Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Give Me Your Top 10 Power Ranking...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 54, 55, 56, 57  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Comparisons
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13423
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

49ersfan wrote:
justo wrote:
Quote:
1) 95.88 Seattle
2) 91.66 San Francisco
3) 90.80 New England
4) 90.40 Denver
5) 87.33 Green Bay
6) 85.19 Chicago
7) 80.14 New York Giants
8) 75.45 Atlanta
9) 75.11 Carolina
10) 70.97 Houston
11) 70.42 Washington
12) 68.69 Baltimore


How does SF go to #2 in a mathematical ranking (i'm assuming it is) after being blown out?
Blown out by the "best" team in the land and beat the #3, #5, #6 and beat the Hawks (#1) the first time around. If NE would have beaten Jacksonville by a solid amount they would probably be #2 instead of SF.
_________________
Webmaster wrote:
The difference is that this is a FOOTBALL forum. Heated debates about FOOTBALL are expected and encouraged. If you want to discuss your cure for Ebola, try ebolasfuture.com or any other appropriate forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GSUeagles14


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 6293
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
49ersfan wrote:
justo wrote:
Quote:
1) 95.88 Seattle
2) 91.66 San Francisco
3) 90.80 New England
4) 90.40 Denver
5) 87.33 Green Bay
6) 85.19 Chicago
7) 80.14 New York Giants
Cool 75.45 Atlanta
9) 75.11 Carolina
10) 70.97 Houston
11) 70.42 Washington
12) 68.69 Baltimore


How does SF go to #2 in a mathematical ranking (i'm assuming it is) after being blown out?
Blown out by the "best" team in the land and beat the #3, #5, #6 and beat the Hawks (#1) the first time around. If NE would have beaten Jacksonville by a solid amount they would probably be #2 instead of SF.


3 of your top 10 teams aren't going to make the playoffs most likely. I believe this formula had the bus at like 5 or 6th a few weeks ago. Why would you take all independent thought out of this and simply go with what it tells you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mendeleev


Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 3044
Location: Ontario
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GSUeagles14 wrote:

3 of your top 10 teams aren't going to make the playoffs most likely. I believe this formula had the bus at like 5 or 6th a few weeks ago. Why would you take all independent thought out of this and simply go with what it tells you?

Independent thought = gut feeling/experienced eye test/defense wins championships/a win is a win?
_________________
Uncle Buck wrote:
Viking fans are VERY happy to see the end of the very successful Favre era, and we gleefully usher in the Rodgers era.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
GSUeagles14


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 6293
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mendeleev wrote:
GSUeagles14 wrote:

3 of your top 10 teams aren't going to make the playoffs most likely. I believe this formula had the bus at like 5 or 6th a few weeks ago. Why would you take all independent thought out of this and simply go with what it tells you?

Independent thought = gut feeling/experienced eye test/defense wins championships/a win is a win?
. Whatever you want it to be. Not plugging #'s into a formula and blindly trusting it, especially one tha seems to have flaws in it. did you really need that defined?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mendeleev


Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 3044
Location: Ontario
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GSUeagles14 wrote:
did you really need that defined?


That is the crux of the argument. People seem to have a lot of opinions without defining any criteria.
_________________
Uncle Buck wrote:
Viking fans are VERY happy to see the end of the very successful Favre era, and we gleefully usher in the Rodgers era.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
GSUeagles14


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 6293
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mendeleev wrote:
GSUeagles14 wrote:
did you really need that defined?


That is the crux of the argument. People seem to have a lot of opinions without defining any criteria.


I apologize if I came off as rude at all, I didn't realize it was a sincere request. To be honest with you, I thought individual thought was pretty straight forward.

