Skip to content

Week Two Power Rankings

DENVER, CO - SEPTEMBER 8:  Justin Simmons #31, Shaquil Barrett #48, Dekoda Watson #57, and Brandon Marshall #54 of the Denver Broncos celebrate a missed field goal at the end of the game against the Carolina Panthers at Sports Authority Field Field at Mile High on September 8, 2016 in Denver, Colorado. (Photo by Justin Edmonds/Getty Images) Getty Images

1. Broncos (1-0; last week No. 1): How many wins will it take for all of the fans to start spelling and/or pronouncing the quarterback’s name properly?

2. Patriots (1-0; No. 3): If Jimmy G. keeps playing like #Tommy, how long will it be until the head coach is taking J.C.’s name in vain at a press conference, again?

3. Panthers (0-1; No. 2): Based on last week, Cam Newton may not be able to play long enough to ever be old enough to get the calls he still isn’t getting.

4. Seahawks (1-0; No. 4): It sure looked like they missed Marshawn Lynch on Sunday, victory notwithstanding.

5. Steelers (1-0; No. 6): The Steel Curtain has been melted down and transformed into a Ginsu Knife.

6. Cardinals (0-1; No. 5): They could have won it late, but if the Cardinals are truly a Super Bowl contender it shouldn’t have been close.

7. Packers (1-0; No. 7): They should add the “Aaron Rodgers throws while being pulled down from behind” play to the Hail Mary as part of the standard offense.

8. Bengals (1-0; No. 8): Stealing a road win against a playoff-caliber team is the kind of thing that will help the Bengals get back to the playoffs a sixth straight time.

9. Chiefs (1-0; No. 10): Like last year, they won in Week One. The next challenge is to avoid five straight losses for the second straight season.

10. Vikings (1-0; No. 11): If the defense can score two touchdowns every week, the Vikings will be just fine without Teddy Bridgewater.

11. Raiders (1-0; No. 12): One-Eyed Jack Del Rio is the perfect coach for a team whose logo wears an eyepatch.

12. Texans (1-0; No. 13): They already have a one-game lead over the rest of the division, and they may never relinquish it.

13. Ravens (1-0; No. 16): With a 13-7 win, Baltimore remains largely off the radar. And that’s exactly how they like it.

14. Washington (0-1; No. 9): Maybe Josh Norman won’t have a pair of battles with Odell Beckham, Jr. this year, after all.

15. Buccaneers (1-0): The nationwide shrugs of the shoulders regarding the win over the Falcons in Atlanta will yield to another bodily activity starting with “sh” if the Bucs beat the Cardinals in Arizona.

16. Giants (1-0; No. 27): The Giants should just buy the naming rights to AT&T Stadium.

17. Cowboys (0-1; No. 14): The good news is that Dak Prescott won’t miss any film-room time this week because he’s sitting for a bronze bust.

18. Jaguars (0-1; No. 18): Opportunity lost is better than opportunity non-existent, I suppose.

19. Dolphins (0-1; No. 19): See No. 18.

20. Jets (0-1; No. 17): See No. 19.

21. Lions (1-0; No. 23): If Calvin Johnson hadn’t retired, he possibly would have generated 300 receiving yards against the Colts.

22. 49ers (1-0; No. 28): For the second straight year, the 49ers chalked up a big win at home in prime time over a playoff contender. Here’s hoping the rest of 2015 doesn’t get duplicated.

23. Saints (0-1; No. 22): Only four times has a team lost by giving up a two-point conversion in the final minute of a regular-season game. The Saints have done it twice, both times at home.

24. Colts (0-1; No. 15): If they couldn’t put a good team around Andrew Luck when he was playing under his rookie deal, how will they do it now that he’s the highest-paid player in the game?

25. Falcons (0-1; No. 24): So far, the Pete Carroll coaching tree is looking the twig under which Charlie Brown puts his Christmas presents.

26. Eagles (1-0; No. 31): A win is a win is a win, even when the win comes against a team that some think should be relegated to the CFL.

27. Bears (0-1; No. 25): With the Eagles coming back to town for a Monday night game, some fans may be hoping for a return of the fog, for reasons other than nostalgia.

28. Titans (0-1; No. 26): It’s hard to harmonize “exotic smash mouth” running with “close your eyes and hope for the best” quarterbacking.

29. Bills (0-1; No. 29): The Sammy-Watkins-foot-is-bothering-him-unless-it-isn’t routine sums up the current state of the franchise perfectly.

30. Chargers (0-1; No. 30): Somehow, this is all Joey Bosa’s fault, right?

31. Rams (0-1; No. 21): Jeff Fisher didn’t want to be 7-9 again. He likely won’t be, but not in the way he had hoped.

32. Browns (0-1; No. 32): If you had Week One in the RGIII injury sweepstakes, enjoy the fruits of your even-money wager.

Permalink 125 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Features, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
125 Responses to “Week Two Power Rankings”
  1. lapantherfan86 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:18 PM

    3. Panthers (0-1; No. 2): Based on last week, Cam Newton may not be able to play long enough to ever be old enough to get the calls he still isn’t getting.

    Hahaha, great call back.

  2. mkesfinest says: Sep 13, 2016 12:20 PM

    The Packers beat an ascending Jacksonville team on the road while the Cardinals lose at home to the Brady-less and Gronk-less Pats, yet PFT still keeps Arizona ahead of Green Bay? What gives?

  3. elmerbrownelmerbrown says: Sep 13, 2016 12:21 PM

    These power rankings are weak !

