Week 8 Power Rankings

[Bengals1181]

[b]10. Cincinnati (5-2).[/b] The Bengals are 3-1 on the road. Andy Dalton is 5-2 as an NFL quarterback. Those are two of the most surprising things about the first half of the season. Misleading stat of the week, by the way: The Bengals win at Seattle by 22 and get outgained by 159 yards.

Read more: [url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/10/31/Week8/index.html#ixzz1cMi0jpZK"]http://sportsillustr...l#ixzz1cMi0jpZK[/url]




That's because they had 249yds in punt and kick return yardage.

[Oldcat]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1320067523' post='1054069']
[b]10. Cincinnati (5-2).[/b] The Bengals are 3-1 on the road. Andy Dalton is 5-2 as an NFL quarterback. Those are two of the most surprising things about the first half of the season. Misleading stat of the week, by the way: The Bengals win at Seattle by 22 and get outgained by 159 yards.

Read more: [url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/10/31/Week8/index.html#ixzz1cMi0jpZK"]http://sportsillustr...l#ixzz1cMi0jpZK[/url]




That's because they had 249yds in punt and kick return yardage.
[/quote]

And a Pick 6, and a fumble recovery in the other end. Happens all the time with good defensive teams.

I remember reading a book that said to 'fix' yardages you should subtract 50 passing yards per INT and 40 per fumble to get an 'effective' yardage number. Doing so showed why there's a lot of 300 or 400 yard passers that lose the game.

[Tigris]

I kind of like going unnoticed.

And this is more of a random thought, but Peko and Dunlap played with a little nasty yesterday. Peko ripped off Lynch's helmet and Dunlap wasn't putting up with the RTs after play bull shit.

[oldschooler]

[b]11. Cincinnati Bengals[/b]: Big plays on defense and special teams sealed victory.



http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/11/01/week-nine-power-rankings-3

[Jason]

[quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1320075745' post='1054129']
[b]I kind of like going unnoticed.[/b]

And this is more of a random thought, but Peko and Dunlap played with a little nasty yesterday. Peko ripped off Lynch's helmet and Dunlap wasn't putting up with the RTs after play bull shit.
[/quote]

It used to be that when we started getting noticed we started losing. I don't worry about that with this team. The attitude of this team is different.

[coup000]

We actually dropped 2 spots in the PFW rankings. Somewhere around 10 is probably where we belong though. It will be interesting to see where the ESPN guys put us this week, most of them still had us around 20 last week.

[The PatternMaster]

Fuck all power rankings, the only rankings I care about are division and conference rankings. Anything else is just content used to drive people to a website.

[oldschooler]

[b]16. (20) Bengals (5-2) —[/b] Although five of their seven games have been against teams with a below .500 record, the Bengals deserve some credit. The defense has made all the difference. The Bengals are allowing the third fewest points in the NFL. On top of that,[b] Andy Dalton[/b] has had an impressive freshman season so far.



[url="http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2011/11/01/weei-nfl-power-rankings-week-9-2/"]http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2011/11/01/weei-nfl-power-rankings-week-9-2/[/url]

[mongo]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1320151777' post='1054570']
[b]16. (20) Bengals (5-2) —[/b] Although five of their seven games have been against teams with a below .500 record, the [b][color=#800000]Bengals deserve some credit[/color][/b]. The defense has made all the difference. The Bengals are allowing the third fewest points in the NFL. On top of that,[b] Andy Dalton[/b] has had an impressive freshman season so far.



[url="http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2011/11/01/weei-nfl-power-rankings-week-9-2/"]http://itiswhatitis....kings-week-9-2/[/url]
[/quote]

How much respect is being given when they have them as not only the lowest ranked 2 loss team, but have 6 3 loss teams, and a 4 loss team ranked higher?

[Bengals1181]

9) [b]Cincinnati Bengals[/b] - The defense is for real folks. Dalton and AJ Green didn't need Benson to shred the Seahawk's better-than-advertised defense.

