My 2015 "Rankings"

[KCSLC2008 606]

Weighted "Rankings": I made each week successively weighted more as the season and playoffs progressed. In order to get Denver to the Top Spot, I'd have to weigh the Last Round 25 times more than the NFC/AFC round. If I did that, the Chiefs would be 6th overall.

 

1. Carolina Panthers: Obviously they were on top the longest, as they were the last to lose and then made it to the Super Bowl.

2. New England Patriots: Consistently ranked high due to coaching and QBing and a late first loss and a deep postseason run.

3. Arizona Cardinals: Hype and consistency kept them in the top five for most of the year, topping at 1st a few weeks.

4. Denver Broncos: Thought I was as fair as a Chiefs fan could be if you looked through the season's rankings.
5. Cincinnati Bengals: Record slotted them here throughout the season due to their defense and (over?)-achieving offense.

6. Green Bay Packers: Reputation preceded them early and often.

7. Minnesota Vikings: Have no idea, other than a good start, why they ended up so high.

8. Pittsburgh Steelers: Reputation and consistency.

9. Seattle Seahawks: Gave them the benefit of the doubt throughout the season like the lucky team they are.
10. Kansas City Chiefs: Bad start was weighed less than the finish, but the record slotting kept them low throughout the season until playoffs.
11. New York Jets: Over-ranked them early and often, as maybe surprise was overrated.
12. Atlanta Falcons: Fast start did the opposite of what the Chiefs bad start did.

13. Buffalo Bills: See the Jets.

14. Washington Redskins: Climbed up from the low spot I started them out with.
15. Houston Texans: Similar to the Chiefs, but they never got as long or hot of a streak.
16. Indianapolis Colts: Kept winning with their backups, what was I to do?
17. Philadelphia Eagles: Sounds about right.

18. Oakland Raiders: Tried being objective enough that I think I consistently overrated our rival.

19. New York Giants: Whenever they made a run, I exaggerated the progress.
20. St. Louis Rams: Up and down, only played well against their division and one or two teams they bothered to show up for.
21. New Orleans Saints: Could have put them lower if not for aging QB and overrated coach. 
22. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Their good streak was too short and too in the middle of the season to mean anything.

23. Chicago Bears: Gave them the benefit of the doubt due to closeness of the games until they started losing all close games.
24. Miami Dolphins: Should have ranked them lower earlier but thought they might have challenged.
25. Detroit Lions: Improved late.
26. Baltimore Ravens: Coaching and close games put them atop of their win category, but they kept losing.
27. Jacksonville Jaguars: Ehh.

28. Dallas Cowboys: Could have been lower if I hadn't thought they were going to bounce back eventually.
29. San Francisco 49ers: About right.

30. San Diego Chargers: Would have been lower if I didn't think Rivers was going to have a late season win-the-meaningless-games streak.
31. Cleveland Browns: About right.
32. Tennessee Titans: Seems like they were making sure they got the worst seed from the beginning (outside of Week One).

 

Here's Last Year's: http://chiefscoalition.invisionzone.com/index.php?/topic/1455-my-2014-rankings/page-3&do=findComment&comment=18852

[KCSLC2008 606]

Well, there's my drivel. Hope at least one of you enjoyed it. To those who say it was a waste of time, you're right.

 

As silly as these "Rankings" were, thanks to those who understood what they were (not a true rankings and an admitted time-wasting hobby).

[PhataLerror 370]

The Carolina Panthers are not the league's best team, and they showed that last night. They got every break in the post-season seeding and the meltdowns of their first two opponents, along with home-field advantage that came from beating mostly the league's lesser teams.

[KCSLC2008 606]

The Carolina Panthers are not the league's best team, and they showed that last night. They got every break in the post-season seeding and the meltdowns of their first two opponents, along with home-field advantage that came from beating mostly the league's lesser teams.

I agree. I think the Patriots and we would've beaten them.

