T1B

poptart wrote:

Headhunter wrote:No slight to the Skins or Raiders. They got the job done, but it wasn't an easy win for either team.

It's true.

Dallas could very easily be 4-0 right now. I think they're a pretty good team. They're well coached, and they've got a defense that ought to keep 'em in games all year. Unless they get hit hard with key injuries I see them as a playoff team.

My duck is turning you on. Isn't it?

I just make it a habit of slurping any team the Raiduhs pwn.

So for 2005 that's a short list, yes?

BBMarley wrote:

Jeff 2K5 wrote:

What a surprise to see you put your Bengals in the top 5, yeah wins against the Bears, Brownies, Queens and Texans (perhaps the 4 worst teams in the league) are verrrrrry impressive. :roll:

Yeah- b/c the Skins three wins against Chicago, Dallas & Seattle have been just as impressive....

The Bears, Cowboys and Hawks combined are much better than the Brownies, Queens and Texans. :roll:

The Hawks have lots of talent on offense and the Bears have a very good defense. There's no comparison.

poptart wrote:

Headhunter wrote:No slight to the Skins or Raiders. They got the job done, but it wasn't an easy win for either team.

It's true.

Dallas could very easily be 4-0 right now. I think they're a pretty good team. They're well coached, and they've got a defense that ought to keep 'em in games all year. Unless they get hit hard with key injuries I see them as a playoff team.

They could easily be 0-4 also, they pulled wins out of their asses against the Bolts and Niners. :roll:

Which is why they are 2-2. Somewhere in the middle. I think they'll improve as the year wears on and pull out a 9-7 or 10-6 finish.

The point isn't to make speculation as to what their record is. The point was that they are a competitive team, and anyone taking them lightly will get their asses handed to them.

Headhunter wrote:Which is why they are 2-2. Somewhere in the middle. I think they'll improve as the year wears on and pull out a 9-7 or 10-6 finish.

The point isn't to make speculation as to what their record is. The point was that they are a competitive team, and anyone taking them lightly will get their asses handed to them.

I can take them as lightly as I want- I don't play for the Eagles. The important thing is that come game day- The Birds will be looking to lay a major ass whopping on a division team before the bye week and then coming back and facing two AFC teams in a row again....

jiminphilly wrote:

KC Scott wrote:I am basing my rankings on:

W/L record
What I've seen of the teams
Strength of schedule

The first criteria being W/L - The Skins are ahead of the Iggles.

Doesn't mean they will be after they lose to Denver Sunday, but it does mean they are there for week 4.

So why is Washington in that group again? Of there 3 wins, 2 are against the Bears and Cowboys.


You saw the Iggles come back from 18 down against perhaps the best home team next to the Patriots on the planet and thats not good enough for you?

Your really not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

First, you copy Wags picks in the confidence game,
Now you apear unable to grasp the concept of descending criteria.

Doesn't your wife have some dishes for you to put away or something?

KC Scott wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:

KC Scott wrote:I am basing my rankings on:

W/L record
What I've seen of the teams
Strength of schedule

The first criteria being W/L - The Skins are ahead of the Iggles.

Doesn't mean they will be after they lose to Denver Sunday, but it does mean they are there for week 4.

So why is Washington in that group again? Of there 3 wins, 2 are against the Bears and Cowboys.


You saw the Iggles come back from 18 down against perhaps the best home team next to the Patriots on the planet and thats not good enough for you?

Your really not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

You have Washington in your top 5 teams and you're questioning my intelligence? Forget Mensa, did Dexter Manley tutor you?

KC fans need to push you off the boat. You're bringing the collective IQ down to single digits. Or maybe it's Paul?

Jeff 2K5 wrote: What a surprise to see you put your Bengals in the top 5, yeah wins against the Bears, Brownies, Queens and Texans (perhaps the 4 worst teams in the league) are verrrrrry impressive. :roll:

Why the bitterness against the Skins Shine? It's oozing through your computer. :?

Yawn. I wish you moronic Skins fans made it a little harder to argue with. Let's see, you say Chicago is a horrid team, but that's one of the Ws for your beloved Skins. And let's compare shall we.

Washington in a HOME game, going against a QB making his first ever NFL start, eeks out a 2 point win. Cincy in a ROAD game dominates and wins going away. Same team, very different results.

