ESPN Power ranking

**bigdogbovy** · 05-05-2004, 03:05 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerranking

Puh lease.

They have KC and the Seahawks at 5 & 6, 2 teams we knocked the crap out of last year, GB beat the Seahawks as well

Falcons at 7 just because vick is back? so much for you need a team.

Horrible rankings

**ItalianStallion** · 05-05-2004, 04:37 PM

does that mean we should be behind Oakland, San Diego and the Giants cuz they killed us last year, no.

**purplepat** · 05-05-2004, 04:46 PM

I'll agree that Atlanta has no business being #7 with their sorry defense, but Seattle and KC are deserving of their spots. Frankly, Seattle is one of the best young teams out there, and I think they will be serious Super Bowl contenders this year. The Packers just barely beat them in GB in the playoffs. Another year of experience for Hasselbeck and the rest of the guys in a very potent offense, the addition of Wistrom to their DL (I think they had other FA defensive signings as well) bodes well for an improving Seahawks squad.

Haven't seen where they rank the Vikes, but they should be up there near the top as well. With the additions they have made to the DL, Winfield, Darren Bennett, and Marcus Robinson, they should clearly be ranked ahead of the Packers and Cowboys.

**ksvikesfan** · 05-05-2004, 04:57 PM

I would almost put the Packers below the Bears. Everyone in the division made big improvements except the Packers. Seattle may just be the team to beat in the NFC this year.

**Mossville** · 05-05-2004, 05:35 PM

"ksvikesfan" wrote:

I would almost put the Packers below the Bears. Everyone in the division made big improvements except the Packers. Seattle may just be the team to beat in the NFC this year.

your joking right? The bears are going to be awful again this year. Their Offense is one of the worst in the league! THe Pack havent made any improvements so they are supposed to drop from 10-6 to being worse than the bears. Theyll prolly get 2nd place in the division behind us of course

**DiehardVikesFan** · 05-05-2004, 06:59 PM

The Bears built a pretty good O'Line, and Thomas Jones is a lot better than people think now. They will be able to run the ball.

**VKG4LFE** · 05-05-2004, 08:23 PM

Those rankings don't mean jack!! Let's just get the season started and things will fall into place. I'm shocked that the rams are ranked as low as they are. The ESPN boys just love the rams!!

**Mossville** · 05-05-2004, 08:49 PM

"DiehardVikesFan" wrote:

The Bears built a pretty good O'Line, and Thomas Jones is a lot better than people think now. They will be able to run the ball.

Thomas Jones sucks! A Train is much better than him. Jones will be hard pressed to get 500 yards for the whole season

**bigdogbovy** · 05-05-2004, 09:41 PM

"purplepat" wrote:

I'll agree that Atlanta has no business being #7 with their sorry defense, but Seattle and KC are deserving of their spots. Frankly, Seattle is one of the best young teams out there, and I think they will be serious Super Bowl contenders this year. The Packers just barely beat them in GB in the playoffs. Another year of experience for Hasselbeck and the rest of the guys in a very potent offense, the addition of Wistrom to their DL (I think they had other FA defensive signings as well) bodes well for an improving Seahawks squad.

Haven't seen where they rank the Vikes, but they should be up there near the top as well. With the additions they have made to the DL, Winfield, Darren Bennett, and Marcus Robinson, they should clearly be ranked ahead of the Packers and Cowboys.

Seattle may belong up there as a contender but not above the vikes maybe the pack. And KC has a just plain awful D. They benifited from a very soft schedule last year, when they played a team worth anything they got killed. Heck we scored at will on them