NFL 2013

[Paelos]

Updated Power Rankings after Week 2:

1 - Denver
2 - Seattle
3 - Saints
4 - Green Bay
5 - SF
6 - Miami
7 - Chicago
8 - KC
9 - Houston
10 - San Diego

[MrHat]

Updated Power Rankings after Week 2:

1 - Denver
2 - Seattle
3 - Saints
4 - Green Bay
5 - SF
6 - Miami
7 - Chicago
8 - KC
9 - Houston
10 - San Diego

Green Bay looked monster.  I'd have them second, then Seattle third.

[Paelos]

They did, but you have to temper that slightly by the fact the Redskins seem to be complete garbage right now.

[Cyrrex]

And by the fact that San Fran clobbered Green Bay, and then got clobbered by Seattle.  No way you can sanely put them above 5 at this point, and you cannot put them ahead of either of the other two.  They may disprove it later, but for now they are not a balanced team.

[Paelos]

San Fran didn't clobber Green Bay.

[sickrubik]

Montee is a great keeper league pickup, but not at the draft position he went in, inexplicably.

[HaemishM]

San Fran didn't clobber Green Bay.

This. I mean, really. Green Bay lost by less than a fucking touchdown. By that logic, Seattle should be #1 because they actually DID clobber San Fran. Green Bay lost to a superior team, but they led at one point and where a possession or two from closing that game out. The Niners never looked like going ahead against Seattle.

Of course, I wouldn't put the Saints above the Packers. They've beaten the Bucs, who are an undisciplined trainwreck with a almost good enough to franchise QB who can't stay consistent enough to actually BE a franchise QB, and an Atlanta team that has a suspect O-line. Green Bay is hands down a better team. Chicago, San Diego and KC don't deserve a spot in the top 10, though I'm not sure who I'd place above them. If I had to rank it:

1 - Denver
2 - San Fran
3 - Seattle
4 - Green Bay
5 - New England (only b/c of Brady)
6 - Houston
7 - Miami
8 - Cincy
9 - Chicago
10 - KC

And I really don't feel comfortable with any of those picks after Green Bay. You could toss them all in a hat and pick at random and it'd be as likely as any other day. Chicago has a better offense but their defense doesn't seem to be that good, Cincy is too undisciplined but with a good balance of offense and defense, New England has Brady and not much else, Miami is too young a team to really go far and Houston will get better but Schaub isn't at the elite QB level of Brady, Manning and Rodgers.

[sickrubik]

I'll enjoy Denver's one week at the top before the collapse with Clady being out. D:

I think we'll be fine, really, but it's... enough for to give some worry.

[K9]

Updated Power Rankings after Week 2:

1 - Denver
2 - Seattle
3 - Saints
4 - Green Bay
5 - SF
6 - Miami
7 - Chicago
8 - KC
9 - Houston
10 - San Diego

Like Haemish, I'd drop the Chargers straight out of there and pop in the Bengals. Saints are not the #3 team by any stretch; they're in the 4-10 crapshoot with the other playoff-probable, but not superbowl-likely teams. Denver, SF, Seattle and GB are the only teams that look like they could contend a superbowl right now. I reckon we see most of these 10 make the playoffs (counting Bengals and NE) and then whatever team in the NFC East that manages to fail the least hard.

[Paelos]

I originally had the Bengals in the 10th slot, but I dropped them for three reasons. First, their win over Pittsburgh isn't that impressive, even though the loss to the Bears wasn't a bad one. Second, the Chargers are 4th in the league in points scored, and the Bengals are 18th. Third, even though the defensive stats against SD are bad, they were playing against two teams in the top 5 in yardage with high powered offensive talent. Cincy played against two teams that are 30th and 14th in yards, and they still managed to drop a game. That's not great.

Also, I think the Saints are going to surprise a lot of people. Their defense is bad, but the NFC South isn't good at all this year, and their offense can bail them out of bad situations better than the Falcons and their now supremely injured line.

[K9]

Fair enough; it is only week two after all.

On an unrelated note: number of sacks allowed by each team. As a Bears fan, seeing only one sack on Jay Cutler is a welcome change. Jags and Browns though, sheesh. There won't be anything left of their QBs by the end of this season bar a bloody pulp at this rate.

[01101010]

Fair enough; it is only week two after all.