As I said, it's whatever you want it to be. When you just use whatever numbers a formula spits out, you're putting yourself in a box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13423
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GSUeagles14 wrote:
3 of your top 10 teams aren't going to make the playoffs most likely. I believe this formula had the bus at like 5 or 6th a few weeks ago. Why would you take all independent thought out of this and simply go with what it tells you?
The best teams don't always go to the playoffs. It's the nature of the WC spots. If the AFC West had the 4 worst teams in the NFL then by nature a top 12 team would have to drop out of the playoffs in replacement for them. Not all divisions are balanced from top to bottom. Silly idea to think that they magically are. Even conferences aren't TBH. I use reasoning when I pick the teams though. I just list my numbers. SF was ranked higher than SEA this weekend but I thought SEA would win.
_________________
Webmaster wrote:
The difference is that this is a FOOTBALL forum. Heated debates about FOOTBALL are expected and encouraged. If you want to discuss your cure for Ebola, try ebolasfuture.com or any other appropriate forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GSUeagles14


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 6293
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
GSUeagles14 wrote:
3 of your top 10 teams aren't going to make the playoffs most likely. I believe this formula had the bus at like 5 or 6th a few weeks ago. Why would you take all independent thought out of this and simply go with what it tells you?
The best teams don't always go to the playoffs. It's the nature of the WC spots. If the AFC West had the 4 worst teams in the NFL then by nature a top 12 team would have to drop out of the playoffs in replacement for them. Not all divisions are balanced from top to bottom. Silly idea to think that they magically are. Even conferences aren't TBH. I use reasoning when I pick the teams though. I just list my numbers. SF was ranked higher than SEA this weekend but I thought SEA would win.


Giants and Chicago have imploded, Carolina was never a playoff threat. None of them deserve payoff spots over anyone else. Does your formula change weekly or has it been the same throughout? Because if the latter is the case, and I'm guessing it is, then what exactly are you choosing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13423
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GSUeagles14 wrote:
justo wrote:
GSUeagles14 wrote:
3 of your top 10 teams aren't going to make the playoffs most likely. I believe this formula had the bus at like 5 or 6th a few weeks ago. Why would you take all independent thought out of this and simply go with what it tells you?
The best teams don't always go to the playoffs. It's the nature of the WC spots. If the AFC West had the 4 worst teams in the NFL then by nature a top 12 team would have to drop out of the playoffs in replacement for them. Not all divisions are balanced from top to bottom. Silly idea to think that they magically are. Even conferences aren't TBH. I use reasoning when I pick the teams though. I just list my numbers. SF was ranked higher than SEA this weekend but I thought SEA would win.


Giants and Chicago have imploded, Carolina was never a playoff threat. None of them deserve payoff spots over anyone else. Does your formula change weekly or has it been the same throughout? Because if the latter is the case, and I'm guessing it is, then what exactly are you choosing?
If don't give credit to what NY and Chi have done then is there really any teams to put in the top 10? NY blew out the Packers and 49ers which is more than any other team has done this year TBH. (Outside of SEA) NY is just really inconsistent. I don't want to face that team if they get in the playoffs. Judging by everyones reaction on here yesterday I don't think anyone in the NFC does.

What do you mean does it change? I mean more results get plugged into it and stuff, yeah.

Quick question: are you a guy that believes in teams "peaking" and players being "clutch"?
_________________
Webmaster wrote:
The difference is that this is a FOOTBALL forum. Heated debates about FOOTBALL are expected and encouraged. If you want to discuss your cure for Ebola, try ebolasfuture.com or any other appropriate forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GSUeagles14


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 6293
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
GSUeagles14 wrote:
justo wrote:
GSUeagles14 wrote:
3 of your top 10 teams aren't going to make the playoffs most likely. I believe this formula had the bus at like 5 or 6th a few weeks ago. Why would you take all independent thought out of this and simply go with what it tells you?
The best teams don't always go to the playoffs. It's the nature of the WC spots. If the AFC West had the 4 worst teams in the NFL then by nature a top 12 team would have to drop out of the playoffs in replacement for them. Not all divisions are balanced from top to bottom. Silly idea to think that they magically are. Even conferences aren't TBH. I use reasoning when I pick the teams though. I just list my numbers. SF was ranked higher than SEA this weekend but I thought SEA would win.


Giants and Chicago have imploded, Carolina was never a playoff threat. None of them deserve payoff spots over anyone else. Does your formula change weekly or has it been the same throughout? Because if the latter is the case, and I'm guessing it is, then what exactly are you choosing?
If don't give credit to what NY and Chi have done then is there really any teams to put in the top 10? NY blew out the Packers and 49ers which is more than any other team has done this year TBH. (Outside of SEA) NY is just really inconsistent. I don't want to face that team if they get in the playoffs. Judging by everyones reaction on here yesterday I don't think anyone in the NFC does.

