CBS Sportsline early power rankings

[Jeremy 0]

It's early, but what the heck...

 

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9357254

 

Miami at #5?

Bears dissed at #13?

"Don't hate us because we're better than you" Redskins at 14?

[surferskin 30]

the redskins are the team the media loves to hate.

[Guest stevejohnson]

Eagles ranked ahead of the Deadskins!

[dcOne 2]

the redskins are the team the media loves to hate.

 

 

The Cowboys are more "hated" than the skins. I guarantee it.

 

 

Only because the haters are sick of Dallas being the most "loved" team in America.

[Stars 0]

I find it interesting that Miami were ranked 8th before we signed Culpepper. imho that's madness.

 

Shows how much difference a nonsense win against a NEP team who were jerking around makes to everyone's perception. That winning season is such an important statement.

 

I'd be surprised if Miami went as good as 10-6 next season, personally.

[surferskin 30]

Eagles ranked ahead of the Deadskins!

 

0-6 in the NFC east

[kraziness 0]

I really don't think I'm being a homer here... but putting the Browns behind Oak., NO, GB, and Tenn. is just dumb. It could be argued that they belong above Balt., StL., Az and Minny too. I'm not saying they're a SB team or that they belong in the top 10, but some of those picks are just horrible.

 

And Miami at #5 is way too high. What exactly have they done to be that high? Has Culpepper proven himself to be an elite, consistant, team leading QB? Has Saban proven himself to be a SB calibre HC? Has Brown proven himself to be a gamebreaking elite RB? And their D is another year older.

 

Look, they've got as good a shot as anyone (especially in their division), but having them ahead of proven, consistant teams (Seattle, Denver) and other teams with just as much upside (NYG, Cinci, Dallas) doesn't make sense. Actually, I like a lot of the teen teams ahead of his top 10. Wash, Chicago, Cinci, KC would all be ahead of Miami and Jax in my rankings.

[Portis26 0]

Prisco is SOOO off base...

 

Steelers #1 - Yes they won the SB LAST YEAR - but they lost 2 pieces to the offense, and a major piece of the secondary -

 

Patriots 3rd - Please tell him how they have gotten better????

 

Miami 5th - With a NEW QB coming off major surgery - pretty comical - IMO

 

Bengals - 15th - How come they aren't higher - he mentions Palmers injury,but I guess that doesn't factor into the Miami ranking

 

Falcons 22nd They make MAJOR upgrades on defense - and don't move up the rankings??

 

 

How this guy has a job in football is BEYOND ME

[Guest stevejohnson]

0-6 in the NFC east

 

I didn't know the season started yet....or are you living in the past, AGAIN! Next I will hear about the Deadskins Super Bowl rings they won damn near 20 years ago!

[Stars 0]

Prisco is SOOO off base...

 

Steelers #1 - Yes they won the SB LAST YEAR - but they lost 2 pieces to the offense, and a major piece of the secondary -

Not only that but... someone please try to persuade me that they were the best team in the league last season. Because let's face it - the playoffs are a cup competition pure and simple, and on any given Sunday anyone can beat anyone else. They are the champions yes - but the best team no imho.

 

And they haven't become any better since then.

[Raider 84 29]

You know it's a bad list when the Raiders are ranked #26. Every year they are a top 5 team!

 

[TD Ryan2 316]

Prisco is a hack and a buffoon.

 

I am SHOCKED that he didn't include ARI in his top ten.

 

The fact is that ARI and MIA will be the darling "dark horse" teams this year.

Every hack prognosticator is going to "go out on a limb" and predict great things from MIA or ARI in '06.

Both deserve some recognition for the improvements they've made, but no way does MIA deserved to be ranked ahead of playoff (and SB) teams from last year (JAX, DEN, SEA).

 

For MIA, the Culpepper signing is that Headline/Limelight move that garners the attention but really, it's the addition of Capers and Mularkey to Saban's staff that will have the most impact. With BUF and NYJ both being horrendous, of course MIA is gonna' be the top contender with NE in the AFC East... but the 5th best team in the NFL? Prisco's reaching; knowing full well that if he's wrong, nobody ever remembers this column and if he's right, he can dig it up to "prove" how great he is.

[Portis26 0]

I didn't know the season started yet....or are you living in the past, AGAIN! Next I will hear about the Deadskins Super Bowl rings they won damn near 20 years ago!

 

Link to View the Washington Redskins Super Bowl Rings

 

I can't seem to find pictures of the Eagles ring(s), would you be so kind and assist me in obtaining a link that we can all view them

 

 

Super Bowl wins stay with a fan FOR LIFE - I don't know if you'll be able to EVER  experience that

[Mack 1 6]

Not only that but... someone please try to persuade me that they were the best team in the league last season. Because let's face it - the playoffs are a cup competition pure and simple, and on any given Sunday anyone can beat anyone else. They are the champions yes - but the best team no imho.

