PDA

View Full Version : Up to 17th on Fox Sports Power Rankings


markn
09-11-2007, 11:06 AM
Apologies if already posted, couldn't find it on here...

The Texans beat the Chiefs 20-3, marking the team's first three-game winning streak (dating back to last season) in franchise history. Matt Schaub had a solid debut, guiding the Texans with a 16-for-22 effort, good for 225 yards and a touchdown. Andre Johnson continued where he left off last season with seven catches for 142 yards and a TD, and the young defense kept Larry Johnson to an eye-popping 43 yards. Houston is a potential sleeper team in the AFC this year. If they keep playing the way they did Sunday, we could be talking about them come January.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings

bah007
09-11-2007, 11:10 AM
Yea this is reliable. Nearly half of the top 5 has a winning percentage of 0.

It looks like the preseason AP Poll for college football.

How many losing teams are we ranked behind?

markn
09-11-2007, 11:12 AM
Yeah, but FWIW it's something vaguely positive from the mainstream media for a change...

bigbrewster2000
09-11-2007, 11:12 AM
Apologies if already posted, couldn't find it on here...

The Texans beat the Chiefs 20-3, marking the team's first three-game winning streak (dating back to last season) in franchise history. Matt Schaub had a solid debut, guiding the Texans with a 16-for-22 effort, good for 225 yards and a touchdown. Andre Johnson continued where he left off last season with seven catches for 142 yards and a TD, and the young defense kept Larry Johnson to an eye-popping 43 yards. Houston is a potential sleeper team in the AFC this year. If they keep playing the way they did Sunday, we could be talking about them come January.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/powerRankings

I don't really think muck of these rankings , especially when a team loses and moves up 3 spaces ( see Bills), regardless of whether it was a last second loss or not.

Mike Kerns
09-11-2007, 11:16 AM
I prefer flying under the radar, but some love is nice for a change.

threetoedpete
09-11-2007, 11:26 AM
Rep your way for at least looking through the treads there rook. You just beat out 99% of the knuckle dragers who post in here.

Tedc
09-11-2007, 11:26 AM
Yea this is reliable. Nearly half of the top 5 has a winning percentage of 0.

It looks like the preseason AP Poll for college football.

How many losing teams are we ranked behind?

It is realistic.

Would you rather have the Bears behind the Texans just because they lost and we won?

You have to consider the opponent the teams played and how they played in the loss.

BigBull17
09-11-2007, 11:28 AM
Yeah, NO being #5 after COMPLETE distruction is enough to disreguard.

bah007
09-11-2007, 11:33 AM
It is realistic.

Would you rather have the Bears behind the Texans just because they lost and we won?

You have to consider the opponent the teams played and how they played in the loss.

I think you have to prove how good you are.

You shouldn't be ranked in the top 5 just cuz you lost to a good team.

Just cuz a team was good last year doesn't mean they will be good this year.

Bears & Saints are ranked on last year's record in those rankings.

beerlover
09-11-2007, 11:40 AM
the Panthers are #13

one week at a time, one week at a time :cool:

Mike Kerns
09-11-2007, 11:44 AM
I think you have to prove how good you are.

You shouldn't be ranked in the top 5 just cuz you lost to a good team.

Just cuz a team was good last year doesn't mean they will be good this year.

Bears & Saints are ranked on last year's record in those rankings.

I agree AND disagree. Chargers are early Super Bowl favorites. Colts are the defending champs. So, even as much as Id love to see them flop, I think you have to give the Saints the benefit of the doubt. And if the Bears had a QB as good as even David Carr, their defense gave them a chance to win. At least they played a good game, unlike the Saints.

So, are they getting props from last years record? Maybe. But when they drop games to the Raiders and Browns, then I will start preaching about a major drop in these rankings.

Just my .02 cents

Tedc
09-11-2007, 11:46 AM
Bears & Saints are ranked on last year's record in those rankings.

Vey true. How else would you rank them so early in the season?

I don't rank teams but if I were to do so, i would have to determine where they were last year when it is the first or second game and I would consider their opponent and how well or badly they played. I think the Saints should be lower (IMO) but how much lower would you put them and behind what teams?

I felt, watching the Indy game, that it really didn't matter who they were playing. The Colts were on a roll and were going to win.

Thorn
09-11-2007, 11:50 AM
These "rankings" by various sites are fun to read, but I've never put a lot of stock in them. I don't think the Texas are quite ready yet to be placed in the middle of the pack of the NFL, but they should be by the end of this season (baring any more injury's of course).

Mike Kerns
09-11-2007, 11:52 AM
Vey true. How else would you rank them so early in the season?

I don't rank teams but if I were to do so, i would have to determine where they were last year when it is the first or second game and I would consider their opponent and how well or badly they played. I think the Saints should be lower (IMO) but how much lower would you put them and behind what teams?

I felt, watching the Indy game, that it really didn't matter who they were playing. The Colts were on a roll and were going to win.

Exactly. Just like whoever played the Saints in that first game back at the Superdome wasnt going to stand a chance.

powerfuldragon
09-11-2007, 11:56 AM
whoa. they mentioned january.

euro-Texan
09-11-2007, 12:15 PM
I'm sorry but had we lost to Indy by a FG in OT we would be ranked somewhere around Oakland and the Browns. The fact is the National media never watched this game. They read some box score info, assumed that KC just had a terrible day and won't give us any attention until we have 4-1 or 5-2 record.

euro-Texan
09-11-2007, 12:19 PM
I have to admit that I enjoy reading these football experts mention our starting LT as J Black days before the game. As I also enjoyed the dedicated analyists refering to our AJ/Moulds tandem as recently as the begining of camp. Believe me they are not watching..... YET!

Leahmic223
09-11-2007, 02:50 PM
I'm sorry but had we lost to Indy by a FG in OT we would be ranked somewhere around Oakland and the Browns. The fact is the National media never watched this game. They read some box score info, assumed that KC just had a terrible day and won't give us any attention until we have 4-1 or 5-2 record.

After the Colts pal comes the Falcons, Dolphins, The Tacks and the other Kitty Kats the ones we love to beat up on...I say there is a pretty good chance we will start to get some respect.

You are right though, had we loss to the Pats by 3 points, it would have been some crap like how the Pats tried to keep it close or some mess like that.

Speedy
09-12-2007, 11:18 PM
FWIW, the Texans are 7-7 in their last 14 games. And of course, all but 1 of those games was with the old #8.

They're certainly better than that team, right?

Are they turning the corner? I don't know. Since only 2 of those wins were on the road, they're going to have to start winning away from Reliant before I start thinking possible playoffs.

samomin
09-12-2007, 11:49 PM
Historically Foxsports has usually rated Texans higher than ESPN in their power rankings.

whiskeyrbl
09-13-2007, 05:02 AM
Posted: 1 day ago
It was a wild Week 1 in the NFL. The Patriots lived up to all the hype, the Coltsí defense bottled up the high-flying Saints, and the Houston Texans looked like true contenders

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm is this guy from Houston? Nice.

Malloy
09-13-2007, 05:21 AM
Rep your way for at least looking through the treads there rook. You just beat out 99% of the knuckle dragers who post in here.

What a nice thing to say