celder Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 It seems to me that the ESPN crew keeps contradicting themselves on how they are ranking each team. When evaluating who has the best rushing attack, they need to look at fullback, o-line, depth at running back, and of course how good the #1 RB is. In the end it appeared the ESPN crew ranked their top teams based on the top rushers in the '05 season. This is a new season and I think the predictions should not be based so much on the statistics from last year. For instance I keep hearing this talk about how Larry Johnson is going to be the MVP this year but I have heard nothing about the possibility of his production dropping now that Al Saunders is gone. I would just like the crew to stay consistent on the criteria for which they rank each team and make more bold predictions. Beyond that I think they have ranked the Skins pretty accurately so far although they should have mentioned that Portis's numbers should go up with the addition of Saunders. I expect the WRs will be in the top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCRoughrider Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 I don't think they could have spent less time talking about the Redskins! It was 5 seconds, if that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Eh... michael turner is hardly better than ladell, but I wouldn't argue if you said it was close.But definitively better? Come on now. I've seen Turner play, and I'll say he's better then Ladell. Turner's the real deal. He'll be a starter somewhere once he can escape San Diego and get out of LT's shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC3 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Hehe, Erik Kuselias on ESPN likes the Redskins in top 5 and believes Giants are overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Pretty fair assessment overall...little surprised to see ATL up there but if you factor in Vick they definitely deserve to be there.. Dont sleep on Duckett as a fantasy back this year, he'll be a great 2nd or 3rd option... its his contract year. Mix in a dash of Warrick Dunn, and a sprig of Ron Mexico, and you have the dirty dirty runningback cassarole. Its still laughable when comparing to our General Tso's, Holy mother runngback buffet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Chargers #1 ??? Who do they have behind L.T? The ESPN Guys are bunch of Toolbags. ATL should have been #1 Period. Additionally, what did SEA do on the ground when Alexander got knocked out?...ESPN is ranking guys on name, not true output or quality, including depth at the position. The kid behind LT is a badass, he will be a starter on another team somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playoffsplz Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I found this little bit ESPN did completely laughable. I mean if were going by DEPTH CHARTS we are clearly in the top 3. Nobody can even name who is after LT and Tiki! If San Deigo were to lose LT via injury they would drop so horrendously it would probably end their season. Same goes for Giants. Ughhhhh those sportcenter analysts think they're so slick....they probably can't even name more than 10 3rd string RB's in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1SkinsFan Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 How the hell are the Seahags ranked that high? If ESPN did this rankings on depth, which i'm sure they dud, than the Seahags should be like 8th or 6th because they have no depth at all behind Shaun Alexander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSkins Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 How the hell are the Seahags ranked that high? If ESPN did this rankings on depth, which i'm sure they dud, than the Seahags should be like 8th or 6th because they have no depth at all behind Shaun Alexander. While depth is a factor, I'm sure it counts as less than half of the equation. Besides, Mo Morris is not a bad back to have on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.