TonyRomoProBowl Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 16- StL Rams 0-5 15. Tampa 0-5 14. Washington 2-3 13. Det 1-4 12. Carolina 1-3 11. Dallas 3-2 10 Seattle 2-3 9. Zona 2-2 8 49ers 3-2 7 Chicago 3-1 6 packers 2-2 5. atl 3-1 4. Saints 4-0 3 Eagles 3-1 2 Giants 5-0 1. Minny 5-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeroburrito Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 dallas' only losses to 5-0 teams on literally the last plays of the game and they are worse than seattle, zona, and 49ers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 dallas' only losses to 5-0 teams on literally the last plays of the game and they are worse than seattle, zona, and 49ers?They also went to overtime against the Chiefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABeachRealtor Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 They also went to overtime against the Chiefs. Does the win not count if that happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Does the win not count if that happens?It counts. But if close losses to good teams affect their power ranking, so should close wins to awful teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABeachRealtor Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 It counts. But, rightfully, it should affect their power ranking. You're right. For the record... next weeks Atlanta vs Chicago and Giants vs Saints ought to make for some great football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 So the Saints drop two spots because they are on bye, and the Giants steamroll Oakland and Philly crushes the Bucs? I don't really mind the Giants being ahead of the Saints, you could make an argument either way there. But Philly? Let's remember who their one loss was to.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsunoles0021 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I agree with thespaniard. The Eagles were TROUNCED by the Saints and, IMO, therefore cannot be ranked ahead of them. At least not when the Eagles have a worse record anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt'n Obvious Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Eagles should not be ahead of the Saints in my opinion. Unless you believe the Eagles would have beaten the Saints had McNabb played. Which I still think they would have gotten housed. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Eagles should not be ahead of the Saints in my opinion. Unless you believe the Eagles would have beaten the Saints had McNabb played.Which I still think they would have gotten housed. :logo: Neither McNabb nor Westbrook played. But regardless, the Giants and Saints rankings are meaningless. They're just placeholders until next week, when one of them will be first and the other's ranking will be based on how badly they lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Only change I'd make is the Bears ahead of the Packers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Neither McNabb nor Westbrook played. But regardless, the Giants and Saints rankings are meaningless. They're just placeholders until next week, when one of them will be first and the other's ranking will be based on how badly they lost. Westbrook played. He even took direct snaps as part of the wildcat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Westbrook played. He even took direct snaps as part of the wildcat.Oh. My mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Only change I'd make is the Bears ahead of the Packers. The Packers have been playing without starting LT Chad Clifton, who is expected to return this week. Considering that they played Minnie and lost by a single possession the line as convoluted as it was (Starting LG playing LT, starting C playing LG, and backup C playing C, and then losing ANOTHER LT and putting in third-stringer), I don't think the ranking is all that bad. Lets also not forget who beat who in the first week. With the return of Clifton and the signing of RT Mark Tauscher, the Packers may well be on their way to an acceptable O-line, which has been the Achilles heel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger.Staubach Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Going to be a shakeup for the week 6 TRPB PRs... Yikes. The NFC Beast looked h0rrible this weekend. I'm just happy that Dallas didn't play this weekend. The NFL gods were hating on us this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTK Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Going to be a shakeup for the week 6 TRPB PRs...Yikes. The NFC Beast looked h0rrible this weekend. I'm just happy that Dallas didn't play this weekend. The NFL gods were hating on us this weekend. As a Cowboys fan, how can you say that? The NFL gods just gave us a gift! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger.Staubach Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 As a Cowboys fan, how can you say that? The NFL gods just gave us a gift! Standing wise, true...but I fear that we would have lost had we played anyone this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.