It's always settled on the field. Who cares if it's a one-game elimination. One alternative would be for the NFL to adopt the antiquated voting system the NCAA still employs, if that'll tickle your fancy.

 

Sure, that's the best way to determine a champion .

[George Carlin 1]

Patriots fan here and I'm very skeered of Miami this upcoming year.

[Stars 0]

It's always settled on the field. Who cares if it's a one-game elimination. One alternative would be for the NFL to adopt the antiquated voting system the NCAA still employs, if that'll tickle your fancy.

 

Sure, that's the best way to determine a champion .

Oh, absolutely I agree, the Steelers are the champions. Unless and until they bring in a league system where everyone plays everyone else home and away (not going to happen) a cup-style postseason is the only way they can determine who are champions.

 

Does that make them the best team for next season? No, not necessarily, in my opinion - why should it? I don't even think it necessarily means that they were the best team last season. It just means they performed when it counted, and/or their opponents failed when it counted (for whatever reason). Simple as that.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Eagles ranked ahead of the Deadskins!

As well they should be. They really don't have a QB that will help their team. As Don Shula has been credited with saying, "Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck." The Giants I could see above the Eagles, little surprised at Dallas though, but I understand it.

 

Also, like the first poster said, it's early. We have to see what happens in the draft yet. But nevertheless interesting.

[Franknbeans 46]

Oh, absolutely I agree, the Steelers are the champions. Unless and until they bring in a league system where everyone plays everyone else home and away (not going to happen) a cup-style postseason is the only way they can determine who are champions.

 

Does that make them the best team for next season? No, not necessarily, in my opinion - why should it? I don't even think it necessarily means that they were the best team last season. It just means they performed when it counted, and/or their opponents failed when it counted (for whatever reason). Simple as that.

which by default makes them the best team, by definition

[surferskin 30]

As well they should be. They really don't have a QB that will help their team. As Don Shula has been credited with saying, "Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck." The Giants I could see above the Eagles, little surprised at Dallas though, but I understand it.

 

Also, like the first poster said, it's early. We have to see what happens in the draft yet. But nevertheless interesting.

 

 

yeah, all the redskins super bowl trophies were brought home by great quarterbacks.

[kraziness 0]

Pitt, with Roethlisberger is a completely different team than they are without him. All the "they got hot at the right time" people don't realize that the 4 they lost were when Roeth was out. With him, they absolutely deserve to be counted as the top team. And losing Bettis is NOT losing a key ingredient. Randle El was a bad loss, but he is easily replaceable IMO. Hope is the same boat, a good young talent, but they can find a guy to plug in.

 

What did NE do? Well, for starters they went on a tear and looked every bit as good as Pitt, Indy and Seattle at the end of the year. They deserve to be that high until someone proves that they're rebuilding and not contending, nobody has proven that yet.

 

Cinci should be WAY higher, to take Palmer's injury into account is rediculous if he isn't taking 'Pepper's (I understand Pepper's was a lot earlier than Palmer's, but Palmer has less Q's surrounding him when he does come back, and he's still with the same team, with the same coaches).

[Stars 0]

which by default makes them the best team, by definition

 

Nice one, I liked it, others in my office also laughed.

 

So, based on kraziness' QB stats, if Pitt had lost Roethlisberger for the SB and lost the game, then they wouldn't have been the best team for the whole season?

 

There are all sorts of variables that decide who wins a particular game, and anyone can beat anyone.

 

Let's assume that Indy beat NYG 70-0 in a crunch regular season game, then lose Manning and Harrison and two cornerbacks to illness and lose a tight superbowl game 21-20 because of a missed PAT. On your analysis NYG is the better team because they won the superbowl - how does that work?

 

You might say... no, well, yes, well, whatever. But the point is - I'm saying the SB winner isn't necessarily the best team. I just cannot fathom how anyone can argue against that with a straight face.

[Mack 1 6]

I'm saying the SB winner isn't necessarily the best team. I just cannot fathom how anyone can argue against that with a straight face.

The 5-carat rings and the $80,000-plus check the Steelers received say they ARE the best team, and I'm saying that with a straight face .