[url="http://footballpros.com/content.php/1164-Top-10...-Bottom-5-Week-8"]http://footballpros....Bottom-5-Week-8[/url]

[AmishBengalFan]

I really don't know how anyone can publish league-wide ratings when there are still games left to play during that week. Kansas City beat San Diego last night in OT - made a pretty significant difference to MY numbers....

Week 8 NFL Amish Power Ratings:
1: GB (7-0) +20 = 48 (6.85/G) [1]
2: SF (6-1) +23 = 47 (6.71/G) [2]
3: BUF (5-2) +19 = 39 (5.57/G) [5] +2
4: DET (6-2) +19 = 43 (5.37/G) [4]
5: BAL (5-2) +17 = 37 (5.28/G) [6] +1
6: NE (5-2) +15 = 35 (5.00/G) [3] -3
7: PIT (6-2) +14 = 38 (4.75/G) [10] +3
8: CIN (5-2) +12 = 32 (4.57/G) [8]
9: OAK (4-3) +14 = 30 (4.28/G) [9]
10: NYG (5-2) +10 = 30 (4.28/G) [13] +3
11: ATL (4-3) +13 = 29 (4.14/G) [12] +1
12: NO (5-3) +13 = 33 (4.12/G) [7] -5
13: CHI (4-3) +12 = 28 (4.00/G) [11] -2
14: HOU (5-3) +12 = 32 (4.00/G) [18] +4
15: TB (4-3) +11 = 27 (3.85/G) [14] -1
16: TEN (4-3) +10 = 26 (3.71/G) [17] +1
17: KC (4-3) +10 = 26 (3.71/G) [21] +4
18: NYJ (4-3) +9 = 25 (3.57/G) [16] -2
19: SD (4-3) +8 = 24 (3.42/G) [15] -4
20: DAL (3-4) +10 = 22 (3.14/G) [19] -1
21: WAS (3-4) +7 = 19 (2.71/G) [20] -1
22: PHI (3-4) +7 = 19 (2.71/G) [27] +5
23: JAX (2-6) +9 = 17 (2.12/G) [24] +1
24: CLE (3-4) +2 = 14 (2.00/G) [22] -2
25: SEA (2-5) +6 = 14 (2.00/G) [23] -2
26: DEN (2-5) +5 = 13 (1.85/G) [25] -1
27: CAR (2-6) +5 = 13 (1.62/G) [26] -1
28: MIN (2-6) +3 = 11 (1.37/G) [29] +1
29: STL (1-6) +5 = 9 (1.28/G) [30] +1
30: ARI (1-6) +2 = 6 (0.85/G) [28] -2
t-31: IND (0-8) +0 = 0 (0.00/G) [30] -1
t-31: MIA (0-7) +0 = 0 (0.00/G) [30] -1
Legend: Rank: TEAM (W-L) +Bonus_Points = Total_Points (Points/Game) [Last_Week] +/-Change

Biggest Movers:
UP: +5 PHI, +4 HOU/KC, +3 NYG/PIT
DOWN: -5 NO, -4 SD, -3 NE, -2 (5 tied with)

Amish Mathematical Top Ten
1: Green Bay (7-0) +20 -0 =48 (6.86 ppg) [LW=1] : -BYE-
2: San Francisco (6-1) +23 -4 =45 (6.43 ppg) [2]: Defeated #22-Cleveland
3: Buffalo (5-2) +19 -4 =37 (5.29 ppg) [5] : Defeated #21-Washington
4: Detroit (6-2) +19 -4 =41 (5.13 ppg) [4] : Defeated #24-Denver
5: New England (5-2) +15 -4 =33 (4.71 ppg) [3]: Lost to #10-Pittsburgh
6: Baltimore (5-2) +17 -9 =32.5 (4.64 ppg) [7] : Defeated #29-Arizona
7: Pittsburgh (6-2) +14 -5 =35.5 (4.44 ppg) [10]: Defeated #3-New England
8: Cincinnati (5-2) +12 -6 =29 (4.14 ppg) [8] : Defeated #23-Seattle
9: Oakland (4-3) +14 -7 =26.5 (3.79 ppg) [9] : -BYE-
t-10: Atlanta (4-3) +13 -6 =26 (3.71 ppg) [-] : -BYE-
t-10: NY Giants (5-2) +10 -8 =26 (3.71 ppg) [-] : Defeated #32-Miami
Dropped Out: New Orleans [6]