  4. ravenbiker says: Sep 13, 2016 12:21 PM

    14 REDSKINS. You KNOW it’s bad form to name all the others by team name and ONLY name the Washington Redskins by the city that they do not play in.

  5. sumkat says: Sep 13, 2016 12:21 PM

    I don’t get it. The 9ers comments says they beat a playoff contender. The Rams comment says they likely won’t finish 7-9, but not the way Fisher wants

    So did the 9ers beat a playoff contender, or are the Rams likely to finish 6-10 or worse? It can’t be both

  6. mmack66 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:23 PM

    The Rams aren’t a playoff contender.

  7. gosuhgo says: Sep 13, 2016 12:23 PM

    Lions are really the 2nd worst team to win? You actually think the Dak Prescott-led Cowboys would beat them?

  8. mrmidevil says: Sep 13, 2016 12:23 PM

    no surprise you place NE after a loss over better teams with a win (CIN, PIT, GB, KC).

  9. i thumbs down your comment says: Sep 13, 2016 12:24 PM

    The 49ers did not beat a playoff contender last night.

  10. weepingjebus says: Sep 13, 2016 12:24 PM

    We are on to Miami.

  11. liondoc says: Sep 13, 2016 12:25 PM

    keep underestimating the Lions. they are unchanged from previous years

  12. Carl Gerbschmidt says: Sep 13, 2016 12:25 PM

    These things are so ridiculous, I’m not even going to comment except to say that the Vikes are NOT going to score 2 defensive TDs each week. Especially since the 2 this past week were gifts.

    #HeadedtoHouson #Hangry

  13. LyinRogerMustGo says: Sep 13, 2016 12:26 PM

    It’s really is wonderful being a fan of the 4 time World Champion Patriots, winners of more Super Bowls than any team in the last quarter century, winners of more games this century than any team, home of the greatest QB of all time, the greatest head coach of all time, the greatest fanbase in football as proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by a recent study, the undisputed paragon of excellence in the modern NFL and if we are being honest, the paragon of excellence in any sport at any time.🙂

    It really is GREAT to be king!🙂 ALL HAIL the 4 time World Champion Patriots and their fans!🙂

  14. PegulaBucks says: Sep 13, 2016 12:27 PM

    did you guys watch football this past weekend?

  15. ctiggs says: Sep 13, 2016 12:27 PM

    Like Miley Cyrus said “its the climb”. Here we come #GoNiners #Nobodyhasitbetter #RamsstillhaventScored

  16. cymbaline6 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:27 PM

    Rankings look pretty good, but I have a hard time justifying putting anyone over the Rams after last night’s debacle.

  17. nhpats says: Sep 13, 2016 12:28 PM

    How are Washington ranked so high and the Jets ranked so low?

  18. GeauxSaints57 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:29 PM

    These rankings make a lot more sense than ESPN’s.

  19. In Teddy We Trust says: Sep 13, 2016 12:30 PM

    mrmidevil says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:23 PM
    no surprise you place NE after a loss over better teams with a win (CIN, PIT, GB, KC).
    ______

    Ummm…NE won.

  20. ctiggs says: Sep 13, 2016 12:30 PM

    How are the Jets 20th? They should be 10th

  21. tjacks7 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:32 PM

    We must have watched different Cardinals and Seahawks teams.

  22. johnnyballsack says: Sep 13, 2016 12:32 PM

    Washington ahead of the Giants and the Eagles? Seriously? Washington got destroyed last night in every aspect of the game. I was surprised to see Washington in your top 25 and will be even more surprised if they win more than 6 games this year.

  23. LyinRogerMustGo says: Sep 13, 2016 12:32 PM

    Let’s hear it for Tom Brady, the greatest QB who ever graced an NFL football field with his presence! Everyone join in!

    ALL HAIL THE KING.

    ALL HAIL THE KING.

    ALL HAIL THE KING.

    ALL HAIL THE KING.

    ALL HAIL THE KING.

    ALL HAIL THE KING.

  24. bleedingfacemask says: Sep 13, 2016 12:32 PM

    “How many wins will it take for all of the fans to start spelling and/or pronouncing the quarterback’s name properly?”

    And we had JUST started spelling ‘Osweiler’ correctly, too…

  25. In Teddy We Trust says: Sep 13, 2016 12:33 PM

    Carl Gerbschmidt says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:25 PM
    These things are so ridiculous, I’m not even going to comment except to say that the Vikes are NOT going to score 2 defensive TDs each week. Especially since the 2 this past week were gifts.
    ___

    No, they won’t score two defensive TDs each week, but don’t be surprised if they do it this week. Remember, Li’l Aaron and his tiny hands lead the league in fumble sacks returned for touchdowns over the last 8 years.

  26. ctiggs says: Sep 13, 2016 12:34 PM

    My 49ers did not beat a BCS Playoff team last night let alone an NFL playoff team.

  27. whatjusthapped says: Sep 13, 2016 12:34 PM

    I’m fine with where ever you put the Vikings, things will change after Week 2.

  28. minson15 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:34 PM

    How the Cardinals are ahead of the Packers is beyond me. Packers won, the Cardinals lost, so did Carolina but I get it they’re supposed to be good so they are good…right????

  29. mogogo1 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:35 PM

    How exactly do the Rams finish ahead of the Browns? The Browns at least managed to score in their game and McCown is a better QB than Keenum so losing RG3 really shouldn’t impact the ranking.

  30. nhpats says: Sep 13, 2016 12:35 PM

    mrmidevil says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:23 PM
    no surprise you place NE after a loss over better teams with a win (CIN, PIT, GB, KC).

