aarobinson Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I'm guessing the Eagles are ranked so high because of the media infatuation with the TO saga. They just love pointing out how much supposedly better they are without him, which is probably not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Pablo Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 So I guess not having Marcellus Wiley (backup) and Derrick Wimbush (backup to a backup) really affected how the Jaguars played. Shawn Springs (starter) and Joe Salave'a (starter)... those guys would have had no bearing on how our defense has played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOVA2Tampa Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Jacksonville, with the SAME record after losing to the Redskins are ranked higher than they are. Wow. Not that it matters. When all is said and done come playoff time there will be 8 teams and the Skins will be one of them. Yeah, really...WTF??? Fine, let them keep disrespecting the Redskins...just like last year, when we were 5-6...we like it that way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raperry2 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Saints and Rams are 3-1. well if they want to make the power rankings by record, the could just rank everyone according to the standings. i thought power rankings were about which teams were "hot" and appear tough to beat at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 At least we are finally ahead of the goddamned Cardinals - who was it that ranked them ahead of us?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Saints and Rams are 3-1. The Rams also lost to the all-powerful San Francisco 49ers. and they barely beat that other star-caliber team, the Detroit Lions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 I think the rankings are bogus. Sure Chicago and Indianapolis are ure probably where they belong, but Baltimore is 4-0 thanks to games vs the Raiders, Titans, and Browns. They never played the Titans, but they did play the Bucs week 1 and crushed them. I do think their schedule has been pretty easy so far, but nonetheless they look pretty good and deserve that ranking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Execution56 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 The only thing that matters is getting to the promised land... Super Bowl XLI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 what the hell were their injuries anyway?...i dont think they had any big injuries on the defensive side of the ball. Is this the work of fat len trying to discredit out win? All I've found is they were missing Marcellus Wiley. EDIT: oops, I guess he hasn't played all season, so I don't know who they were missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llcamino Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 How can the Feebles be number 4? They have wins against 3 of the worst teams in the NFL. ESPN never ceases to amaze.Now the Redskins won b/c of a "rash of injuries." Tom Jackson must be behind that one. If I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times. The Eagles have always been a joke. In their 5 year "run", they had 50+ wins, and only 12-14 were against teams with winning records. They beat up on bad teams and lose to good ones. If ESPN didn't see them doing it for 5 years in a row, they'll never notice this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 All I've found is they were missing Marcellus Wiley.EDIT: oops, I guess he hasn't played all season, so I don't know who they were missing. Okay, now I'm really interested. I can't find any defensive players who were missing in that game! I know theres got to be some, I don't know if ESPN would just make something up, but I can't find out who. Any help? Is one injury considered a "rash of injuries" considering there were 3 listed defensive players injured including two who played the game and one who hasn't played a game this season? What's the deal? Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Reggie Hayward, their best pass rusher, was knocked out for the year in their first game. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Taylor's Legal Team Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 LOL the eagles beat the woeful packers and get bumped up from 10 to 4, 6 SPOTS! for beating the PACKERS? We get moved up 3 spots for beating a "superbowl contender" I want kool aid they were serving to ESPN at MNF!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJoe1013 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 You do know that you added this part in right? If you read the Redskin portion it seems they think it was because Santana Moss made big plays. I most certainly did not add anything in. ESPN said, "Credit the Jacksonville defense for not making excuses" ESPN continues, "despite having a rash of injuries." ESPN says that Jacksonville had a "rash" of injuries (whichother posters have disclaimed) and their sentence structure implies that the rash of injuries could be used to explain why the lost. They did not make excuses for losing even though they had a rash of injuries. Yes I did read the redskins portion. That statement implies to me that when Moss is making plays the offense is productive and scores points. Which is the professional level analysis we all expect from ESPN. And it says that the amount of offensive production is what everyone expects out of an Al Saunders offense. It doesn't say anything about Moss or the skins offenses being the reason they beat the jags. it only says the offense was productive which is precluded by the previous statement that the jags had a rash of injuries. IMHO, ESPN saying that the jags could have used the injuries excuse implies to me that ESPN is using it for them, regardless of what is written for the skins, which even as it is, doesnt dispute espn thinking that the jags were bad on d due to injuries. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FedExFielder Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Damn those power rankings, #17 WTF, how are we going to get into the Fiesta Bowl now? We need some serious help or we are going to end up in the Outback Bowl, the AD and boosters aren't going to like that. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 God I hope we just blow out NY. I hate the fact that either the Eagles or the Cowboys will be 4-1 after this week. Pick your poison, who would you rather see win this game. I guess I would have to say Philly even though all the Philly fans at my school are gonna be talkin so much **** if philly is 4-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins81 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Its just like the philly dokes I work with, before the Jags game they were awesome holding Ind to 14, no way we win, wasting my time going to the game....then the skins win and they arent as good as they thought. If you care about these stupid rankings....one question...How do we beat the Jags, we have the same record, and they are ahead of us. Theres no logic to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdarugar Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Where was the rash of injuries, Hayward has been out for the whole damn year...its really funny how they try to illegitimize our win over the Jags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCRoughrider Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Where to begin... First, for those who say "It doesn't matter!" or "I can't believe someone of you get so worked up...", what must your world be like where it doesn't matter when people show contempt towards you and this "ranking" is nothing short of contempt. :mad: Now for the actually rankings, Jacksonville wasn't the only team at Fed Ex Field that had injuries. The Redskins, I would say, had more significant injuries. And don't forget that knowing the "injuries" of the Jaguars, they were still favored to come into the Washington and beat the Redskins. Every ESPN "expert" except Ron Jaworski picked the Jaguars. The vast majority of "experts" picked the Jaguars. You can't fall back on injuries because their defense was embarassed! And for the Eagles, the three Eagles victories have come against three of the worst teams in the NFL. It can't be anything other than bias that a team with that 2006 "resume" would be ranked 4th! :mad: :mad: :mad: This is, truly, unbelievable!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskinaholic Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 No love for our boys, but no surprise there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins81 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 The injury argument is absurd. 0-2 and Offense struggles the 1st 2 weeks w/o CP. With CP 1000 yards and 2-0. Why dont they take that into consideration in our rankings...oh yea these ranking are stupid and mean nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramirez415 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Im sick of the Eagles, ranked #4 are you F*#*king kidding me. They beat the Packers,49ers and the Texans, not exzactly world beaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomK Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 You can only beat who you play and the Eagles have done that except for a division game. That said, their wins are against 3 teams that picked in the top 6 of last year's draft. So they are winning but not against quality opponents. You can't really do an accurate ranking of teams or players this early in the season, you have to wait until about week 8 to get a good feel as to who the quality teams in the league will be. So relax about where the Skins are ranked, it doesn't mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsrbeast Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 lets work are way up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_is_GOD Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Jacksonville, with the SAME record after losing to the Redskins are ranked higher than they are. Wow. Not that it matters. When all is said and done come playoff time there will be 8 teams and the Skins will be one of them. my thoughts exactly... except I think there will be 12 playoff teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.