Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Fox Sports Week 4 Power Rankings

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

  • Fox Sports Week 4 Power Rankings

    Not sure I understand their system, nor do I agree with its results so far either....
    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/4910694

    Week 4 Power Rankings
    Story Tools: Print Email

    Aaron Schatz / Special to FOXSports.com
    Posted: 16 hours ago

    The FOXSports.com NFL Power Ratings look a little different this week. In fact, they look a little different from everything else on the Web. That's because instead of being based on our gut feeling, they are now based on the innovative DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) ratings that we've been using to rank teams at FootballOutsiders.com for two seasons.





    Weekly Schedule
  • Mon: Quick Reads
  • Tues: Power Rankings
  • Tues: Any Given Sunday
  • Wed: Week 4 rundown
  • Wed: Black and Blue
  • Wed: Scramble


    About Football Outsiders
    Football Outsiders.com tackles the NFL with a mix of innovative statistics, game tape analysis and good old-fashioned fan debate. They are the authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2005. For further in-depth coverage, click here.


  • The DVOA system breaks down every single play of the season and compares each one to the NFL average based on situation and opponent. Conventional NFL rankings measure teams by adding up all their yards no matter what situations they came in or how many plays it took to get them. Now why would they do that? Football has one objective — to get to the end zone — and two ways to achieve that, by gaining yards and getting first downs. These two goals need to be balanced to determine a player's value or a team's performance. All the yards in the world aren't useful if they all come in eight-yard chunks on third-and-tens.

    Remember, of course, that any statistical formula is not a replacement for your own judgment, just a tool to use. The numbers say Chicago has been the seventh-best team this season based on available data. That doesn't mean we actually believe that the Bears are the seventh-best team in the NFL, because we know that they just had one huge performance in a season that's only three weeks old.

    With that in mind, these power ratings are not based solely on the three games played so far this year. When we look at just 2005, New England ends up 14th because they lost to Carolina. Does anyone really think New England is not a top ten team? Early in the season, with just a couple of games to go on, ratings are going to fluctuate wildly. And of course, they are very dependent on strength of schedule — except that we don't really know how strong any opponent is yet, because those teams only have three games to go on.

    As a result, we're ranking teams with a formula that combines the team's rating at the end of 2004, our 2005 pre-season projections, and 2005 actual performance. Each week, the first two items will become less important, and the last item more important. By Week 8, we'll only be basing the ratings on this year's games, and starting the next week, we'll start using a formula that makes early games less important so that we can account for teams that are heating up at the end of the year.

    If you've never read our site before, this is probably hurting your brain. But don't worry, we're keeping things simple around here. The power ratings table will only list a team's rank from 1-32. If you want to see the actual DVOA ratings, along with some additional numbers we use to judge teams, you can find those on FootballOutsiders.com. The team totals are here, and we also have separate pages for offense, defense, and special teams. There's also a more developed explanation for our methods here.

    The LAST WEEK column below is last week's rank by our methods, not last week's FOX Power Ratings. 2005 represents rank based solely on this year's games. Offense, defense, and special teams ranks also represent 2005 games only.

    ALSO SEE:
  • In-depth explanation of DVOA and power rankings criteria
  • Inside this week's rankings

    FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS POWER RANKINGS: Week 4
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    1.STEELERS2-1121821
    Pittsburgh's drive to tie the game was just as impressive as New England's comeback to take the lead. Coming off a 15-1 season, they dominated their first two opponents and then lost a close game to the defending Super Bowl champions. Since they've been more consistent than the Patriots this year, I think it's fair for them to stay at number one. NEXT: Bye week, then at SD
    2.EAGLES2-1244527
    Eagles are this high for two reasons: First, our pre-season projections had them as the best team in the NFL, and second, they stomped all over the 49ers. But they haven't looked impressive in two out of three games. The Akers injury is killing them on both field goals and kickoffs. Do you really want a subpar kicker to face Dante Hall? NEXT: at KC
    3.BENGALS3-031519
    The best team in the NFL through three games. Really. See extended commentary below. NEXT: vs. HOU — Houston? Man, you have got to be kidding me.
    4.COLTS3-0669622
    Us hate beauty. Us love ugliness. Is big crime for Peyton Manning to throw touchdown pass on Bizarro World. NEXT: at TEN
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    5.BUCS3-05315212
    For two years, the Football Outsiders DVOA ratings have said that the Bucs were better than their record. Two years ago, they went 7-9 and ranked 8th. Last year, they went 5-11 but ranked 16th. Our preseason projection had them winning the NFC South, but our brains simply couldn't believe it. In the battle of cold, heartless stats vs. human scouting, this is a win for cold, heartless stats. NEXT: vs. DET
    6.PATRIOTS2-1714131216
    This was one of the all-time great New England regular season wins: they came from behind on the road, against one of the best teams in the NFL, after losing two of their most important players to injury early in the contest. But that doesn't change the fact that they lost to Carolina, and not by a slim margin either. Thus, the lower ranking. The bad news, of course, is the loss of Rodney Harrison for the season, and Matt Light for most of it. The good news is that they may have just put their two hardest games of the season behind them, and as important as Harrison was -- dare I disrespect him? -- he wasn't as important to the Patriots as Takeo Spikes and Chad Pennington were to the Bills and Jets. NEXT: vs. SD
    7.BILLS1-241521104
    The Bills had the NFL's best defense for the second half of last year, and looked pretty good coming into this season, which is why they get ranked this high in a formula that isn't entirely based on 2005. But the defense hasn't been close to last year's level, giving up a lot of yards on second and third down, and it is going to get even worse without Spikes. Are the Saints the cure for J.P. Losman's woes? NEXT: vs. NO in San Antonio
    8.CHARGERS1-214113257
    Very impressive offensive performance as your Super Bowl XLI Champion San Diego Chargers get off the schneid. NEXT: at NE
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    9.SEAHAWKS2-118922023
    First week loss to Jacksonville looks like a bit of a fluke, as the Seahawks have put up two straight games with big offense and slightly above-average defense. See extended commentary below. NEXT: at WAS
    10.PANTHERS1-2818191111
    People are going to get whiplash jumping on and off the Carolina bandwagon. See extended commentary below. NEXT: vs GB in the renewal of that annual tradition, the "Wow, that's not such a great matchup after all" Monday night game.
    11.CHIEFS2-1101382115
    Monday loss was like watching the words we wrote in Pro Football Prospectus 2005 come to life. Without Willie Roaf, the Chiefs offensive line looked bad. If the offense is hitting on all cylinders, this team is extremely dangerous, but too many of those cylinders are old. Old players get injured more often, and the only Kansas City star with a trustworthy backup is Priest Holmes. By the way, the book also noted that Tony Gonzalez is 29, the age when the greatest tight ends all started to decline. Gonzalez is averaging 41 yards per game this year (with no touchdowns) after 79 yards per game in 2004. NEXT: vs. PHI
    12.BRONCOS2-11519181619
    Game-by-game ratings for this season: -54%, -5%, 48%. The offense has improved each game, the defense has improved each game, and the special teams have improved each game. If they lose this week, they'll be 2-0 in Colorado, 0-2 in Florida, and 0-0 in the other 48 states. NEXT: at JAC
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    13.JAGUARS2-112101773
    Story of the season has been Byron Leftwich pulling the offense out of the fire on third-and-long, making up for another stuff-a-riffic year from the aging Fred Taylor. Offensive DVOA ranks 20th on first down, 22nd on second down, 8th on third down. If that can continue, the defense is good enough for this team to get into the playoffs. NEXT: vs. DEN
    14.DOLPHINS2-116816410
    The league's top run defense DVOA after three games, and it didn't exactly come against cupcake opponents. They stopped the Denver running factory, last year's rushing leader Curtis Martin, and now the Carolina committee. Offense has been delightfully mediocre instead of the train wreck we all expected going into the season. How happy are people who bet the Miami over right now? NEXT: Bye week, then at BUF
    15.GIANTS2-1956221
    The greatly improved, playoff caliber defense of the New York Giants -- Wow, I remember it like it was yesterday. Well, three days ago, actually. Jumping to the conclusion that the Giants are overrated based on one game against LaDainian Tomlinson is as rash as jumping to the conclusion that the Giants have a good defense based on games against Arizona and New Orleans. For now, Giants fans should just be happy that Eli Manning, after a terrible rookie year, has put together two very nice games. NEXT: vs. STL
    16.COWBOYS2-11312101717
    Dallas' secondary looks awful, even though Anthony Henry has played reasonably well most of the time, and Roy Williams is a great linebacker. Or would be, if he played linebacker. If Dallas doesn't get a pass rush, they're sunk. NEXT: at OAK — Randy Moss is licking his chops (but only because he has the munchies).
