ESPN Football Power Index- Redskins ranked 22nd-Lower than expected Media Predictions

[Voice_of_Reason]

I love power rankings insofar as they rile up the fan base for no reason.  Rankings matter in college.  In the pros, they don't matter a damn.  The only rnaking that matters is W-L and tiebreakers at the end of the year.  

 

That said, if I was ranking the teams right now, I'd probably be very similar to the NFL power rankings.  It would be hard to put the 'Skins ahead of KC, Atlanta, NE and Philly (because they lost to Philly).  You could argue either way about the Lions, Tennessee, and a few others.  I think that the 'Skins have probably the best win of the 2-1 teams over the Raiders.  But with a 3 game sample-size, it's tough to tell.  

 

Now, you really do get a better feel after week 4.  That's a quarter of the season, and if the team wins on Monday night ... I think they can legitimately be a top 3-5  team in the league.  If they lose, they're probably in that 8-10 range (depending on HOW they lose.)  

 

That said, I would have taken 2-2 through the first quarter with a significantly improving defense.  

 

My heart tells me that they'll win on Monday night. My head tells me that they won't.  I'm really hoping that they do, that would be an awesome way to start the season.  IF they do, then their biggest worry will be coming out flat against the 49ers after a bye week with the Eagles up next.  

 

 

[Warhead36]

A hard fought competitive loss to KC wouldn't be all that bad. Of course in the heat of the moment it'd suck to lose, but the Chiefs are the best team in the league and historically almost never lose at home.

 

On the other hand if we beat them Monday Night, you could legit argue us as a top 3 team(I might still put Atlanta over us, that'd be about it).

 

But, one game at a time as they say.

[zCommander]

4 hours ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

Hey, enjoy the 7 while you can.  

 

So the Chiefs are ranked #1 in the NFL poll. So if the Redskins beat them Monday night, will they be #1 going into the bye week?  

 

Why not. We will be #1 for two week in a row too.

[SkinsGuy]

3 hours ago, TheGreek1973 said:

Well think about this.  If we do beat the chiefs we would have taken  down 1 of the 2 undefeated teams in the league in their own house...the same team that beat the darling of the NFL NE in their house.  So my question to you is with a 3-1 record and taking down two top 5 teams in back to back weeks, why shouldn't we be number one?  

 

I'm sure the NFL rankers could find a reason.  

 

But I can't see a reason why the Redskins shouldn't be #1 if they beat the Chiefs. Especially if they beat them in the fashion they beat the Raiders.

[The Brian Mitchell Truth]

5 hours ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

This argument about the name belongs in the tailgate, but in regards to the part of your post asking about espn, I have to say, dude, where have you been? On the moon, in a cave, with cotton in your ears, and your head in a hole?  

 

No, I have been right here on earth just like everybody else.  I enjoy watching ESPN whenever Im able to because I think it is a great sports channel and I enjoy the coverage and analysis of all the reporters on it.  With that said, I see no "Redskins bias" what so ever.  But I ask, if you feel this "bias" exist, what in your mind is it supposedly based off of?  Why do you feel this huge international conglomerate would just want to single out lil ol' us to be biased against?

[TheShredder]

5 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

A hard fought competitive loss to KC wouldn't be all that bad. Of course in the heat of the moment it'd suck to lose, but the Chiefs are the best team in the league and historically almost never lose at home.

 

On the other hand if we beat them Monday Night, you could legit argue us as a top 3 team(I might still put Atlanta over us, that'd be about it).

 

But, one game at a time as they say.

That's not true.  Actually KC has been barely .500 at home the last two years.  Only reason they were 4-2 was that they beat SD in OT week 1 in 2016 and barely beat the Browns week 16 in 2015. 

[SkinsFTW]

1 hour ago, The Brian Mitchell Truth said:

 Why do you feel this huge international conglomerate would just want to single out lil ol' us to be biased against?

