PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Still #1 Power Rankings



REDMUDSLIDE
11-19-2003, 10:43 PM
A REMINDER, OH BY THE WAY DONKEYS #10

Mudcat
11-19-2003, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by REDMUDSLIDE
A REMINDER, OH BY THE WAY DONKEYS #10

Who cares about power rankings? They mean nothing unless the seasons over.

Javalon
11-19-2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by REDMUDSLIDE
Chiefs Still #1 Power Rankings
A REMINDER, OH BY THE WAY DONKEYS #10

First of all, power rankings obviously don't matter. Just look at your Chiefs' last game. :)

Second, it depends on which ranking you look at. Sports Illustrated has dropped the Chiefs to #2 and moved the Titans up to #1. As has About Football, TeamRankings.com, and various other sports sites or publications.

broncos4ever
11-19-2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by REDMUDSLIDE
A REMINDER, OH BY THE WAY DONKEYS #10

Go to the SMACK board, if you have nothing to add or intelligent to say...

Woody
11-20-2003, 12:46 AM
If your really into the power ratings that much, why didnt you mention that in the power ratings it says Denver is a Super Bowl team with Jake Plummr starting?

LordTrychon
11-20-2003, 03:18 AM
It depends on which power rankings you are reading. I think it was ESPN.com's Power rankings that said exactly that.

bklynbronco
11-20-2003, 04:50 AM
Maybe I missed it but are you KC fan or a raider fan or what? you just seem to say things and disappear.

RunByDesign
11-20-2003, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by broncos4ever
if you have nothing to add or intelligent to say...

I think that is why he is here...he doesn't understand.

elwaymvp
11-20-2003, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by REDMUDSLIDE
A REMINDER, OH BY THE WAY DONKEYS #10

Hmm...12 teams make the Playoffs, right?

Chris
11-20-2003, 08:20 AM
I guess we should give up since all those "experts" (who are consitently being proved wrong since they have a tendency to take 0 risk) that live on the east coast have said that we are not going to make the superbowl.

These people do not know what they are talking about. How often do you see the guys on ESPN predicting the upset? Very rarely because on that big a stage they would rather pick the favorite and risk less damage to their "credibility".

Javalon
11-20-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by tahuya man
No they didn't, you mis-quoted. Maybe your power rankings say that, but nobody is calling the Broncos a Super Bowl team because of Plummer being back. ESPN says that Denver's a different team with Plummer. The only people talking Super Bowl for Denver are all right here.

And there's no reason for them to call the Broncos a Super Bowl team...yet. Breaking a 3-game losing streak with Jake back in the lineup is just a good start. The Broncos need to play like they did last Sunday for about 5 of their last 7 games and then we can consider our team serious contenders.

But there are still SIX weeks left in the season. A lot can happen in that timeframe.

Orange&Blue
11-20-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by REDMUDSLIDE
A REMINDER, OH BY THE WAY DONKEYS #10

You still listen to the media, even though they say that the Bengals exposed you and they've kicked you to the curb and made Carolina their new darling? Don't get too high on the media attention. From the comments I read that came from the Chiefs lockerroom after the game last Sunday, it sounded like they bought their own hype and thought their crap didn't stink.

NOLABroncofan
11-20-2003, 11:24 AM
I don't put much faith into the Power Rankings, however, the bragging rights are decent when you are #1.

Nuff said...

TXBRONC
11-20-2003, 09:20 PM
I second that NOLA.

bklynbronco
11-21-2003, 07:44 AM
power rankings are good if you need to stroke your ego. It's like being No.1 in college football or basketball all year and you don't make the championship game or lose the champioship game what's the point. Some fans need to be told that thier team is good while other fans just know it and disregard power rankings.
power rankings won't get you a better seeeding in the playoffs. Remember somebody in the AFC north will win the division with either a 9-7 or 8-8 record and make the playoffs and they won't have a high power ranking so should that mean take them lightly? I don't think so. The power ranking i care about is the one that comes right after the super bowl.