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    17.FALCONS2-12017111920
    This one needs explanation. Football Outsiders stats are notoriously down on the Falcons in general and Michael Vick in particular. Last year, the Falcons played like an 8-8 team and lucked into an 11-5 record. They don't rank very high based on 2005 performance either because both wins have been close. That being said, the biggest reason why our projections were so down on Atlanta was their schedule. With all the injuries in the AFC East, Carolina looking schizo, and New Orleans perpetually on the road, that schedule doesn't look so tough anymore. NEXT: vs. MIN
    18.JETS1-21124281318
    This elevator is headed straight down, but at least they have a good field goal kicker. It's hard to figure out what caused the sudden disintegration of the offensive line and Curtis Martin did in fact get worn down by all those carries last year. Where are they hiding Derrick Blaylock? The worst problem, of course, is the quarterback situation, at least until Vinny plays himself back into shape. This is what we wrote about Brooks Bollinger in Pro Football Prospectus 2005: "If your team ends up with him under center, it's time to turn off the TV." Click. NEXT: at BAL
    19.REDSKINS2-0192223931
    Done with mirrors. Every year some team jumps out to a good start based on close victories even though our numbers say that team is getting outplayed by opponents. Two years ago it was Carolina, but the Panthers turned it on in the playoffs and went all the way to the Super Bowl. Last year it was Jacksonville, which crashed and burned in the second half. This year, Washington. I have a feeling that Joe Gibbs is going to get what's behind door number two, not door number one. But it will be fun to see just how big a cushion the Seattle cornerbacks give Santana Moss. Has any cornerback ever played 20 yards off the line? NEXT: vs. SEA
    20.RAMS2-12116121424
    The defense has looked surprisingly average so far, but remember that the three offenses they have faced are ranked 22nd, 27th and 29th. NEXT: at NYG
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    21.BEARS1-21772636
    The winner of the "team that most confuses the rating system early" award, because their Week 2 win against Detroit was so absurdly one-sided. The defensive rating for the game against Cincinnati is actually above-average, because Kyle Orton's interceptions put them in bad field position on drive after drive. Cincinnati's first two scoring drives started at the Chicago 18-yard line and the Chicago 36-yard line. NEXT: Bye week, then at CLE
    22.RAIDERS0-3242173028
    Oakland is ranked this low because it is too early to have strong adjustments for strength of schedule. But Oakland did draw the short straw in the early schedule lottery, with both defending conference champions and 2-1 Kansas City, and the Raiders weren't blown off the field in any of those games. NEXT: vs. DAL, and don't be surprised by an Oakland upset.
    23.VIKINGS1-23127291513
    Well, those were the Vikings we've all come to know and love. Considering the fact that both of their losses came to teams that are now 3-0, maybe the issue was not that the Vikings are bad, but rather that the Bucs and Bengals are good. They still have six games left against the terrible teams in their own division, so they should still be the favorites to win the NFC North. As for this week, the interior of the Atlanta offensive line has looked really good this season, so this is an important week for the Williams brothers, Kevin and Pat. Minnesota might not pull off the upset on the road, but given Atlanta's tendency to play close games, they make quite the attractive underdog. NEXT: at ATL
    24.SAINTS1-22326202825
    That first win was a nice story, but they've been hideous on both offense and defense for two weeks. I said before the season that this was a mediocre team of fantasy football stars who specialize in gaining yardage rather than playing good situational football, and I'm sticking to it. NEXT: vs. BUF in San Antonio
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    25.TITANS1-2272325235
    They're really better than this, considering that their big blowout loss came to the team at number one. Check out the schedule from Week 7 on: Tennessee is the most likely team to make a surprising playoff push in the second half and become a sleeper pick for 2006. NEXT: vs. IND
    26.RAVENS0-22231302630
    The offensive struggles were expected. That defensive rating is bad because the Ravens have played only two games and one of them was against Indianapolis, back before they replaced Peyton Manning with Trent Dilfer. This defense has had a week off to prepare to take on Brooks Bollinger. At home. You do the math. NEXT: vs. NYJ
    27.BROWNS1-2252014278
    For what it is worth, they are better than Green Bay. NEXT: Bye week, then vs. CHI
    28.PACKERS0-32625242626
    According to DVOA, Green Bay has been the league's most consistent team. Unfortunately, they've been consistently bad, with single-game ratings of -47%, -40% and -44%. Next: at CAR
    RkTeamW-LLast Wk2005 OnlyOffense RkDefense RkSp. Tms Rk
    29.CARDINALS0-32829222929
    Our book Pro Football Prospectus 2005 predicted: "(Kurt) Warner hasn't played a full season since 2001 so (Josh) McCown will see starts in 2005." Score that one correct. Next prediction to get tested: "On October 2 in Mexico City, (Neil) Rackers will set a new NFL record by kicking a 65-yard field goal against San Francisco." NEXT: vs. SF in Mexico City
    30.LIONS1-12930311832
    That's your first place Detroit Lions. Their first two games were so different from each other that it is hard to tell what will happen over the course of the season. This week, at least, they are going to lose. NEXT: at TB
    31.TEXANS0-23032323214
    Have you ever heard that old football adage, "You build a team from the lines out?" Well, then, you're one up on the Texans. Next: at CIN
    32.49ERS1-2322827312
    Continuing their steady climb from league doormat to 2006 NFC West champion. NEXT: vs. ARI in Mexico City




