The World's Most Prestigious Power Poll: Week 10

[Spence]

Quite a bit of change in The World’s Most Prestigious Power Poll this week. There’s a new #1, of course, and a couple of teams you’d never expect storm the top 12. And the weekly awards now looks like a New England Patriots team photo. Read on…

01. New England Patriots [9-0]: I’ve been told that being kept out of the top spot in The World’s Most Prestigious Power Poll is the insult this team has used to stay motivated week after week. Happy to help, guys. [+1]

02. Indianapolis Colts [7-1]: I can’t wait for the rematch in Foxboro, when the Colts have their Hall of Fame receiver on the field. [-1]

03. Dallas Cowboys [7-1]: Think Bill Parcells is starting to wish he’d stuck around another year? [NC]Read it all! (http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=263)

[Keino]

LOL. In Foxboro in the Winter, it won't matter if Harrison is on the field or not. It's about time you ranked the best team in football #1.

[GeneralDisorder]

What - the Redskins...?

[RedskinsDave]

06. New York Giants [6-2]: Tom Coughlin fined his entire team for not showing up at the stadium on Sunday. Told the Giants had a bye this week, Coughlin replied: “That’s no excuse” and fined himself $20,000. [NC]

Davey likey. :D

[redskin_rich]

The Browns haven't beaten one good team and have the same record as us while playing a much softer schedule.

[Biggie]

When it comes to Billick, I guess you could say we're all wrong...

...and loving it.

[Meatsnack]

The Browns haven't beaten one good team and have the same record as us while playing a much softer schedule.

True, but the Browns have to play each game in their uniform, which a TD off the top of the final outcome. Playing with that kind of handicap, I think they should be rewarded.

[Keino]

The Browns haven't beaten one good team and have the same record as us while playing a much softer schedule.

Huh? They beat the Ravens, Bengals,, Miami, St. Lou and the Seahawks. Their losses are to the Steelers, Patriots and Oakland.

I would hardly call their schedule soft when compared to ours.

We have beaten a bad Miami team, a Bad Jets team, a bad Philly team a bad cardinals team and a decent Lions team. While losing to the Giants and Packers. The Bengals, record notwithstanding are better than any team we have beaten.

[Spence]

The Browns haven't beaten one good team and have the same record as us while playing a much softer schedule.How many good teams have the Redskins beaten? We beat Detroit -- and no one really knows how good they are. And at least the Browns put up a fight against New England. 34-17 is a helluva lot less embarrassing than 52-7.

[Biggie]

Huh? They beat the Ravens, Bengals,, Miami, St. Lou and the Seahawks. Their losses are to the Steelers, Patriots and Oakland.

I would hardly call their schedule soft when compared to ours.

We have beaten a bad Miami team, a Bad Jets team, a bad Philly team a bad cardinals team and a decent Lions team. While losing to the Giants and Packers. The Bengals, record notwithstanding are better than any team we have beaten.
So is our official stance that the Pats game never happened?

[Keino]

So is our official stance that the Pats game never happened?

No... I really meant to eliminate the common opponents of Miami and New England. But I wish it never happened.

[redskin_rich]

Huh? They beat the Ravens, Bengals,, Miami, St. Lou and the Seahawks. Their losses are to the Steelers, Patriots and Oakland.

I would hardly call their schedule soft when compared to ours.

We have beaten a bad Miami team, a Bad Jets team, a bad Philly team a bad cardinals team and a decent Lions team. While losing to the Giants and Packers. The Bengals, record notwithstanding are better than any team we have beaten. Huh? The Bengals..?
Stack up the combined records of both of our opponents and come back and talk to me.

How many good teams have the Redskins beaten? We beat Detroit -- and no one really knows how good they are. And at least the Browns put up a fight against New England. 34-17 is a helluva lot less embarrassing than 52-7.
Well, according to TWMPPP, Detroit is currently better than 21 teams in the league. And you know that whole "they didn't get beat as bad as us" argument is totally meaningless. Every game is different.

[Keino]

Huh? The Bengals..?
Stack up the combined records of both of our opponents and come back and talk to me.


Well, according to TWMPPP, Detroit is currently better than 21 teams in the league. And you know that whole "they didn't get beat as bad as us" argument is totally meaningless. Every game is different.


