USA Today - Computer Rankings Saints #10
 

USA Today | Sports | NFL Computer Rankings :bng:
No emotions here... just computer logic and rankings.

Saints look better than what the majority here think... including me.

Oddly we are better rated than any team we have played including the team we play next.
We are also rated as the best team in the division.:bugeyes:

The Cardinals look impressive. :rolleyes:

ESPN Saints #20....

Re: USA Today - Computer Rankings Saints #10
 

We are 2-3 and have played like it. Our biggest enemy so far has been ourselves.

If we can play up to our level of talent we can make the playoffs.

Re: USA Today - Computer Rankings Saints #10
 

Some mornings I have more time than others to consider Power Rankings, :lol:.

The two rankings are remarkably close though. It seems like they have problems with the NFC East teams somewhat, but they're pretty dead on with the top/bottom of the rankings, :).

Biggest discrepancy is with the Saints. I interpret that as a good thing ... means you guys are "unpredictable", ;).


....ESPN............USA Today............ +/-

1) Seahawks ..... Seahawks ......... EVEN
2) Broncos ........ Broncos ............ EVEN
3) Chargers ...... Chargers ........... EVEN
4) Eagles .......... Bengals ............ Philly 9, Bengals 1
5) Bengals ........ Whiners ............ Bengals 1, Whiners 2
6) Cowgirlz ....... Packers ............. Cowgirlz 9, Pack 3
7) Whiners ........ Patriots ............ Whiners 2, Pats 4
8) Colts ............ Cardinals ........... Colts 1, Cards 2
9) Packers ........ Colts ................. Pack3, Colts 1
10)Cardinals ...... Saints ............... Cards 2, Saints 10
11)Patriots ........ Ravens .............. Pats 4, Ravens 1
12)Ravens ......... Lions ................ Ravens 1, Lions 2
13)Giants .......... Eagles .............. Giants 3, Eagles 9
14)Lions ............ Chiefs .............. Lions 2, Chiefs 5
15)Panthers ...... Cowboys ............ Panthers 5, Cowgirlz 9
16)Steelers ........ Giants .............. Steelers 7, Giants 3
17)Texans ........ Bears ................ Texans 4, Bears 5
18)Bills ............. Failclowns .......... Bills 1, Failclowns 3
19)Chiefs .......... Bills .................. Chiefs 5, Bills 1
20)Saints .......... Panthers ........... Saints 10, Panthers 5
21)Failclowns ..... Texans ............. Failclowns 3, Texans 4
22)Bears ........... Dolphins ............ Bears 5, Dolphins 2
23)Browns ......... Steelers ............ Browns 1, Steelers 7
24)Dolphins ....... Browns ............. Browns 1, Dolphins 2
25)Vikings ......... Rams ................ Vikes 1, Rams 3
26)Redskins ....... Vikings ............. Skins 1, Vikes 1
27)Buccaneers ... Redskins ........... Bucs 1, Skins 1
28)Rams ........... Buccaneers ........ Rams 3, Bucs 1
29)Titans .......... Titans ................ EVEN
30)Jets ............ Jets ................... EVEN
31)Jaguars ........ Raiders .............. Jags 1, Raiders 1
32)Raiders ........ Jaguars ............. Raiders 1, Jags 1

Re: USA Today - Computer Rankings Saints #10
 

[QUOTE=SloMotion;617485]
Biggest discrepancy is with the Saints. I interpret that as a good thing ... means you guys are "unpredictable", ;).


Unpredictable? Nah.

We're crazy man. And people fear the "crazy"...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EydBvBV05N...-faces-016.jpg

Re: USA Today - Computer Rankings Saints #10
 

With the miscues the we've had I'm surprised to see us at number ten.
still...........

Re: USA Today - Computer Rankings Saints #10
 

Tough to figure.

Are they a good team that's making a lot of mistakes or are they just a bad team.

I'm going with the former because I can't see a team going from that good to that bad so fast. (and I'm a homer)

But I can understand anyone that believes the later.

Re: USA Today - Computer Rankings Saints #10
 

Last year the falcons had some wierd statistic that they had one of the lowest sacks when factoring out hurries or something like that

Re: USA Today - Computer Rankings Saints #10
 

Not sure where you're going with that (actually I do, but just want to take the obligatory jab at the Failclowns, ;)) but I'm totally down with this turning into a falcon-bashing thread that inevitably needs to be moved to the Ultimate Smack Talk forum-of-death, :lol:.

I think that stat is called the "QB Affect ratio" or something like that, where they somehow calculate knockdowns/hurries/sacks ... not sure how they do it ... Matt Stafford's already been brought down 17x this season (at the time of this post), so it's a stat I tend to avoid, :lol:.

Hicks, Bunkley & Jordan could have a decent Wk #7 if they play their cards right ... just sayin'.