 

I don't know if they are biased against certain teams but in reality all they want to do is talk about teams like Dallas, NYG, Steelers, Patriots, etc. It started with ESPN but it's not even just ESPN anymore. I listen to SeriusXM and callers have been calling in about the Redskins the past 2 weeks and the hosts usually end up spending 5 seconds talking about the Redskins during the phone call (Oh yeah that was a wonderful showing by those guys vs the Raiduhs) and then immediately continuing to babble about how bad the Giants are playing, Eli and their head coach and Jerry Reese, Beckham the dog peeing on the field and how distraught they are about it, who should be fired in the Giants org, or about Elliot and his legal case, Jerry Jones, whether Dak Prescott is a system QB, the Steelers and the National Anthem BS, Leveon Bell being awol, Ben playing badly and probably thinking about retiring, Rodgers wearing his cape and doing everything with no help from anyone on the team whatsoever, Brady stealing a game from the Texans,  etc.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with these talking heads all being fans of teams like the Giants, Turds, Pats, etc. Stephen Smith has spent the entire past week babbling endlessly about the national anthem, Lebron, Trump, all that bs. Totally unlistenable sports talk radio. It's pathetic.

 

I guess if anyone should be complaining it's Chiefs fans if they care about lack of coverage. I'm thinking winning is good enough. Personally I'd just rather not listen/watch endless mind numbing babble about the same 3-4 teams as if everybody needs to hear 250 redundant views of how horrified they all were when Odell Beckham lifted his leg as if it's equivalent to the Red Wedding in the Game of Thrones and we require everyone's take on this particular event. 

[HailSkins789]

On 9/26/2017 at 9:29 PM, DC Lumber Co. said:

Hope the team only posts the ESPN rankings on the bulletin board, with the gap between them and the Raiders highlighted and pay no attention to the NFLN list. I think we play our best as the underdogs, when we are disrespected and counted out. 

 

Just don't know how long we can stay underdogs if the Raiders game was more of a sign of things to come and not a fluke. 

 

If we beat KC in Arrowhead, we will be putting the league on notice in a big way.

We'll jump up to top 3 if we beat KC in KC on Monday Night. 

[goskins10]

7 hours ago, The Brian Mitchell Truth said:

 

No, I have been right here on earth just like everybody else.  I enjoy watching ESPN whenever Im able to because I think it is a great sports channel and I enjoy the coverage and analysis of all the reporters on it.  With that said, I see no "Redskins bias" what so ever.  But I ask, if you feel this "bias" exist, what in your mind is it supposedly based off of?  Why do you feel this huge international conglomerate would just want to single out lil ol' us to be biased against?

 

I find this an astonishing statement. For me this was true 15 to 20 years ago. Now they are about useless. More interested in image than content. The talking heads they have now by and large are idiots. But that's just me. Good for you if you enjoy them. But I find them to be a mind numbing waste of time - one of the reasons I cut the cable/satellite cord. For the longest time I kept them specifically to watch ESPN.

 

As for the question at hand -a bias. I do not think it's a bias as much as piling on. This is because of several reasons:

 

1. For the first 12 yrs or so after Dan bought the team they bought into the Skins would be great next year after winning the off season. They got burned so many times they are not willing to go there.

 

2. The name - not starting that conversation here as it belongs else where but the impact cannot be denied (see ESPN more interested in image than content).

 

3. Many of the so called personalities are Giants and Cowboy fans or ex players.

 

4. It' popular to trash the Redskins, well because it's had some accuracy to it for some time. My issue is not that they report the bad stuff, it's that they gloss over anything positive and with continue to report the negative forever even if it's been resolved. What's worse thy never admit when they got it wrong - still waiting for Mortenson to admit he lied about Kirk C asking for a trade or Ian Rappaport to admit he was wrong - well always.

 

5. Many on ESPN and most sports reporting have stopped doing as much research before reporting something. This is more a product of the 24 hr news cycle. But they seem to be especially eager to report anything negative about the Redskins without doing a lot of research.

 

Just my thoughts.

[The Brian Mitchell Truth]

35 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I find this an astonishing statement. For me this was true 15 to 20 years ago. Now they are about useless. More interested in image than content. The talking heads they have now by and large are idiots. But that's just me. Good for you if you enjoy them. But I find them to be a mind numbing waste of time - one of the reasons I cut the cable/satellite cord. For the longest time I kept them specifically to watch ESPN.