    Inside this week's rankings

    The Cincinnati Bengals have been the best team in the NFL through three weeks of the 2005 season.
    (Yes, I had to disable the grammar checker in order to write that sentence.) The last time the Bengals started 3-0 was 1990, which was also the last time the Bengals went to the playoffs. Their two playoff opponents that season, the Houston Oilers and Los Angeles Raiders, no longer exist.

    Only the Giants have scored more points per game, and only the Colts have allowed fewer. (That latter fact, of course, may be even stranger than the Bengals starting 3-0.) The most remarkable statistic is Cincinnati's 12 interceptions. The Bengals had only 20 interceptions last year and no other team in the NFL currently has more than six.

    The common complaint is that Cincinnati has fattened up on three easy opponents. That's true, although Minnesota isn't as bad as people thought a week ago. But Cincinnati's schedule is even easier the rest of the way. The average DVOA rating of the three teams Cincinnati has played ranks 22nd in the league. The average DVOA rating of the 13 teams remaining on the schedule ranks 27th in the league. The interception-hungry defense still gets to play the feeble offenses of Detroit, Green Bay, and Baltimore (twice). Only four teams on Cincinnati's schedule have winning records right now, and the Bengals get to play their hardest non-division opponent, Indianapolis, at home in cold November with a week off to prepare beforehand.

