K, so Denver is looking like a Group C team, and Indy outplayed them to the tune of 149 yards more offense (or 1.1 more yards per paly). Good observations. Now, explain again why you ranked the victorious Colts 4 ositions lower than the Broncos. Show some backbone!
Totally disagree with Ravens being #1. NFl Football is a 60 minute game. Winners don't dominate for 55 minutes only to be able to slack off the last 5 if this game really was played multiple times and the Tavens still snoozed at the end. They would still lose. No bonus points if cant play the whole 60
The Vikings are hard to read. Still, I think this list overvalues them.
O'Connell has a knack for extracting lemonade from lemons at QB, but those were veterans. McCarthy is green and didn't throw too many passes at Michigan. We'll see.
The MIN interior O-line improvements look good on paper, but the Vikes are relying on a rookie and two injury-plagued guys the Colts and other suitors had no interest in overpaying. The situation doesn't feel as dependable as the Thuney/Dalman upgrades to the CHI interior O-line.
I worry about the MIN run defense. After trading Harrison Phillips, there's no real NT to keep blockers off of Cashman and Pace.
The MIN secondary is worrisome. Jeff Okudah is a starter. Not good. And Harrison Smith could become a liability at any second.
It's nice that someone actually states the blatant obvious and that the Chiefs are so looked after by the officials. 14 points in one game, and 10 in the other, it makes the League look more farcical.
When it comes to minnesota you're either lying to squeeze a square into your circle narrative by saying minnesota didn't have convincing wins over the Titans (they beat them by 10) and the Bears (beat them by 18) and the Falcons (beat them by 21) or you're penalizing them for not blowing out every team they play. Either way you're showing your obvious hating. I still can't get over you thinking Green Bay had nothing to play for so they didn't even try. Hahaha too funny. That loss means now they might have to go to Philly in the wildcard. A win against Minnesota would have meant they had a good chance at going to Tampa Bay. You don't think they cared at all about that? Start watching golf or something because you clearly don't understand football.
@biskit52250 im a fan of this site but i must say, Walt has had a weird obsession with the Packers all year long. They’re unimpressive. They’ve been in several dog fights with bad teams and have no real quality wins. As a Lions fan, it has been apparent to me that you guys are the superior team. Even after Sunday night I still respect you guys more than the Lackers. It seems inconsistent to me that Walt knocks some teams for ugly wins and bad records vs good teams while excusing other teams for doing exactly that.
Your Packers bias is crazy. If you swapped them with the Vikings the Packers would be 0-5 against A tier teams.
Also acting like the Packers lost just because they weren't trying is a coping answer. You bet money on them and said there was no motivational edge. Putting the packers above the team that swept them is insanity.
Solid power rankings! Its so obvious now that Packers didn’t care about some meaningless week 17 divisional matchup. Its not like winning couldve helped their standings in the wild card.
Thank god it was clearly warned in the picks yesterday thay GB wouldnt try. Not like someone bet 5 units on them and even predicted theyd win outright.
Hahaha I love coming here to see what a joke it is. "I'm not moving them down because they didn't seem to be trying hard when they lost in Meaningless game" but the issue is it was actually a meaningful game. Green Bay could have moved up to the 5 seed with another win next week. Just stop it man lol
"Vikings have had wins that werent exactly convincing against six teams that dont have winning records"... yet Ravens are ranked ahead with losses to the Raiders (3-12), and Browns (3-12) and 3pt or less wins over Cowboys and Bengals..
Teams like Green Bay and San Francisco you will make excuses for why they lost, bring up injuries and say things like "if this team didn't do this fluky thing GB or SF would have won" but teams like Minnesota and Denver you never talk about their injuries, make excuses for the teams they just beat and say things like "they only won because they did this fluky thing" or the team they played against only lost because the refs did this or " they might have won by 20 points but they played against a bad team that made mistakes". You remind me of a 12 year old making a power rankings for a class project. Hahaha
A WIN IS A WIN NEED TO GET OVER YOUR HATE ON DENVER, THEY BEAT TAMPA AT THEIR PLACE, A BLOCKED FIELD GOAL FROM CHIEFS, YOU HAVE 49ERS RANKED AHEAD OF THEM LOL WHAT A JOKE RANKING. WASHINGTON BARELY SURVIES NEW ORLEANS AND YOU HAVE THEM TOP TEN
It's obvious which teams you like and which ones you don't because the teams you like you always bring up their injuries and make excuses for their losses and narrow victories and the teams you don't like you hold their narrow losses against them and never bring up their injuries. I totally get a power rankings should not just be the same as the standings but wins and losses matter a lot more than you give them credit for. I'll give you credit though because you get me to click on your power rankings every single time to see what the biggest joke of a power rankings said this week.
I’ve been coming to this site for about the last 15 years or so. I do believe that this is the very first time my Lions topped your power rankings. LETS GOOOO!!!
Truthfully I can’t see this team losing any time soon. Not at least until the first seed is clinched, but even then I can’t see Dan Campbell trotting out the backups. Walt, how likely do you think it is that the Lions run the table and go 16-1?
)
