I know pre-season Power Rankings are a joke, but... (NFL 2010)

[Shea Zellweger]

These ones seem a bit more jocular than most: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/07/27/precamp.1/index.html

I'd be willing to overlook the Jets' pick as #1 as being pie-in-the-sky, but placing the Packers all the way at 5th, and the Giants and Dolphins not even cracking the top half of the league... I just don't know how to respond.

[Ryan Scott]

I'm unsure about the Dolphins because of their division. I do think the Jets have the best team going in.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm unsure about the Dolphins because of their division. I do think the Jets have the best team going in.

Best team in the entire league? They were 9-7 last year, and should have been 8-8 or even 7-9 if certain teams (such as the Colts) hadn't rested their starters. It appears on paper that they've improved, but giving them a number one ranking is presumptuous at best, at the Saints and Colts are both returning enough of their rosters that I wouldn't be so ready to raise a previously mediocre team above them. If you wanted to suggest that the Vikings, or the Bengals, or the Chargers deserved a #1 spot, you might have some grounds, but at this point the Jets on paper have not improved to the point that it's time for a coronation ceremony.

[Ryan Scott]

I've made it a rule for the past decade since I really started following the NFL closely to seek out the team with the best defense and pick them in the preseason. It doesn't work out every time, of course, because the games have yet to be played, but the Jets have the best defense. They look like a carbon copy of the Ravens team that won it all. I don't believe in Sanchez at QB, but I don't think they need much offense and they run the ball most of the time anyway.

You can tell very little about the NFL from season to season; they've designed it that way. A 5 win team can be a powerhouse the next year even without changing personnel.

The best teams from a year ago lost key players; the Jets have only gotten deeper. I'm not willing to say this will make sense once games get started - I've never figured out a way to spot chemistry problems early on, but going in the Jets are the best team in the league.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm unsure about the Dolphins because of their division. I do think the Jets have the best team going in.

And this is why i cannot wait until the Dolphins beat the Jets in those first 4 weeks. I can't stand this unfounded hype. It will drive me crazy by the start of the season.

[Ryan Scott]

unfounded

This is what I don't get. I'm not sure how it's unfounded. I'll have no problems if the Dolphins beat the Jets. Great. I have no attachment to the Jets. Some people will pick the game correctly, others will pick it wrong.

The Jets were gifted a playoff spot last season, but they took advantage of it and played well in the playoffs. Their team has only improved, at least on paper, which is the only medium by which to judge the off-season.

I don't think its a unanimous call or even one that's difficult to challenge - I just have a hard time believing its unfounded.

There's six or eight teams that could be called #1 going in. I'll disagree with seven of the them, but I'll understand why they were chosen.

Unfounded seems like a strong word.

(Hype, on the other hand, that one worries me. When everyone in the media seems to be agreeing with me, there's no better time to second guess myself.)

[Benjamin Burch]

This is what I don't get. I'm not sure how it's unfounded. I'll have no problems if the Dolphins beat the Jets. Great. I have no attachment to the Jets. Some people will pick the game correctly, others will pick it wrong.

I agree. If the Jets win it won't change my opinion that the Dolphins are a better team, nor will it be any more heart-breaking than any other loss than the Jets.

My only point was that as a Dolphins fan, clearly beating the Jets when they're this over-hyped will feel extra sweet. Even if we're a worse team and go 2-14 and win one game against the Jets.... it'll feel that much better because of the hype.



The Jets were gifted a playoff spot last season, but they took advantage of it and played well in the playoffs. Their team has only improved, at least on paper, which is the only medium by which to judge the off-season.

I don't think its a unanimous call or even one that's difficult to challenge - I just have a hard time believing its unfounded.

There's six or eight teams that could be called #1 going in. I'll disagree with seven of the them, but I'll understand why they were chosen.

Unfounded seems like a strong word.

(Hype, on the other hand, that one worries me. When everyone in the media seems to be agreeing with me, there's no better time to second guess myself.)

I would disagree with the assertion that they've gotten better on paper... and even if they have - better than 7-9 (which is what they would have been) doesn't say much.

Are they a playoff team? Yes. I think so.
Are they going to win the East? Possibly.
Are they in the top 5 teams in the league? Not even close. Not by a long shot.

It's unfounded because there is no reason to put them there. Taking advantage of a playoff spot is not reason to put them up high, and they have not improved enough to warrant being put #1.

