Team Rankings by ESPN - SI and others

[BurgundyandGoldfaith]

ESPN puts Redskins 19th


The army of NFL correspondents at ESPN put together their first power rankings of the offseason (link here) and the group wasn't kind to the Redskins.

The Redskins are ranked last in the NFC East, 11th in the conference and 19th overall.

The New York Giants are third, Philadelphia fourth and Dallas, amazingly, is 13th.

Not that I have the20Redskins winning the division or anything, but they should be ranked higher than 19th and I would certainly put them ahead of the Cowboys at this point.

Directly ahead of the Redskins are Houston, Green Bay and New Orleans. The Texans have never made the postseason, Green Bay is revamping its defense from a 4-3 to the 3-4 and New Orleans is a one-dimensional offensive team that has a new defensive coordinator.

That bumps the Redskins up to 16th.

The next four teams (Nos. 12-15) have warts. Chicago has Jay Cutler but nobody for him to throw to; Dallas is pinning its big-play hopes on Roy Williams; Minnesota0s starting quarterback is still Tarvaris Jackson; Miami is a legitimately strong team.

I'd have the Redskins somewhere in the No. 13-16 area.

Other thoughts on the rankings:

* As if we didn't know it already, the NFC figures to be wide open. The Giants are the top-ranked team (third) but they still have to figure out who replaces Plaxico Burress.

* Pittsburgh is No. 1 and New England No. 2. I'd flip flop those two teams.

* Philadelphia (fourth) and San Diego (seventh) are ranked too high.

* Of the bottom eight teams, the Redskins play six of the clubs.

* Based on the rankings, the NFC playoff teams are the Giants, Philadelphia, Arizona, Carolina, Atlanta and Chicago. The AFC playoff teams are Pittsburgh, New England, Indianapolis, Baltimore, San Diego and Tennessee.

- Ryan O'Halloran

[Chris Luva Luva]

The Redskins finished the season at 2-6, they're lucky to be where they are. LOL

[1niksder]

Those are the rankings for THIS season, not really using a lot of data from last year other than personnel changes. These rankings are compiled using mostly data from THIS season. Considering THIS seasons mini-camps haven't even started they should call this list power guessing

[SkinsJock]

It's still not even June and many teams are just starting OTA's - this is just a fun guessing game and who can really tell how well the off-season additions will help the teams

we just had the 13th pick in the draft and that puts us at 19th


pure speculation - I'm not sure we will be as bad as we looked at the end of last year but I am fairly confident that we'll most likely be better than 19th

[VetSkinsFan]

I wouldn't even call Miami a strong team until we see how a whole year of tape on their offense sits.

[yupchagee]

These rankings are nothing but POOMA's

[The Hogster]

We can't blame ESPN this year. We are just about as close to average as it gets based on last year, which is all they have to go on. The problem last year was offense, and Haynesworth don't play that! lol...lets prove them wrong.

[ArlingtonSkinsFan]

ESPN puts Redskins 19th


The army of NFL correspondents at ESPN put together their first power rankings of the offseason (link here) and the group wasn't kind to the Redskins.

The Redskins are ranked last in the NFC East, 11th in the conference and 19th overall.

The New York Giants are third, Philadelphia fourth and Dallas, amazingly, is 13th.

Not that I have the20Redskins winning the division or anything, but they should be ranked higher than 19th and I would certainly put them ahead of the Cowboys at this point.

Directly ahead of the Redskins are Houston, Green Bay and New Orleans. The Texans have never made the postseason, Green Bay is revamping its defense from a 4-3 to the 3-4 and New Orleans is a one-dimensional offensive team that has a new defensive coordinator.

That bumps the Redskins up to 16th.

The next four teams (Nos. 12-15) have warts. Chicago has Jay Cutler but nobody for him to throw to; Dallas is pinning its big-play hopes on Roy Williams; Minnesota0s starting quarterback is still Tarvaris Jackson; Miami is a legitimately strong team.

I'd have the Redskins somewhere in the No. 13-16 area.