    ———
    Newsflash: NE didn’t lose…..

  31. californiaqid says: Sep 13, 2016 12:36 PM

    Hey guys, I liked how the games this weekend were close but somehow I just didn’t care.

    HAVE I LOST INTEREST IN THE NFL?

    WHY DOES THE NFL TODAY REMIND ME OF THE PEAK IN NBA POPULARITY IN THE 1990s?

    ANYONE ELSE LIKE ME THINK THE NFL IS FADING FAST?

  32. raiderrob21 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:37 PM

    22. 49ers (1-0; No. 28): For the second straight year, the 49ers chalked up a big win at home in prime time over a playoff contender. Here’s hoping the rest of 2015 doesn’t get duplicated.

    Wait, what? Who had the Lambs as a playoff contender?????

  33. joshgordonsbong says: Sep 13, 2016 12:38 PM

    Lol Giants at 16….behind the redskins…..not sure what’s more of joke the former or the latter…..

  34. californiaqid says: Sep 13, 2016 12:39 PM

    NFL RATINGS PEAK IN 2015

  35. sweetnlow44 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:41 PM

    The Rams are playoff contenders? The Rams? What?

  36. trailerparkking says: Sep 13, 2016 12:41 PM

    I’m.not sure how the Steelers aren’t in the top 3. Just wait until we get the best in back from suspension.

  37. trailerparkking says: Sep 13, 2016 12:42 PM

    *best rb back

  38. dtroxallday says: Sep 13, 2016 12:43 PM

    How, on Earth, are Carolina and Seattle ahead of Pittsburgh? Seriously, what are these rankings based on?

  39. tjacks7 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:44 PM

    whatjusthapped says:

    I’m fine with where ever you put the Vikings, things will change after Week 2.

    Agreed. They’ll be top 5 after the bye week.

  40. doe22us says: Sep 13, 2016 12:45 PM

    I know you have to fill out space, but Power rankings in my opinion should be done at the quarterly mark, through 16 games. At least you have a general and better idea of trends on who the scrubs and legit teams are.

  41. mightymightylafootball says: Sep 13, 2016 12:45 PM

    #16: Ouch, that’s brutal.

    Well played, sir.

  42. ohand16 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:45 PM

    Bills are way too high at 29

  43. whiteskinsblackskinsredskins says: Sep 13, 2016 12:46 PM

    You guys both picked Browns to win and then you trash Eagles victory to justify leaving them at bottom of the rankings?

  44. tjacks7 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:46 PM

    The sad thing is that the Vikings didn’t even pressure Mariota much, just tried to keep him in the pocket for most of the game. Rodgers will get the Phillip Rivers treatment this week as he’s holding his ribs on the sideline in the 3rd quarter of a blowout loss.

  45. haywoodjablomey says: Sep 13, 2016 12:48 PM

    PLAYOFF CONTENDER? Rams?

    AWWE-NO! NOT TODAY!

  46. 12coltsfan12 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:50 PM

    COLTS have what it takes to make it to #16! This is our year!! Lyin’ Ryan Grigson has established a true sense of mediocrity! woohoo!!!!!!
    😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥

  47. lscottman3 says: Sep 13, 2016 12:54 PM

    mrmidevil says:

    no surprise you place NE after a loss over better teams with a win (CIN, PIT, GB, KC).
    ===================================

    Well now this makes a lot of things a lot clearer.

    I always assumed that most people who hate the Patriots and believe the Godell lies regarding deflategate live in an alternate universe where up is down and hot is cold and wins are losses.

  48. grogansheroes says: Sep 13, 2016 12:59 PM

    californiaqid says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:36 PM
    Hey guys, I liked how the games this weekend were close but somehow I just didn’t care.

    HAVE I LOST INTEREST IN THE NFL?

    WHY DOES THE NFL TODAY REMIND ME OF THE PEAK IN NBA POPULARITY IN THE 1990s?

    ANYONE ELSE LIKE ME THINK THE NFL IS FADING FAST?
    ————————————————
    As an NFL fan for over 50 years, I too am tired of the politics of the NFL. They are more like FIFA, the Olympic committee, and the Federal Government. I am tired of the ticky tack penalties, while vicious headshots go unpunished. I am tired of the PI rules that reward teams for mostly poor throws.
    But the games themselves I still like, but for how much longer? Probably not much.

  49. joetoronto says: Sep 13, 2016 1:00 PM

    Buffalo at 29 seems a few spots too high.

  50. bullcharger says: Sep 13, 2016 1:00 PM

    Garoppolo played really well, but if Patriots offense threw everything but the kitchen sink in early to get a lead and Garoppolo only was reading one side of the field. He played great, and was poised, but he needs lots of support to keep winning like Cassel in 2008.

  51. steelcurtainn says: Sep 13, 2016 1:03 PM

    The bungles are about to get Ginsu-ed.

  52. mmack66 says: Sep 13, 2016 1:04 PM

    mrmidevil says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:23 PM

    no surprise you place NE after a loss over better teams with a win (CIN, PIT, GB, KC).

    14 54
    —————————

    Post of the day, with a bonus of 14(and counting) thumbs up!

  53. headwoundharry says: Sep 13, 2016 1:05 PM

    Laughing my pant off. Ratings like this are for fan boy losers. The only ratings that count are in February. That is where the real teams play.9

  54. justintuckrule says: Sep 13, 2016 1:10 PM

    There should be 15 teams tied for first and 17 teams tied for last. There is no powerhouse team. However, there are 17 teams that are absolute garbage.