What do you mean does it change? I mean more results get plugged into it and stuff, yeah.

Quick question: are you a guy that believes in teams "peaking" and players being "clutch"?


Being "clutch", falls into a cloudy category. I absolutely believe in teams peaking, you don't?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13423
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GSUeagles14 wrote:
I absolutely believe in teams peaking, you don't?
Not really. Injury is a different thing but the same corp doesn't really peak in the span of 16 games IMO. The sample sizes are small and people tend to not look at competition. It's why people think the Panthers are peaking now and the Texans are slipping even though they basically have been playing the same minus a couple lucky and unlucky breaks here and there. Not taking into account of opponents is pretty crazy IMO.

It's like when people look at rushing yards as "this team is good at running the ball." It's like people saying oh I make 100 currency. YPC is like how much per hour. Taking into account of opponent is like figuring out what currency it is. I feel like it's the most under looked thing in the NFL TBH.
_________________
Webmaster wrote:
The difference is that this is a FOOTBALL forum. Heated debates about FOOTBALL are expected and encouraged. If you want to discuss your cure for Ebola, try ebolasfuture.com or any other appropriate forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GSUeagles14


Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 6293
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
GSUeagles14 wrote:
I absolutely believe in teams peaking, you don't?
Not really. Injury is a different thing but the same corp doesn't really peak in the span of 16 games IMO. The sample sizes are small and people tend to not look at competition. It's why people think the Panthers are peaking now and the Texans are slipping even though they basically have been playing the same minus a couple lucky and unlucky breaks here and there. Not taking into account of opponents is pretty crazy IMO.

It's like when people look at rushing yards as "this team is good at running the ball." It's like people saying oh I make 100 currency. YPC is like how much per hour. Taking into account of opponent is like figuring out what currency it is. I feel like it's the most under looked thing in the NFL TBH.


So you think players perform consistently every week and chemistry doesn't matter?

And I agree you have to look at competition, that doesnt mean teams can't be playing at the end of the season then the beginning or vice versa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
x0x


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 15470
Location: Ontario, Canada
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seattle putting up the most points in a 3 game stretch since the 1950 Rams......I am impress....


1. Seahawks
2. Falcons
3. Broncos
4. Packers
5. Patriots
6. Texans
7. 49ers
8. Vikings
9. Skins
10. Ravens
_________________
Legends Never Die. They Breathe Through The New Generation.
100 Greatest Quarterbacks of All Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31980
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think looking at the last 8 weeks under the same system would be a good study too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DontTazeMeBro


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 26443
Location: 321
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(Last week)

1(1). 49ers
2(3). Bears
3(4). Ravens
4(2). Giants
5(6). Seahawks
6(5). Patriots
7(8). Broncos
8(9). Falcons
9(10). Packers
10(UR). Vikings

Dropped Out

(9). Texans

So I'm just gonna throw out Sunday night for the Niners. No Justin Smith. Toughest stadium to travel to. That blocked kick was basically a 10 point play. Pete even said they've been scheming a month for SF's run game. I feel pretty comfortable what I saw wasn't the real 49ers.

Giants drop to 4. It was a thorough domination. No pick 6s or ST TDs. Nothing fluky. Ravens scored 6 times on drives of 60+ yards.

Bears Ravens was close. But while the Ravens did a great job protecting Joe against those great pass rushers, I still don't fully trust their pass pro. So The Bears elite D gets the edge.

Seahawks pass New England. I don't like that much about the Patriots. But they are a pretty physical team and I think if you put them in hostile weather conditions they would dominate any finesse team and that keeps them above 7-9.

Broncos pass Falcons. Similar teams but I like Manning a lot more than Ryan. More playmakers in the front seven. Better OL.

I like the Texans less and less every week. One of the things I still liked about them was their run game and it is looking like the massive amount of carries Foster has taken the last few years may be catching up to them.

Don't really like the Vikings much but they have an elite run game and are pretty physical. So they take the final spot.

So after next week what I think I am going to do is rank all 12 playoff teams. All year I have said I am ranking on how I see these teams stacking up at a championship level. But it doesn't really make sense to include teams that won't be playing for a championship.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Comparisons All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 54, 55, 56, 57  Next
Page 55 of 57

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group