Other thoughts on the rankings:

* As if we didn't know it already, the NFC figures to be wide open. The Giants are the top-ranked team (third) but they still have to figure out who replaces Plaxico Burress.

* Pittsburgh is No. 1 and New England No. 2. I'd flip flop those two teams.

* Philadelphia (fourth) and San Diego (seventh) are ranked too high.

* Of the bottom eight teams, the Redskins play six of the clubs.

* Based on the rankings, the NFC playoff teams are the Giants, Philadelphia, Arizona, Carolina, Atlanta and Chicago. The AFC playoff teams are Pittsburgh, New England, Indianapolis, Baltimore, San Diego and Tennessee.

- Ryan O'Halloran

Green Bay, New Orleans and Houston are ranked ahead of the Redskins for one very obvious reason: Good, Consistent Quarterbacks (when Schaub is healthy)

[1niksder]

Power rankings: Who dissed your team?



Posted by ESPN.com's Matt Mosley

First of all, let's hear a round of applause for ESPN.com's Sheldon Spencer and Mike Sando for taming the monster that is NFL Power Rankings: May 2009 edition. Each week during the season, Sando and blog editor Brett Longdin put together colorful charts to explain how we came up with the power rankings. Sando's efforts have brought a lot more transparency to the process. And it makes it much easier for you guys to channel your anger to the appropriate e-mail addresses.

Here is Sando's exclusive "How the voters voted" blog entry. You'll discover that NFC East teams ranked 10th on average in the rankings, which was best for any division. The AFC East was second with a 13.9 ranking and the AFC West came in dead last with a 22.6.

Hall of Famer Len Pasquarelli joined me (non-HOF) in ranking the Giants No. 2 overall in the rankings. We were the only panelists who had them that high. AFC East blogger Tim Graham and John Clayton were the only voters who had them out of the top five (sixth place).

I had the Eagles fourth overall, but ESPN.com columnist and E60 contributor Jeff Chadiha has them at No. 2. Sando and Pasquarelli had the Eagles at No. 8.

As always, the Cowboys were one of the most polarizing teams in the field. I had them at No. 11, but Pat Yasinskas had them at No. 3. Seriously. John Clayton has the Cowboys ranked at No. 22. And yes, that's the biggest gap (19 spots) in the voting. If anyone's interested, I'm happy to call up Clayton and ask for an explanation. The Cowboys ended up in the No. 13 spot.

The Redskins were also a team that voters disagreed on in a big way. Clayton checked in with the highest ranking at No. 12. But Clayton's Seattle neighbor Sando had the Redskins 24th. I'm happy to help you guys get in touch with Sando. Do you need his office or cell? Anyway, I had the Redskins 17th. I think they could be much better than that, but I don't trust them after last season's collapse. I'm dropping by Ashburn, Va., soon to see them, so maybe I'll change my mind.

Overall, a pretty strong showing top to bottom by the NFC East. OK, I have to go watch the Cowboys practice now. I'll check back with you guys in a few hours.

This link from Sando has a lot of bells and whistles. Perfect for the post-Memorial Day blues.

[VetSkinsFan]

Looked like a load of guessing to me.

[langleyparkjoe]

We can't blame ESPN this year. We are just about as close to average as it gets based on last year, which is all they have to go on. The problem last year was offense, and Haynesworth don't play that! lol...lets prove them wrong.

True dat

[Redskin in Canada]

The Redskins were also a team that voters disagreed on in a big way. Clayton checked in with the highest ranking at No. 12. But Clayton's Seattle neighbor Sando had the Redskins 24th. I'm happy to help you guys get in touch with Sando. Do you need his office or cell? Anyway, I had the Redskins 17th. I think they could be much better than that, but I don't trust them after last season's collapse. I'm dropping by Ashburn, Va., soon to see them, so maybe I'll change my mind.

There is A LOT of guesswork at stajke here. Granted But ... if the season goes well, 12th is realistic. If it goes to the dogs, 24th is realistic too. The RANGE from 12th at best to 24 in the worst scenario looks realistic to me even if there are 12 spots in between them.