ChiefsMang
11-21-2003, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by bklynbronco
power rankings are good if you need to stroke your ego. It's like being No.1 in college football or basketball all year and you don't make the championship game or lose the champioship game what's the point. Some fans need to be told that thier team is good while other fans just know it and disregard power rankings.
power rankings won't get you a better seeeding in the playoffs. Remember somebody in the AFC north will win the division with either a 9-7 or 8-8 record and make the playoffs and they won't have a high power ranking so should that mean take them lightly? I don't think so. The power ranking i care about is the one that comes right after the super bowl.
You're right, but I bet you'd think a little different if the Broncos were #1.

broncos4ever
11-21-2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by ChiefsMang
You're right, but I bet you'd think a little different if the Broncos were #1.

I don't know. Rankings don't matter if you don't win the Superbowl. You at least have to win the AFC Conference. We've done that a few times and that has been nice. Superbowl is the best though.

How you do in the playoffs is a real test of how good your team is. That is where the "real teams" put forth their best effort. Unfortunately we have not been there for some time...

bklynbronco
11-21-2003, 08:35 AM
look at the history of the afc in the last ten years.
93 #1 seed buffalo-lost to dallas in SB
94 #1 seed pitsburgh-lost afc championship to SD
95 #1 seed Kansas City-lost divisional playoff to colts
96 #1 seed Denver- lost jacksonville in divisional playoffs
97 #1 seed Kansas city-lost divisional playoffs to denver
98 #1 seed Denver- won super bowl
99 #1 seed Jacksonville-lost Afc championship to Tenn
00 #1 seed Tennesse- lost to baltimore in divisional playoff
01 #1 seed Pittburgh- lost to NE in AFC championship game.
02 #1 seed oakland- lost super bowl to TB

All these teams were probably in the top three in power rankings only one won a super bowl,three made it to the super bowl another three made it to the AFC championship and the rest lost in their first playoff game. that's why i don't believe in power rankings or seeding because history shows that what you are in the season doesn't mean sqwat in the playoffs. so no even if denver was #1 in the power rankings it wouldn't mean anything unless they win the super bowl.

Javalon
11-21-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by ChiefsMang
You're right, but I bet you'd think a little different if the Broncos were #1.

I can't speak for anyone else but, yeah, I would enjoy having the Broncos listed #1 in the power rankings. Who doesn't like to see their team acclaimed on a national basis? But even then I take it with a grain of salt.

TXBRONC
11-21-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by bklynbronco
power rankings are good if you need to stroke your ego. It's like being No.1 in college football or basketball all year and you don't make the championship game or lose the champioship game what's the point. Some fans need to be told that thier team is good while other fans just know it and disregard power rankings.
power rankings won't get you a better seeeding in the playoffs. Remember somebody in the AFC north will win the division with either a 9-7 or 8-8 record and make the playoffs and they won't have a high power ranking so should that mean take them lightly? I don't think so. The power ranking i care about is the one that comes right after the super bowl.

I think it was 1986 the Browns won the Central division with an 8-8 record and then they went down to Miami and beat them on their home turf.

bklynbronco
11-25-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by horseface
history also says that if you go 9-0...there is a good chance that you not only go to the super bowl...but win it. History says lots of things...but none of them really mean squat. And yes...I'm in agreement that power rankings are worthless...but your stats about #1 seeds historically not doing well...are just as worthless...which it looks like you agree with.

Here we go again. Did i do something to you or do you just look for my post and just want to argue. I put up those stats to prove in the AFC the history has not been good for the favorites or the no 1 seed. denver was the last team to go to a superbowl after being 9-0. eventually they went 13-0 before losing to the giants. that was five years ago. On the NFC side if you remember wasn't minnesota 15-1 in 98 and they lost to atlanta in the nfc championship. Back in a day the team with homefield usually went to the super bowl that's not automatic nowadays. you want to argue and say that teams with a 10-1 record have a better chance of advancing in the playoffs, I say 10 -15 years ago that was automatic nowadays even wild cards have just as much a chance of making the super bowl as the no 1 seed. My arguement was with chiefsmeng stating if the broncos were no 1 in the power rankings I would think different. my point was that history has shown that the favorites don't have history of going all the way especially in the AFC that's why I don't believe in them. even if the broncos were rated no 1 I wouldn't go by that ranking. That's my reasoning for bringing up the ten year stat on No.1 seeds. Please don't make it more than what is.