  55. PFT-made-me-change-my-handle says: Sep 13, 2016 1:12 PM

    By now, everyone should know – no team is a good or as bad as they played in week one.

  56. gofor2with3pointlead says: Sep 13, 2016 1:17 PM

    John Breech CBS sports
    “I learned a very important thing about the Patriots in Week 1, and that thing is that I’m pretty sure they could start a sock puppet at quarterback and Bill Belichick could still coach them to a win.”

    Oh how very true. No disrespect to NE fans or their assessment of their prettiest QB.

  57. handsofsteelhartofstone says: Sep 13, 2016 1:19 PM

    Pittsburgh is clearly the best team in the league. period.

  58. stoneydog1000 says: Sep 13, 2016 1:22 PM

    steelcurtainn wouldn’t’ t be running his mouth all of the time if Vontaze Burfict were playing this week. He’d already be crying and whining.

  59. nhpats says: Sep 13, 2016 1:22 PM

    The Bills should be ranked #33.

  60. margoadams says: Sep 13, 2016 1:23 PM

    Colts 24 of 32 #DeflateGate Karma

  61. imodan says: Sep 13, 2016 1:26 PM

    24. Colts (0-1; No. 15): If they couldn’t put a good team around Andrew Luck when he was playing under his rookie deal, how will they do it now that he’s the highest-paid player in the game?
    ————————————————————-
    Easy. Turn the crowd noise up higher, turn up the heat and above all get P Manning on the payroll again so Goodell can do unspeakable things to make sure he wins again.

  62. patsfan4lifesbchamps says: Sep 13, 2016 1:34 PM

    bullcharger says:
    Sep 13, 2016 1:00 PM
    Garoppolo played really well, but if Patriots offense threw everything but the kitchen sink in early to get a lead and Garoppolo only was reading one side of the field. He played great, and was poised, but he needs lots of support to keep winning like Cassel in 2008.

    —————

    Actually the offense looked better with Garoppolo. No Gronk, missing starters on the o line, against a really good defense is not easy. But the kid has an excellent arm strength, mobility, and showed toughness. Defenses can’t load the box against him and they can’t sit on short and intermediate routes like Denver did against Brady. Garoppolo will burn them deep if they try that.

  63. tim3711 says: Sep 13, 2016 1:36 PM

    Finally! The almighty power rankings that non irrelevant teams fans live and die by. Look forward to seeing the comments about which team sucks less throughout the season. Thanks PFT!!!

  64. xavier179 says: Sep 13, 2016 1:38 PM

    Give me a break, had Broncos not had so many cheap shots they would have lost. #1 indeed!

  65. mmack66 says: Sep 13, 2016 1:40 PM

    I’m no Chargers fan, but I’d probably have them in the low to mid 20’s somewhere.

  66. cav2ya says: Sep 13, 2016 1:47 PM

    Redskins
    Cowboys
    Saints
    Dolphins
    Jets
    Colts
    Falcons

    All lost on Sunday, yet, you grade the Eagles worse than all of them. Did you watch the game? It wasn’t by luck that they won, it wasn’t a last minute miracle field goal that made it, like so many other teams. It wasn’t by some dumb player not going out of bounds. The Browns got thumped. in all aspects of the game. And they weren’t as bad as most people think. (If RG3 didn’t get hurt, their schedule would probably play out a lot better for them.)

    As it is, A rookie Head Coach, and a rookie QB, looked every bit the seasoned veterans. a hell of a lot better looking team than all of those that lost and are ranked above them.

    your power ranking is garbage.

  67. mackame15 says: Sep 13, 2016 1:49 PM

    Ya’ll to high on the skins’…G Men have a D again and won a divisional game. “YOU LIKE THAT!!!”

  68. jm91rs says: Sep 13, 2016 1:50 PM

    22. 49ers (1-0; No. 28): For the second straight year, the 49ers chalked up a big win at home in prime time over a playoff contender. Here’s hoping the rest of 2015 doesn’t get duplicated.
    ________________________________

    You have the Rams as the 2nd worst team in your rankings, yet you consider them a playoff contender?

  69. LyinRogerMustGo says: Sep 13, 2016 1:54 PM

    Actually the offense looked better with Garoppolo. No Gronk, missing starters on the o line, against a really good defense is not easy. But the kid has an excellent arm strength, mobility, and showed toughness. Defenses can’t load the box against him and they can’t sit on short and intermediate routes like Denver did against Brady. Garoppolo will burn them deep if they try that.


    Isn’t it adorable watching Patriot Hater try to talk football?🙂 A subject they know nothing about but it’s still adorable to watch!
    🙂

    As for Jimmy he had a very nice debut. Still has to work on sensing the rush and not panicking when his first read isn’t there. Things that are typical for any young QB.🙂

  70. metalup666 says: Sep 13, 2016 1:58 PM

    “home of the greatest QB of all time”

    I had no idea Montana played for the Patriots.

  71. newmancave2016 says: Sep 13, 2016 2:01 PM

    Let me get this straight: You have the Eagles behind SEVEN teams who lost their opener. I know, the Browns are awful. I get it. No one is saying the Eagles will be great this year, but 26th? Nope.

  72. footballyay says: Sep 13, 2016 2:04 PM

    As a Panther fan, how are the Steelers not ahead of us? Our run defense went to sleep in the second half against the Broncos. Steelers looked scary good. While we are at it, Seahawks and Cards too high as well. Just sayin

  73. csb28 says: Sep 13, 2016 2:12 PM

    mrmidevil says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:23 PM
    no surprise you place NE after a loss over better teams with a win (CIN, PIT, GB, KC).

