PDA

View Full Version : Peter King/SI Rankings - Indy #1/Steelers #12


Atlanta Dan
07-16-2007, 12:41 PM
Peter King of SI.com has his pre-season power rankings out.

No suprise with Indy & Pats at #1 and #2

King thinks the AFC is loaded, with Chargers at #3, Denver at #6 & Ravens at #7.

King ranks the Steelers as follows:

12. Pittsburgh: New coach Mike Tomlin won't be Mr. Popular with his players; he's scheduled 15 two-a-day practices, which I'm guessing is the most of any team in the league. But you know what I like? Tomlin doesn't care. The players have to adjust to him, not the other way around. The key here will be the resurgence of Ben Roethlisberger and Tomlin's ability to mold his 4-3 thinking on defense with Dick LeBeau's 3-4, zone-blitzing scheme. The 3-4 and the zone blitz have never been in Tomlin's defensive package. We'll see how seamless he can make the transition to them.

Other observations - King has the Bengals at a mediocre #17, which makes you wonder how King can still explain his mancrush on Carson Palmer, whom King has said would be taken above any other player in the league if an open draft was held today:dang:

In addition to overrating the Ravens, i also think King has the Saints and Bears too high at #4 and #5. I guess he has to throw a few bones to the NFC.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/07/16/mmqb/1.html

fansince'76
07-16-2007, 12:48 PM
Broncos at #6? Sorry, no way, not this year, at least.

xXTheSteelKingsXx
07-16-2007, 12:49 PM
What the.......... He's got Detroit ranked rught below us. Does he believe that John Kitna's 10 win promise is gonna be true????????

tony hipchest
07-16-2007, 12:49 PM
hes had pittsburgh ranked #15 or #16 for right behind carolina for quite a while now, even late rankings last year after pittsburgh destroyed carolina. glad to see him come to his senses and atleast put us rightfully above them. odd that he puts bungles 17, and when he has ben ranked #17 the steelers rise.

i also thought the jets were a bit 2 high. but then again i think most writers consider mangini the next great coach to win 3 sb's.

SteelCityMan786
07-16-2007, 01:08 PM
Broncos at #6? Sorry, no way, not this year, at least.

The Stoncos are 25 at best in my opinion. NO WAY 2 playoffs teams are coming out of the west this year.

The Duke
07-16-2007, 01:16 PM
I don't know why I keep reading King's articles, they just make me wanna kick him. Oh well, it's just rankings, when football comes and the steelers and kicking ass of the field he'll shut up

ChronoCross
07-16-2007, 01:18 PM
Power Rankings mean nothing. Once football starts, the battles on the field whats count. I stopped looking at power rankings along time ago.

fansince'76
07-16-2007, 01:24 PM
The Stoncos are 25 at best in my opinion. NO WAY 2 playoffs teams are coming out of the west this year.

My biggest problem with this ranking is the fact that while their D has improved with the signing of Bly and the drafting of two very strong DL prospects, Cutler hasn't proven ANYTHING yet. I mentioned in another thread how often I am forced to watch the Broncos by virtue of living in Denver - with all the hype locally about Cutler, I expected to be impressed fairly quickly by his ability. As of right now, I'm still waiting for him to even remotely impress me. He's nothing but another Jake Plummer at this point as far as I'm concerned - IOW, another overrated journeyman QB.

boLT fan
07-16-2007, 01:25 PM
The Stoncos are 25 at best in my opinion. NO WAY 2 playoffs teams are coming out of the west this year.

C'mon people! Why are you going to make me defend the Broncos! They have a great defense, plenty of weapons for Cutler, and those cut blocking cheap ass lineman should protect him well enough. Now that he has a year under his belt he should be a lot better. Not to mention they also added Travis Henry, who is extremely underrated. Six is definately a good spot for them, and two teams could very well come out of the west.

With that said, Broncos suck, Cutler sucks, Henry sucks, and I hope they only win 3 games.


In addition to overrating the Ravens, i also think King has the Saints and Bears too high at #4 and #5. I guess he has to throw a few bones to the NFC.


All those teams were playoffs teams last year and have done nothing but improve, why shouldn't they all be in the top 10? Ravens should be switched with the Saints, IMO. They will be a force again this year.

Atlanta Dan
07-16-2007, 04:11 PM
C'mon people! Why are you going to make me defend the Broncos! They have a great defense, plenty of weapons for Cutler, and those cut blocking cheap ass lineman should protect him well enough. Now that he has a year under his belt he should be a lot better. Not to mention they also added Travis Henry, who is extremely underrated. Six is definately a good spot for them, and two teams could very well come out of the west.

With that said, Broncos suck, Cutler sucks, Henry sucks, and I hope they only win 3 games.