[Oldcat]

[quote name='AmishBengalFan' timestamp='1320159631' post='1054654']
I really don't know how anyone can publish league-wide ratings when there are still games left to play during that week. Kansas City beat San Diego last night in OT - made a pretty significant difference to MY numbers....

[/quote]

Well, it is easier if you are making up the rankings.

So you aren't doing the improved Amish ranks with the loss to bad teams factor?

[saphead]

Our strength of schedule is killing our RPI! Fuck! If we don't win the AFC North we might not get an at large bid to the playoffs! Fuck!

Our athletic director needs to schedule tougher out of conference opponents! Fuck!

[AmishBengalFan]

[quote name='Oldcat' timestamp='1320160032' post='1054655'] Well, it is easier if you are making up the rankings. So you aren't doing the improved Amish ranks with the loss to bad teams factor?[/quote]That's reflected in the "Mathematical Top Ten" list above. Here's the full-32 rundown using that formula:

1: GB (7-0) +20 -0 =48 (6.86 ppg)
2: SF (6-1) +23 -4 =45 (6.43 ppg)
3: BUF (5-2) +19 -4 =37 (5.29 ppg)
4: DET (6-2) +19 -4 =41 (5.13 ppg)
5: NE (5-2) +15 -4 =33 (4.71 ppg)
6: BAL (5-2) +17 -9 =32.5 (4.64 ppg)
7: PIT (6-2) +14 -5 =35.5 (4.44 ppg)
8: CIN (5-2) +12 -6 =29 (4.14 ppg)
9: OAK (4-3) +14 -7 =26.5 (3.79 ppg)
t-10: ATL (4-3) +13 -6 =26 (3.71 ppg)
t-10: NYG (5-2) +10 -8 =26 (3.71 ppg)
12: CHI (4-3) +12 -5 =25.5 (3.64 ppg)
13: NO (5-3) +13 -9 =28.5 (3.56 ppg)
14: HOU (5-3) +12 -8 =28 (3.5 ppg)
15: TB (4-3) +11 -6 =24 (3.43 ppg)
16: KC (4-3) +10 -7 =22.5 (3.21 ppg)
17: NYJ (4-3) +9 -7 =21.5 (3.07 ppg)
18: TEN (4-3) +10 -11 =20.5 (2.93 ppg)
19: SD (4-3) +8 -8 =20 (2.86 ppg)
20: DAL (3-4) +10 -12 =16 (2.29 ppg)
21: PHI (3-4) +7 -14 =12 (1.71 ppg)
22: WAS (3-4) +7 -17 =10.5 (1.5 ppg)
23: CLE (3-4) +2 -9 =9.5 (1.36 ppg)
24: SEA (2-5) +6 -11 =8.5 (1.21 ppg)
25: DEN (2-5) +5 -11 =7.5 (1.07 ppg)
26: JAX (2-6) +9 -19 =7.5 (0.94 ppg)
27: MIN (2-6) +3 -14 =4 (0.5 ppg)
28: STL (1-6) +5 -13 =2.5 (0.36 ppg)
29: CAR (2-6) +5 -21 =2.5 (0.31 ppg)
30: ARI (1-6) +2 -20 =-4 (-0.57 ppg)
31: IND (0-8) +0 -23 =-11.5 (-1.44 ppg)
32: MIA (0-7) +0 -22 =-11 (-1.57 ppg)

[Cricket]

[quote name='AmishBengalFan' timestamp='1320159631' post='1054654']

Week 8 NFL [b]Amish Power[/b] Ratings:
...

[/quote]


You're not allowed to use the words "Amish" and "Power" together.