[BroncoStud 3,253]

The Carolina Panthers are not the league's best team, and they showed that last night. They got every break in the post-season seeding and the meltdowns of their first two opponents, along with home-field advantage that came from beating mostly the league's lesser teams.

I mean, they didn't scare me as much as the Patriots did, but the Panthers were 17-1 heading into the Super Bowl, that's an incredible win-loss record for an NFL team in 2016......

[PhataLerror 370]

I mean, they didn't scare me as much as the Patriots did, but the Panthers were 17-1 heading into the Super Bowl, that's an incredible win-loss record for an NFL team in 2016......

They played against the NFC South, NFC East, AFC South, the Seahawks on the road, and the Packers at home. Their regular season opponents had a combined record of 113-143. Of the four teams that they played against during the regular season that made the playoffs, they played three of those games at home. Their win-loss record during the regular season is still an achievement, but I don't recall the 18-0 Patriots having such an easy slate: That team played against a schedule seven wins better, and they got three wins on the road against the six teams that were ultimately in the playoffs that year. The only thing better for the Patriots than for the Panthers was that the AFC East was an awful division that year.

[qnet 1,150]

They played against the NFC South, NFC East, AFC South, the Seahawks on the road, and the Packers at home. Their regular season opponents had a combined record of 113-143. Of the four teams that they played against during the regular season that made the playoffs, they played three of those games at home. Their win-loss record during the regular season is still an achievement, but I don't recall the 18-0 Patriots having such an easy slate: That team played against a schedule seven wins better, and they got three wins on the road against the six teams that were ultimately in the playoffs that year. The only thing better for the Patriots than for the Panthers was that the AFC East was an awful division that year.

 

I don't doubt the Panthers success. A lot of past teams have played bad schedules and won it all. It helps, but I've never agreed with the idea of a NFL team having a easy schedule defining how good they are, it's not like college. 

 

IMO, a lot of people underestimated the AFC and the Broncos. All the sports media are so quick to anoint the NFC. They seem to want the good old days, back when the NFC was winning 12 straight Superbowls. They tried to anoint the Seahawks last year, and this year the Panthers; and both teams got beat by the AFC back to back.

 

I hadn't watched a lot of Panthers games, so I didn't know that much about them. I thought they would be a tough matchup for the Broncos. The more the game went on, I realized that the Broncos were just doing what they had done all year against AFC teams, something the Panthers hadn't seen. 

[PhataLerror 370]

I don't doubt the Panthers success. A lot of past teams have played bad schedules and won it all. It helps, but I've never agreed with the idea of a NFL team having a easy schedule defining how good they are, it's not like college. 

 

IMO, a lot of people underestimated the AFC and the Broncos. All the sports media are so quick to anoint the NFC. They seem to want the good old days, back when the NFC was winning 12 straight Superbowls. They tried to anoint the Seahawks last year, and this year the Panthers; and both teams got beat by the AFC back to back.

 

I hadn't watched a lot of Panthers games, so I didn't know that much about them. I thought they would be a tough matchup for the Broncos. The more the game went on, I realized that the Broncos were just doing what they had done all year against AFC teams, something the Panthers hadn't seen. 

The Seahawks were a lot more competitive against the Patriots than the Panthers were against the Broncos. That Patriots team had a good offense.

 

The Panthers played against professional teams throughout the year, so I'm not trying to take away what they have done, but when you compare their achievements to those of other teams, it's hard to argue that the Panthers faced a lot of adversity. They were accustomed to teams self-destructing after varying amounts of pressure were applied by the defense, or on occasion, by the offense. The Broncos' offense did in fact make some significant errors, but the Panthers' offense committed errors more frequently, and of a greater magnitude.

 

I doubted the Panthers because their offense had out-performed their actual talent, with Cam Newton being at the top of that list. He earned his MVP honors by being exciting, but not necessarily by being a good quarterback. The Seahawks played very poorly in the Divisional Playoff, and the Cardinals self-destructed in epic fashion the following week. Had either of those teams played to their standard, neither of them would have lost to the Panthers. The Broncos played to their standard, and it was more than enough.

