Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FoxSports Power Rankings-Denver #1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ravage!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by PR-Broncomaniac
    I don't like you and I never will like you................that is no secret!
    I hate every Browns fan for being a classless lowlife!
    They booed the GREATEST QB OFF ALL TIME in Canton last year, and I witnessed that disgrace!
    I believe that all your posts are horse manure and a joke.
    I will get my plane tickets to go and see that game next year and cheer the SB champ Broncos kick your Brownies all over the field for 60 minutes..................

    Yes, Droughns IS the ONLY skilled player in that college roster in Loser-land.....
    Jeeez. Thats a lil harsh, isn't it? You do know the definition of "prejudice"...right?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dawgfan
    replied
    I suppose I could be happy that I am on your mind so much.

    I remember why you were on my ignore now. I think you can go back to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • PR-Broncomaniac
    replied
    Originally posted by Dawgfan

    Now, this here, does offend me. I consider it very offensive that you would say such a thing. You have had a bone (Not a Dawg Bone) with me ever since you joined. Even in non-football forums you have berated me. I, honestly, do not know what I have done to offend you so much. Maybe you consider me a threat because next year the Broncos play the Browns in Cleveland? I don't know.
    I don't like you and I never will like you................that is no secret!
    I hate every Browns fan for being a classless lowlife!
    They booed the GREATEST QB OFF ALL TIME in Canton last year, and I witnessed that disgrace!
    I believe that all your posts are horse manure and a joke.
    I will get my plane tickets to go and see that game next year and cheer the SB champ Broncos kick your Brownies all over the field for 60 minutes..................

    Yes, Droughns IS the ONLY skilled player in that college roster in Loser-land.....

    Leave a comment:


  • gobroncsnv
    replied
    All of these wasted electrons make it pretty clear why everybody hates the BCS, and why people love the NFL... Screw the rankings, in this league, ya gotta play the GAME! It will only count at the end of the regular season, then onto the playoff seedings. The rest is just so much shtuff!!

    Leave a comment:


  • WildHorse
    replied
    Originally posted by Ravage!!!
    I have to agree. SO many people here were betting the the Colts wo uldn't come out of this game a winner. They play there toughest oppenent of the season, and walk away with over 30 points on offense... we beat a team that starts their #5 QB, and we move up? Doesn't make sense. UNTIL someone actually beats the Colts.. I have to say that THEY are the best team in the NFL right now. If WE were 10-0, and someone was trying to say we were #2..... YOU PEOPLE WOULD BE HAVING A HEART ATTACK by screaming so much!

    You guys would be claiming "conspiracy" again! You guys would be yelling how the media and the NFL just LOVES the Colts, and this is all BS! *laughs* No one can show me why Manning and his Colts aren't the best team in football. Not yet.
    We didn't "move up". If you look at their actual ranking for the previous week they already had the broncos at #1. Why would you have the broncos drop in the rankings just because they took care of business against a weaker team--particularly since FOUR of the colts wins came against teams with the same number of losses or MORE than the jets???? And the broncos beat the jets more convincingly than the colts beat their four patsies.

    Why should the colts jump hugely in the rankings after they finally beat a top tier team when all along they've been feeding on patsies??? I would argue that the colts likely ARE the top team in football, but they just haven't had the chance to prove it. If they continue on to beat the Steelers (with Roethlisberger (sp?)), and San Diego, they will be better able to support the claim as top team in the league. They DEFINITELY have the best record--they just haven't had the chance to prove how tough they are against some of the best teams.

    On the other hand, Denver has played a much tougher schedule thus far (compared with the colts) and is tied for the second best record. This helps create the question. Would the colts have done as well with Denver's schedule? I personally think they would (though I think they'd already have one loss).

    Leave a comment:


  • WildHorse
    replied
    Originally posted by Dawgfan
    So true,

    after all the Jets are Super Bowl bound. Denver was lucky to get out of there alive. After that game - man. Who would have that such an awesome team would play so poorly ( YES THIS IS SARCASM )

    Why did Denver move up?

    The Colts played the Bengals and won. In a game that many people thought the Bengals would win. The Colts won. They should be #1. Denver should be #2. Denver should have the asterisk. The Jets and the Raiders playing them? Come on.
    If you would take the time to read any of the background on Foxsports(FootballOutsiders) approach, you would have an inkling of why they are rating the teams this way. In a nutshell, they factor in "strength-of-schedule" into the rankings. They have calculated that the Colts have the easiest schedule they have ever calculated since they've been doing this (for example, the colts have played 4 team with two or LESS wins thus far in this season). The ONLY team the broncos have played with as few as two wins is the Jets. They have also determined that when the broncos have played somewhat weaker teams they have beaten them by more than the colts have beaten their weaker teams.

    When the colts finally faced a tough team they had a tough time beating them, so they don't get huge credit for that. If they continue on to beat the Steelers and San Diego they will get credit for beating tougher teams and will be back on top of the rankings.

    They analyze every play in each game and calculate how well or poorly each team and player did toward winning the game. They attempt to use statistics to determine rankings, rather than making them up based on nothing at all. Based on that they come up with their rankings, rather than just saying "I think so-and-so is best because I think so."