    NE lost???

  74. packerswin96 says: Sep 13, 2016 2:13 PM

    Seahawks barely beat a bad team, Steelers beat a bad team, Cardinals lose to 3/4 of a team and yet all 3 are ranked ahead of the Packers, who beat an up and coming team on the road!

  75. nhpats says: Sep 13, 2016 2:15 PM

    patsfan4lifesbchamps says:
    Sep 13, 2016 1:34 PM
    bullcharger says:
    Sep 13, 2016 1:00 PM
    Garoppolo played really well, but if Patriots offense threw everything but the kitchen sink in early to get a lead and Garoppolo only was reading one side of the field. He played great, and was poised, but he needs lots of support to keep winning like Cassel in 2008.

    —————

    Actually the offense looked better with Garoppolo. No Gronk, missing starters on the o line, against a really good defense is not easy. But the kid has an excellent arm strength, mobility, and showed toughness. Defenses can’t load the box against him and they can’t sit on short and intermediate routes like Denver did against Brady. Garoppolo will burn them deep if they try that.

    ————
    Well we can certainly agree that Garoppolo is better than the QB for your Jets. In fact, he is easily the 2nd best QB in the division!

  76. nhpats says: Sep 13, 2016 2:16 PM

    12coltsfan12 says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:50 PM
    COLTS have what it takes to make it to #16! This is our year!! Lyin’ Ryan Grigson has established a true sense of mediocrity! woohoo!!!!!!
    😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥

    ————
    ManningsArmy?

  77. hugeheavywoman says: Sep 13, 2016 2:17 PM

    The Steelers are undefeated. Camera hasnt wont a game. Next!

  78. demskinsbaby says: Sep 13, 2016 2:19 PM

    Great idea!!! Put Breeland on all of the opponents number 1. You sir qualify for a coaching position on the Reddkins staff. Come on down!!

  79. hugeheavywoman says: Sep 13, 2016 2:21 PM

    The Broncos have beaten the Steelers, the Pats, the Panthers (twice) in their last 4 games. Next!

  80. hugeheavywoman says: Sep 13, 2016 2:25 PM

    Isn’t it adorable watching Patriot Hater try to talk football?🙂 A subject they know nothing about but it’s still adorable to watch!
    ____________________________________
    Looking forward to your next trip to Denver. We hope Prince Tom wont be suspended.

  81. jmethane says: Sep 13, 2016 2:44 PM

    As a Seahawks fan I’m just happy to be 1-0 this year. They always start slow(0-1 last year after losing to the Rams). The offensive line is always brand new every year so it takes about five games for them to gel and start playing like they will the second half of the season.

    Actually the OL started playing better about the end of the third quarter against Suh and company so hey maybe things will be ok. Once Ifedi comes back from his ankle we’ll know how good it really is.

    It’s good to see Rawls back and running hard. Saw a couple runs with his signature smash into the guy so nothing has changed mentally. Also great to see Jimmy Graham out there making a meaningful 3rd down catch late in the game.

    Amazing that Jimmy is out there so quickly. It took Jose Cruz two years to come back from the same injury. Jimmy is back in 8 months or whatever. He worked so hard I’m happy for him. Maybe he can rewrite the trade narrative this year.

  82. bringbackwayne says: Sep 13, 2016 2:44 PM

    Lots of things wrong with these rankings:

    Giants jump a whopping 11 spots with a road win vs a team with a rookie QB.

    Lions jump only 2 spots with a nice road win.

    Cardinals lose at home and drop 1 spot.

    Packer and Steelers win on the road against quality opponents and move up 1 spot between the 2 of them

  83. broncoscountry33 says: Sep 13, 2016 2:47 PM

    I’m a Broncos fan and no way we should be #1 with our qb situstion

  84. jmethane says: Sep 13, 2016 2:50 PM

    As for the list it just doesn’t make a ton of sense to me but this early in the year who cares.

    I’d have the Steelers up top after last night they looked good, especially on offense.

    What anti-aging techniques does James Harrison use because I need them. I thought I was young for my age but that dude is just crazy. Playing like a 25 year old out there…a 25 year old with a LOT of experience.

  85. crush22 says: Sep 13, 2016 2:52 PM

    nhpats says:
    Sep 13, 2016 2:16 PM
    12coltsfan12 says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:50 PM
    COLTS have what it takes to make it to #16! This is our year!! Lyin’ Ryan Grigson has established a true sense of mediocrity! woohoo!!!!!!
    😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥

    ————
    ManningsArmy?
    ________________
    Nailed it.

  86. truetrue85 says: Sep 13, 2016 2:59 PM

    mrmidevil says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:23 PM

    no surprise you place NE after a loss over better teams with a win (CIN, PIT, GB, KC).

    You DO realize they won, right?

  87. flexx91 says: Sep 13, 2016 3:06 PM

    The Rams really? How can a team be a playoff contender without at least an above average QB?

  88. bigdbaby says: Sep 13, 2016 3:06 PM

    SMH. How can anyone take a power rankings poll seriously after just one week of football.

  89. carpalboss says: Sep 13, 2016 3:09 PM

    I also have the Rams as a playoff contender…..but I’m playing Madden 2000.

  90. theageofquarrel says: Sep 13, 2016 3:13 PM

    The Bungles are a garbage franchise. Straight garbage

  91. tedy54 says: Sep 13, 2016 3:16 PM

    The 9ers beat a “playoff contender”? Which team was that?

