ESPN power rankings

[The Answer]

We are opening up at #23 which sounds about right:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking?season=2007&week=0

<TABLE class=tablehead style="WIDTH: 532px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR class=oddrow align=left><TD>http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/buf.gif</TD><TD>23 (21)</TD><TD>Bills (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=buf)</TD><TD width=50>7-9-0</TD><TD>The Bills clearly wanted to get younger this offseason, waving goodbye to a number of key veterans. But will it make them better on the field? That's largely in J.P. Losman's hands.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
~The Answer

[SquishDaFish]

You do mean 23rd right?

[Carlton Bailey]

ESPN's erection for Fletcher, Clements and Spikes has lasted for far longer than 36 hours. They need to see a doctor, immediately.

[Pinkerton Security]

ESPN's erection for Fletcher, Clements and Spikes has lasted for far longer than 36 hours. They need to see a doctor, immediately.

:lolpoint:ESPN

[patmoran2006]

23rd is about right... For where they are now.

[justasportsfan]

23 sounds about right

[EDS]

I have no problem with being 23 at this point.

[Mr. Miyagi]

I want them to put us at #30.

In fact I want Vegas to put us at #30 and make it 4 games O/U.

[The Spaz]

Chris Brown doesn't like the rankings:

ARGH!! THESE ESPN RANKINGS!: Gotta love ESPN at it again with it's downgrading of the Bills. They did an NFL rankings list and they've got Buffalo 23rd with a record of 7-9. First let me say it's way to early for this garbage. Second, let me say that their rankings list is garbage! They've got the freakin' Cardinals (new staff, new schemes), Titans (no WRs, no good RB, one CB) and Chiefs (No O-line, QB?) ahead of Buffalo on the list. Even more insulting is they have Miami just 3 spots behind the Bills at 26 and say with Trent Green the Dolphins could have a solid team. What??! No offensive line, a new offense, an ancient defense... what solid team. Somehow I'm not surprised ESPN's resident Bills basher and Patriots goody-goody Jeremy Green was on the panel that put this list together. Of course New England was ranked first. Ugh! ---

http://buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?blogger_id=1

[LtBillsFan66]

The Bills should be ranked low until they can prove otherwise.

[Carlton Bailey]

Chris Brown is a massive tool.

[Chris23]

I don't see how they have Arizona ranked ahead of us? They should be ranked lower untill they live up to they hype they've had for the last few seasons.

[patmoran2006]

I don't see how they have Arizona ranked ahead of us? They should be ranked lower untill they live up to they hype they've had for the last few seasons.
Probably because they are in a very weak division. I'd bet Arizona finishes better than Buffalo based on that and a much weaker schedule. Plus, they should be better (finally) anyway

[Mr. Miyagi]

I agree with Chris Brown, but I wouldn't be too bothered by any rankings by ESPN. These guys have been very biased in the past few years.

[raphael120]

Chris Brown is massive tool.

Jeremy Green is a massive tool.

[dolphan117]

Outside the top 8-10 teams its a bit of a crap-shoot to rank stuff like this before TC has even started...... I think it was 2 years ago we were supposed to have the easiest schedule in the league and it ended up being nothing like that. Even after landing Bush last year I doubt many people had the Saints as a top 10 team, much less one that would make the NFC Championship game.

[The Spaz]

I agree with Chris Brown, but I wouldn't be too bothered by any rankings by ESPN. These guys have been very biased in the past few years.

:up:

[ublinkwescore]

ESPN's erection for Fletcher, Clements and Spikes has lasted for far longer than 36 hours. They need to see a doctor, immediately.

Don't forget Willis McBastardmaker - he is after all an elite back in this league simply because he said so - I mean, he wouldn't say it if it wasn't true right?

[ublinkwescore]

Chris Brown is massive tool.

Chris Brown made some excellent points though - the dolphins should be like 31 at the highest.

[The Answer]

ESPN's erection for Fletcher, Clements and Spikes has lasted for far longer than 36 hours. They need to see a doctor, immediately.

If you think that's bad........

<TABLE class=tablehead style="WIDTH: 532px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR class=evenrow align=left><TD>http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/bal.gif</TD><TD>4 (2)</TD><TD>Ravens (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=bal)</TD><TD width=50>13-3-0</TD><TD>If he's healthy, Willis McGahee is going to be a stud in Baltimore and will give the running game a boost over Jamal Lewis
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

:roflmao: :lmao: :lolabove:

~The Answer

[Mad Bomber]

If you think that's bad........

<table class="tablehead" style="width: 532px;" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="evenrow" align="left"><td>http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/bal.gif</td><td>4 (2)</td><td>Ravens (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=bal)</td><td width="50">13-3-0</td><td>If he's healthy, Willis McGahee is going to be a stud in Baltimore and will give the running game a boost over Jamal Lewis
</td></tr></tbody></table>

:roflmao: :lmao: :lolabove:

~The Answer

Exactly. Look at all the good things he did for the Bills!

[BillsFever21]

Why do these rankings seem so outrageous to some of you? We are not a very good team. We lost some of our best players last year and have replaced them with nobody. And don't say our draft picks should shoot us up the boards because the other 31 teams in the NFL get to participate in the NFL Draft too.