As for the other 2 Skins Ws. One was the mother of all flukes, and your team played 3 good minutes of offense. I wouldn't be hanging my hat on that game. As far as Seattle is concerned, you lucked out on a missed FG to win in OT against a team who hasn't had better than a 4-4 road record since 1984. Road warriors the Seahawks aren't.

So the reason any sensible (see:non Skins fans) person wouldn't have Washington in their top 5 teams is, despite an undefeated record they've played ugly football, eeked out a W against a bad team, lucked out a win, and had an OT win against a traditionally horrid road team, and simply aren't that good. While the Bengals might be deserving of such a spot currently is that while the level of competition hasn't been the best, the Bengals have for the most part dominated the weaker opposition, something Washington can't come close to equaling. Cincy has the best +/- ratio in the NFL currently at +13, Washington sits at -4.

As for my "bitterness" toward the Skins, let me clarify. The reason I hate the Redskins so much is for one reason only: Redskins fans. By far the worst breed of fan in the NFL, and yes I'm including Raiderfan. I had to deal with living in the DC area for 9 years and put up with the moronic and myopic Skins fans on a daily basis. PERFECT example. Prior to the start of last season, Steve Czyban was on 980 doing a position by position comparison between Philly and Washington and saying Philly was really no better. :roll:

Enjoy watching Washington come back to Earth this Sunday, and struggling the rest of the way to a 6-10, possibly 7-9 finish. I'll endure the Bengals likely primetime loss this Sunday, but rest easy knowing a long awaited playoff appearance awaits.

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:1. Bucs- Because.
2. Bucs- I.
3. Bucs- Can.

30. Chefs- Because.
31. Chefs- I.
32. Chefs- Can.

Sin,

T REX

I didn't even do one. THAT is how stupid you are. There is no way you aren't board bitch again. No way.

Shine wrote:
Yawn. I wish you moronic Skins fans made it a little harder to argue with. Let's see, you say Chicago is a horrid team, but that's one of the Ws for your beloved Skins. And let's compare shall we.

Washington in a HOME game, going against a QB making his first ever NFL start, eeks out a 2 point win. Cincy in a ROAD game dominates and wins going away. Same team, very different results.

As for the other 2 Skins Ws. One was the mother of all flukes, and your team played 3 good minutes of offense. I wouldn't be hanging my hat on that game. As far as Seattle is concerned, you lucked out on a missed FG to win in OT against a team who hasn't had better than a 4-4 road record since 1984. Road warriors the Seahawks aren't.

So the reason any sensible (see:non Skins fans) person wouldn't have Washington in their top 5 teams is, despite an undefeated record they've played ugly football, eeked out a W against a bad team, lucked out a win, and had an OT win against a traditionally horrid road team, and simply aren't that good. While the Bengals might be deserving of such a spot currently is that while the level of competition hasn't been the best, the Bengals have for the most part dominated the weaker opposition, something Washington can't come close to equaling. Cincy has the best +/- ratio in the NFL currently at +13, Washington sits at -4.

As for my "bitterness" toward the Skins, let me clarify. The reason I hate the Redskins so much is for one reason only: Redskins fans. By far the worst breed of fan in the NFL, and yes I'm including Raiderfan. I had to deal with living in the DC area for 9 years and put up with the moronic and myopic Skins fans on a daily basis. PERFECT example. Prior to the start of last season, Steve Czyban was on 980 doing a position by position comparison between Philly and Washington and saying Philly was really no better. :roll:

Enjoy watching Washington come back to Earth this Sunday, and struggling the rest of the way to a 6-10, possibly 7-9 finish. I'll endure the Bengals likely primetime loss this Sunday, but rest easy knowing a long awaited playoff appearance awaits.

you were alot more fun when your team sucked.

btw- czaban rips the skins much more than he praises them- its basically his M.O.

and as far as skins fans, who have endured the torment of being the milktoast of the league for a decade- as well as being the doormat of the dallas cowboys for much of that time.......have ya been to a broncos or 'boys message board lately?

ok, shine- now that i've had my coffee....

chicago's D us actually ranked ahead of the skins. sure, they have no QB, but they have a running game, which the skins shut down. the skins had a TD called back late in the game on a very ? call. you did not see the game or even check a stat sheet- the game wasnt anywhere near as close as the score. chicago scored when it recovered a fumble (the dude who fumbled was subsequently cut) and drove all of 20 yards. that was it for them that day.