 

As for the question at hand -a bias. I do not think it's a bias as much as piling on. This is because of several reasons:

 

1. For the first 12 yrs or so after Dan bought the team they bought into the Skins would be great next year after winning the off season. They got burned so many times they are not willing to go there.

 

2. The name - not starting that conversation here as it belongs else where but the impact cannot be denied (see ESPN more interested in image than content).

 

3. Many of the so called personalities are Giants and Cowboy fans or ex players.

 

4. It' popular to trash the Redskins, well because it's had some accuracy to it for some time. My issue is not that they report the bad stuff, it's that they gloss over anything positive and with continue to report the negative forever even if it's been resolved. What's worse thy never admit when they got it wrong - still waiting for Mortenson to admit he lied about Kirk C asking for a trade or Ian Rappaport to admit he was wrong - well always.

 

5. Many on ESPN and most sports reporting have stopped doing as much research before reporting something. This is more a product of the 24 hr news cycle. But they seem to be especially eager to report anything negative about the Redskins without doing a lot of research.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Number 2--  We aren't the only team that shared the Native American mascot/name.  Chiefs, Braves, Indians, etc.  I do feel that our name was more derogatory than those others, but that's for another thread.

 

Number 3--  They have other personalities that are pretty good that didn't play for the Cowboys or Giants.  But I do believe the ex players from Dallas and NY are atleast Hall of Famers, so their opinions and analysis are very credible for that one fact IMO.  

 

Number 4--  Yes it was popular to trash the Redskins for some time because what have we done lately?  When you win, that's a reason to be talked about in a positive light.  Our organization has screwed up so much the last couple of years.  From the 2000 supposed all-star team we built to the Haynesworth debacle, to RG3/Shannahan debacle, the Scot McCloughan fiasco to the way Kirks whole contract thing is playing out.  It aint ESPN or NFL Network....  We do it to ourselves!!!

 

I respect how you feel about ESPN, but you know what show is worse?  Redskins Nation hosted by Larry Michael.  Im sorry, but that dude is the worst.  There is homerism, but then there is a level of just straight obnoxious slobbering.  He is the latter.  I don't like his show because as fans we know what we see on the field.  We know when the Skins are stinking up the joint and when they are playing well and are on the rise.  We can be 0-4 and LM would still try to make you believe that we have the best players in the league at every position.  Just nauseating over the top homerism.  It's ridiculous.

[pjfootballer]

I don't care about our rankings from week 1-20 (season and playoffs).  I only care about week 21.  I want to see us #1 after week 21.

[skins island connection]

To be honest, I'm not sure I'd even want to see the Redskins ranked #1, especially on defense.

 

This is a new look defense with Manusky in his 1st year as DC. I'd be worried players would see them ranked #1 and slowly let that 'yea, we bad' mentality creep into their heads, and lose focus of their mission. Even during the Gibbs 1 years, we'd be ranked #1, everyone flying high, then the next week wimpy ol' Dallas walks into our stadium and ****-slaps us. Luckily Gibbs got them back on track and they were a seasoned team, but this team today is new to the accolades of being praised.

[goskins10]

10 hours ago, The Brian Mitchell Truth said:

 

Number 2--  We aren't the only team that shared the Native American mascot/name.  Chiefs, Braves, Indians, etc.  I do feel that our name was more derogatory than those others, but that's for another thread.

 

Number 3--  They have other personalities that are pretty good that didn't play for the Cowboys or Giants.  But I do believe the ex players from Dallas and NY are atleast Hall of Famers, so their opinions and analysis are very credible for that one fact IMO.  

 

Number 4--  Yes it was popular to trash the Redskins for some time because what have we done lately?  When you win, that's a reason to be talked about in a positive light.  Our organization has screwed up so much the last couple of years.  From the 2000 supposed all-star team we built to the Haynesworth debacle, to RG3/Shannahan debacle, the Scot McCloughan fiasco to the way Kirks whole contract thing is playing out.  It aint ESPN or NFL Network....  We do it to ourselves!!!