  92. firerogergoodellnow says: Sep 13, 2016 3:27 PM

    14. REDSKINS

  93. jgedgar70 says: Sep 13, 2016 3:38 PM

    footballyay says:
    Sep 13, 2016 2:04 PM

    As a Panther fan, how are the Steelers not ahead of us? Our run defense went to sleep in the second half against the Broncos. Steelers looked scary good. While we are at it, Seahawks and Cards too high as well. Just sayin
    _____
    Well, the Steelers didn’t even show up at the stadium until the 2nd quarter had started. Our run defense does need work, but I think coming within 5 feet of a winning field goal vs the defending champs on their field makes a top 5 ranking appropriate for us. We’ll be fine. We have the 9ers at home this week – and I’m not at all impressed with their 28-0 win over UCLA – er, uh, I mean, the Rams.

  94. jgedgar70 says: Sep 13, 2016 3:52 PM

    dtroxallday says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:43 PM

    How, on Earth, are Carolina and Seattle ahead of Pittsburgh? Seriously, what are these rankings based on?
    _____
    Carolina played on the road against the defending champs and took them to the last second before losing by 1. Pittsburgh, after not looking anything like a real football team the entire 1st quarter, whipped a team with several question marks that most people don’t think will win their division.

    But hey, it’s early. A number of talking heads predict Carolina & Pittsburgh to meet in the Super Bowl, so we’ll see how it all shakes out.

  95. stupidusername says: Sep 13, 2016 4:06 PM

    17. Cowboys (0-1; No. 14): The good news is that Dak Prescott won’t miss any film-room time this week because he’s sitting for a bronze bust.
    —————————-
    Says the guy who ranked them 14th to start the season despite 12 losses a year ago. And you still only drop them 3 spots, one obligatory because they lost to the Giants who were behind them.

    There’s no chance you watched the Washington game. McCoy looked like the 2nd worst QB that played in week 1.

  96. stupidusername says: Sep 13, 2016 4:07 PM

    *Cousins

  97. tfavrat says: Sep 13, 2016 4:09 PM

    The Jeff Fisher comment is spot on. The Rams will go 3-7 in the first 10 games, and then win 4 out of 6 to finish 7-9. Fisher will call them a team on the rise and somehow will earn a contract extension. How does this guy have a job?

  98. buzzlightner says: Sep 13, 2016 4:13 PM

    so i know its the browns. but the eagles defense showed enough to move up a bit more. nevermind the offense had no problem moving (against a bad defense). so what are they gunna get 2 spots up against another bad defense next week if they win? (even if the defense plays weel again). The eagles had something thru the first game they didnt have all last year. Wide recievers catching the ball.. and some where very tough catches.. some where easy placed in perfectly by a 1aa qb. stop hating.

  99. myopinionisrighterthanyours says: Sep 13, 2016 4:22 PM

    For those complaining about these rankings, there are worse ones out there (cough, Pete Prisco, cough).

  100. heeeeelzfan says: Sep 13, 2016 4:28 PM

    Colts fan here. Indy is rated too high.

  101. nhpats says: Sep 13, 2016 4:34 PM

    broncoscountry33 says:
    Sep 13, 2016 2:47 PM
    I’m a Broncos fan and no way we should be #1 with our qb situstion

    —————-
    The Broncos will be #1 until they lose…..they are the champs and that is as it should be.

  102. bluenose1965 says: Sep 13, 2016 5:16 PM

    Ha, ha NFL Power Rankings. Even the colleges figured out that rankings team before they have played, then tweaking the rankings based on that week’s results was a bad idea.

    Could it be that the Redskins (that’s their name) weren’t the #9 team in the league?

  103. gmen32 says: Sep 13, 2016 5:19 PM

    joetoronto says:
    Sep 13, 2016 1:00 PM
    Buffalo at 29 seems a few spots too high.

    ———————————————-

    Maybe Buffalo should be at 29.
    Perhaps they should be at 32.
    But you can’t argue this point.
    They WILL ALWAYS be ranked higher than the non football market known as Toronto!!!

  104. icon1blog says: Sep 13, 2016 5:34 PM

    Accepting power rankings are subjective, this KC fan has to say their game vs SD was as embarrassing an effort as I ‘ve seen in a long time. Dominated by Chargers on both sides the ball most of the game, a team already written off in 2016, how the Chiefs are ranked 9th and the Chargers 30th, boggles the mind.

    Nod another post, an inferiority complex applies to Patriots fans (some them) re: their team, QB, Coach. No such thing ‘greatest ever’ an player, team or object of debate other. Even were there consensus, would validate nothing. My opinion, are several who were better than any the NEr’s referenced.

    No final arbiter to decide, facts will have to do. Have yet see the Coach, team or QB good as Lombardi, GB or Starr, as an whole or singularly, the history books affirming. That ‘Superbowl’ did not exist prior ’67 doesn’t negate the fact the three entities won 5 Championships 7 years, obliterating anything Patriots, Brady & Belichick (or anyone else for that matter) ever did.

    Having followed pro football since the 1950’s/seen every one of them to date teams, players and coaches, convinces me today’s game and associated entities, pale in comparison.

  105. icebowler says: Sep 13, 2016 6:05 PM

    That Rodgers TD pass, just before halftime was very “Favreesque”.