That's exactly why I used the term "unfounded." I shouldn't have to prove the negative. The onus is on the one wishing to say they're a #1 team to show that it's founded. Nothing you said in this post is foundation for calling a team #1.

[Shea Zellweger]

This is what I don't get. I'm not sure how it's unfounded. I'll have no problems if the Dolphins beat the Jets. Great. I have no attachment to the Jets. Some people will pick the game correctly, others will pick it wrong.

The Jets were gifted a playoff spot last season, but they took advantage of it and played well in the playoffs. Their team has only improved, at least on paper, which is the only medium by which to judge the off-season.

I don't think its a unanimous call or even one that's difficult to challenge - I just have a hard time believing its unfounded.

There's six or eight teams that could be called #1 going in. I'll disagree with seven of the them, but I'll understand why they were chosen.

Unfounded seems like a strong word.

(Hype, on the other hand, that one worries me. When everyone in the media seems to be agreeing with me, there's no better time to second guess myself.)

The Saints and Colts will grace the tops of lists for obvious reasons. The Vikings, if Favre returns, could also receive the top bid. What I just don't get is any reason you pick for ranking the Jets at the top, there are other teams who fit that bill who had an advantage over the Jets to begin with, with the sole exception of pass defense. Sure, they appear to have improved on paper. So do the Bengals, and had it not been for the shocking death of a teammate last year, from which they clearly did not recover, the Jets may very well have been bounced out of the first round. The Jets had a rookie quarterback sensation. Okay, well he wasn't that sensational, but even if he was, most statistics would suggest that he's more likely to regress this year than advance. Even their vaunted pass defense is in trouble now that the word is out about Revis and there's 3 years' worth of tape to study. By all accounts their running game has gotten weaker, which means they'll need to rely on the improved passing game, which could be problematic depending on how Sanchez performs...

I think it's mostly hype at this point. That there is such a large agreement on the supremacy of the Jets when they are entirely unproven bothers me. That they're being given a #1 rank before they've done anything, even though their team is not an obviously dominant pick, is even more bothersome.

Still, apart from the Jets, is nobody else a little disturbed by the terrible rankings for the Giants and Dolphins?

[Benjamin Burch]

The Saints and Colts will grace the tops of lists for obvious reasons. The Vikings, if Favre returns, could also receive the top bid. What I just don't get is any reason you pick for ranking the Jets at the top, there are other teams who fit that bill who had an advantage over the Jets to begin with, with the sole exception of pass defense. Sure, they appear to have improved on paper. So do the Bengals, and had it not been for the shocking death of a teammate last year, from which they clearly did not recover, the Jets may very well have been bounced out of the first round. The Jets had a rookie quarterback sensation. Okay, well he wasn't that sensational, but even if he was, most statistics would suggest that he's more likely to regress this year than advance. Even their vaunted pass defense is in trouble now that the word is out about Revis and there's 3 years' worth of tape to study. By all accounts their running game has gotten weaker, which means they'll need to rely on the improved passing game, which could be problematic depending on how Sanchez performs...

I think it's mostly hype at this point. That there is such a large agreement on the supremacy of the Jets when they are entirely unproven bothers me. That they're being given a #1 rank before they've done anything, even though their team is not an obviously dominant pick, is even more bothersome.

^^^^This



Still, apart from the Jets, is nobody else a little disturbed by the terrible rankings for the Giants and Dolphins?

No, I expected it. The Giants had a lackluster year last year and they didn't improve much on paper. They'll still be a very good team, but the media only has enough love for one NY team. Clearly they've chosen the Jets.

Also, as far as the Dolphins go, we were 7-9 last year. If you don't make the playoffs, that's all anyone sees. No one notices that we were 1-1 versus the Patriots, 2-0 versus the Jets, lost to the Colts on a last drive touchdown (bad defensive call - watch the tape. Manning saw it and ate it up), and played the Saints very well, taking a lead into half.

Also, no one seems to give Chad Henne much love. The guy has an outstanding arm, absolutely one of the top arms in football, and has possessed good instincts and IQ thus far. However, everyone views him as mediocre, or they just don't know what to think of him. Most people still think of us as "the Wildcat." They don't realize that we went 7-6 with Henne at the helm and did so with little to no wildcat for half the season.

Other things hurt us -

(1) We had a terrible defense last year.
(2) Ronnie Brown is recovering from his 2nd season-ending injury in the last 3 years.
(3) Ricky Williams is 33 turning 34 this season.