 

I respect how you feel about ESPN, but you know what show is worse?  Redskins Nation hosted by Larry Michael.  Im sorry, but that dude is the worst.  There is homerism, but then there is a level of just straight obnoxious slobbering.  He is the latter.  I don't like his show because as fans we know what we see on the field.  We know when the Skins are stinking up the joint and when they are playing well and are on the rise.  We can be 0-4 and LM would still try to make you believe that we have the best players in the league at every position.  Just nauseating over the top homerism.  It's ridiculous.

 

#2 - Not sure where you are going with the answer. I am going to guess you are saying that there are other teams with names that are found offensive. But the fact is that right or wrong (and you even say you feel this way), many, especially in the media, find the Redskins name more offensive and as such have made it a personal crusade of sorts to trash the Skins. Not at all trying to have the name change discussion here - only stating it in terms of my view as to why ESPN is heavier handed with us.

 

#3 - I disagree HOF translates into good reporter. Actually many have more biases and don't understand they shouldn't act on them. Having said that, I do not think everyone is garbage. There are a few I respect. Herm Edwards, Steve Mariucci, Ryan Clark, Bill Pollen to name a few regulars.

 

#4 - I think I stated specifically that the team  deserved some of it and brings it on themselves. My point was that the media goes over the top sometimes. It's like they can't wait to post something negative but try to avoid most things positive. Some of that is the 24/7 news cycle. They are looking for anything to get hits. If the admitted when they got it wrong. I would feel better about it. Still waiting for Mortenson to admit he was wrong about Kirk asking for a trade. And for Ian Rappaport to admit he was wrong about - well most everything.

 

I assume the last part was meant to be an add on. I agree about Larry M, to a certain extent. But let's be honest, being critical is not his job. I listened to Frank Herzog for a long time. Loved him. But again, let's be honest, he was definitely pro-team, especially in his early years. That's their jobs. But I would never look to the LM show for credible critical information. It's just fluff and nice stuff - not so bad to hear some times but not much value added in terms of real team coverage. So we are aligned there.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

4 hours ago, skins island connection said:

To be honest, I'm not sure I'd even want to see the Redskins ranked #1, especially on defense.

 

This is a new look defense with Manusky in his 1st year as DC. I'd be worried players would see them ranked #1 and slowly let that 'yea, we bad' mentality creep into their heads, and lose focus of their mission.

If players see they are ranked #1 and think they've arrived, they were never #1 to begin with.  I'd also venture a guess that all #1 defenses already have a 'yeah, we bad' mentality which helped make them the #1 D in the first place.

[Audible_Red40]

Power Rankings are based on opinion.  Opinions are argued about all the time.

I stay away from both.

 

You wanna be better than other teams, just win!

[bowhunter]

Ranked #13 last week, currently moved up to #10, even after our too close of a  win over the 49ers, Our upcoming schedule for the next 5 games against Philly (ranked #2,) Cowboys (#12,) Seahawks (#5,) Vikings (#13,) and Saints (#14) looks a little brutal. There is no Coasting for this team.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page/NFLpowerrankingsx171017/nfl-2017-week-7-power-rankings-kansas-city-chiefs-philadelphia-eagles-new-england-patriots-top-our-board-remaining-schedules

[Redd]

Dallas at 12.?  Okay Power Rankings.

[Rocky52Mc]

Any poll that has Philly in the top 3 is disgusting and weak. Talk about buying early like a fool.

[TheGreek1973]

12 minutes ago, Rocky52Mc said:

Any poll that has Philly in the top 3 is disgusting and weak. Talk about buying early like a fool.

Nah they should be based on their current record.  What I don't get is the fascination to keep NE this high when they should have lost to the Jets if the refs didn't barf all over themselves again.

[BleedBNG]

For week 7

 

ESPN - 10

CBS - 6

SportingNews - 14

Yahoo - 7

NFL.com - 7

SI - 8

NBC - 9

BleacherReport - 6

USAToday - 7

WalterFootball - 8

 

Except for SportingNews, it sure has been a long time since I've seen this many rankings having us at 10 or below.

 

 

[OVCChairman]

18 hours ago, TheGreek1973 said:

Nah they should be based on their current record.  What I don't get is the fascination to keep NE this high when they should have lost to the Jets if the refs didn't barf all over themselves again.

As long as Tom Brady is the starting QB they will be ranked as a contender... and ESPN HQ is in Connecticut, just sayin.