On an unrelated note: number of sacks allowed by each team. As a Bears fan, seeing only one sack on Jay Cutler is a welcome change. Jags and Browns though, sheesh. There won't be anything left of their QBs by the end of this season bar a bloody pulp at this rate.

Think that is what Chud is going for in Cleveland. 

[Paelos]

Usually the NFL has no really bad teams. You have teams that are rebuilding sometimes and have horrible years, but they rebound after the draft.

The Jags and Browns though? It's been since 2007 that either team has had any success.

[shiznitz]

You are being awfully generous to the Bucs (only 4 winning seasons and two Wild Card appearance since 2002 SB win) and the Dolphins (only 4 winning seasons and 1 Wild Card appearance since 2002).  In fact, you are being unfair to the Jags by comparing them to the Browns who only have 1 winning season since 2002, the last year they made the playoffs (Wild Card loss, of course).  I would never have guessed an NFL could have so many 6 or less win seasons in a 10 year period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cleveland_Browns_seasons

[Paelos]

A Super Bowl cures all ills for the Bucs.  

The Dolphins are at least on the upswing, and I think that's becoming clear this season. I still think they can win that division.

EDIT: I could toss the Bills in there and probably Oakland, but those are both teams with historical modern era success somewhere in their history.

[Tannhauser]

Updated Power Rankings after Week 2:

1 - Denver
2 - Seattle
3 - Saints
4 - Green Bay
5 - SF
6 - Miami
7 - Chicago
8 - KC
9 - Houston
10 - San Diego

Pretty good list for Week 2.  I'd move the Texans up to 7 and move Chicago to 9 though.

[01101010]

You are being awfully generous to the Bucs (only 4 winning seasons and two Wild Card appearance since 2002 SB win) and the Dolphins (only 4 winning seasons and 1 Wild Card appearance since 2002).  In fact, you are being unfair to the Jags by comparing them to the Browns who only have 1 winning season since 2002, the last year they made the playoffs (Wild Card loss, of course).  I would never have guessed an NFL could have so many 6 or less win seasons in a 10 year period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cleveland_Browns_seasons

HEY! Don't you forget about 2007! HAVE YOU NO MERCY?!

[Cyrrex]

San Fran didn't clobber Green Bay.

Sorry, I didn't elaborate enough:  their defense got clobbered.  And their defense looks like it will get clobbered on a few more occasions, more than likely.  This has proven to have been their achilles heel.  Until they prove otherwise, that is why I would have to keep them below both Seattle and San Fran.  That team is one Aaron Rodgers low-hit away from being a bottom 10 team.

[Paelos]

I agree on GB's defense and that's why I wouldn't make them a Super Bowl pick right now.

However, and this is a serious quandry I have about the SF team, what makes you think the 49ers defense is any better? Right now they are in similar territory as Philly in PPG allowed.

[sickrubik]

So, Clady is out for the season. The dude that takes his place has not played a snap in a regular season NFL game on the OL, and we just signed Winston Justice who played primarly RT, not LT.

This is worrisome. Say what you want about the Raiders, but they are currently leading the league in sacks. Yes, seriously. I smell upset.

Why? Check the stats here and see what happens to Manning on his blindside: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/05/29/examining-pressure-qb-play/2/

[Cyrrex]

I agree on GB's defense and that's why I wouldn't make them a Super Bowl pick right now.

However, and this is a serious quandry I have about the SF team, what makes you think the 49ers defense is any better? Right now they are in similar territory as Philly in PPG allowed.

I don't totally disagree with you, but they have played against a Green Bay team with Aaron Rodgers, and a Seattle team who absolutely owns them IN SEATTLE.  I do think their defense is overrated....but these last two games perhaps skew things too much to the negative.  Let's see where they stand 3 or 4 weeks from now.

[Segoris]

So, Clady is out for the season. The dude that takes his place has not played a snap in a regular season NFL game on the OL, and we just signed Winston Justice who played primarly RT, not LT.

This is worrisome. Say what you want about the Raiders, but they are currently leading the league in sacks. Yes, seriously. I smell upset.

Why? Check the stats here and see what happens to Manning on his blindside: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/05/29/examining-pressure-qb-play/2/

I agree with the stats as whole, but also I'm curious how much of Peyton's lack of success from left side pressure it is [partially] due to just how slow Peyton is in general. He simply can't outrun anyone, but he can use quick release to get the ball out when he sees the pressure.