[kraziness 0]

Well, I'm not saying that the SB Champ is ALWAYS the best team, end of discussion- that'd be pretty shortsighted. But I am saying that NE showed a lot of weaknesses, as did Indy, Seattle and Cinci and Pitt exploited those weaknesses of the teams they played, and beat them- I have no problem seeing Pitt as the top team in the league at the end of last year. They were 15-1, 2 years ago and started out hot again. It wasn't until Roethlisberger got injured and they lost 3 straight that everyone jumped off the bandwagon. Roeth came back and they became the same team that everyone thought they could be.

 

I really can't think of a single team that I'd rate higher than Pittsburgh last year. Indy? Please! They aren't tough enough, or well coached enough, and their QB lacks enough real leadership to change protection schemes/plays to exploit tough defenses in tough situations (like NE and Pitt). NE's talent level and coaching have taken a serious hit over the past few years. Cinci lacked experience in every phase of the game, a suspect D, and the obvious lack of depth at QB hurt them. Was Seattle a better team? This is only team that didn't have glairing faults last year, and their WRs and Defense clearly didn't step up in big spots.

 

So, if Pitt wasn't the best team last year, who was? I'm curious. By the way, this is killing me, I hate the Steelers.

[Jeremy 0]

I thought Cincy and Chicago certainly deserved to be higher than they were, based on last years results. If Palmer is back healthy they should be considered contenders for the Superbowl, I would think. I guess the Palmer injury is the big questionmark there.

 

Has Chicago lost key players on defense that justifies a barely above average ranking of 13? Granted, they don't have much at QB, but look how many games they won with Kyle Orton at QB. Bears fan, what say you?

 

As for my Packers, I actually expected a lower number than that.

[PistolPete2432 0]

Alright my thoughts:

 

I think the Patriots are a little too high maybe 6-8 but not 3

 

Ive never liked Jacksonville and even though there probably going to make the playoffs i dont think there a top 10 team in the league

 

The Redskins deserve to be higher, their offense is what struggled in the playoffs and they helped that by signing llyod and randle el

 

I wanna know how Eagles are so high? they sucked last year, they have a strong division, and they have no wrs for mcnabb to pass

 

I think everything else is about right but not exactly how i would have it

Oh and to add to that GO PITTSBURGH #1!!

[Stars 0]

So, if Pitt wasn't the best team last year, who was? I'm curious. By the way, this is killing me, I hate the Steelers.

 

Personally, I can't see it - I just don't think they dominated enough. In my mind Indy were the best team, they just misfired at a key point. A few small variables in one game (rather than throughout the season) and the whole story could have been completely different. But that's a whole different debate.

 

It just amuses me how seriously some people take this winner-takes-all theory. We Brits aren't like that at all - in football, for example, we have a league where everyone plays everyone home and away; ties are ties (there is no shoot-out or the like) and the winner is genuinely the best team. The NFL playoffs simply aren't perfect for deciding who is the best team (look at the NHL for example - if the playoffs were decided as a best-of-one rather than a best-of-seven then you could have a completely different outcome). But they are great viewing and they do produce a solid outcome. Which is fine for what it is.

[Zackattack 0]

OK Dolphin haters we will see. Why do we not deserve top 5? Why does NE deserve number 3? I also think the Colts will not be as good as last year. Just wait Saban is not done yet!!

[Shockey fan 0]

The Lions are bad enough = Prisco does not need to give them Luke McCown, but preferably Josh McCown - a gunslinger who will be the starter there soon enough over Kitna as a better fit to Martz system

 

Someone tell Prisco to change his error

[kraziness 0]

Personally, I can't see it - I just don't think they dominated enough. In my mind Indy were the best team, they just misfired at a key point. A few small variables in one game (rather than throughout the season) and the whole story could have been completely different. But that's a whole different debate.

 

It just amuses me how seriously some people take this winner-takes-all theory. We Brits aren't like that at all - in football, for example, we have a league where everyone plays everyone home and away; ties are ties (there is no shoot-out or the like) and the winner is genuinely the best team. The NFL playoffs simply aren't perfect for deciding who is the best team (look at the NHL for example - if the playoffs were decided as a best-of-one rather than a best-of-seven then you could have a completely different outcome). But they are great viewing and they do produce a solid outcome. Which is fine for what it is.

 

It'd be different if it were say KC, and they had stumbled into the playoffs and just happened to catch some lucky breaks and win it all. But to me, Pitt was on of the to teams the whole year (as long as their starting QB was healthy). IMO, the only reason they were a 6 seed and not a 2-3 seed was because of his injury (their lack of depth at QB)- otherwise they would have been consistantly at the top of the league. Perhaps not as fancy/showy/dominant as Indy, but consistant, and more ready for playoff football.

