Power Rankings

[RenoRaiders75]

I don't care about the power rankings but I do read then for whatever reason. I don't care that the Raiders are the last 1 win teams, but I just wanted to say, in the history of reading power rankings these might be the worse I have ever see.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/498 ... ers-debuts

[Rabidraider]

Raiders win and go down one spot.

[raidersince63]

Raiders win and go down one spot.

And the Dolphins lose and move up 1 spot...go figure.

[RenoRaiders75]

Look at some of the others too, how do I apply for this job?

[SkullCrusher]

How the Cowboys ahead of the Giants, the Giants just smacked them hard.
Since you have a whole 1 game sample and in time everything will figure itself out.
Why over think something like this? Giants > Cowboys until more games are played.

[Viper]

At the end of the day I couldn’t care less what anyone making these rankings think of us.
We could beat the Chargers this week and still be where we are today in the rankings. I tend to trust most on here over some other person that thinks they know more than us.
I actually like the disrespect. Pound sand is what I say.

[chucker]

I would have thought we would rank a bit higher, but I don't really care. I also don't blame anyone for thinking that any good defense will just dare Cousins to go deep and focus on smothering the run game and short passing game.

[Attyla]

Well, power rankings are useless as a tool, but very useful as a conversation starter. That said, it is not wins and losses that they use, or should use to be more precise. Quality of the win, and the quality of the opponent plays a much larger part in the process. In the case of the Giants and Cowboys, I am not sure what the thought process is there, I guess it goes into what the projected lineup could do. Or it could just be a case of a Cowboys fan making the list. There is no such thing as no bias when you are doing a ranking. As for us, we probably dropped simply because we played Miami and Cousins threw two picks. Miami moving up a spot could simply be because they played better in the loss than they thought the Dolphins would and Atlanta, Cleveland and Tennessee all played worse. Certainly Cleveland and Tennessee played horribly. I can't say on ATL because I have not watched that game.

[MWRaider]

I can't say on ATL because I have not watched that game.

Could be the authors of this article didn't watch any of this weekend's games.

[SkullCrusher]

Well, power rankings are useless as a tool, but very useful as a conversation starter.

Yep.

[mstrbass2000]

power rankings stink, they dont messure win and losses or even how dominant the wins were ...giants look for real smacking the cowboys, cardinals look great smacking the chargers

[mranquales]

If Power Rankings change every week, then they SHOULD BE based on wins and losses. It's that simple.

[Attyla]

If Power Rankings change every week, then they SHOULD BE based on wins and losses. It's that simple.

No, it really should not. Standings are based on wins and losses. Power rankings are, in their best form, based on quality of wins, quality of opponents, execution, and play calling. Wins and losses will factor in, but when you refer to a "power" ranking, the title alone tells you how the ranking is achieved. And to further the point, if it was based on wins and losses alone, then after week one you would have a 16 team tie for first and a 16 team tie for last. And if it were based on wins and losses alone, when two or more teams have the same record, you would give them all the same number in a tie. But that does not happen. If the Chiefs and the Raiders both have one win to start the season, nobody is going to say both teams are equal. We all know that in any given season, the Chiefs currently are the superior team and thus are going to be ranked higher even though both teams have the same record. In that regard, this particular ranking got it right.

[mranquales]

No, it really should not. Standings are based on wins and losses. Power rankings are, in their best form, based on quality of wins, quality of opponents, execution, and play calling. Wins and losses will factor in, but when you refer to a "power" ranking, the title alone tells you how the ranking is achieved. And to further the point, if it was based on wins and losses alone, then after week one you would have a 16 team tie for first and a 16 team tie for last. And if it were based on wins and losses alone, when two or more teams have the same record, you would give them all the same number in a tie. But that does not happen. If the Chiefs and the Raiders both have one win to start the season, nobody is going to say both teams are equal. We all know that in any given season, the Chiefs currently are the superior team and thus are going to be ranked higher even though both teams have the same record. In that regard, this particular ranking got it right.

Wins and losses should be the top metric, what separates it from standings is from there you can add nuance (Bills, Ravens, Bears being the top teams for example). To just blanketly say oh this team was bad last year so therefore their win is worse than this other team's loss is illogical.

Yes, the Raiders SHOULD be in the top 16. A team like the Chargers or Broncos should not be ahead of us based on last year-- that's over with. The Chargers got destroyed by the Cardinals who were a bottom 10 team last year, in no world should they be ranked higher than the Raiders right now. As far as I'm concerned, the Raiders are 15th right now, with the Cards at 16th. The Broncos can be 17th, because they're probably the best of the losers having played a top 5 QB, and the Chargers are way down there.

The Chargers are not better than us right now, especially when there is already a narrative being created for when they inevitably lose to us (injuries, Harbaugh). There's no way you can convince me the Raiders would lose to the Cards if we played them. That doesn't mean we will beat the Chargers, it will be a tough divisional game, for sure. However, if Brock were fully healthy, I'd lean very heavily on the Raiders being 2-0 heading into the Saints game.

[Attyla]

Wins and losses should be the top metric, what separates it from standings is from there you can add nuance (Bills, Ravens, Bears being the top teams for example). To just blanketly say oh this team was bad last year so therefore their win is worse than this other team's loss is illogical.

Yes, the Raiders SHOULD be in the top 16. A team like the Chargers or Broncos should not be ahead of us based on last year-- that's over with. The Chargers got destroyed by the Cardinals who were a bottom 10 team last year, in no world should they be ranked higher than the Raiders right now. As far as I'm concerned, the Raiders are 15th right now, with the Cards at 16th. The Broncos can be 17th, because they're probably the best of the losers having played a top 5 QB, and the Chargers are way down there.

In no world are the Chargers better than us right now, especially when there is already a narrative being created for when they inevitably lose to us (injuries, Harbaugh).

Seriously, you can argue until the end of time but power rankings use all the data possible to achieve the ranking, who you play, how you play and strength of your squad. Nobody, other than you, would ever think the Raiders should be ranked in the top 16 after one win vs one of the worst teams in the league. Wins factor in, but it is designed to take the totality of a team into consideration. Arizona won, that does not mean they are a top 16 team. Rams lost, that does not mean Arizona is better than the Rams and should be ranked higher. Sorry, you are wrong in my opinion.