- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Buddy's Week 7 NFL Rankings
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:20 pm
I measure 6 things to develop my rankings. A perfect team
would have 6 power points. The worst team would have
192. It usually starts off wacky but the cream seems to
rise to the top as we move from week to week. They are bunched
up in groups right now. That's because the cream hasn't had
enough games to rise to the top yet.I have every confidence that
it will as we move along. It has for years.
These are the new rankings after the week 7 games.
For those who don't understand, any team above would
currently be favored over any team ranked below them
Looks like they have divided up into A,B,C,and D teams right now.
1. pats........45
2. broncos.....48
3. saints......50
4. packers.....52
5. giants......55
6. colts.......57
7. steelers....62
8. ravens......72
8. eagles......72
10. vikings.....75
10. cowboys.....75
12. jets........82
13. bengals.....85
14. dolphins....88
15. cardinals...92
16. chargers...103
17. 49ers......105
17. texans.....105
17. panthers...105
17. seahawks...105
21. redskins...106
22. falcons....108
23. jaguars....114
24. bears......121
25. bills......122
26. titans.....131
27. bucs.......145
28. lions......146
29. raiders....156
29. chiefs.....156
31. rams.......157
32. browns.....167
would have 6 power points. The worst team would have
192. It usually starts off wacky but the cream seems to
rise to the top as we move from week to week. They are bunched
up in groups right now. That's because the cream hasn't had
enough games to rise to the top yet.I have every confidence that
it will as we move along. It has for years.
These are the new rankings after the week 7 games.
For those who don't understand, any team above would
currently be favored over any team ranked below them
Looks like they have divided up into A,B,C,and D teams right now.
1. pats........45
2. broncos.....48
3. saints......50
4. packers.....52
5. giants......55
6. colts.......57
7. steelers....62
8. ravens......72
8. eagles......72
10. vikings.....75
10. cowboys.....75
12. jets........82
13. bengals.....85
14. dolphins....88
15. cardinals...92
16. chargers...103
17. 49ers......105
17. texans.....105
17. panthers...105
17. seahawks...105
21. redskins...106
22. falcons....108
23. jaguars....114
24. bears......121
25. bills......122
26. titans.....131
27. bucs.......145
28. lions......146
29. raiders....156
29. chiefs.....156
31. rams.......157
32. browns.....167
15
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:22 pm to supatigah
Pats were beat by the number 2 team and are above both the colts and saints who are undefeated. I dont get it.
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:24 pm to supatigah
I must admit that this is a very shitty list
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:26 pm to Jizzy08
quote:
Pats were beat by the number 2 team and are above both the colts and saints who are undefeated. I dont get it.
Supa.....this appears like it will be the first response every week here.
Maybe we can make a markup similar to :babe: that people can post here.
It could be :GettingOld:
and it will appear like this:
"I cant believe you have team that just lost to another team above the team that just beat them ZOMG!"
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:27 pm to supatigah
The bengals beat 3 of the teams listed ahead of them. Just for the record. And should have beaten a fourth.
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:31 pm to supatigah
These inane rankings posted as an official TD blog make the site look cheap IMO
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:36 pm to supatigah
quote:
They are bunched
up in groups right now. That's because the cream hasn't had
enough games to rise to the top yet.
Does he have a time frame on when his rankings will be worth a shite? What is the point of these rankings if it takes until the end of the season for them to be useful? Especially when he says they are reflective of the regular season only and worthless for the playoffs. Also especially when he says players like Peyton Manning have a tendency to make his rankings have even more holes than normal.
I bet an MSB human poll could just as easily come up with A B C and D groups.
This post was edited on 10/27/09 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:46 pm to supatigah
each week i confirm that i cant take this dude seriously
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:50 pm to rondo
I have to admit what cracks me up about this every week is how SUPER SERIOUS everyone seems to take this ranking
all he is doing is taking the team ranking in 6 overall stats categories and adding the rankings together to get a number
there is no won/loss component in the ranking but people start screaming about this team beat that team blah blah blah
WGAF? espn polls 4 people for their power ranking and I am convinced 3 of them are on drugs when they submit their polls
LINK
all he is doing is taking the team ranking in 6 overall stats categories and adding the rankings together to get a number
there is no won/loss component in the ranking but people start screaming about this team beat that team blah blah blah
WGAF? espn polls 4 people for their power ranking and I am convinced 3 of them are on drugs when they submit their polls
LINK
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:50 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
each week i confirm that i cant take this dude seriously
+1, and each week, he will try to defend his case without much luck
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:52 pm to supatigah
quote:
WGAF? espn polls 4 people for their power ranking and I am convinced 3 of them are on drugs when they submit their polls
Pretty well done IMO
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:53 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
each week i confirm that i cant take this dude seriously
LE do me a HUGE solid and remind me next time i force you to post in a thread to instead just tell you to frick off
and then we will both be happy
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:55 pm to supatigah
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:55 pm to supatigah
quote:
I have to admit what cracks me up about this every week is how SUPER SERIOUS everyone seems to take this ranking
quote:
LE do me a HUGE solid and remind me next time i force you to post in a thread to instead just tell you to frick off
funny
Posted on 10/27/09 at 3:58 pm to Night Man
quote:
These inane rankings posted as an official TD blog make the site look cheap IMO
+1
If for nothing else I can't think of any reason anyone should be below the rams.
This makes no sense on so many levels.
Posted on 10/27/09 at 4:03 pm to SPEEDY
what is really funny is I quit posting the rankings because of people whining about them and rondo asked for them to come back on the help board
No one seems to be able to figure out week after week that it is just a stats ranking compilation, there is no human element to it whatsoever, the scores are not a factor because it is NOT A POLL. It is simply a compilation of how well you play in 6 categories and how that play ranks versus the rest of the league
THAT'S IT, there is nothing else to it but the monkeys on the MSB can't grasp the difference between a ranking and a poll so they just screech at anything and everything
No one seems to be able to figure out week after week that it is just a stats ranking compilation, there is no human element to it whatsoever, the scores are not a factor because it is NOT A POLL. It is simply a compilation of how well you play in 6 categories and how that play ranks versus the rest of the league
THAT'S IT, there is nothing else to it but the monkeys on the MSB can't grasp the difference between a ranking and a poll so they just screech at anything and everything
Posted on 10/27/09 at 4:04 pm to Kafka
quote:
I must admit that this is a very shitty list
This. But at least he got the Bengals right.
This post was edited on 10/27/09 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 10/27/09 at 4:04 pm to supatigah
the thing i dont get is the favored thing, the saints would be favored over the broncos, the ravens ARE favored over the broncos.
No way the packers would be favored over the colts or steelers.
Just add me to the list of those who dont get it, any team that doesnt have the saints #1 seems off.
No way the packers would be favored over the colts or steelers.
Just add me to the list of those who dont get it, any team that doesnt have the saints #1 seems off.
Posted on 10/27/09 at 4:05 pm to LSUgrasshopper
quote:
If for nothing else I can't think of any reason anyone should be below the rams.
probably because statistically the rams are not as bad offensively as the browns are but they are equally bad statistically on defense.
THAT
Posted on 10/27/09 at 4:05 pm to supatigah
Wait until we start flinging poo.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News