next- in brunells first start in half a season, they got shut out for 56 minutes. they moved the ball about as well as dallas, as all dallas could to to get in the end zone was use a flea flicker as sean taylor slipped on that garbage they call turf. besides the nice gadget play, dallas was about as impressive as the skins. did brunell make the throws? yes. did moss make the catches? yes. did the D make a stop when it had to? yep. did they get 2 TD's in the last 4 minutes on fumbles or bad calls? nope. they won in a place they hadnt won- on a monday night- in 10 freakin years. sorry- they won the game because they earned it. they made the plays and dallas didnt.

as for seattle- you didnt see this one either. they were up 14-3 vs the #2 O in the league. alexander was shut down for 3/4 of the game. the fact that the hawks were able to score with less than a minute to play is the same sort of 'fluke' that you seem to label every skins win- cant have it both ways. and if you were paying attention, you would know that brunell immediately drove the team downfield into FG range and our rookie kicker had to kick the game winning FG twice. brunell converted 13 of 18 third downs- almost all of them 3rd and 7 or longer. the skins beat a good team- better than the hawks teams of the past few years- that had lost one other game. the skins made the plays, and seattle didnt.

you want an apology for them not blowing out opponents? sorry.

skins won. period.

oh, and 2 more things...dallas and seattle are still better than any of the trash you've beaten. and i'm glad you moved.

So much drivel to refute, so little time.

you did not see the game or even check a stat sheet- the game wasnt anywhere near as close as the score.

Actually MENSA, I did watch most of the game. You see I'm in the Indy market now, so we get Chicago games when there's no Colts conflict. Indy was the ESPN game so can you guess what the FOX game was on my tv??? The game WAS close. All you're doing right now is validating my point that by in large, Skins fans are beyond delusional when it comes to the evaluation of their team.

While we're on the subject of the Bears, clarify something for me. Is beating Chicago a good win or not, since you want to pump them up for Washington winning, then say they're trash for Cincy beating them. Regardless, since in a minor way this tangent off the thread became comparing Washington to Cincy, the Cincy win over the only common opponent was more impressive. Implication being, Cincy is the better team.

they got shut out for 56 minutes

Which equates to being a good team how exactly???

the skins beat a good team- better than the hawks teams of the past few years

Care to explain exactly how this version of the Hawks is better than the 9-7 team from last year, or the 10-6 team from the year before. I must have missed the big additions to their team.

you want an apology for them not blowing out opponents?

Never have wanted any such thing. All I've been saying in this thread is, despite the 3-0 record Washington isn't anywhere close to being a top 5 team in the league.

i'm glad you moved.

Really doesn't affect you. I lived on the GOOD side of the Potomac. :wink:

After week 5...


1. Indy -- no doubt about it

2. Denver -- they seem to be Plummer-proof

3. Pittsburgh -- Handled their business on the road

4. NY Giants -- moving up after Philly gakked it up

5. Tampa Bay -- edged out Cincy



28. Detroit -- won't play the Ravens every week, will soon suck out loud

29. Minnesota -- could still win their division

30. Houston -- at least they try

31. Baltimore -- I give up

32. SF -- horrible

wow. the skins coulda shoulda woulda beat the #2 team in the league (according to espn and others like kutter) at invesco, hold the QB to less than 100 passing, nearly double them in yards, have no 3 and outs, hold them to 11 first downs the whole game compared to their own number of 28, would have fared much better against the run if marcus washington hadnt been blatantly...nevermind.....and lose by 2 when the 2 point conversion gets tipped with about a minute to play....


well, the skins arent that bad are they kutter?

Greg don't waste your time trying to argue or prove a point with Sunshine, he is unable to see clearly through the cloud of haze that is his bitterness towards everything about the Redskins. As far as he's probably concerned, Carson Palmer is the next Joe Montana already. :roll:

And as far as the "common opponents" argument, if Sunshine knew anything about football (he obviously doesn't know much) he would know that A+B does not always equal C. The way a team plays one week has nothing to do with how they will play another week. There are many different circumstances that dictate how a team plays, so Sunshine's argument of "The Bengals stomped the Bears and the Redskins didn't, so the Redskins suck" is truly assanine even by his standards.

