Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

SI's Power rankings.........What a joke


Gscottnc5

Recommended Posts

I know the huddle likes to bitch and moan about being underrated in any and every meaningless power rankings, but I got no problem with this rant. This poo is absolutely ridiculous. What could the Saints possibly have done to warrant being put ahead of not just Carolina but Atlanta also? What are they basing any of this off of, the Saints blowout of the Raiders in the preseason?

I know, most preseasons are meaningless

...yet he has no problem basing his whole power rankings on preseason performance...where do they find these people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what the hell is a power ranking anyway? as far as i'm concerned, power is determined by your W-L record. it's just another interesting list with "in-depth" comments to take up a page of a magazine and make the public buy it.

they can rank us 528th for all i care... i just want to see 1-0 this time next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so ESPN, SI, Bill Simmons, John Clayton, NFL.com, Mike and Mike, Colin, Football Today, and Vegas are against us. Instead of making a new thread everytime some no-name radio host says he thinks the eagles will win, just post it here. We get it, we're underdogs.

again, I dono why this is so shocking. all the national media see's is the Eagles who were in the championship game vs us and our dreadful playoff game. When most of america only watches u play twice a year and one time is a 5 Int, 1 Fumble, 30 point blowout at home......what do you expect? no suprise. let it go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good rankings should consider preseason rankings and last season's teams. It seems these rankings did none of that, choosing only to base their rankings on the preseason.

Then again, it's been customary to proclaim the Saints as the best team in the South and a Super Bowl contender. It's not surprising they're doing it again, even after a season in which they went 8-8 with one of the league's best offenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so ESPN, SI, Bill Simmons, John Clayton, NFL.com, Mike and Mike, Colin, Football Today, and Vegas are against us. Instead of making a new thread everytime some no-name radio host says he thinks the eagles will win, just post it here. We get it, we're underdogs.

again, I dono why this is so shocking. all the national media see's is the Eagles who were in the championship game vs us and our dreadful playoff game. When most of america only watches u play twice a year and one time is a 5 Int, 1 Fumble, 30 point blowout at home......what do you expect? no suprise. let it go

OK there

:dita:

we should ban these reactionary power ranking "no respect" threads

Mr Bull, Never once even mentioned no respect. I just thought we were more of a top 12 than a top 20 team. I really just was pointing out the fact the Saints once again seem to always be a preseason favorite. The ANALYSTS suck a lot of Saint D*CK:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget the Panthers...they have the Saints and Packers ahead of the Colts....I think we should just ban the posting of power rankings altogether....they have no factual basis to them whatsoever

You know after thinking about it, you're right:patriot: I am guilty of posting this. Mods, Please lock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

we should ban these reactionary power ranking "no respect" threads

Well, I saw this thread more as a "woah check out how insanely wrong these power rankings are" thread than a "OMguhd whyy do dey have us so looow?! wwaaahhhhh no respcect" thread.

...whatever though, you can read it however you'd like.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...