All those teams were playoffs teams last year and have done nothing but improve, why shouldn't they all be in the top 10? Ravens should be switched with the Saints, IMO. They will be a force again this year.

I do not believe King is rating based on the best record but on the best teams.

Taking our apparent disagreements in order, I think the Saints will face tougher competition in their divison this season together with having to play a division winner schedule;

After the talk of "will the Bears go undefeated" simmered down they were mediocre in the second half of the year, unmasked as having a terrible QB in the Super Bowl (a QB is the straw that stirs the drink in the NFL) , and have a major pending problem with Briggs dissatisfaction with his contract;

Ravens improved at running back, but lost Thomas at LB - add in McNair, Ray-Ray, and the OL being another year older (McNair appeared to age 5 years during the Colts playoff game:smile:) + being in a competitive division where no team has won back to back division titles since the 2001-02 Steelers and FWIW I see a slide. Plus the Ravens are the one team in the league I absolutely despise and for which I wish nothing but the worst.

RoethlisBURGHer
07-16-2007, 04:14 PM
Screw power rankings,this isn't the BCS where computers and pollsters decide where you play in the postseason.

The Steelers always let thier talking be done on the field,and it will be no different with Mike Tomlin as the HC.

SteelCityMan786
07-16-2007, 04:32 PM
Screw power rankings,this isn't the BCS where computers and pollsters decide where you play in the postseason.

The Steelers always let thier talking be done on the field,and it will be no different with Mike Tomlin as the HC.

the computers and polls I feel should be done away with. Bring a playoff.

HometownGal
07-16-2007, 05:16 PM
8. Philadelphia: The equation here is very, very simple. If Donovan McNabb plays 16 games, the Eagles are a factor in the playoffs. If he gets hurt in November again, Andy Reid plays A.J. Feeley while starting to groom the kid, Kevin Kolb, for opening day 2008.



The Eagles at #8? :jawdrop: What is King snorting? No way.

I believe this is the year for the Aints to officially morph into The Saints. I think they're going to win it all this season. I know, I know - but my gut rarely is wrong.

My heart says to rank the Steelers higher, but my head tells me King Tut probably isn't that far off the mark. I do believe the Steelers will make the playoffs, but I don't believe it will be as AFCN champs.

tony hipchest
07-16-2007, 05:44 PM
wow. alot of people get so worked up over a king article. actually #12 is about as high as youre gonna find the steelers on any list. assuming 6 afc/nfc teams in the playoffs that puts us right where we were 2 years ago as a 6 seed. it is important to remember the last 2 years we were the 6th seed and 8-8 to follow it up.

for those who are gonna pledge to boycott all kings articles i'd suggest waiting unti after this one:

1. I think the training-camp trip starts on July 26 with a drive to Latrobe, Pa., and I can't wait. So many stories. So little time. I wish I could see all 32 teams. As I plot my journey, it looks like I'll hit 19.

it should be good. i gotta give king props for writing the finest piece on mike tomlin to date too. for being a non pittsburgh homer, i think king is fairly complimentary of the steelers while maintaining the objectivity he's paid to have.

power rankings are indeed a guessing game. after all, virtually everybody had the steelers in their top 5 last year. boy, were they proven wrong.

oh, and boLTfan is a closet doncos fan.

j-dawg
07-17-2007, 01:32 AM
king is full of it on this one... detroit picks 2nd... meaning they had a worse season than the browns... they pick up yet ANOTHER wide receiver and he propels them to 12th!! meanwhile, we pick up the best offensive lineman in free agency and than have arguably the best draft and we're 32nd?!! naw... kings on crack.

fansince'76
07-17-2007, 09:34 AM
king is full of it on this one... detroit picks 2nd... meaning they had a worse season than the browns... they pick up yet ANOTHER wide receiver and he propels them to 12th!! meanwhile, we pick up the best offensive lineman in free agency and than have arguably the best draft and we're 32nd?!! naw... kings on crack.

Agreed - Detroit ranked 13th? Ludicrous.

Livinginthe past
07-17-2007, 09:47 AM
Maybe Detriot are the new Arizona - or maybe Arizona are the new Arizona - who knows?

Some teams who fail on a regular basis always seem to get some off-season love.

For example, i've heard that the Cards have the best WR combo in the NFL - that doesn't seem right to me.

