Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

John_Viveiros · Post by **John_Viveiros** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:13 pm

No lie. Not even alone at 27. Tied with the Buffalo freaking Bills at 27. And the Cowboys at #2. All courtesy of Pete Prisco.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/2232 ... -contender

Think these might be a little off? Check out his 2012 rankings, and while you are there, congratulate the 2012 season champs, the Cowboys: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1930 ... hers-climb
That one had Carolina #5, Philly at #7, and the Chiefs at #9. You think he might have come up with another system to evaluate teams in the meantime.

Reignman · Post by **Reignman** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:51 pm

Wow, yeah it's hard to take anyone seriously when they have the Cowboys at #2 this year and #1 the previous year. And the Vikes at 27? I think we found someone that thinks less of Ponder than I do lol. I think the QB rankings are pretty accurate though xD. And maybe I'm blind but where are the RB rankings?

losperros · Post by **losperros** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:31 pm

I agree about the Cowboys. It's as if there are some in the media that are paid to overrate the Cowboys every year.

I don't think the Vikings should be ranked at 27. They were a playoff team last year and had a good draft this year. Are they a top ten team? No, but 27 is way low.

They have LT ranked but not RB? Oh well, if there was a RB ranking, Adrian Peterson would probably be #13 or something.

Funkytown · Post by **Funkytown** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:52 pm

losperros wrote:
They have LT ranked but not RB? Oh well, if there was a RB ranking, Adrian Peterson would probably be #13 or something.

Crax · Post by **Crax** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:58 pm

What a joke. He has a serious man crush on the cowboys when looking at some of his other rankings/articles

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:58 am

Are idiots like him really paid for this? if so, I wouldn't mind spewing out BS weekly for $$$ sign me up.

headless_norseman · Post by **headless_norseman** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:31 am

Reignman wrote:Wow, yeah it's hard to take anyone seriously....

VikingPaul73 · Post by **VikingPaul73** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:10 am

Well, in the opening paragraph, he states it's a passing league so he takes a "four pronged" approach and only looks at positions directly affecting the passing game ( QB, pass rusher, CB, LT). In his view the passing game is so important that these 4 positions are great predictors of a team's success.

Obviously I think this is silly and ridiculous. Just responding to those wondering why RB wasn't ranked.

The funniest part is that he doesn't even include WR as a key component to the passing game

Post by **Mothman** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:21 am

VikingPaul73 wrote:Well, in the opening paragraph, he states it's a passing league so he takes a "four pronged" approach and only looks at positions directly affecting the passing game ( QB, pass rusher, CB, LT). In his view the passing game is so important that these 4 positions are great predictors of a team's success.

Obviously I think this is silly and ridiculous. Just responding to those wondering why RB wasn't ranked.

The funniest part is that he doesn't even include WR as a key component to the passing game

LOL! That is pretty funny.

Post by **Cliff** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:01 am

VikingPaul73 wrote:Well, in the opening paragraph, he states it's a passing league so he takes a "four pronged" approach and only looks at positions directly affecting the passing game ( QB, pass rusher, CB, LT). In his view the passing game is so important that these 4 positions are great predictors of a team's success.

Obviously I think this is silly and ridiculous. Just responding to those wondering why RB wasn't ranked.

The funniest part is that he doesn't even include WR as a key component to the passing game

That's exactly what I was thinking.

You base your entire rankings on the passing game and then neglect receivers of any kind?

mansquatch · Post by **mansquatch** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:06 am

I want this guy's job. If I can get paid good money to produce garbage like this, how much would I get paid to produce something worth reading?

losperros · Post by **losperros** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:22 am

mansquatch wrote:I want this guy's job. If I can get paid good money to produce garbage like this, how much would I get paid to produce something worth reading?

If you produced something worth reading, you'd probably get fired.

NextQuestion · Post by **NextQuestion** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:13 am

Brisco is a hack and is obsessed with the Packers.

Hunter Morrow · Post by **Hunter Morrow** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:14 am

4-Pronged Approach, huh? Snap Your Fingers, Type Some Drek

Assertions by this clown:
1. The quarterback is 70 percent of the game, despite defense and special teams making up 60 percent of the game.
2. The quarterback gets "double the points" and the system awards wide receivers, tight ends and pass-receiving running backs
like Darren Sproles zero points. Because that makes sense. OH WAIT IT MAKES NO SENSE.
3. Left Tackle is one of 4 positions he ranks, the Vikings have a Pro Bowler For the Next Decade caliber LT, 24th
out of 27 possible rankings. Okay. Got it.
4. Running backs are of zero value to quarterbacks, said nobody ever, to include the two running backs that
played in last year's Super Bowl, Ray Rice and Frank Gore, who ran for over 100 yards and a touchdown.
5. Somebody explain this to me before I fatally overdose on retardation...
Buffalo Bills tied with the Vikings at 24 out of 27th place
Miami Dolphins and Tennessee Titans one spot above the Vikings
Jets, Chiefs, Cardinals, Rams, and Browns ahead of the Vikings. Really. The Kansas City Chiefs?
If quarterbacks count double, can you go -6 by starting Mark Sanchez? Maybe Geno Smith is worth 50
"secret weapon" points, I don't know.

Whether this will decide the Super Bowl winner is debatable. What it will show is the teams that have a real chance.

It is not debatable. That is nonsense.

Edit: Bonus Absurdity Time:
Patriots are the 11th team in the league
Champ Bailey is the 3rd best corner in the league
You'd rather have Terrell Suggs than Jared Allen.
You know, Suggs with that rockstar 8 game, 2 sack, 17 tackle performance
Allen had almost as many sacks (12) as Suggs had tackles and sacks last year...
AND THAT WAS A BAD YEAR FOR ALLEN. Watch how much Floyd helps him out.

RandallioCobb18 · Post by **RandallioCobb18** » Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:22 am

John_Viveiros wrote:No lie. Not even alone at 27. Tied with the Buffalo freaking Bills at 27. And the Cowboys at #2. All courtesy of Pete Prisco.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/2232 ... -contender

Think these might be a little off? Check out his 2012 rankings, and while you are there, congratulate the 2012 season champs, the Cowboys: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1930 ... hers-climb
That one had Carolina #5, Philly at #7, and the Chiefs at #9. You think he might have come up with another system to evaluate teams in the meantime.

THE COWBOYS AT TWO????? Excuse me while roll around on the floor.

This dude is a complete joke, its almost charity on your part that you posted this moronic nonsense.

Vikings Message Board.Com

Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27

Re: Preseason Power poll - Vikes at 27