  106. iamapatsfan says: Sep 13, 2016 6:34 PM

    icon1blog says:
    Sep 13, 2016 5:34 PM
    Accepting power rankings are subjective, this KC fan has to say their game vs SD was as embarrassing an effort as I ‘ve seen in a long time. Dominated by Chargers on both sides the ball most of the game, a team already written off in 2016, how the Chiefs are ranked 9th and the Chargers 30th, boggles the mind.

    Nod another post, an inferiority complex applies to Patriots fans (some them) re: their team, QB, Coach. No such thing ‘greatest ever’ an player, team or object of debate other. Even were there consensus, would validate nothing. My opinion, are several who were better than any the NEr’s referenced.

    No final arbiter to decide, facts will have to do. Have yet see the Coach, team or QB good as Lombardi, GB or Starr, as an whole or singularly, the history books affirming. That ‘Superbowl’ did not exist prior ’67 doesn’t negate the fact the three entities won 5 Championships 7 years, obliterating anything Patriots, Brady & Belichick (or anyone else for that matter) ever did.

    Having followed pro football since the 1950’s/seen every one of them to date teams, players and coaches, convinces me today’s game and associated entities, pale in comparison.

    ——-

    3 words…

    salary cap era.

    BB has been to 6 SBs and won 4 of them with one team in 15 years, all in a time where the league is built to explicitly make that impossible.

    Even after getting shanked by Goodell twice in order to try and bring them back into his “unparalleled era of parity”, he still manages to pull something like what happened in Arizona this weekend. You can say theyonly won because of a missed FG, but that misses the point that a SB contender lost to a team without half their starting offensive players.

    Plus, I think the nostalgia factor is huge. It’s the same reason that, even as a Pats fan, I still get leery about saying Brady is better than Montana. Even when you look at the disparity of playoff wins, CG and SB appearances.

    I wouldn’t surprised to see, 20 years after he retires, BB as the consensus best coach ever. Or maybe, mostly because of old-timer nostalgia, equal to Lombardi.

  107. usdcoyotesfan says: Sep 13, 2016 6:43 PM

    Ridiculous. The Packers should be ahead of the Cardinals and definitely ahead of the Seahawks who barely beat the Dolphins at home.

  108. lemmetalkwouldya says: Sep 13, 2016 7:00 PM

    Patriots at #2 ??????

    You do know that they played the Cardinals, a team many experts touted as a Super Bowl team?

    You do know that they played this awesome team away?

    You do know that they played the game without Tom Brady, or that his substitute was starting his very first game as a pro?

    You do know that they played without their star running back, both starting tackles, their defensive stud, and oh, their all-pro HOF tight end?

    And they still lead for 80% of the game.

    Now, tell me again what Denver did????

  109. contra74 says: Sep 13, 2016 7:06 PM

    whatjusthapped says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:34 PM
    I’m fine with where ever you put the Vikings, things will change after Week 2.
    —-
    You’re right. The Vikings might climb to the 7th spot.

  110. contra74 says: Sep 13, 2016 7:07 PM

    usdcoyotesfan says:
    Sep 13, 2016 6:43 PM
    Ridiculous. The Packers should be ahead of the Cardinals and definitely ahead of the Seahawks who barely beat the Dolphins at home.
    —–
    Remember now….no hot pockets for dinner until all your homework is done!

  111. pastabelly says: Sep 13, 2016 7:08 PM

    What would the Patriots rank be if the Cards, you know, could actually kick a field goal? Maybe it’s me, but I think the Steelers were the best team I saw in week #1. In any case, at this point of the season, I’d look more to top 10 and wonder why Houston is below Minnesota and say the rest of the top 10 is good, in a different order.

  112. beastmode5150 says: Sep 13, 2016 7:18 PM

    My favorite article on here. I love the people that think one win or loss determines how good or bad a team is. Year after year, same imbeciles.

  113. cboys4life2014 says: Sep 13, 2016 7:19 PM

    Steelers, Cowboys and 49er fans all love seeing Patriots fans call NE 4 time champions. It’s so tute.

  114. cboys4life2014 says: Sep 13, 2016 7:31 PM

    Cav2ya probably because Dallas lost to the Giants, Redskins lost to the Steelers…..I could go on but I think anybody who’s not you would get the point. And the Eagles beat….THE BROWNS. Do you get it now?

  115. Fred says: Sep 13, 2016 7:44 PM

    Hard week to do power rankings. Aside from the Rams, no one looked completely awful.

  116. pastabelly says: Sep 13, 2016 8:16 PM

    Does Bill Belichick care less about the story line or the power rankings?

  117. htown1035 says: Sep 13, 2016 8:33 PM

    Do the Pats fans realize that despite how well they played on the road against a SB contender that they still should have lost that game except for a botched FG?

    If you read these sites you would have thought they went in and blew out the Cards, when in fact they were lucky to escape.

  118. asparatame says: Sep 13, 2016 8:59 PM

    ctiggs says:
    Sep 13, 2016 12:27 PM
    Like Miley Cyrus said “its the climb”. Here we come #GoNiners #Nobodyhasitbetter #RamsstillhaventScored

    —————————————————————
    #It’sdisturbingyoucanquoteMiley
    #hastaggingeverythingisstupid

  119. icon1blog says: Sep 13, 2016 9:24 PM

    “salary cap era”

    – translation: watered down era… rosters today (53), nigh twice as plentiful before (33) back early 1960’s, still only 40 decade’s end. Too, many more teams (32) now than afore (24), 50 years ago.

    Part and parcel thereof… filler talent – hundreds more players now who aren’t the ‘creme de la creme’ as when limited teams / rosters reigned. Guys who wouldn’t even be able make a team then, assorted plumbers, carpenters, criminals, etc. , are today by necessity/default ‘pro football players’.