 

I don't annoint Pitt as #1 only because the won the SB, but they did play the top teams in the league head to head, and beat them all, and I wouldn't have expected it to go differently if they played again (except for MABYE Cinci because of the Palmer injury). Indy had so much opportunity to change their blocking schemes (the Center could have done it, Manning could have done it and any one of their coaches could have done it) and Manning has all the chances he wants to change the play... they never made a single adjustment until it was too late (which seems to happen every year against the Pats too).

 

Incidentally, I do like a series format, and wouldn't be against them taking less teams into the playoffs and playing a best of 3 format (I agree that a series is a better gauge of who the best team is)... but it's never going to happen in the NFL.

 

OK, I need to stop now.

 

 

OK Dolphin haters we will see. Why do we not deserve top 5? Why does NE deserve number 3? I also think the Colts will not be as good as last year. Just wait Saban is not done yet!!

 

It's not about being a hater, but they really have not proven themselves to be better than a lot of the teams they're ranked ahead of... If this were a prediction article, how he thinks they'll all do, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's not. This is suppossed to be "power rankings" which to me is suppossed to reflect what has been proven to this point, and Miami has not proven to be any better than Cinci for instance.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

yeah, all the redskins super bowl trophies were brought home by great quarterbacks.

Defense bring the championships. I hope your defense for this year is the best then.

[Stars 0]

OK Dolphin haters we will see. Why do we not deserve top 5? Why does NE deserve number 3? I also think the Colts will not be as good as last year. Just wait Saban is not done yet!!

 

Well I'm a Miami fan and just can't see it - we have an awful lot of work to do on defence, given their age, threat of injuries and inexperience of and/or lack of top quality cornerbacks. Plus query whether the new OL will gel.

 

Don't get me wrong, I rate Saban and think that he's a winner who will inspire the team to win. He's clearly driven. But the 5th best team in the league? Well, I hope it's true...

 

As for NEP, I'm with kraziness. On paper, they look like a diminishing force. But they looked anything but that come the end of last season, except for the game against Miami which was clearly meaningless for them. I won't discount them yet.

[surferskin 30]

Defense bring the championships. I hope your defense for this year is the best then.

 

i agree and i feel pretty damn good about our defense.

[Walter34 3]

Bears were around 30th at this time last year. These rankings are interesting reading, but are not worth the ink they were written with. half-assed and no thought put to it at all.

[kiwimango 0]

Personally, I can't see it - I just don't think they dominated enough. In my mind Indy were the best team, they just misfired at a key point. A few small variables in one game (rather than throughout the season) and the whole story could have been completely different. But that's a whole different debate.

 

It just amuses me how seriously some people take this winner-takes-all theory. We Brits aren't like that at all - in football, for example, we have a league where everyone plays everyone home and away; ties are ties (there is no shoot-out or the like) and the winner is genuinely the best team. The NFL playoffs simply aren't perfect for deciding who is the best team (look at the NHL for example - if the playoffs were decided as a best-of-one rather than a best-of-seven then you could have a completely different outcome). But they are great viewing and they do produce a solid outcome. Which is fine for what it is.

 

I am a Steelers fan. I will start with that. But, this is why I disagree and believe that the Steelers were the best team last year.

 

The Steelers started out winning 3 of 4 with only the loss to NE on the last second FG. Everyone was talking about them being one of the best teams in the league. The went into SD and won on Monday night and Ben got hurt. They lost a game the should have won but didnt to JAX (Maddox fumbled in FG range in OT and then threw game losing INT!) Then won 4 in a row. Ben got hurt again, they lost 3 in row, had a chance to win all 3 games (Including INDY and DIDNT) Then won 4 more in a row. All the while, they had their 5 losses, but only 1 was with BEN playing and not only that, but they had a chance to win every game that the lost the entire season. Everyone knew this was the MOST DANGEROUS TEAM going into the playoffs, becuase they could run, play defense and were on a roll.

 

So to think that they werent the best, may not be true. This was an excellent team all season even in losses and that is the sign of a good team.

 

The Steelers lost Randle El & Hope, nothing that cant be easily replaced. Yes Randle El, was versatile, but he can be replaced. Maybe that is why the forward thinking Steelers, signed Wilson for 4 years and began playing him nore late in the season. Hope was a safety value, couldnt tackle, but wasnt asked to, his only job was to not get beat deep, a problem that they had in the past and he didnt. For the money that they got signed $31M & $24M, they can leave.

 

The steelers have 10 picks and not enough money to sign everyone if they drafted all 10 players. I am sure that with their front office, they will make the best of them and move up to get whatever they feel they need.