    Leave a comment:


  • RBDynasty
    replied
    Originally posted by Dawgfan
    Stats are for losers.

    Stats are nothing but a byproduct. If a team blows out a weak opponent and runs up the score and end up with 600 yards of offense compared to say ... 100 for the other team should they be number one? Or should the team in a hard fought game that sat on the ball at the end be number one?

    I say the latter.
    Hold up there a sec. That's exactly why this type of polling works more effectively than other methods. You just said it - if you run your stats up against a weaker team, this method compensates for that because of the weak schedule modifier. A hard fought game between a tough opponent (or equally matched) will count for more. And this is why the Colts are not in first place in this poll (yet their fans whined enough that the writer had to add an explanation -- pathetic).

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue719
    replied
    Originally posted by kilkizan
    Because it uses math over opinions? Or because it is part of Fox?
    Yes.

    Personally I think its great and cant wait to beat the Boyz and keep that #1 spot for the next few weeks! If Indy would just lose 2 ACF games and we can finish perfect we get home field... Start rooting for Indy's AFC opponits! and the Bronco's of course.
    I am! Next Monday night I believe the Steelers will hand the Colts their first defeat of the season. Number two will be by the Chargers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ravage!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by Dawgfan
    Ok fine.

    Cleveland is better than the Ravens and Packers untill proven otherwise.

    And look!

    They are proven!

    A 4-6 record is a 40% Winning Record; 60% Losing Record
    A 3-7 record is a 30% Winning Record; 70% Losing Record
    A 2-8 record is a 20% Winning Record; 80% Losing Record
    Works for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dawgfan
    replied
    Originally posted by rcsodak
    Well, taking my 'homer' glasses off for the moment, I can honestly say that Indy is better than Denver, UNTIL proven otherwise.

    Maybe you should try the same thing?
    Ok fine.

    Cleveland is better than the Ravens and Packers untill proven otherwise.

    And look!

    They are proven!

    A 4-6 record is a 40% Winning Record; 60% Losing Record
    A 3-7 record is a 30% Winning Record; 70% Losing Record
    A 2-8 record is a 20% Winning Record; 80% Losing Record

    Leave a comment:


  • Ravage!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by rcsodak
    Well, taking my 'homer' glasses off for the moment, I can honestly say that Indy is better than Denver, UNTIL proven otherwise.

    Maybe you should try the same thing?
    I have to agree. Colts have beaten EVERY team they have faced this year. They can't help the teams aren't winning. Then they face the team that SO many said will beat the Colts.. and they beat them. They are unbeaten... 10-0, thats better than 8-2. Its not like our losses were to teams that are considered the top in the NFL. Until proven otherwise, we are behind Indy.

    Leave a comment:


  • rcsodak
    replied
    Originally posted by Dawgfan
    I am saying the ratings are ridiculous.

    The Ravens are 3-7 while the Browns are 4-6 ... a game ahead of the Ravens in the Division. Yet, on Fox's Power Rankings they have the Ravens ahead of the Browns?

    Also the Packers are 2-8 while the Browns are 4-6 ... and the Browns won a head-to-head matchup. Yet, the Packers are ahead of the Browns?
    Well, taking my 'homer' glasses off for the moment, I can honestly say that Indy is better than Denver, UNTIL proven otherwise.

    Maybe you should try the same thing?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dawgfan
    replied
    Originally posted by rcsodak
    Hmmmmm....so the common denominator, is Cleveland SUCKS!?!?!?
    I am saying the ratings are ridiculous.

    The Ravens are 3-7 while the Browns are 4-6 ... a game ahead of the Ravens in the Division. Yet, on Fox's Power Rankings they have the Ravens ahead of the Browns?

    Also the Packers are 2-8 while the Browns are 4-6 ... and the Browns won a head-to-head matchup. Yet, the Packers are ahead of the Browns?

    Leave a comment:


  • rcsodak
    replied
    Originally posted by Dawgfan
    Foxsports has the stupidest rating of all.

    The Ravens (3-7) are ahead of:

    The Browns (4-6)
    The Vikings (5-5)
    The Lions (4-6)
    The Bills (4-6)

    That isn't right. Each of these teams has been much more impressive than Baltimore.

    and the Packers (2-8) are ahead of:

    The Browns (4-6)
    The Vikings (5-5)
    The Lions (4-6)
    The Bills (4-6)

    What the heck is up with that?
    Hmmmmm....so the common denominator, is Cleveland SUCKS!?!?!?

    Leave a comment:


  • rcsodak
    replied
    Originally posted by kilkizan
    Yeah, so we need to shutout the Boyz this week and thus get a 18% lead over them in the standing so they will admit that we might have a chance to beat Indy in Indy...
    Will that play ANY part in the actual football games that still are left?

    Sorry, I don't mean to be a ball-breaker here, but since when did any poll, outside the BCS, have ANYTHING to do with anything?

    I doubt it has any bearing on how an opponent gears up to play denver......"oh wow...they're NUMBER 1 in the Fox Poll! What the hell are we going to do?"

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X