Page 2 of 2
Re: Power rankings. Ongoing.
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:16 am
by mansquatch
Early season I would agree about being under the rader, but at 7-2 there is no hiding where we are at. We have some quality wins and even a quality loss, so it isn't like we do not deserve to be there. We just have to trust the coaching staff to keep the squad focused and not get too cocky. My guess is that all but the younger guys know better anyways.
Re: Power rankings. Ongoing.
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:03 pm
by John_Viveiros
Funny. I like the respect. I like the fact that I can spend a good while in the evening reading Vikings themed articles on many national websites because of their record. But somehow, I can't wrap my brain around a ranking higher than 10 or so. I'm not saying you can't justify it, it's just that we've all been disappointed before. Of course, you can also justify a lower ranking by focusing on lack of defensive turnovers, lack of high volume passing stats, etc. I mean, if the Vikings are truly the 5th best team in the league, two years after Frazier got us all the way up to five wins... Freaking amazing!
The other thing a ranking of 4 or better implies is that we'd probably have a first round bye. Who really thought we'd be in that discussion this year? And it's just a discussion now. If the Packers game goes our way, it'll be a reasonable goal.
Re: Power rankings. Ongoing.
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:19 pm
by Skoltastic_Voyage
Okay this is going to sound stupid as all #### but the point of power rankings is to show the likely hood of making the Superbowl not just their W/L. For all intents and purposes the Vikings being top 10 is looking pretty fair but counting out teams that make runs late in the season (see the Giants for how-to on this one) it's harder to place them. Honestly I like that we're top ten, it makes my vikasm spasms a bit more gratifying however I don't put stock in this #### anymore further than I can see with my own eyes how teams measure up.
Re: Power rankings. Ongoing.
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:38 pm
by Raptorman
Mothman wrote:
... or in the top 5. I understand they've been to back-to-back Super Bowls but they're still 4-5 (and only there because Detroit was screwed out of a likely win @SEA).
No, no, no. Packer fans have told me that Seattle is no doubt a quality team. Of course this came from a discussion from when I said the Packers had not beaten a quality team yet.