 

So the team that won the Superbowl, lost nothing major and are returning 99% of their roster, which is why they are currently #1

[TD Ryan2 316]

RE: MIA, NEP

 

there's no question that NE fans are concerned when looking south to Saban and MIA, but as it was stated above, MIA hasn't done ANYTHING yet to prove that they belong ranked amongst the elites in the NFL.

 

as for NE, they can't be "graded" or "ranked" yet... not with $20million to spend and the June 1st cuts looming. The fact is that NE looked very strong at the end of last year but they were ravaged by injuries and hamstrung with underachieving FAs. If NE can stay moderately healthy and do better than "bust" with their FA signings, they WILL be better than they were last year.

 

Then, for Both NE and MIA, you add in the perks of the '06 schedule... NYJx2, BUFx2, TEN, HOU, and The NFC North (DET, GB, MIN,)... that's some seriously weak competition... after those creampuffs, just going .500 against the decent teams will get NE & MIA to 10+ wins.

[Force of Two 0]

i agree and i feel pretty damn good about our defense.

 

Your defense is Super Bowl Caliber (though I think you guys way overpaid for Archuleta) but that Quarterback isnt in the class that Thiesman or Williams or even Rypien was..

 

Im not saying that anyone of them was great but you cant really expect Brunnell to have the type of season that any one of them had during those Super Bowl Years

[t.j 35]

7 Denver Broncos 4

They did a good job re-signing their own in Matt Lepsis and Gerard Warren, but they lost some good ones in Trevor Pryce and Mike Anderson. There hasn't been a lot added, either. But this remains a quality team.

8 Seattle Seahawks 6

Losing Steve Hutchinson at guard will hurt, but they did the right thing not matching the offer sheet. Julian Peterson will help the defense, but have they really improved?

 

This guy thought the Broncos were better than the Seahawks last year? What a goon.

 

I really don't think I'm being a homer here...

 

Can you quit starting all your posts like this? TIA.

 

putting the Browns behind Oak., NO, GB, and Tenn. is just dumb.

 

I agree with this.

[Franknbeans 46]

Nice one, I liked it, others in my office also laughed.

 

So, based on kraziness' QB stats, if Pitt had lost Roethlisberger for the SB and lost the game, then they wouldn't have been the best team for the whole season?

 

There are all sorts of variables that decide who wins a particular game, and anyone can beat anyone.

 

Let's assume that Indy beat NYG 70-0 in a crunch regular season game, then lose Manning and Harrison and two cornerbacks to illness and lose a tight superbowl game 21-20 because of a missed PAT. On your analysis NYG is the better team because they won the superbowl - how does that work?

 

You might say... no, well, yes, well, whatever. But the point is - I'm saying the SB winner isn't necessarily the best team. I just cannot fathom how anyone can argue against that with a straight face.

You're confused. Hypothetical situations suck so I won't indulge that scenario. The reality of the situation is many teams will fail if their starting QB goes down. That said, the Steelers handled the adversity thrown at them and came out victorious. They beat the top 3 seeds that the arguably better AFC had to offer (all on the road) and then beat the top NFC seed. That makes them the best team. Period.

[surferskin 30]

Your defense is Super Bowl Caliber (though I think you guys way overpaid for Archuleta) but that Quarterback isnt in the class that Thiesman or Williams or even Rypien was..

 

Im not saying that anyone of them was great but you cant really expect Brunnell to have the type of season that any one of them had during those Super Bowl Years

 

check out theisman's career stats next to brunell:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BrunMa00.htm

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/TheiJo00.htm

 

and i'll throw in mark rypien and doug willams:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RypiMa00.htm

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/WillDo01.htm

 

 

yeah, it'd be impossible for brunell to have seasons like these GREAT QB's.

[shovelheadt 71]

RE: MIA, NEP

 

there's no question that NE fans are concerned when looking south to Saban and MIA, but as it was stated above, MIA hasn't done ANYTHING yet to prove that they belong ranked amongst the elites in the NFL.

 

as for NE, they can't be "graded" or "ranked" yet... not with $20million to spend and the June 1st cuts looming. The fact is that NE looked very strong at the end of last year but they were ravaged by injuries and hamstrung with underachieving FAs. If NE can stay moderately healthy and do better than "bust" with their FA signings, they WILL be better than they were last year.

 

Then, for Both NE and MIA, you add in the perks of the '06 schedule... NYJx2, BUFx2, TEN, HOU, and The NFC North (DET, GB, MIN,)... that's some seriously weak competition... after those creampuffs, just going .500 against the decent teams will get NE & MIA to 10+ wins.

 

I've got a feeling this year's June 1st cuts are going to pale in comparison to the last few years. I think GMs went ahead and dumped people early, whether they admit it or not, in fear of no collective barganing agreement.