They must me separated by at least one word, such as "Horse" or "wish they could use".

[coup000]

14 on ESPN

[Hooky]

[quote name='coup000' timestamp='1320164859' post='1054692']
14 on ESPN
[/quote]

But they're always the lowest ranked team with their record. There's always 4 or 5 teams with lesser records ahead of them. But since these things aren't deciding the post-season like college, who cares.

[turningpoint]

[quote name='coup000' timestamp='1320164859' post='1054692']
14 on ESPN
[/quote]

[quote name='Hooky' timestamp='1320166868' post='1054711']

But they're always the lowest ranked team with their record. There's always 4 or 5 teams with lesser records ahead of them. But since these things aren't deciding the post-season like college, who cares.
[/quote]

It's fair if you take away you bengals biased.

The seahawks, jags and colts suck, it's obvious, we SHOULD have won those games.

We will bump up some beating the titans, but it's still just another win to most experts.

We'll be in the top 5 or 3 if we handle the steelers and ravens, in fact if we beat these 2 teams in consecutive weeks, they know they have to put us at #2 or #3, we'll have the best record in the AFC, or at least tied for it.

[Bengals1181]

8. Bengals (No. 8; 5-2): Maybe no one has told [url="http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6493/andy-dalton"]Andy Dalton[/url] and [url="http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6438/aj-green"]A.J. Green[/url] that they’re rookies.

[url="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/01/week-eight-power-rankings-2/"]http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/01/week-eight-power-rankings-2/[/url]

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='turningpoint' timestamp='1320168924' post='1054720']



It's fair if you take away you bengals biased.

The seahawks, jags and colts suck, it's obvious, we SHOULD have won those games.

We will bump up some beating the titans, but it's still just another win to most experts.

We'll be in the top 5 or 3 if we handle the steelers and ravens, in fact if we beat these 2 teams in consecutive weeks, they know they have to put us at #2 or #3, we'll have the best record in the AFC, or at least tied for it.
[/quote]

And the Saints SHOULD HAVE beaten the Rams. But they didn't. Every win is valuable.

[Bengals1181]

I continue to like this Hensley guy, consistently calling out his ESPN coworkers for not giving the Bengals any respect.


[quote][b]BENGALS[/b]

[b]Power Ranking[/b]: No. 14

[b]Record[/b]: 5-2


[b]Comment[/b]: Over the past two weeks, the Bengals have moved up four spots but that's not enough. Cincinnati is one of nine teams with two or fewer losses, and the Bengals aren't close to breaking into the top 10. Four three-loss teams -- Jets, Falcons, Texans and Bears -- are all above them. Maybe a win at Tennessee on Sunday will convince voters. [/quote]

[quote] 14 (16) [url="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/cin/cincinnati-bengals"]Bengals[/url] 5-2 Is it time to start thinking about the Bengals as a playoff team? (Walker)
[/quote]

[url="http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/post/_/id/34777/nfl-power-rankings-steelers-to-no-3"]http://espn.go.com/b...teelers-to-no-3[/url]

[Bengals1181]

Some ESPN guy also talks about the Bengals in the video with the rankings. About 1:30 in.

[url="http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings"]http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings[/url]

[Oldcat]

Looking at the Amish Rankings for an idea of schedule strength...SF and BUF look for real - they have played a strong schedule so far and done well. GB and DET seem a bit weaker, schedule wise, but they have done well with wins. BAL is schizophrenic, beating good and losing to bad. We have weaker wins than most 5 win teams but not as bad as the NYG, about par with PIT's average for their 6 wins. OAK/ATL/CHI seem to have had a tough schedule and done average. NYJ, SD, CLE seem noteable for very weak wins. They may sag if they play more good teams down the road.

[oldschooler]

20. Quietly, ever so quietly, the Bengals have won four straight.




[url="http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/nfl-power-rankings-week-9-1.3224904"]http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/nfl-power-rankings-week-9-1.3224904[/url]

[coup000]

20th is a joke. He has us behind every team with a winning record other than Tennessee