The play of Jason, and the offense in general, and injuries in some key positions shall play key roles to determine the tru ranking of the Skins.

I agree that the Skins look, not the weakest, but the least strong in the NFC East. It is the strongest conference in the NFL and although our defense is as good or better than some of the other three opponents, our offense remains the least strong in the conference.

OL and WRs are question marks.

[Deadskins]

As always, the Cowboys were one of the most polarizing teams in the field. I had them at No. 11, but Pat Yasinskas had them at No. 3. Seriously. John Clayton has the Cowboys ranked at No. 22. And yes, that's the biggest gap (19 spots) in the voting. If anyone's interested, I'm happy to call up Clayton and ask for an explanation.

Seems to me, Yasinskas is the one needing to provide a explanation. The Pies at #3?

The Redskins were also a team that voters disagreed on in a big way. Clayton checked in with the highest ranking at No. 12. But Clayton's Seattle neighbor Sando had the Redskins 24th. I'm happy to help you guys get in touch with Sando. Do you need his office or cell? Anyway, I had the Redskins 17th. I think they could be much better than that, but I don't trust them after last season's collapse. I'm dropping by Ashburn, Va., soon to see them, so maybe I'll change my mind.

Sounds like Clayton is onto something.

[SkinsJock]

The Redskins were also a team that voters disagreed on in a big way. Clayton checked in with the highest ranking at No. 12. But Clayton's Seattle neighbor Sando had the Redskins 24th. I'm happy to help you guys get in touch with Sando. Do you need his office or cell? Anyway, I had the Redskins 17th. I think they could be much better than that, but I don't trust them after last season's collapse. I'm dropping by Ashburn, Va., soon to see them, so maybe I'll change my mind.

There is A LOT of guesswork at stake here. But ... if the season goes well, 12th is realistic. If it goes to the dogs, 24th is realistic too.
The RANGE from 12th at best to 24 in the worst scenario looks realistic to me even if there are 12 spots in between them.

The play of Jason, and the offense in general, and injuries in some key positions shall play key roles to determine the true ranking of the Skins.

I agree that the Skins look, not the weakest, but the least strong in the NFC East. It is the strongest conference in the NFL and although our defense is as good or better than some of the other three opponents, our offense remains the least strong in the conference.

OL and WRs are question marks.

agreed RiC - my biggest concern is that we are hoping for so many things to go right and be better:-
Cambell will be a lot better
Zorn will be better
The offensive line will not play like they are too old which they did last year and they are a year older
Someone can be a good #1 WR so Moss can be the #2 WR (which is what he is)
Haynesworth will not be injury prone & will be able to play at full strength for 16 games
We will have a good punter
We will have a good kicker (both field goals and kickoffs)
We will find a good returner

I agree that we are in a difficult division but we are not far behind the other teams as long as everything goes right for us - the other NFC East teams have issues too, just not as many

[VetSkinsFan]

You never know what you're getting until you get in to it. We don't know that Haynesworth is going to get it done. We don't know that he won't.

It's all speculation at this point. And if some of us choose to be positive while others choose to be negative, then so be it. RiC or brad is no more wrong or right than I am at this point and there's no proof otherwise.

[SkinsJock]

Nobody knows at this time who will be playing if at all for any team in the NFL let alone in the NFC East. I should point out that just like each off-season we are in first place again.

Some can say that those who do not think we have a good chance to win the NFC East are "negative" and others understand it is just not possible to predict anything at all at this stage of the year. I am just pointing out that while all the NFC East teams have issues we seem to have a few more and while those other teams only have to hope that a few things go right we have a lot of dreams riding on hopes and prayers - that is not negative that's just reality

I hope we can be a successful franchise again - it will happen but history has shown us that might be a long time coming with these bozos running things. You can label that any way you like.

I will be hoping and praying for a miracle each week and I will be very disapointed again come January.