I don't expect to get much love from people who haven't followed this team and invested time and energy into knowing, watching, and analyzing their players. We have a lot to prove. I think we'll be a playoff team this year. I will let the guys prove it on the field, though.

[Bob Hunter]

I think it's mostly hype at this point. That there is such a large agreement on the supremacy of the Jets when they are entirely unproven bothers me. That they're being given a #1 rank before they've done anything, even though their team is not an obviously dominant pick, is even more bothersome.

Still, apart from the Jets, is nobody else a little disturbed by the terrible rankings for the Giants and Dolphins?

Don't you love it Shea? Unfounded, overzealous, sensationalized opinions appearing in print! But I think these rankings are part of the usual hype to build excitement for the coming season. I do think the Jets look very promising. Sanchez is just amazing and will lead this team to play some exciting games, but to give them top ranking? Nah! I wouldn't rule out the Patriots either, I don't think they are given enough credit. We'll see.

[Shea Zellweger]

Sanchez is just amazing.

He's entering his 2nd year as a QB, and I don't want to get down on him, because he shows promise, but this is exactly the kind of unfounded claim that is vaulting the Jets far too high. Sanchez's rookie season included 12 TD and 20 INT, and was in the bottom 5 among starters in QB Rating, completion percentage, Yards/Game, and INT. He looked marginally better than Matthew Stafford, throwing about 200 more yards and one less TD in 5 more games (Stafford's INTs were a problem), but compared to Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan the year before, his rookie numbers are nothing about which to write home. He may yet develop into a great NFL player, but there is nothing in his rookie season that would lead one to believe that he is above-average, let alone "just amazing."

[Benjamin Burch]

Sanchez is just amazing and will lead this team to play some exciting games, but to give them top ranking?

This is what I'm talking about when I say there is no love for Chad Henne.

With one season under center for each QB... just look at the stat lines...

Mark Sanchez (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SancMa00.htm)

Chad Henne (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HennCh01.htm)

It's not even close. Chad Henne was playing on a different planet than Sanchez was last year. Add to this the fact that Henne has a much stronger arm, and arguably more accurate....

If Sanchez is "amazing"... then it seems there are no words to describe just how good Chad Henne is.

Add a legitimate #1 receiver in Brandon Marshall and remove Sir Drops-a-lot (Ted Ginn)... need i say more? I'm excited.

[Shea Zellweger]

This is what I'm talking about when I say there is no love for Chad Henne.

With one season under center for each QB... just look at the stat lines...

Mark Sanchez (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SancMa00.htm)

Chad Henne (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HennCh01.htm)

It's not even close. Chad Henne was playing on a different planet than Sanchez was last year. Add to this the fact that Henne has a much stronger arm, and arguably more accurate....

If Sanchez is "amazing"... then it seems there are no words to describe just how good Chad Henne is.

Add a legitimate #1 receiver in Brandon Marshall and remove Sir Drops-a-lot (Ted Ginn)... need i say more? I'm excited.

To add to this a little bit, if you take the active starting QBs from last year and look at the year in which they first started 10 games or more, only Donovan McNabb, Kyle Orton, Alex Smith, Matt Stafford and Josh Freeman had lower QB Ratings. That puts Sanchez' first full season under center in the bottom 20% among all active QBs.

[Benjamin Burch]

To add to this a little bit, if you take the active starting QBs from last year and look at the year in which they first started 10 games or more, only Donovan McNabb, Kyle Orton, Alex Smith, Matt Stafford and Josh Freeman had lower QB Ratings. That puts Sanchez' first full season under center in the bottom 20% among all active QBs.

McNabb is pretty good though....

[Shea Zellweger]

McNabb is pretty good though....

Yes he is, I'm glad you brought that up :). McNabb's first "full season" that I was counting was not really his first year as the starter. In fact, he didn't start a game until week 14 of that year. However, I felt his stats were enough to qualify him, since he did have over 200 passing attempts. His first season as an actual starter was far and away better than Sanchez's.

[Bob Hunter]

Okay, maybe amazing is overstating it, I use that word loosely because I'm a sensational kinda guy. Anyway, I do find it interesting that while Sanchez does not have amazing stats, he does seem to have what it takes to win. Lets face it, he was a winner in college and shows the potential of being a winner in the NFL. Winning a playoff game as a rookie is pretty impressive. He wasn't heroic in the playoffs, but he did just enough to win a game raise a few eyebrows and apparently get some people talking. Sometimes a QB brings a certain something that contributes to a team's overall winning attitude and that by itself can be very valuable. And it could be that Sanchez is that type of leader.