As for Oak leading in sacks - They've played Jac and Indy. Indy's o-line is shit, we all know that. Then, Jac is the common denominator for the two leading teams with 9.0 sacks (KC and Oak). I won't go as far as to say it will be an upset (it won't be another 50 point showing, but not an upset), but I do agree they are not to be underestimated (and can probably even be played in fantasy when playing against suspect o-lines).

I don't totally disagree with you, but they have played against a Green Bay team with Aaron Rodgers, and a Seattle team who absolutely owns them IN SEATTLE.  I do think their defense is overrated....but these last two games perhaps skew things too much to the negative.  Let's see where they stand 3 or 4 weeks from now.

Agreed, SF's defense is not in the same boat as GB's.

[sickrubik]

I agree with the stats as whole, but also I'm curious how much of Peyton's lack of success from left side pressure it is [partially] due to just how slow Peyton is in general. He simply can't outrun anyone, but he can use quick release to get the ball out when he sees the pressure.

As for Oak leading in sacks - They've played Jac and Indy. Indy's o-line is shit, we all know that. Then, Jac is the common denominator for the two leading teams with 9.0 sacks (KC and Oak). I won't go as far as to say it will be an upset (it won't be another 50 point showing, but not an upset), but I do agree they are not to be underestimated (and can probably even be played in fantasy when playing against suspect o-lines).

A team STILL has to have talent to capitalize on the other teams poor performance.

I don't even care about them leading in sacks, but the idea of them being able to put pressure on Manning from the left all day. It'll cause errors. Manning has actually been pretty good about getting out from trouble, and has gotten quicker on his throws, so it may end up not mattering. Plus, the dude that is replacing Clady only has to do JUST ENOUGH to keep them back.

But the game did go from "Oh, this is cake" to "Hmmm... this could signal something bad." But, our special teams and defense are just so good that ultimately, I think we'll come out on top easy. I just worry. Huge loss.

[Ingmar]

I don't think the SF defense is particularly overrated, it isn't a secret that our secondary is kind of weak. Maybe I'm not reading the national articles, but locally there's plenty of concern, and there was before the season started.

[WayAbvPar]

How will Williams being out affect the front 7? They are beastly.

[Ingmar]

I don't think Dorsey is a huge step down from Williams, but it's a significant problem depth-wise, as we don't have another NT on the roster at all currently. So, the starting front 7 will still be fine, I think, but there are going to be plays where we have to rotate some crappy scrap-heap player in to give Dorsey a breather and that's going to cause problems.

[Nevermore]

Wait, so I just saw a burb that the Browns traded Trent Richardson to the Colts for a draft pick?

[sickrubik]

Yup.

And now Willis McGahee is trying out for the Browns. Seriously.

[Paelos]

The Browns may not actually be trying. I'm not sure.

[Nevermore]

Kind of odd for a trade like that to be made mid-season.  Usually it's the baseball teams that make throw-in-the-towel trades during the season.  I'm sure putting the entire offense on the broken thumb of Weeden will work out well for them. 

Fake edit: Oh, now I understand.  They are going to suck for Luck Bridgewater.  Jacksonville now has a new challenger!

[MrHat]

The Browns may not actually be trying. I'm not sure.

Guess they have a bunch of draft picks.  Rebuilding for twenty twenty never.

[ghost]

The Browns may not actually be trying. I'm not sure.

They're tanking to get the first pick. 

[Azuredream]

What the fuck? Am I missing something or is this one of the dumbest trades in the history of the NFL?

[sickrubik]

What the fuck? Am I missing something or is this one of the dumbest trades in the history of the NFL?

Dumb in what sense? Weird, sure. But it seems to be from some of the stuff I'm reading is that Richardson never fit, and the Browns are clearly deep in "Rebuild" mode. Why not stock up on 1st round picks.

You know, so you can draft more terrible first round picks and then trade/cut them a season or two later.

[Azuredream]

From a Cleveland perspective, he was like.. the one guy on the team I was actually excited to watch play. If I had any faith whatsoever in our ability to draft I might not be down on this, but we're not gonna do anything with this pick we're getting. Guaranteed. Fuck, we'll have a new offense in a year or two anyway, if Richardson isn't a good fit or whatever just wait a little bit.