Records notwithstanding, the Bengals are a better team than any we have beaten so far. They are better than the Lions, Cards, Eagles, Jets and Phins.

I wrote this in the post you quoted, because I acknowledge that the Bengals record sucks, having said that, I take them head to head against every single team we have beaten.

[redskin_rich]

Records notwithstanding, the Bengals are a better team than any we have beaten so far. They are better than the Lions, Cards, Eagles, Jets and Phins.

I wrote this in the post you quoted, because I acknowledge that the Bengals record sucks, having said that, I take them head to head against every single team we have beaten.
I wouldn't, the Bengals are horrible.

Do you think the Browns are better than us? I don't but unfortunately for us, we don't play them this year, so I guess we'll just have to compare records each week.

[skins74]

Read it all! (http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=263)

The titans remark made me giggle. Good stuff as usual.

[Spence]

Well, according to TWMPPP, Detroit is currently better than 21 teams in the league. And you know that whole "they didn't get beat as bad as us" argument is totally meaningless. Every game is different.First of all, let me commend you for citing TWMPPP. It is, indeed, the most authoritative source on such matters. Nevertheless, the Lions are #9 and that may or may not be very good. A lot of people, myself included, think there are about 6 or 7 teams this year, at most, that matter. I've got them as this bunch:

1] Patriots
2] Colts
3] Cowboys
4] Packers
5] Steelers
6] Giants [maybe]
7] Saints [maybe]

And that's the list. The Redskins crushed the Lions, but were taken to OT by the Dolphins and Jets -- two absolutely awful teams. I don't think the Browns are very good at all. Neither are the Redskins. I don't know when I've ever seen a coaching staff get less out of their football talent than this 2007 Redskins squad. I have to go back to some of those early-to-mid 1990s NY Mets teams to find another pro team as inefficient with money and talent as this Redskins franchise. Washington should be much better than they are, much better than Cleveland. But they're not.

Also, the Browns play offense. The Redskins don't even try. That counts for something in TWMPPP.

[redskin_rich]

First of all, let me commend you for citing TWMPPP. It is, indeed, the most authoritative source on such matters. Nevertheless, the Lions are #9 and that may or may not be very good. A lot of people, myself included, think there are about 6 or 7 teams this year, at most, that matter. I've got them as this bunch:

1] Patriots
2] Colts
3] Cowboys
4] Packers
5] Steelers
6] Giants [maybe]
7] Saints [maybe]

And that's the list. The Redskins crushed the Lions, but were taken to OT by the Dolphins and Jets -- two absolutely awful teams. I don't think the Browns are very good at all. Neither are the Redskins. I don't know when I've ever seen a coaching staff get less out of their football talent than this 2007 Redskins squad. I have to go back to some of those early-to-mid 1990s NY Mets teams to find another pro team as inefficient with money and talent as this Redskins franchise. Washington should be much better than they are, much better than Cleveland. But they're not.

Also, the Browns play offense. The Redskins don't even try. That counts for something in TWMPPP.Fair enough and I agree about the widespread mediocre to pathetic teams after the handful at the top. Actually, a couple of those teams that matter probably aren't as good as their records indicate but someone got to rise above the rabble.

I really don't want to start this discussion over again, especially in this thread but I wonder if we had connected on one or both of the deep balls we threw, which were both great calls at the right time, if anyone would be complaining about the offensive playcalling this week. My guess is most folks would be commending the playcalling and all because of one or two plays.

[Keino]

I wouldn't, the Bengals are horrible.

Do you think the Browns are better than us? I don't but unfortunately for us, we don't play them this year, so I guess we'll just have to compare records each week.

The Browns have the same record we do and I think they have played a tougher schedule up to this point. At best the schedules are similar, but they have not played a much softer schedule than we have.

[redskin_rich]

The Browns have the same record we do and I think they have played a tougher schedule up to this point. At best the schedules are similar, but they have not played a much softer schedule than we have.

Combined records of each of our opponents:

Redskins Opponents
34-31
Strength of Victory
13-28
Browns Opponents
27-38
Strength of Victory
12-36

Add to that, the Browns have played one more home game than us. We win the strength of schedule battle, the strength of victory battle and that is a higher tiebreaker than points scored, as far as the NFL rules and I'm concerned.