But back to topic, I think several points have to be made. First off, people make a big deal of the fact that the Skins were only able to beat a rookie QB by 2 points at home in week 1. That game easily could have been a 16-0 game, and Orton didn't throw for 300 yards and 3 TD's in that game. It was the Bears defense that clamped down on the Skins offense and made it hard. But the Skins D came up big when it had to, and unlike other rookie QB's we've seen, Orton is going to be a good QB - everyone saw his potential at Purdue. Not to mention, Ramsey got knocked out in that game and Brunell had to come in, when Brunell had not gotten the bulk of the snaps leading up to that game because Ramsey was the starter. I guess Sunshine forgot that also.

The Skins had a top 5 defense last year and are currently ranked #5 this season.

Cowboys game - again great defense by the Redskins (and defense wins championships right?) keeping them in the game until the offense got going late. It was Brunell's first start of the season, and it was a Monday night in Dallas, not the easiest of circumstances. The offense mde plays when it had to down the stretch and the D came up huge as usual late in that game. Yes the Cowboy DB's went to sleep but a win is a win.

As far as the Hawks are concerned, granted they don't play well on the east coast, BUT once again the Redskins defense (without Lavar Arrington being on the field mind you) still completely shut them down most of the game. At halftime Alexander had 6 carries for 12 yards. The Skins did what they had to do to win and that's what counts. Yes the defense had some breakdowns on the Seahawks 95 yard drive, but I don't expect that kind of thing to happen again.

As for the Broncos game, Invesco Field is one of the biggest homefield advantages there is. The conditions were horrible, the Redskins had both of their starting CB's out, when the Redskins had the ball the refs kept giving them the same wet ball to use rather than replace it with a dry one, and they got hosed on Plummer's "tuck" that should have been a fumble, and the fumble call was reversed. All that said it came down to the Skins missing a 2 pt conversion that would have sent the game to OT.

Overall that's a very good 3-1 and I'll take it. Neither I nor any other Skins fan I've seen has proclaimed the Skins a playoff team or Superbowl contender yet. All we're saying is they are a solid 3-1. Now maybe Sunshine will lighten up on the bitterness a little bit.

Jeff 2K5 wrote:. Now maybe Sunshine will lighten up on the bitterness a little bit.

we won't hold our breath.

Well Jeff, considering you are welching on your bet, it looks like we can put your football takes right up there with RuPaul. What a freakin puss you are. Carry on with your circle jerk Foreskin fan.

G.O. wrote:wow. the skins coulda shoulda woulda beat the #2 team in the league (according to espn and others like kutter) at invesco, hold the QB to less than 100 passing, nearly double them in yards, have no 3 and outs, hold them to 11 first downs the whole game compared to their own number of 28, would have fared much better against the run if marcus washington hadnt been blatantly...nevermind.....and lose by 2 when the 2 point conversion gets tipped with about a minute to play....


well, the skins arent that bad are they kutter?

They went from being the worst 3-0 team ever to the worst 3-1 team ever. Props.

KUTTER wrote:

G.O. wrote:wow. the skins coulda shoulda woulda beat the #2 team in the league (according to espn and others like kutter) at invesco, hold the QB to less than 100 passing, nearly double them in yards, have no 3 and outs, hold them to 11 first downs the whole game compared to their own number of 28, would have fared much better against the run if marcus washington hadnt been blatantly...nevermind.....and lose by 2 when the 2 point conversion gets tipped with about a minute to play....


well, the skins arent that bad are they kutter?

They went from being the worst 3-0 team ever to the worst 3-1 team ever. Props.

right. top 10 D and a top 10 O. lost by 2 to what many believe is the #2 team in the league..... at their crib. they really suck.

btw, how are the ravens doing?

(actually you dont have to answer that- you know nobody down here gives a rats ass about them. the same obviously cant be said for your obsession with the skins.)

Shine wrote:All I've been saying in this thread is, despite the 3-0 record Washington isn't anywhere close to being a top 5 team in the league.

Such a harmless, and valid, claim by me and all the Skins fans get their collective panties in a bunch. Shocker. :roll:

Skin fan once again shows their true colors by:

- overreacting to any negative comment, no matter how minor, against their beloved team

- laying out every conceivable woulda, coulda, shoulda

- blaming the refs for a loss

Classic Skin fan MO.

