ESPN power rankings just organize teams by record. That's what the standings do. Power rankings should function to tell you who the best teams are, regardless of record. For example, by record, the Arizona Cardinals are infinitely better than the New Orleans Saints. If the Bears had to play one game to make the playoffs, who would you rather face? It's a real question, right? Well, to me that means those teams should be close in power rankings even if they're far apart in the standings. So without further adieu, here goes:
1. Atlanta (4-0). The most complete team in the league. High-powered offense that can score at will.
2. Houston (4-0). They've only had one test, a 6-point road win at Denver. But they've obliterated their other crappy competition and look to have the complete package, mostly because they have Danieal Manning.
3. San Francisco (3-1). Their defense is that good.
4. Green Bay (2-2). The record deceives. A loss to SF and another "loss" to Seattle don't change the fact that their offense is still excellent. The scheme is perfect. They could still get to 12 wins.
5. Chicago (3-1). Elite defense, elite special teams, strong passing offense, still a weak O-Line.
6. Baltimore (3-1). Flacco is good, but no better. He still holds them from the top echelon.
7. New York Giants (2-2). Still a good defense, and Eli will keep them going.
8. New England (2-2). That loss to ARZ is still weird. But they're .500 with a +42 point differential. They've still got Brady.
9. Pittsburgh (1-2). Road losses in Denver and Oakland. They could easily be 5-2 in a month and still have Cleveland twice after that.
10. Denver (2-2). Peyton's arm is....less. Plenty of defense and Peyton won't lose them games. Their division is uninspiring.
11. San Diego (3-1). Wins over Oakland, Tennessee, and Kansas City. Obliterated by Atlanta. Let's see them play someone else (like New Orleans and Denver back-to-back). I still don't believe in Philip Rivers.
12. Dallas (2-2). Last night was awesome for us, horrifying for Dallas. They're not nearly as bad as they looked last night.
13. New Orleans (0-4). Four losses. Outscored by 20 points. The schedule is brutal, so they're not going to the playoffs. But I still don't want to play them.
14. Arizona (4-0). Great defense and Patrick Peterson is a score waiting to happen at all times. But they still don't have an offense.
15. Cincinnati (3-1). The hardest team for me to peg. They've beaten crappy teams, but on the road. They were annihilated by Baltimore. I just don't know what they'll look like in a month.
16. Minnesota (3-1). Good defense and special teams paired with an excellent rushing attack. Worked for the QB-less '05 Bears. Won't last for Minny, but Ponder looks better than some other young QBs (Bradford, Gabbert).
17. Seattle (2-2). A seriously lucky win over GB. But a similarly close loss in Arizona. They're extremely unspectacular, but the young defense looks useful.
18. Carolina (1-3). Inflated because of Cam Newton. Ron Rivera the head coach looks like a disaster. But with Cam, they appear competitive at all times.
19. Philadelphia (3-1). Could very easily be 0-4 after 1-point wins over Cleveland and Baltimore and a 2-point win over the banged-up Giants on a missed FG. This team could go 4-12. They look worse than I expected, even if their record is much better.
20. Washington (2-2). I didn't buy RGIII before the year. I was wrong. The rest of the offense has a ways to go though. Defense has been much worse that expected, particularly that showing in St. Louis.
21. Buffalo (2-2). Trade out Ryan Fitzpatrick for an average QB and they jump 10 spots.
22. Detroit (1-3). Their good things are great (D-Line, QB, Megatron). Their bad things are horrendous (DBs, OL). Last year was a bit of a farce, but they're genuinely improving and could contend next year.
23. Indianapolis (1-2). Luck looks legitimate. They need another WR (or two), but the offense could be good in a year. Defense lagging behind.
24. Oakland (1-3). Carson will help them compete in games and McFadden still impresses me. Crap defense.
25. St. Louis (2-2). Better defense, but Bradford can't survive behind their awful line. Years away still as the offense is really in shambles.
26. New York Jets (2-2). Defense isn't as good as offense is bad. Without Revis to steal some games, they're a mess. Sanchez is bad.
27. Kansas City (1-3). Matt Cassel killing this team. I think Kyle Orton could get them to .500.
28. Tampa Bay (1-3). They don't do anything particularly well. Feels like a random collection of players on a team with no identity.
29. Miami (1-3). Defense is alright and Bush has impressed. Tannehill doing better than I expected, but years away from being good.
30. Jacksonville (1-3). Gabbert is easily the second worst starter in the league. He was an awful pick and sets the team back a couple of years. It's hard to get a good read on the rest of the core because of how bad he is.
31. Tennessee (1-3). Much worse than I expected. QB mess. CJ2K terrible. Missing Finnegan badly. They could pick in the top-3 next year. A big drop from Jacksonville.
32. Cleveland (0-4). They might jump 10 spots when they draft Matt Barkley. Until then, with Brandon Weeden running the show, they've got a stranglehold on this spot. Joe Thomas is a franchise OT and Trent Richardson looks great. That's about it.
How bad are things for the Browns? Remember when they traded #6 overall to the Falcons in 2011 when Atlanta drafted stud WR Julio Jones? Cleveland got #27, #59, and #124 in 2011 as well as #22 and #118 in 2012. Here's what they did with each pick:
#27 in 2011: Traded to KC along with Cleveland's own 3rd-rounder (#70) for #21. Cleveland chose DT Phil Taylor, an All-Rookie player.
#59 in 2011: Cleveland chose WR Greg Little. Little has been constantly criticized for numerous drops.
#124 in 2011: Cleveland chose FB Owen Marecic, the only FB drafted in the first four rounds. While Marecic is admittedly awesome (started at FB AND LB for Stanford), he's hardly an impact player.
#22 in 2012: Cleveland chose QB Brandon Weeden, a rookie who turns 29 next weekend.
#118 in 2012: Included in the mind-numbing deal whereby Cleveland traded #4 overall for #3 overall. To make that huge leap over Minnesota to draft RB Trent Richardson (I'm sure MIN was going to draft him), Cleveland surrendered #4, #118, #139, and #211.
The Julio Jones trade in itself wasn't a terrible idea for a Browns team that desperately needed to add depth and multiple starters. But their subsequent actions left me with plenty of questions.
1. If they wanted a WR out of the 2011 draft, why not draft elite-level talent Jones, then find a DT in the second round? Taylor himself may have slipped thanks to off-field issues.
2. Drafting a FB in the 4th round when your team has tons of holes is irresponsible. Not a question, just an admonishment.
3. Weeden? Why? Does anyone anywhere think he's going to be a top-20 QB at any point in his career? He's 4.5 years older than Matthew Stafford: of course he looked great in the Big XII last year! Any of the next 8 picks would have worked exponentially better.
4. You can't get fleeced moving up from 4 to 3. The only time you should pay a lot to move up in that manner is in a draft with 3 HOF caliber QBs and a team holding the #3 pick that puts it up for sale. What happens if someone else trades with Minny to move up to #3? Nothing! In fact, Cleveland does even better. Instead of drafting luxury skill player RB Richardson, they take OT Kalil or luxury skill position player WR Blackmon without giving up those extra picks.
There's a reason some teams suck a lot. For the Cleveland Browns, just look at their last two drafts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the above, I still feel reasonably good about it, especially my diatribe against Cleveland. Congratulations to the Browns for a strong showing against the Bengals; unfortunately, they're still #32 in my mind right now. Cincinnati is moving down toward them. Were I to do a full blown new list, Cincinnati and San Diego would be the big fallers (shocking) while Seattle would enjoy a nice rise. But that's about all for the big movers.
No comments:
Post a Comment