But then we'll have another off-season trophy to contend for - one of these days someone will give it a name. I might lobby for the "Daniel Snyder Trophy"

[Chris Luva Luva]

How is it that we're pretty consistent with being 3rd or 4th best team in the division each year, yet it's "negative" to predict we'll be in that same position for the upcoming year? I mean, it's negative when you predict it and you're called negative when it actually happens.

I don't know where we'll be, honestly I don't care at the moment...but I find it funny when people get bent out of shape that we're not ranked in the top 10 based off of hope and a prayer.

[SkinsJock]

I must say that I really do not pay that much attention to rankings at all (even during the season) and they are especially meaningless at this time of year.

I'm more interested in how I feel about my team than what a talking head or media type thinks about it. At this time of year I'm just hoping that all of our players have a healthy and productive off season training and learning deal going.

[Redskin in Canada]

RiC or brad is no more wrong or right than I am at this point and there's no proof otherwise.

Hoping for the best does not improve the chances of the Team. It only raises expectations. If those expectations have a solid foundation, such as a track record, I would feel less disappointed if a losing or mediocre season were an anomaly.

Unfortunately, I truly do not recall off hand the last year when we last won the NFC East. I am sure that if I look it up I would say Of course! But it is getting so old to live out of past glories that it is more realistic to create REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS so that my disappointment is not as big as it has been at times in the past.

Joko is right. Too many things MUST go right for this team to get at 12th or even better ranking. Statistics are not on our side about most things going perfect or vey well, including the number of games that Haynesworth has actually played uninjured over the last seasons.

So, while like all others I will be delighted to have my expectations raised during the first half of the season, I will reserve judgment until the last part of it, when we often show our age and lack of depth in several key positions.

[VetSkinsFan]

How is it that we're pretty consistent with being 3rd or 4th best team in the division each year, yet it's "negative" to predict we'll be in that same position for the upcoming year? I mean, it's negative when you predict it and you're called negative when it actually happens.

I don't know where we'll be, honestly I don't care at the moment...but I find it funny when people get bent out of shape that we're not ranked in the top 10 based off of hope and a prayer.

I'd bet my next paycheck that the Giants won't be top 3. The implosion without Burress, a real proven #1 receiver, was illustrated after the moron shot himself. I don't have a problem with our rankings so much as the way these idiots rank the teams above us.

[Deadskins]

Unfortunately, I truly do not recall off hand the last year when we last won the NFC East.

It's been a decade, but I still remember it well. Turk's bad snap cost us a trip to the NFC Championship game.

[El Mexican]

The "experts" at ESPN played it safe: 19 out of 32 teams, mid-pack. It correlates to the Vegas odds that have the Redskins at 8-8.

With this team, as we have seen every year for the last decade, it's an enigma.

[1niksder]

Check out how SI ranked the backfields

They have the Jets with a rookie QB and unhappy RB, Denver with Kyle Orton, a rookie RB and rookie HC, and The Bucs and Vikings although they don't know who will be the QB ranked higher than CP and JC

26. Washington Redskins
Who: QB Jason Campbell; RB Clinton Portis

Add/subtract: OL Derrick Dockery and Mike Williams give depth and experience up front but the hope has to be that adding help on defense will translate somehow into positives for the offense.

Questionable: Campbell's ego. It's one thing that his team didn't think he was as good as Jay Cutler, but when the Broncos didn't think Campbell was as good as Kyle Orton ...

The Thought: Campbell isn't as good as either of those two. And Portis is going into his eighth season. That's too much heavy lifting for high-volume legs.

[1niksder]

LaRon Landry is the 16th ranked Safety, DeAngelo Hall is #8 among Corners according to The Sporting News

Albert Haynesworth is still the top DT even though he's a Redskin, ey is ranked 8th and Chris Samuels ranked 10th

[Deadskins]

LaRon Landry is the 16th ranked Safety, DeAngelo Hall is #8 among Corners according to The Sporting News

Albert Haynesworth is still the top DT even though he's a Redskin, ey is ranked 8th and Chris Samuels ranked 10th

Kellen Winslow Jr. at #4 is a joke. Give me ey anyday.