3 quick points.

The Skins had a top 5 defense last year and are currently ranked #5 this season.

What was their record again last year?? Guess defense doesn't ALWAYS win championships.

As far as he's probably concerned, Carson Palmer is the next Joe Montana already.

Point out one time I've pimped CP on the board.

Shine in another thread wrote:And note to Redskin fan. Enjoy the 3-0, a W is still a W, but try to keep some semblance of reality about your team. Move the ball a couple inches in everyone of their games and you're looking at 0-3 instead.

Evaluating a team can't be strictly judged on W-L record early in the season. It will all even out later on in the year, and by week 12 a team is a reflection of their record no matter how they won/lost, who was hurt, how easy/hard their schedule was, etc. That said, the Skins were MUCH more impressive in their lone defeat than they were in any of their 3 victories.

btw, way to welch on your sig bet Jeff. :pussy:

Shine wrote:

Skin fan once again shows their true colors by:

- overreacting to any negative comment, no matter how minor, against their beloved team

- laying out every conceivable woulda, coulda, shoulda

- blaming the refs for a loss

Classic Skin fan MO.

good points- cuz no other fans or any team in the NFL do that. ever.









:roll:

I see that by leaving the Skins out of my top five that I have incurred the wrath of the fans of the Southwest Maryland Redskins. Oh the horror! I left them off of a list!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


I also think Atlanta, Philly, Dallas, and Miami suck. Happy now?

KUTTER wrote:I also think Atlanta, Philly, Dallas, and Miami suck. Happy now?

Careful what ou say Kutter. Those them are fighting words. Anyone that saw the Philly/Dallas game has to be somewhat impressed with how the Cowboys executed. Don't let your bitterness over your teams complete dismantling cloud your judgement.

:D

1. Indianapolis - When the offense starts clicking, they will be scary good. A team on a mission to win HFA.
2. Pittsburgh - It will be interesting to see if they drop off at all without Roethlisbergerheimerdingerschnitzel.
3. Denver - Stout defense and a solid running game have been the Keys to Victory.
4. Cincinnati - Could be the weakest team in the top five.
5. Tampa Bay - Griese at the helm doesn't inspire a ton of confidence, but they've gotten it done.

28. Baltimore - The defense's back is starting to break after having carried this team for so long.
29. New Orleans - Made Favuruh look like he were fifteen years younger. Sad season for them, especially after their strong start.
30. USC - Tons of offense. Could move higher with a win this week.
31. San Francisco - Sucky running back, rookie quarterback. They should be better by 2009.
32. Houston - Only here because I can't rank them any lower.

1. Indianapolis - No losses makes this a no brainer. I'll be interested to see what happens if they fall behind in a game by 2 or more TDs. Their schedule has been weak, but that's not their fault.

2. Pittsburgh - Begining to gell. J-Ville will be a test of the offense's ability to score on a dominant defense.

3. Denver - What happened to the Jake Plummer we knew and loved as he threw INT after INT in the first half? A 2 game lead in the AFC West may already be insurmountable

4. Washington - Right on schedule. Brunell is starting to take the pressure off Portis. Cooley is a reliable target and Moss is a lighning bolt. And the D is still as stout as last year. Look for them to move on up like George and Weesie.

5. Cincinnati - They're here for now. But I'm not sold.


28. Tennesee
29. New Orleans
30. Baltimore
31. San Francisco
32. Houston

Again, same criteria as always (buh bye skins)

1. Indy
2. Pittsburgh
3. Denver
4. Tampa
5. Cincy


28. Terrible Beagles (lose in huge upset to a Trolls Team w/ No RB)
29. NFC North
30. San FranSucko
31. B-Less
32. Houston

BSmack wrote:3. Denver - What happened to the Jake Plummer we knew and loved as he threw INT after INT in the first half? A 2 game lead in the AFC West may already be insurmountable

With Jake manning the helm, there's always the chance of the ship running aground......

KC Scott wrote:Again, same criteria as always (buh bye skins)

1. Indy
2. Pittsburgh
3. Denver
4. Tampa
5. Cincy

Tampa loses to the Jets and you put them ahead of Washington?

???????????????????????????

28. Terrible Beagles (lose in huge upset to a Trolls Team w/ No RB)

The Beagles are having a rough go with the Missouri teams, aren't they Bri?

orcinus wrote:The Beagles are having a rough go with the Missouri teams, aren't they Bri?