[Shea Zellweger]

Okay, maybe amazing is overstating it, I use that word loosely because I'm a sensational kinda guy. Anyway, I do find it interesting that while Sanchez does not have amazing stats, he does seem to have what it takes to win. Lets face it, he was a winner in college and shows the potential of being a winner in the NFL. Winning a playoff game as a rookie is pretty impressive. He wasn't heroic in the playoffs, but he did just enough to win a game raise a few eyebrows and apparently get some people talking. Sometimes a QB brings a certain something that contributes to a team's overall winning attitude and that by itself can be very valuable. And it could be that Sanchez is that type of leader.

"it does seem"... "shows the potential"... "could be that type of leader"... these are all phrases that indicate a good perception of Sanchez. He could develop into a solid quarterback, possibly even an exceptional one. The simple fact is that so far he has not. Yes, he did just enough to win a couple of playoff games, but if he had done a little bit more in the regular season, his team wouldn't have needed gifts from the Colts and Bengals to barely creep into the playoffs. He is quite simply unproven, and until he proves himself as an above average or elite QB, his team can't be considered a legitimate #1.

[Steven Martinez]

To add to this a little bit, if you take the active starting QBs from last year and look at the year in which they first started 10 games or more, only Donovan McNabb, Kyle Orton, Alex Smith, Matt Stafford and Josh Freeman had lower QB Ratings. That puts Sanchez' first full season under center in the bottom 20% among all active QBs.

You have to be carefull about stats in a vacum. First of all, on your list, Only Stafford, Smith and Orton started on week 1 of their first season (when they were drafted). Considering that Smith and Stafford were number 1 overall picks, Sanchez seems to be doing all right. I think Sanchez has great potential. As far as Henne is concerned, he should have been way better then Sanchez considering the extra year to learn the system. For example, if you look at Net yards gained per pass atempt, Sanchez was 5.8 yards while Henne was 5.7 yards. Virtually the teams got the same production value of throwing the ball with either QB. By the way the leaders of the NY/A were Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees and Peyton Manning - 8.0, 8.0, and 7.6 respectfully. Sanchez, Freeman, Henne and Smith finished 21, 22, 23, and 24.

[Shea Zellweger]

You have to be carefull about stats in a vacum. First of all, on your list, Only Stafford, Smith and Orton started on week 1 of their first season (when they were drafted).

on the list of those who had lower ratings than Sanchez, yes. There were several other QBs who started week 1 of their first year and ranked much better in all measurable stats that first year. I'm not denying Sanchez's potential. It's definitely there. What I'm denying is that there's any quantifiable measure by which Sanchez could currently be considered "Amazing," or even above average.

[Steven Martinez]

on the list of those who had lower ratings than Sanchez, yes. There were several other QBs who started week 1 of their first year and ranked much better in all measurable stats that first year. I'm not denying Sanchez's potential. It's definitely there. What I'm denying is that there's any quantifiable measure by which Sanchez could currently be considered "Amazing," or even above average.

I agree with what you are saying. I was using a stat to show that Sanchez is not at the top nor is he at the bottom of the pile. He seems to be doing about right in regards to his first year. What stands out to me is how well Roethlisberger played his rookie season. He had a NY/A of 7.4 which was in the top five! Henne has a way to go to be considered a superstar as does Sanchez. I was basically saying they are at the same production.

[Shea Zellweger]

I agree with what you are saying. I was using a stat to show that Sanchez is not at the top nor is he at the bottom of the pile. He seems to be doing about right in regards to his first year. What stands out to me is how well Roethlisberger played his rookie season. He had a NY/A of 7.4 which was in the top five! Henne has a way to go to be considered a superstar as does Sanchez. I was basically saying they are at the same production.

Oh, you won't hear me lauding the merits of Henne any time soon. He's not exactly Roethlisberger or P Manning either. I think if you look at the early careers of current league QBs, their first full season as a starter is generally a pretty good indication of what their overall performance would be. There are exceptions in both directions, and Sanchez could become one, but until that happens he is presently on track to be a very average QB.

[David Morris]

The first question you have to ask yourself is, "Who will be playing the Colts in the AFC championship game?".

The 2nd question you have to ask yourself is, "Who will be playing the Colts in the Superbowl?"