    Cincinnati has just one statistical weakness so far: they've only sacked the quarterback twice. Of course, this week the Bengals host the 0-2 Houston Texans, who have a Flat Earth Society relationship with the concept of the offensive line. So that may not be an issue in a few days.

    Two interesting teams to watch this year are Seattle and Carolina.
    We predicted big years from both teams in our book Pro Football Prospectus 2005 because of a significant trend we've found: when a team is much better on first and second down than it is on third down, that unit (offense or defense) tends to improve dramatically the following season. It's partly luck, partly the fact that teams recognize that they have a third down weakness and make moves in the off-season to address it. Last year, this trend led us to predict that 4-12 San Diego would suddenly become one of the NFL's top offenses. Once that proved true, we went back to past years and discovered that this indicator predicted the rise of the 1999 Rams, 2001 Patriots, and 2003 Panthers.

    How is it doing so far in 2005? So far, results are mixed. Last year, Seattle's offense ranked 9th on first down, 7th on second down, but a dismal 27th on third down. This year, the Seahawks are still having troubles on third down, but the gap is smaller: Seattle's offense ranks 1st on first down, 5th on second down, and 16th on third down. With Carolina, the issue is defense. Last year, the Panthers' defense ranked 4th on both first down and second down, but 30th on third downs. We thought that with better luck, better health, and the addition of Ken Lucas (which also bumped Ricky Manning Jr. back to nickel back) the Panthers would be dominant on defense this year. But so far, the Panthers' defense is 14th on first down, 11th on second down, and 17th on third down. It turns out that our forecast proved correct: Carolina's defense is just as good on third downs as it is on first and second downs. Unfortunately for the Panthers, they've been mediocre on every down. Given how inconsistent they've played this year, it is hard to tell if the defense is really average, or if it will end up near the top of the league like we expected. Unless the latter happens, you can kiss all those Carolina playoff predictions goodbye.


  • #2
    Re: Fox Sports Week 4 Power Rankings

    You know, i can deal with the Colts being #4. That's fine. Whatever. But the fact that these monkey's put Buffalo at #7 shows that the "DVOA" system is horribly flawed.
    :thepacers

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Fox Sports Week 4 Power Rankings

      What's especially funny about these systems is that that they always say, "Well, you have to wait further into the season for the numbers to average out better." Well, later in the season we're going to know who's better anyway, aren't we? They will be the ones with the best record.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Fox Sports Week 4 Power Rankings

        The reason for the eagles is pathetic. This is. . .

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Fox Sports Week 4 Power Rankings

          They have no reason to put the Eagles ahead of us.

          Oh well, I really don't care about some power ranking anyway. I want wins, and more wins.
          Super Bowl XLI Champions
          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Fox Sports Week 4 Power Rankings

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Fox Sports Week 4 Power Rankings

              The funniest part is that the Pats beat the Steelers, yet Steelers are 1 and Pats are 6...what they are smoking is beyond me.
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Fox Sports Week 4 Power Rankings

                Originally posted by Suaveness
                The funniest part is that the Pats beat the Steelers, yet Steelers are 1 and Pats are 6...what they are smoking is beyond me.
                Look at the top 2 teams, both beat 2 bad teams but lost to a good one yet they're the top ranked teams...
                Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Fox Sports Week 4 Power Rankings

                  "The Eagles are here because we had them here in the preseason [read: we don't want to look that stupid] and they've played bad twice [read: pass that over here dude!] and they've got a gimpy kicker to face Dante Hall [read: totally screwed]."

                  "Us hate beauty [read: we're really stupid at Fox Sports]. Us love ugliness [read: did I just use a word more bigger than 5 letters?]. Peyton throws TDs against Bizarro [read: dude, pass it back!]"

                  Those rankings are ridiculous.
                  It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X