It was not the best of times for the Beagles. The Falcons D killed me and so did Palmer's so-so night.

BSmack wrote:

KC Scott wrote:Again, same criteria as always (buh bye skins)

1. Indy
2. Pittsburgh
3. Denver
4. Tampa
5. Cincy

Tampa loses to the Jets and you put them ahead of Washington?

???????????????????????????

yeah, what gives between last week and this week, scott?

G.O. wrote:

BSmack wrote:

KC Scott wrote:Again, same criteria as always (buh bye skins)

1. Indy
2. Pittsburgh
3. Denver
4. Tampa
5. Cincy

Tampa loses to the Jets and you put them ahead of Washington?

???????????????????????????

yeah, what gives between last week and this week, scott?

To quote you, Scott-


Your really not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

G.O. wrote:

BSmack wrote:

KC Scott wrote:Again, same criteria as always (buh bye skins)

1. Indy
2. Pittsburgh
3. Denver
4. Tampa
5. Cincy

Tampa loses to the Jets and you put them ahead of Washington?

???????????????????????????

yeah, what gives between last week and this week, scott?

Bucs 4-1 vs. Skins 3-1?

Both lost on the road to AFC divisional opponents.

Yea, the Doinks are tougher than the Jets, but based on what I've seen of the Both teams, I like the Bucs as the stronger of the two.

Skins will lose # 2 on Sunday, while the Bucs will move to 5-1.

jiminphilly wrote:
To quote you, Scott

Damn, at least your quoting people now instead of just stealing their material and posting it as your own.

Props, I guess, on your progress.

I didn't know you were such a Redskin fan?

Your wife tell you to support them, too?

KC Scott wrote:
Bucs 4-1 vs. Skins 3-1?

Both lost on the road to AFC divisional opponents.

Yea, the Doinks are tougher than the Jets, but based on what I've seen of the Both teams, I like the Bucs as the stronger of the two.

Skins will lose # 2 on Sunday, while the Bucs will move to 5-1.

this doesnt really need to be said, but what the hell, i'll give my .02 anyhow.

bucs lose to a bad jets team (who might actually be the best team they have played, scary as that is...) led by a guy who was signed days before the game while managing to not so much as get in the end zone.

skins barely lose- by 2- at one of the toughest placest to play, to your #3 team.

skins have beaten 2 winning teams, tampa has beaten none.

and tampa has 'shown you more'?



seriously,....

just sayin.

KC Scott wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:
To quote you, Scott

Damn, at least your quoting people now instead of just stealing their material and posting it as your own.

Props, I guess, on your progress.

I didn't know you were such a Redskin fan?

Your wife tell you to support them, too?

Actually I'm not. It's just fun pointing out your flawed logic, if you even call it that. We all have our own opinions but it seems pretty clear that your 'opinion' is based on where the dart hits and not what you see or read. You really have no fucking clue.

You may commence your ankle biting.

Since Goo and Wifeinphilly both seem to have their stupid hats pulled just a little too low tonight.....

On Monday Tampa will be 5-1 having beat Miami and the Skins will be 3-2 after losing to KC.

I know you both are counting on me to guide you through this season (Actually wifeinphilly will just copy anyone) so go bet $5 on the Chiefs and Bucs to both win and you'll be able to Supersize Sunday dinner for yourselves and the kids.

KC Scott wrote:Since Goo and Wifeinphilly both seem to have their stupid hats pulled just a little too low tonight.....

On Monday Tampa will be 5-1 having beat Miami and the Skins will be 3-2 after losing to KC.

I know you both are counting on me to guide you through this season (Actually wifeinphilly will just copy anyone) so go bet $5 on the Chiefs and Bucs to both win and you'll be able to Supersize Sunday dinner for yourselves and the kids.

even if the skins lose at KC and the bucs win, it still doesnt quite explain how a team that loses to the jets is better than a team that loses to denver at invesco by 2 while dominating statistically (which supposedly goes toward your 'show you something' criteria). these are still 'power rankings', no? tampa lost to a bad team and still would not have beaten anybody. not so for the skins.

but, hey...its your opinion and you are entitled.

btw- i'm not arguing skins are top 5 worthy. just seems your formula is lacking a little common sense, s'all.