[qnet 1,150]

The Seahawks were a lot more competitive against the Patriots than the Panthers were against the Broncos. That Patriots team had a good offense.

 

The Panthers played against professional teams throughout the year, so I'm not trying to take away what they have done, but when you compare their achievements to those of other teams, it's hard to argue that the Panthers faced a lot of adversity. They were accustomed to teams self-destructing after varying amounts of pressure were applied by the defense, or on occasion, by the offense. The Broncos' offense did in fact make some significant errors, but the Panthers' offense committed errors more frequently, and of a greater magnitude.

 

I doubted the Panthers because their offense had out-performed their actual talent, with Cam Newton being at the top of that list. He earned his MVP honors by being exciting, but not necessarily by being a good quarterback. The Seahawks played very poorly in the Divisional Playoff, and the Cardinals self-destructed in epic fashion the following week. Had either of those teams played to their standard, neither of them would have lost to the Panthers. The Broncos played to their standard, and it was more than enough.

 

Yeah, I understand what you're saying.  I hadn't watched a lot of Cam Newton, other than highlights. I thought he was better. He's big and has a strong arm, but he's not accurate.  His receivers aren't that great either. 

[PhataLerror 370]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying.  I hadn't watched a lot of Cam Newton, other than highlights. I thought he was better. He's big and has a strong arm, but he's not accurate.  His receivers aren't that great either. 

He's more accurate than everybody saw yesterday. He had terrible nerves, and the balls were sailing on him.

 

However, that's no excuse for giving up the two fumbles in the manner in which he gave them up. He ended up looking like a prima donna.

 

The strange thing is that all of these sports writers started to gush over Newton, but no one ever actually tried to tackle the question of whether Cam Newton's recent successes were the result of progress in certain quarterbacking fundamentals in which he had previously been deficient. I read perhaps a dozen articles on the subject of Newton's rise, and none of them gave anything more than superficial attention to his efforts to improve as a quarterback.

 

That absence told me everything I needed to know: There was nothing of substance to the idea that Cam Newton had made some sort of leap into the elite echelon of NFL quarterbacks. I still worried that the Broncos' defense wasn't going to be able to make up for the Broncos' offense, and that Manning could have thrown a game-losing interception or gave up a game-losing strip sack, but Newton ended up making things easy for both Broncos' squads. He single-handedly ruined a highly respectable showing by the Panthers' defense.

[DieHard 2,061]

You know his numbers were not that impressive, but I thought he was going to throw several INTs and he didn't. He played a pretty good game. Both defenses torn it up. Panthers should have run more and Denver ran better than I expected. Got to hand it to the Denver defense. By half time Superman was beaten up to the point where he looked like he wanted to take a knee.

[DieHard 2,061]

Kyptonite.

[eraser 722]

1. Denver

2. NE

3. KC

4. Carolina

5. AZ

 

 

If Carolina was the best the NFC had to offer, I am not impressed.

[PhataLerror 370]

1. Denver

2. NE

3. KC

4. Carolina

5. AZ

 

If Carolina was the best the NFC had to offer, I am not impressed.

Green Bay should be back on their feet with a healthy and fit runningback and Jordy Nelson back online.

The Seahawks were missing Jimmy Graham and a pair of decent wide receivers.

The Cowboys at times looked scary with Tony Romo healthy.

The Cardinals were the NFC's hottest team before January.

Any of these teams when healthy and clicking are better than the Panthers can be.

[eraser 722]

Green Bay should be back on their feet with a healthy and fit runningback and Jordy Nelson back online.

The Seahawks were missing Jimmy Graham and a pair of decent wide receivers.

The Cowboys at times looked scary with Tony Romo healthy.

The Cardinals were the NFC's hottest team before January.

Any of these teams when healthy and clicking are better than the Panthers can be.

Romo is 35, and wearing out fast

Palmer is 36, and has bad knees

 

You make a valid point. Carolina had one of weakest schedules. You have to look at the health of the teams.