    ‘Subjective’ slant today or yesteryear yours, mine or whoever’s, a wash. When all the ‘yeah buts’ and era bias are stripped away, then & now, we are left with reality as stated afore: Lombardi, Packers, Starr remain peerless. Too, if allowing multiple teams sports get to post season (no team left behind) instead vintage method one each – the best – team each league (as 1960’s until near end that decade) sans all this modern post season round robin makes for anything but a compromised result, it is lost on me. The day is coming, all sports, when ‘every’ team will make post season, for reasons of pure economics/survival, resulting anti-climactic regular season, everyone gets to post. It isn’ too far away either, my opine.

    The next usual (BS) argument modern day proponents is – the players are better today, as rosters/team sizes. So it must then follow they’re bigger, stronger, faster & thus better etc., yadda yadda yadda. Said has never equated all/every game result, in practice. Beyond that, it is also totally subjective, otherwise, just throw rosters out on the playing venue & call the winner based on each team’s player specs. Fwiw, the bigger, stronger, faster team lost the first three Superbowl’s… so much for the three S’s (size, speed, strength)… experience & execution trumps em all.

    Of note, have yet to see a faster or bigger player ongoing than a 9.1 – 100 Bob Hayes or 6’9 350 give or take Ernie Ladd, 1960’s.
    ‘Yeah but the players in sports today are better than they were back then!’

    Are they?

    Then why haven’t they not only matched but indeed obliterated yesterday’s heroes/records? Despite medicinally addled players today, I see no one has yet to match/eclipse Wilt Chamberlain’s 70 (last check) NBA records. Ted Williams .406 and DiMaggio’s 56-game streak MLB remain beyond the capabilities of today’s mere mortals, comparison. Then and still NFL int record-holder Dick ‘Night Train’ Lane’s 14 ints – in fewer games than today’s bloated season schedules and pass-happy environment – holds. Could go on & on more examples every sport; aforementioned references speak volumes/nuff said.

    Every era has its advantages and disadvantages, but relativity must be considered. To wit, today’s player’s/each sport game’s be a product of rule-assisted & opportunity-enhanced $y$tem$ in each $port de$igned for one thing… cha cha ching.

  120. lioninnj says: Sep 13, 2016 10:00 PM

    So Calvin could have gotten 300 against the colts but he’s not a hall of famer right? What a joke.

  121. inozwetrust says: Sep 14, 2016 12:05 PM

    After a quick perusal of all of these comments I did not see the Ravens mentioned at all. As Florio said the Ravens are not on anyone’s radar screen – “just the way they like it”. Nice.

    Steelers did look awfully good though – yikes!!

  122. azwildcats96 says: Sep 16, 2016 11:25 AM

    icon1blog says:
    Sep 13, 2016 9:24 PM
    “salary cap era”
    Then why haven’t they not only matched but indeed obliterated yesterday’s heroes/records? Despite medicinally addled players today, I see no one has yet to match/eclipse Wilt Chamberlain’s 70 (last check) NBA records. Ted Williams .406 and DiMaggio’s 56-game streak MLB remain beyond the capabilities of today’s mere mortals, comparison. Then and still NFL int record-holder Dick ‘Night Train’ Lane’s 14 ints – in fewer games than today’s bloated season schedules and pass-happy environment – holds. Could go on & on more examples every sport; aforementioned references speak volumes/nuff said.
    ——————————————————————–
    You’re confusing individual achievements that include standard measurements: long jump distance, 100 meter dash times, etc. with accomplishments/records that are subjective to the era they were made and the competition they were made against. Not sure Ted Williams or Dimaggio would have the same success against today’s pitchers. Maybe they would but there is no way to definitively prove or disprove it. I would say that the athletic ability overall is easily much better than decades prior.

  123. alcottclan235 says: Sep 17, 2016 12:24 PM

    gofor2with3pointlead says:

    Sep 13, 2016 1:17 PM
    John Breech CBS sports
    “I learned a very important thing about the Patriots in Week 1, and that thing is that I’m pretty sure they could start a sock puppet at quarterback and Bill Belichick could still coach them to a win.”

    Oh how very true. No disrespect to NE fans or their assessment of their prettiest QB.
    ———————————————————————
    You just can’t help yourself can you? Let’s say Brady had a face like the back end of a Baboon. Would you like him then? Did he win 4 Superbowls because he’s a good looking guy? Granted, good looks helps you to marry a super model, but not win football games. Focus on your own team Jr. The Pats are going to win no matter how many losers talk smack about them.

  124. alcottclan235 says: Sep 17, 2016 12:31 PM

    htown1035 says:

    Sep 13, 2016 8:33 PM
    Do the Pats fans realize that despite how well they played on the road against a SB contender that they still should have lost that game except for a botched FG?

    If you read these sites you would have thought they went in and blew out the Cards, when in fact they were lucky to escape.
    ———————————————————————
    Au contraire! I don’t think you see many Pats fans saying anything about beating the Cards at home without half of their stars. We know we were lucky to get the win. We have had plenty of luck go against us however, and we don’t cry about it. As Bill Belichick says,”We’re on to the next game”. No crying in football either. Good to see the Pats live in your head too. Say hi to Roger while you’re in there.

  125. natelan says: Sep 19, 2016 1:51 PM

    #18 Jags fall to #30 Chargers… #4 Seahawks fall to #31 Rams… Great list, guys!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!