New Power Rankings

**stlchief** · 09-26-2007, 06:28 PM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....html?bcnn=yes

11 - Broncos
12 - Chargers
25 - Chiefs
26 - Raiders

Good lord - what has anyone seen from Broncos or the Chargers to say top half? nothing different than the Chiefs. No respect. When #11 & #12 lose this week and #25 & #26 win, I doubt there is any change in the relative order of the AFC West in this poll....

**hermhater** · 09-27-2007, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by timsatt1

haha, well, yes i know you are kidding with that line...

but i definately see byast in you wanting the chiefs to somehow have a decent power ranking after being 1-2 and the offense looking SO SO SO sO TERRIBLE...i mean did you not watch the same 3 games that i saw? can you at least admit to being byast.

i see the same potential y ou do....so yes i agree that they have a shot at playoffs....depending on many things, a big one being the play calling.

BUT THEY dont get their power rankings moved up unless they earn it and actually deserve it.

they are at 26, which is exactly what they deserve.

so you think St Louis should be ranked higher than us with a worse record playing against worse teams?

I don't get it.

I know there are all kinds of problems with the organization, but don't dis the team dis HERM and CARL!

**Canada** · 09-27-2007, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by timsatt1

haha, well, yes i know you are kidding with that line...

but i definately see byast in you wanting the chiefs to somehow have a decent power ranking after being 1-2 and the offense looking SO SO SO sO TERRIBLE...i mean did you not watch the same 3 games that i saw? can you at least admit to being byast.

i see the same potential y ou do....so yes i agree that they have a shot at playoffs....depending on many things, a big one being the play calling.

BUT THEY dont get their power rankings moved up unless they earn it and actually deserve it.

they are at 26, which is exactly what they deserve.

Play calling...that is what you put this down to. Do you think that it is something that won't get sorted out once the season gets heated up. Herm may not be perfect but our scoring will go up. Would you say that we would deserve to be 26th in 2003 when our O was great a our D was like a high school team?? A playoff team last year that lost one player and has the4th best defense in the league and on the rise as the season gets longer is not a 26th ranked team,

Go ahead...keep bashing them and calling yourself a fan!!

**chief31** · 09-27-2007, 10:52 AM

I would be unable to rank the Chiefs much higher, myself. The fact that they are 1-2 and squeeked past a poor Vikings team, at Arrowhead, is the primary factor.

Yes the defense has good stats. But, how good would those stats be, if our opponents were needing to score, throughout the game? The urgency isn't there, for opposing offenses, when they can count on the Chiefs offense to give the ball back, while they are already leading?

The Raiders were ranked fourth, overall, in defense, a year ago. The only difference for that defense is the fact that the Raiders offense is scoring a few points this year. If the Raiders offense is going to score some points, then their opponents NEED to score some more, to win.

I want to see if the Chiefs defense is as good as it looks, when we have a lead. When the opposition feels like they HAVE TO score.

**Canada** · 09-27-2007, 10:55 AM

\that was the last 4 minutes of the game on Sunday and MIN did nothing but go backwards

**chief31** · 09-27-2007, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Canada's #1 Chiefs Fan

that was the last 4 minutes of the game on Sunday and MIN did nothing but go backwards

The mighty Minnesota offense, for one possession? I had something more in mind.

**Canada** · 09-27-2007, 11:01 AM

I don't buy that teams are not trying to score onour D. Minesota did not say hey....were up 10-6, no need to not score from the second Q on. CHI wanted to score more....didn't....HOU wanted to score more....didn't min same thing. Our defence is that good. Bal had good D and crap O but i bet they are a lot higher than us. I am not saying that we should be ranked at the top, but we do not deserve to be a bottom feeder either.

**chief31** · 09-27-2007, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Canada's #1 Chiefs Fan

I don't buy that teams are not trying to score onour D. Minesota did not say hey....were up 10-6, no need to not score from the second Q on. CHI wanted to score more....didn't....HOU wanted to score more....didn't min same thing. Our defence is that good. Bal had good D and crap O but i bet they are a lot higher than us. I am not saying that we should be ranked at the top, but we do not deserve to be a bottom feeder either.

I never said that teams aren't trying to score. What I said is that they don't have the same feeling of urgency to score.

When you are behind on the scoreboard, you feel like you have to score. While, if you are ahead, it just isn't as definite that you must. Look at the Chiefs offense. Do you believe that if the early play-calling had somehow worked and given us a lead, going into the fourth quarter, that we would have leaned so heavily on the passing game? Would we have been as desperate for another touchdown?

It isn't just the players. In fact, I think if it were entirely up to the players, few offenses would lose the "Must have touchdowns" mentallity, ever. But coordinators and coaches tend to be chicken-s***s. Employing a "Well, we don't want to turn the ball over and lose because we were too risky" mentallity.

Very rarely does a team rank high on the defensive stats, while also having high-ranking offense, for that exact reason.

As stated above, I just want to see this defense perform as well, with a lead. (More than one possession, against a bad offense.)

**m0ef0e** · 09-27-2007, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by stlchief

A few more facts I couldn't add earlier:
BRONCOS (11) 6th ranked offense / 3rd ranked defense:

(W) Bills are ranked 32nd in offense & 32nd in defense.
(W) Raiders are ranked 15th in offense & 27th in defense.
(L) Jaguars are ranked 19th in offense & 6th in defense.

CHARGERS (12) 27th ranked offense / 22nd ranked defense:
(W) Bears are ranked 30th in offense & 16th in defense.
(L) Patriots are ranked 1st in offense & 1st in defense.
(L) Packers are ranked 18th in offense & 15th in defense.

CHIEFS (25) 29th ranked offense / 4th ranked defense:
(L) Texans are ranked 23rd in offense & 13th in defense.
(L) Bears are ranked in 30th offense & 16th in defense.
(W) Vikings are ranked 26th in offense & 11th in defense.

RAIDERS (26) 15th ranked offense / 27th ranked defense:
(L) Cowboys are ranked 2nd in offense & 21st in defense.
(L) Broncos are ranked 6th in offense & 4th in defense.
(W) Browns are ranked 9th in offense & 31st in defense.

(BTW – Rams have looked like crap – 25th ranked offense / 7th ranked defense – I live here so I hear how bad they are – are 0-3 and are ranked 24th. A-mazing…)
Everything changes with a Bronco loss to Indy & a Chiefs win over San Diego.

The Faders lost to the Lions in week 1. The Cowboys beat the Giants.

I agree about the Rams. They should be ranked lower than the Chiefs AND the Faders. Your record should reflect in your power rankings.

BTW, the Vikings and Texans are very similar as far as rankings go. They both have good defenses this year with offenses that boast some great players but do not rank among the highest in the league. The fact that we beat the Vikings after how we lost to the Texans says a lot about the improvement of our team thus far this season.

If you are going to agree with these rankings, just go ahead and give the Patriots the title for this year. Then we can just play the next season from this point with everybody sitting at 0-0 again, right? Anybody who takes the OPINIONS of these guys as fact is a sheep and nothing more. You wanna talk about bias? If you read most of the garbage that SI puts out closely, it ties into a lot of atlerior agendas and propaganda. ESPN is bad enough, SI employs robots and andriods that just say what they are programmed to.