Carson Palmer Sucks

[flamingrey]

PFF's numbers (if we're referring to the same thing) aren't really rankings, nor do they claim them to be. They're simply cumulative +/-'s for individual players. The natural assumption here would be that the sum of the individual elements equals the whole part, and that certainly is not the case in football.

Football Outsiders on the other hand does have weighted statistical numbers (I've never delved into how they attain their numbers though, so this isn't me vouching for them), and they have Cincinnati ranked 7th and the Cardinals 12th (not sure how SOS factors in either).

That said, both Cincinnati and Arizona are night and day from where they were in the beginning of the season.

 

[bengaldoug]

Here are the PFF rankings updated through Preliminary Scores for week 12

1. Denver 211.7
2. New Orleans 175.6
3. Seattle 172.1
4. Carolina 145.6
5. Cincinnati 121.4
6. Kansas City 115.7
7. San Fran 113.5
8. Detroit 102.2
9. New England 90.3
10. Indy 72.6
11. Philly 65.7
12. Miami 57.7
13. Tennessee 50.4
14. Houston 48.0
15. St. Louis 33.1
16. Baltimore 23.1
17. Green Bay 17.2
18. Dallas 14.4
19. Arizona 0
20. Pittsburgh -5.7
21. Minnesota -11.5
22. San Diego -19.4
23. Buffalo -27.8
24. Cleveland -28.1
25. NY Giants -31.3
26. Atlanta -43.3
27. Tampa Bay -46.2
28. NY Jets -63.2
29. Washington -81.0
30. Chicago -91.1
31. Oakland -96.1
32. Jacksonville -170.7

 

[bengaldoug]

PFF's numbers (if we're referring to the same thing) aren't really rankings, nor do they claim them to be. They're simply cumulative +/-'s for individual players. The natural assumption here would be that the sum of the individual elements equals the whole part, and that certainly is not the case in football.

Football Outsiders on the other hand does have weighted statistical numbers (I've never delved into how they attain their numbers though, so this isn't me vouching for them), and they have Cincinnati ranked 7th and the Cardinals 12th (not sure how SOS factors in either).

That said, both Cincinnati and Arizona are night and day from where they were in the beginning of the season.

Agreed for the most part. But I do find it interesting how the rankings by cumulative ratings and my Power Ratings are very similar at the top and bottom.

 

[flamingrey]

Agreed for the most part. But I do find it interesting how the rankings by cumulative ratings and my Power Ratings are very similar at the top and bottom.

Teams at the very top and very bottom you'd expect to be very similar 3/4 of the way into the season. There's a reason the teams at the top have 1-2 losses and the teams at the bottom have 8-9 losses. The discrepancy in talent level begins to show. But teams ranked closer to the middle with similar records, you'd expect some variation.

You can have a player throw an incomplete pass with a very clean pocket on one play, and the very next throw an incomplete pass where the tackles gave him very little time. The cumulative +/- on the first play will probably be close to 0, while the cumulative +/- will be in the negative due to the tackles. The results are the same, but the stats reflect otherwise. Imo, cumulative individual +/- is way too subjective.

That said, I do believe the Bengals have more overall talent than the Cardinals. The Cardinals defense (slightly and with the loss of Atkins and Hall) and ST is probably better, but the Bengals offense is better than the Cardinals. The x-factor imo is Arians >> Lewis, Gruden.

 

[bengaldoug]

Agreed about Arians. Indy is missing him, as shown by their recent struggles, and so is Big Ben in Pittsburgh. He's obviously a very good coach. I do though believe the Bengals are slightly better than the Cards, and they have a much more favorable playoff situation, because of the difficult division the Cards are dealing with. I will say about Lewis he seems better this year. He has been willing to take more chances, and has improved making challenges. His clock management could still be much better, and he still wastes too many timeouts. The team does seem to respond to him and plays with more character, vs earlier Lewis teams that just seemed to have a bunch of characters.

 

[DanBengalfan]

not sure why we're rated ahead of KC, SF, or NE, but whatever

 

[bengaldoug]

not sure why we're rated ahead of KC, SF, or NE, but whatever

We beat NE, and KC has been exposed the last two weeks imo. SF is coming on now after a streak of mediocre play. I'm sure they will go by us on the PFF ratings down the stretch.

 

[flamingrey]

We beat NE, and KC has been exposed the last two weeks imo. SF is coming on now after a streak of mediocre play. I'm sure they will go by us on the PFF ratings down the stretch.