[skins74]

Fair enough and I agree about the widespread mediocre to pathetic teams after the handful at the top. Actually, a couple of those teams that matter probably aren't as good as their records indicate but someone got to rise above the rabble.

I really don't want to start this discussion over again, especially in this thread but I wonder if we had connected on one or both of the deep balls we threw, which were both great calls at the right time, if anyone would be complaining about the offensive playcalling this week. My guess is most folks would be commending the playcalling and all because of one or two plays.

Rich, I never said anything about deep balls, I am talking about mixing it up so the playcalling isn't so generic and obvious. It's great when you are getting 5 yards a carry but on our last drive before overtime we needed to keep the ball away from the Jets because we only had a 3 point lead and I believe if Gibbs/Saunders would have mixed in a couple of play action passes the game never would have went into OT. Maybe it's just me but I think it is blatantly obvious what we are going to do on offense once we have a lead (even if it's only 3 points) and that's the problem. Regarding the defense I don't believe in putting it in their hands, I believe in scoring enough points so that we don't have to rely on them, if we had the 2000 Ravens defense I might believe otherwise.

[redskin_rich]

Rich, I never said anything about deep balls, I am talking about mixing it up so the playcalling isn't so generic and obvious. It's great when you are getting 5 yards a carry but on our last drive before overtime we needed to keep the ball away from the Jets because we only had a 3 point lead and I believe if Gibbs/Saunders would have mixed in a couple of play action passes the game never would have went into OT. Maybe it's just me but I think it is blatantly obvious what we are going to do on offense once we have a lead (even if it's only 3 points) and that's the problem. Regarding the defense I don't believe in putting it in their hands, I believe in scoring enough points so that we don't have to rely on them, if we had the 2000 Ravens defense I might believe otherwise.
You aren't the only one who feels that way. I addressed that in this post:
http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1032919&postcount=49
From this thread:
http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=43625&page=3

[Keino]

Combined records of each of our opponents:

Redskins Opponents
34-31
Strength of Victory
13-28
Browns Opponents
27-38
Strength of Victory
12-36

Add to that, the Browns have played one more home game than us. We win the strength of schedule battle, the strength of victory battle and that is a higher tiebreaker than points scored, as far as the NFL rules and I'm concerned.

According to the NFL the Lions are a good team. Are they really?

[redskin_rich]

According to the NFL the Lions are a good team. Are they really?

I'm dealing with hard numbers here, not perception. If you want to think that the Bengals at 2-6 are better than the Lions at 6-2, thats your prerogative but I don't know what you base it on.

[Spence]

I really don't want to start this discussion over again, especially in this thread but I wonder if we had connected on one or both of the deep balls we threw, which were both great calls at the right time, if anyone would be complaining about the offensive playcalling this week. My guess is most folks would be commending the playcalling and all because of one or two plays.Well, I wrote that I thought the Redskins were close on those deep throws and should have been more patient with the passing game. I thought 2 or 3 more deep shots were warranted, especially since the running game was blunting the Jets pass rush. Had the Redskins hit on one or two of those deep throws, the game looks different. That's part of what bothers me about the Redskins. There is no patience with the passing game and no trust for the quarterback. The NFL is a passing league. The best teams are the teams with top notch passing games. [Pats, Colts, Cowboys, Packers, Steelers.] Teams need to be able to make big plays in the passing game. The Redskins are not only one-dimensional, they seem content to remain so. I think the Redskins could have a much more potent offense if the head coach was not so risk-averse. But he is and I don't see that changing, so my confidence in the team is very, very limited.

[Keino]

I'm dealing with hard numbers here, not perception. If you want to think that the Bengals at 2-6 are better than the Lions at 6-2, thats your prerogative but I don't know what you base it on.


Talent. Watching their games. The Bengals have had some pretty crappy luck this year, but they could play the Lions 10 times and would win 8 of those match-ups. I can't prove it, but I believe it.

Green Bay is arguably the worst 1 loss team I have ever seen (Save for the 7-1 Redskins team that went 1-7 in the 2nd half).

For me, The AFC is head and shoulders better than the NFC top to bottom. Their bottom teams would be mid-tier teams in the AFC. On that basis alone the Browns have played a tougher schedule. I think we would be 3-5 having played their schedule.