Some of you thought last year was a pretty good improvement and year for us and we were the 22nd best team in the NFL. We were only better then 11 teams. Now how does a 23rd ranking seem like we are getting screwed? That's right we're going to win 10+ games.

[BillsFever21]

Exactly. Look at all the good things he did for the Bills!

Well, the first year he played he carried our offense to being only 1 win away from being in the playoffs till Bledsoe fumbled the season away against some backup scrubs.

The 2nd year he was pretty decent and had around 1,300 yards and that was in Mularkey's pathetic offense. Last year he started off pretty good until he got injured and missed a few games but still came just a few yards short of 1,000. Had he not been injured and missed a couple games and still been hobbled by his injury for the rest of the year he would've had at least 1,300+ yards again.

It's funny. In 2004 and 2005 all of you considered them great years for him and some were predicting him to be in the Top 5 in yards in 2006. Until he got injured he was around the Top 5 in yards. Now all of a sudden his years in 2004 and 2005 suck when everyone thought they were good years before.

How could they be good years before but suck now? It certaintly isn't because their expectations went up because they are happy with 7 wins from the Bills. It's because he didn't like Buffalo. A lot of people doesn't like the city of Buffalo. Just because somebody doesn't like the city of Buffalo doesn't make them a bad player.

He will excel in Baltimore behind a good OL and running system and all of you will be making excuses then.

[HHURRICANE]

Chris Brown doesn't like the rankings:

They've got the freakin' Cardinals (new staff, new schemes), Titans (no WRs, no good RB, one CB) and Chiefs (No O-line, QB?) ahead of Buffalo on the list. Even more insulting is they have Miami just 3 spots behind the Bills at 26 and say with Trent Green the Dolphins could have a solid team. What??! No offensive line, a new offense, an ancient defense... what solid team. Somehow I'm not surprised ESPN's resident Bills basher and Patriots goody-goody Jeremy Green was on the panel that put this list together. Of course New England was ranked first. Ugh! ---

http://buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?blogger_id=1

I actually think Chris Brown is off base here. Completely.

[The Spaz]

Well, the first year he played he carried our offense to being only 1 win away from being in the playoffs till Bledsoe fumbled the season away against some backup scrubs.

The 2nd year he was pretty decent and had around 1,300 yards and that was in Mularkey's pathetic offense. Last year he started off pretty good until he got injured and missed a few games but still came just a few yards short of 1,000. Had he not been injured and missed a couple games and still been hobbled by his injury for the rest of the year he would've had at least 1,300+ yards again.

It's funny. In 2004 and 2005 all of you considered them great years for him and some were predicting him to be in the Top 5 in yards in 2006. Until he got injured he was around the Top 5 in yards. Now all of a sudden his years in 2004 and 2005 suck when everyone thought they were good years before.

How could they be good years before but suck now? It certaintly isn't because their expectations went up because they are happy with 7 wins from the Bills. It's because he didn't like Buffalo. A lot of people doesn't like the city of Buffalo. Just because somebody doesn't like the city of Buffalo doesn't make them a bad player.

He will excel in Baltimore behind a good OL and running system and all of you will be making excuses then.
They have a good OLm in Baltimore? The only "good one" they have is Ogden. They released a couple veterans before the draft.

[Wys Guy]

We are opening up at #23 which sounds about right:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking?season=2007&week=0

<TABLE class=tablehead style="WIDTH: 532px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR class=oddrow align=left><TD>http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/buf.gif</TD><TD>23 (21)</TD><TD>Bills (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=buf)</TD><TD width=50>7-9-0</TD><TD>The Bills clearly wanted to get younger this offseason, waving goodbye to a number of key veterans. But will it make them better on the field? That's largely in J.P. Losman's hands.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
~The Answer

I'm not sure any team wants to get younger unless they have a ton of guys in their 30s. We didn't. Clements left at the forefront of his prime. Spikes was just exiting his, albeit with issues. Fletcher was past his but not exactly 34 or 35 like the Pats' LBs, a couple of them anyway.

The reason we "got younger" is because we had few options in free agency. Signing Whittle (32) got us older. Walker, as in Langston, is 28, not 23.

The average age of our three key departees was less than 30.

Darwin Walker ain't no spring chicken either. He may never even play for us.

We have a roster chock full of inexperience now. How many years will it take to see that gel and which players will fall off by then?

[Pinkerton Security]

We have a roster chock full of inexperience now. How many years will it take to see that gel and which players will fall off by then?

I bet we're looking at at least 10-12 years...:rolleyes:

come on now, our team gelled some last year. We have a few new players, but its not like we're going to suffer through 3 seasons of misery while our team "gels".

[cocamide]

The only rankings that matter are the ones that come out at the end of January after the SuperBowl has been finished. If the people at ESPN knew their heads from their asses, they woudn't be putting together useless rankings, they'd be in Vegas winning tons of money. I wonder how many Fin-fans went broke last year when they bet their house on the dolphins to win the SB because the experts knew it was a sure pick...