The same could be (and is) said about the Bengals with recent losses to Miami and Baltimore. The Bengals at 7-4 haven't shown to be good enough to be ranked ahead of a 9-2 team. Nor has that 9-2 team shown to be bad enough with one loss coming to the Broncos.

 

[futballiscool]

The same could be (and is) said about the Bengals with recent losses to Miami and Baltimore. The Bengals at 7-4 haven't shown to be good enough to be ranked ahead of a 9-2 team. Nor has that 9-2 team shown to be bad enough with one loss coming to the Broncos.

You have to factor in KC's schedule. Of their 9 wins only 2 of them were against teams with a winning record. They beat 6-5 Dallas by a point at arrowhead. They beat 6-5 Philadelphia while Vick was still the starter.

The Bengals beat the Pats, Detroit on the road, GB while they still had Rodgers.

I'd probably rank KC a couple of spots ahead of the Bengals, but I don't take exception with the other ranking

 

[flamingrey]

You have to factor in KC's schedule. Of their 9 wins only 2 of them were against teams with a winning record. They beat 6-5 Dallas by a point at arrowhead. They beat 6-5 Philadelphia while Vick was still the starter.

The Bengals beat the Pats, Detroit on the road, GB while they still had Rodgers.

I'd probably rank KC a couple of spots ahead of the Bengals, but I don't take exception with the other ranking

Would you still factor in KC's schedule had they been 11-0? You can only play who is on your schedule. And with only 2 losses in 11 games, you can't yet play the "they'd have a few more losses against stiffer competition". Furthermore, given those 2 losses have come from Denver and one "letdown" when you've put up 38 points, but lost your 2 best defensive players and lost by 3 points, it drops you in the rankings, but doesn't mean you've been "exposed". Still a top team, just not the best.

The Bengals have lost to Miami, Cleveland, and Baltimore.

 

[futballiscool]

Would you still factor in KC's schedule had they been 11-0? You can only play who is on your schedule. And with only 2 losses in 11 games, you can't yet play the "they'd have a few more losses against stiffer competition". Furthermore, given those 2 losses have come from Denver and one "letdown" when you've put up 38 points, but lost your 2 best defensive players and lost by 3 points, it drops you in the rankings, but doesn't mean you've been "exposed". Still a top team, just not the best.

The Bengals have lost to Miami, Cleveland, and Baltimore.

I don't think they should be punished in the standings. They're 9-2.


Power Rankings on the other hand are inherently subjective. It's style points as much as the record. Their wins aren't impressive (in terms of their opposition or the point margin), and they've lost their last two games.

I wouldn't rank the Bengals ahead of KC, but I would rank Carolina and maybe even SF above them even with their worse records.

 

[Tubbs1518]

There the Carson we all know and love.

 

[flamingrey]

There the Carson we all know and love.

Where have you been? We missed you.

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/3795735-post380.html

Any thoughts on that gem?

 

[Tubbs1518]

Where have you been? We missed you.

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/3795735-post380.html

Any thoughts on that gem?

Golly Golly Gosh, oh know I was wrong. I based my opinion on how Carson had been playing all season. He played better, they won. That simple. At least I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong and what I think. We all know who is not.

 

[flamingrey]

LOL. Wrong about what? Carson is exactly what I thought he was, a middle of the pack QB. He might even be towards the top end of the middle of the pack.

 

[Tubbs1518]

You are wrong a LOT and never admit it. You won't even admit what we all know. You would rather lose and Dalton suck than win and Dalton be good. You just skirt around the question.

 

[flamingrey]

*yawn*

 

[Tubbs1518]

Point made.

 

[cincygrad]

LOL. Wrong about what? Carson is exactly what I thought he was, a middle of the pack QB. He might even be towards the top end of the middle of the pack.

Wrong about the Cards. Beating 3 bottom feeders and one spotty contender doesn't make you a top 10 team. You had them over the Bengals coming into this week.

 

[flamingrey]

Wrong about the Cards. Beating 3 bottom feeders and one spotty contender doesn't make you a top 10 team. You had them over the Bengals coming into this week.

Yes. Cincy went to SD and handled their business, Arizona in Philly did not. So as it stands you have no choice but to give Cincy the edge.

But please point out where I was "wrong" and didn't "admit" to it as Tubbs is alluding. I believe you missed that part of it.