .551 is the fifth-highest in the National Football League. The four teams with a higher winning percentage. . .Chicago (.579), Miami (.576), Dallas (.576), and Green Bay (.559) are all listed in the top ten
According to Prisco, the Minnesota Vikings rank at number 21 among NFL franchises in history. In my estimation. . .one that's slightly biased, I'll admit. . .that's too low. In fact, there are a few teams that I have a bit of an issue with being ahead of the Vikings. For example. . .
-New York Jets - We know that the Vikings haven't been to a Super Bowl since the mid-70s, right? Well, it's been even longer since the Jets have been there. . .not since Joe Willie Namath guaranteed a victory over the Colts. But, hey, they won it, so I guess this makes them better. Whatever.
-Kansas City Chiefs - The Chiefs' Super Bowl drought is also longer than Minnesota's, as they haven't been there since Super Bowl IV. They had a few years not so long ago when they were great on offense in the regular season, and then got beaten in the playoffs, but I still don't get this one.
-San Diego Chargers - Really? Really? I don't get this one at all. Prisco mentions their 1963 AFL Championship. . .well, hey, technically the Vikings won an NFL Championship in 1969, too. If you want to get into current day stuff, the Chargers are in the same boat as the Vikings. . .not getting a stadium and rumored to be moving to Los Angeles.
-New Orleans Saints - Come on. Give me a break. Prisco has the Tampa Bay Buccaneers ranked behind the Vikings. . .and, seriously, I have to ask, "What's the difference?" Both of them managed to win one championship and, outside of that one Super Bowl, both of those teams have been awful for the majority of their existences. The Saints' all-time winning percentage is .428, which is the fifth-worst among all NFL franchises. . .but it's still better than Tampa's, who sits at .399, a mark that's is only better than the Houston Texans among active NFL teams. How is one of these teams "better" than Minnesota all-time and one of them "worse?"
Lastly, I'm going to stick up for our friends from Detroit, who Prisco has ranked the worst franchise in the league. There's no way that they're worse than teams like the Cardinals (who have moved not once, but twice in their existence), the Bengals, or the new Browns, in my opinion. I think putting the Lions at #32 all-time is a little harsh.
But there you go. Have at it, ladies and gentlemen!
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You know, I actually agree with you on this one.
(not that I’ve ever come on here and openly disagree with you before). The chargers? Really?
All is vanity.
Silly and meaningless
I guess the Vikes ought to be 18th if the primary criteria is whether each team has won a SB or not or 20th if a title of some sort is required. Still, extra points for playing in a stadium near a place that sells cannoli dip (Ravens)? Really? The Eagles at #11?
Also, ranking teams low for bad stadium situations is foolish. Some of those will soon be the homes of new state of the art facilities soon.
As far as the Vikings’ rightful rank in a preseason power ranking, I don’t think that they could be much higher than 16th-18th at best, so he was still off by 3-4 places.
No Superbowl wins
It’s oblivious that the fact that we never won a Superbowl is why he has us so low. We should be in the top ten easily. We have been to the playoffs 26 times in 50 years. Is the guy high on something? If we had a couple of rings you know we would be in the top five.
Picko
He’s an idiot plain and simple. His top 10 is OK enough but even that is somewhat wrong!
You are correct
The Vikes should not rank that low in a 32 team league. Somewhere in the middle would be fine.
by Sterling Sharpe on Feb 13, 2011 2:44 PM CST reply actions
I was surprised your squad was that low when I read it too. I think some of it is due to the stadium and the constant talks over the past decade about if “the Vikings will end up moving” and things like that. You add in the no super bowls and I think that must be why he has you there. But really that is ignoring a lot of the good history your squad has. Heck even though you haven’t WON a super bowl you’ve been in a bunch of them and had a pretty dominant squad in the 70s. You have strong rivalries. I would have your team pegged in the 15-18 range I think
Teams you move past in my book:
Titans, Rams, Chargers (this is the most confusing one ahead of the Vikes), and maybe the Jets (I think they get a lot of credit just cause they are in NY)…maybe the Saints too…I"ll listen to that argument. So that puts ya right where I said earlier.
I also think the Chiefs could argue being higher. Those fans are CRAZY there, they almost rival Packer fans in their loyalty and gameday atmosphere. I went to a Chiefs Raiders game and those fans HATE each other…craziness.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by 




