[Spence]

Talent. Watching their games. The Bengals have had some pretty crappy luck this year, but they could play the Lions 10 times and would win 8 of those match-ups. I can't prove it, but I believe it.As I wrote, the Bengals are a complete mystery to me. I don't see how they can be this bad. They haven't been good defensively since long before Lewis got there and he hasn't improved that side of the ball despite all the draft picks used to do it. But that team is loaded on offense. It's just baffling how they can be so awful. I can't explain it. The Bengals SHOULD be a pretty good team. Instead, they're terrible. Really pitiful

Green Bay is arguably the worst 1 loss team I have ever seen (Save for the 7-1 Redskins team that went 1-7 in the 2nd half).I quite agree on both points. The Packers have a good, but not great defense and Favre is having a better year. They have no running game at all and I figure that's got to catch up to them sooner or later. They were lucky to beat the Redskins [all those dropped passes] and any team that needs luck to beat the Redskins can't be all that great.

For me, The AFC is head and shoulders better than the NFC top to bottom. Their bottom teams would be mid-tier teams in the AFC. On that basis alone the Browns have played a tougher schedule. I think we would be 3-5 having played their schedule.No doubt about the difference between the conferences. Dallas, easily the best team in the NFC, would be no better than 3rd, maybe 4th, in the AFC.

[redskin_rich]

Talent. Watching their games. The Bengals have had some pretty crappy luck this year, but they could play the Lions 10 times and would win 8 of those match-ups. I can't prove it, but I believe it.

Green Bay is arguably the worst 1 loss team I have ever seen (Save for the 7-1 Redskins team that went 1-7 in the 2nd half).

For me, The AFC is head and shoulders better than the NFC top to bottom. Their bottom teams would be mid-tier teams in the AFC. On that basis alone the Browns have played a tougher schedule. I think we would be 3-5 having played their schedule.


No doubt about the difference between the conferences. Dallas, easily the best team in the NFC, would be no better than 3rd, maybe 4th, in the AFC.
Again, I don't agree with you guys this week, lol.

The AFC is better at the top, namely the Pats and Colts, who are in their own league but the rest of the AFC is rank and file with the NFC teams. And again, the numbers bear this out. The AFC teams are 20-19 out of conference, the NFC 19-20.
Parity is league wide, only the Pats and Colts are out of this league.

[Keino]

So you think the Lions are anywhere close to 6-2 if they play in the AFC?

[redskin_rich]

So you think the Lions are anywhere close to 6-2 if they play in the AFC?

All depends on the schedule. The Packers and Lions are 5-0 vs the AFC so far this year but that is because they have played the putrid AFC West.

[dj_stouty]

Talent. Watching their games. The Bengals have had some pretty crappy luck this year, but they could play the Lions 10 times and would win 8 of those match-ups. I can't prove it, but I believe it.

Crappy luck has nothing to do with the Bengals' defense giving up 30.5 points per game, which is worst in the NFL. They have also given up 20 passing TDs this season, again, worst in the NFL. I could see a potent passing team like the Lions eating them up. Add to the mix that the Detroit scoring offense (25ppg) is virtually the same as Cinci (24.8ppg), I think the nod goes to the Lions over the course of 10 games.

[Keino]

Crappy luck has nothing to do with the Bengals' defense giving up 30.5 points per game, which is worst in the NFL. They have also given up 20 passing TDs this season, again, worst in the NFL. I could see a potent passing team like the Lions eating them up. Add to the mix that the Detroit scoring offense (25ppg) is virtually the same as Cinci (24.8ppg), I think the nod goes to the Lions over the course of 10 games.


At best you would see part deux of the Shootout between the Browns and Bengals.

Quoting these numbers means very little to me. Detroit sucks as bad as the Bengals do, only they've been luckier and play a more favorable schedule.

[redskin_rich]

At best you would see part deux of the Shootout between the Browns and Bengals.

Quoting these numbers means very little to me. Detroit sucks as bad as the Bengals do, only they've been luckier and play a more favorable schedule.

You've got to back that up with something, I have backed up everything I have stated and all you got is "they're lucky" and this favorable schedule deal that you offer no proof of.

There is no such thing as an easy game in today's NFL and this myth about some great disparity between the conferences is just not true right now.