I have Harrison and Wayne down as the best and Housh and Chad up there too - so maybe they are the 3rd best combo?

i think their stats get inflated because Arizona sucks and is consistely chasing games late and throwing the ball alot as a result.

tony hipchest
07-17-2007, 10:00 AM
i think their stats get inflated because Arizona sucks and is consistely chasing games late and throwing the ball alot as a result.sounds just like the bengals. :hunch: not much of a difference really.

actually the last time the cardinals were good, they had david boston= league leading wr in yardage, rob moore, and frank sanders. some thought they were one of the top units in the league. some teams are just built to pass more than others regardless if they suck or not. inflated or not, the wr's still have to hold onto the ball.

thinking about it, the last time detroit was good they had brett perriman and herman moore who led the league in receptions. the last time the bungles were semi decent they had carl pickens and darnay scott. now im just going offa ancient memory so correct me if im wrong but i wonder if its just a coincidence that the last time these 3 teams, mired in suckdom, really sniffed playoff contention was when they had top wr duo in receptions/ yards or both.

Livinginthe past
07-17-2007, 11:09 AM
sounds just like the bengals. :hunch: not much of a difference really.

actually the last time the cardinals were good, they had david boston= league leading wr in yardage, rob moore, and frank sanders. some thought they were one of the top units in the league. some teams are just built to pass more than others regardless if they suck or not. inflated or not, the wr's still have to hold onto the ball.

thinking about it, the last time detroit was good they had brett perriman and herman moore who led the league in receptions. the last time the bungles were semi decent they had carl pickens and darnay scott. now im just going offa ancient memory so correct me if im wrong but i wonder if its just a coincidence that the last time these 3 teams, mired in suckdom, really sniffed playoff contention was when they had top wr duo in receptions/ yards or both.

I would say the Bengals have been more competitive - over the last 4 years they have won 15 games more than the Cards - about 4 games better every year, which is quite a jump.

The AFCN has been a tough division over this period, maybe the toughest - I don't think the NFCW really compares - Rams have been getting more average every year, Seattle had a good couple of years and the 49ers have been poor for quite awhile.

The Bengals also have a fundamentally good O-line and a good QB which is more than can be said of the Cards over that period.

tony hipchest
07-17-2007, 04:56 PM
I would say the Bengals have been more competitive - over the last 4 years they have won 15 games more than the Cards - about 4 games better every year, which is quite a jump.

The AFCN has been a tough division over this period, maybe the toughest - I don't think the NFCW really compares - Rams have been getting more average every year, Seattle had a good couple of years and the 49ers have been poor for quite awhile.

The Bengals also have a fundamentally good O-line and a good QB which is more than can be said of the Cards over that period.regardless... the bengals still suck. maybe there offense has sucked less than the cards.

im not saying the cards are 1,2, or 3 in terms of best wr's. what i am saying is their stats arent inflated cause they suck. thats like saying their stats would be worse if they were a winning team, which just doesnt make sense.

the cards wr's have good stats cause they are excellent receivers. look who they were under while putting up a majority of those stats. kurt warner, and denny green. not exactly known for holding onto the ball, grinding it out and holding on to a 3 point win. both were parts of 2 of the highest scoring offenses of all time.

the tandem of holt and bruce, and moss and carter didnt put up huge numbers because they were inflated. they put them up because they were great receivers who could run and catch the ball, and they played in a system that maximized that.

teams know arizona isnt going to pound the ball and you dont see teams stacking 9 in the box leaving the receivers isolated in one on one. boldin and fitzgerald see as much double teams as any other tandem in the league. give them cincinattis or indys o-line, running game, and qb and thats when you would really see their stats inflate.

like i said above theres a reason teams like the cardinals and detroit are starting to get love, and its the same reason the media has been hugging all over cincinattis nuts for the past 3 seasons: potential for an explosive passing game. again like i pointed out above, the last time any of the 3 were competitive in the 90's was when they had 2 good receivers. hell, it even earned the bungles their 1st playoff appearance in 15 years. hell if they can do it once it only makes sence that the other 2 bottom dwellers are bound to break thru.

Michael Keller
07-19-2007, 01:39 PM
My Fellow Steeler fans I ask one question. Why do you even care what Peter King thinks?. He simply has never been a capable analyst and more importantly it matter not.. The Steelers will be a better team this year than last year that I am sure of. The problem maybe the AFC is loaded with good teams. One thing for sure the Steelers will be better than any team in the NFC. I strongly believe the Steelers will be a better coached team than last year.

Michael Keller

Livinginthe past
07-19-2007, 04:25 PM
My Fellow Steeler fans I ask one question. Why do you even care what Peter King thinks?. He simply has never been a capable analyst and more importantly it matter not.. The Steelers will be a better team this year than last year that I am sure of. The problem maybe the AFC is loaded with good teams. One thing for sure the Steelers will be better than any team in the NFC. I strongly believe the Steelers will be a better coached team than last year.

Michael Keller

Why do people care what Peter King thinks?

Well, in a land of blind man, the one eyed man is king.

In a landscape bare of meaningful football action, power rankings rule all :wink02: