Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bengals1181

Week 8 Power Rankings

Recommended Posts

The NFL has their own power rankings; they're called Division Standings. Not only do they have us rated higher than the Steelers, they have the added bonus of not being arbitrary bullcrap freshly sharted from the mind of some sportswriter.

These list-makers should check them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[b][size="5"]Week 8 power rankings: AFC North[/size][/b]

October 27, 2009 2:15 PM

[i]Posted by ESPN.com's James Walker[/i]

The AFC North went 2-1 last week with all three games coming against the NFC North.

Here is how it impacted ESPN.com's latest power rankings:

[b][url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=cin"][color="#666666"]Cincinnati Bengals[/color][/url] (5-2)[/b][img]http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/med/trans/cin.gif[/img]

[b]Last week:[/b] No. 9

[b]Current ranking:[/b] No. 6

[b]Analysis:[/b] After dropping three spots in Week 7, the Bengals made a quality jump up three spots following an impressive 45-10 blowout of the [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=chi"][color="#000000"]Chicago Bears[/color][/url]. It was the most complete game the Bengals played all season and clearly caught the attention of ESPN.com's panel. Cincinnati has made one of the most significant jumps of any team from the beginning of the season to now. The Bengals entered the year at No. 24 and currently are tied for their highest ranking of the season.

[b][url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=pit"][color="#000000"]Pittsburgh Steelers[/color][/url] (5-2)[/b][img]http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/med/trans/pit.gif[/img]

[b]Last week:[/b] No. 8

[b]Current ranking:[/b] No. 7

[b]Analysis:[/b] The high-profile game between the Steelers and [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=min"][color="#000000"]Minnesota Vikings[/color][/url] didn't have much of an impact on the power rankings. Pittsburgh moved up just one spot to No. 7, while the Vikings dropped one spot this week to No. 4. It's difficult this time of year to have much movement at the top. Cincinnati owns the head-to-head matchup with the Steelers, so that's likely why the Bengals are one spot ahead of Pittsburgh this week. Teams like the Vikings, [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=nwe"][color="#000000"]New England Patriots[/color][/url] and [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=ind"][color="#000000"]Indianapolis Colts[/color][/url] also have been at the top of the rankings all season.

[b][url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=bal"][color="#000000"]Baltimore Ravens[/color][/url] (3-3)[/b][img]http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/med/trans/bal.gif[/img]

[b]Last week:[/b] No. 11

[b]Current ranking:[/b] No. 14

[b]Analysis:[/b] Sometimes teams are forgotten quickly in the NFL, and that was certainly the case with Baltimore. The Ravens didn't play last week and dropped three spots in the rankings during their bye. Impressive wins last week by the [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=gnb"][color="#000000"]Green Bay Packers[/color][/url] (No. 13) and [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=phi"][color="#000000"]Philadelphia Eagles[/color][/url] (No. 12) caused those teams to move up at Baltimore's expense. The Ravens can significantly improve their standing with a big game Sunday against the undefeated [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=den"][color="#000000"]Denver Broncos[/color][/url].

[b][url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=cle"][color="#000000"]Cleveland Browns[/color][/url] (1-6)[/b][img]http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/med/trans/cle.gif[/img]

[b]Last week:[/b] No. 29

[b]Current ranking:[/b] No. 30

[b]Analysis:[/b] The Browns dropped into the 30s for the first time this season. Cleveland hovered in the high 20s all year until the panel decided this week to move the winless [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=ten"][color="#000000"]Tennessee Titans[/color][/url] up one spot to No. 29. The Browns are the only team with a win that's rated below a winless team. The Browns lost 31-3 to the Packers Sunday, and have one more game before the bye week.






[url="http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/post/_/id/4853/week-8-power-rankings-afc-north"]http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/post/_/id/4853/week-8-power-rankings-afc-north[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From FOX Sports . . .


6 Bengals 5-2-0 2 6/28


Allow me to introduce Cedric Benson, your NFL leading rusher after seven weeks. The former Bears washout is averaging over 100 yards/game on the ground. Add him to a healthy Carson Palmer, a revived Ocho-scoopo and a defense that has given up the fewest points in its division. That's right, fewer than both the mighty Steelers and Ravens. Who saw that coming?
[b]THIS WEEK:[/b] Bye



[url="http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings"]http://msn.foxsports...l/powerRankings[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]a defense that has given up the fewest points in its division. That's right, fewer than both the mighty Steelers and Ravens. Who saw that coming?[/quote]


:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='bgwilly31' date='27 October 2009 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1256668512' post='821024']
actually ochocinco twitted that Marvin lewis himself said to chad that same exact quote.
[/quote]

While I do remember him saying that, I think its a little different coming from a coach then coming from a fan or media or something.

Marvin said they are 3 plays away from being 0-4 or whenever he said the comment just to make the team realize that they werent playing great yet and to make them realize they still have a lot of work to be done and not to get to cocky about having a good record.

But in reality the plays that we MADE to win those games are completely different then the play that fell into the hands of brandon stokely.

We lost to Denver because they got extremely lucky on a tipped ball. We beat Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore because we MADE the plays we had to make when the game was on the line and we played better in the clutch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bengals1181' date='27 October 2009 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1256666639' post='821019']
NFL.com:

Fan vote: #6

Experts: #9

Individual Expert rankings:

Gil Brandt: #11
Bucky Brooks: #5
Vic Carucci: #11
Pat Kirwan: #6
Jason La Canfora: #8
Steve Wyche: #10
Joe Theisman: #16 (seriously, wtf?)
[/quote]Ignore Theisman. Some numbers were run on his picks last year, and they showed that his were the most out-of-sync of all of the "experts". Stand by, I've got a few minutes, I'll run them right now and post the results...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, here are the numbers.

34 = Jason Canfora
36 = Gil Brandt
40 = Bucky Brooks
40 = Vic Carucci
40 = Steve Wyche
50 = Pat Kirwan
76 = Joe Theismann
(Lower is Better)


The #s are generated by looking at each individual pick by an "expert" and comparing where he ranked a team against there the concensus ranked them and measuring the difference. If he put a team where everybody else did, he gets a zero. If he put a team one spot away from where everybody else did, he gets a 1, and so on. For example, Steve Wyche has the Cardinals ranked 11th, but the concensus ranking is 7th, so he missed by 4.

Adding up the "misses" for all 32 teams tells you which "expert" is picking closer to the concensus, and therefore is more accurate, than the others. The lower the #, the more accurate. Canfora and Brandt are the best. Theismann is, by far, the worst.

Theismann looks even WORSE if you factor in the fact that the concensus #s include his picks. If you measure each "expert" against just the other 6 "experts", here's what you get:
44 = Jason Canfora
46 = Steve Wyche
48 = Gil Brandt
48 = Bucky Brooks
52 = Vic Carucci
54 = Pat Kirwan
80 = Joe Theismann

Note that while Theismann drifted even farther away, the rest of the guys actually tended to clump together. What was a 16-point spread among the non-Theismann pickers becomes a 10-point spread when each is compared independently. This further demonstrates that Theismann's picks are off-kilter and skewed. If you throw Theismann's picks out and average the rest, here's the new concensus ranking:

1: Saints
2: Colts
3: Broncos
4: Steelers
5: Vikings
6: Patriots
[b]7: Bengals[/b]
8: Giants
9: Cardinals
10: Eagles
11: Packers
12: Cowboys
13: Falcons
14: Ravens
15: Chargers
16: Texans
17: Jets
18: Dolphins
19: Bears
20: 49ers
21: Jaguars
22: Bills
23: Seahawks
24: Panthers
25: Lions
26: Redskins
27: Chiefs
28: Raiders
29: Browns
30: Titans
31: Buccaneers
32: Rams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also of note, 5 of the top 6 "misses" belong to Theismann, including where he put the Bengals:

Off 10 - Theismann has 49ers 10th, the average of the other experts is 20th
Off 9 - Theismann has Bengals 16th, the average of the other experts is 7th
Off 8 - Kirwan has Dolphins 11th, the average of the other experts is 19th
Off 8 - Theismann has Eagles 18th, the average of the other experts is 10th
Off 7 - Theismann has Ravens 7th, the average of the other experts is 14th
Off 7 - Theismann has Dolphins 11th, the average of the other experts is 18th
Off 5 - seven picks (Canfora twice, Kirwan once, Carucci once, Brooks twice, Brando once)

Yes, the Dolphins are listed twice, picked 11th, but the average of the others is different. Here's why:

(a) For Kirwan's "Off 8" pick, he had Miami 11th. If you take his picks away and average the other six, the 10-20 teams are:
10: Packers
11: Eagles
12: Cowboys
13: Ravens
14: Falcons
15: Chargers
16: Jets
17: Texans
18: 49ers
19: Dolphins <--- Kirwan said 11th, he's off 8
20: Bears

(B) For Theismann's Miami pick, take his picks away and average the other six (including Kirwan), and the 10-20 teams are:
10: Eagles
11: Packers
12: Cowboys
13: Falcons
14: Ravens
15: Chargers
16: Texans
17: Jets
18: Dolphins <--- Theismann said 11th, he's off 7
19: Bears
20: 49ers

Having Theismann's pesudo-random kookiness being included in the "other six" picks is only making Kirwan's Miami pick look worse than it really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='AmishBengalFan' date='28 October 2009 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1256746116' post='821296']

Adding up the "misses" for all 32 teams tells you which "expert" is picking closer to the concensus, and therefore is more accurate, than the others. The lower the #, the more accurate. Canfora and Brandt are the best. Theismann is, by far, the worst.

[/quote]

Well, to be more precise, accuracy is not the same thing as being with the consensus. If everyone put the Browns at #2, but old Joe T put them at #30, he would still be more accurate than the others.

But looking at what he has picked, I don't see anything like that. A little hate for us and Philly, a little love for Miami and SF and the Ravens. Apparently he still thinks the Ravens D is what it was five years ago, with Flacco and the run game added.

Nice analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From Sports Illustrated . . .


6[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/bengals/"][img]http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/football/nfl/logos/bengals_45.gif[/img][/url]Last Week: 10

[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/bengals/"]Cincinnati Bengals[/url] (5-2)

Here's a little statistical formula that's far more accurate when it comes to analyzing quarterback play than the NFL's obtuse passer rating mumbo-jumbo: If your QB has a game where he throws for more touchdowns than incompletions, he's had a good day. The Bengals' [b]Carson Palmer[/b] had five of the former and just four of the latter against Chicago on Sunday.

Read more: [url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/10/28/week.8.1/index.html#ixzz0VQHWbFDW"]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/10/28/week.8.1/index.html#ixzz0VQHWbFDW[/url]
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with [url="http://tcr81.tynt.com/ads/SI%20Subscription/ccCFqQFFmr3OTvab7jrHcU/0VQHWbFDW"]SI Subscription[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' date='30 October 2009 - 10:48 AM' timestamp='1256906892' post='821789']
From Sports Illustrated . . .


Here's a little statistical formula that's far more accurate when it comes to analyzing quarterback play than the NFL's obtuse passer rating mumbo-jumbo: If your QB has a game where he throws for more touchdowns than incompletions, he's had a good day.
[/quote]



Awesome :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...