One NY POLL I AGREE WITH

[RaiderBlitz]

The New York Times N.F.L. Computer Ranking
!

Based on games through Dec. 30.

T

he New York Times's computer football ranking is based on an analysis of each team's scores with emphasis on three factors: who won, by what margin and against what quality of opposition. The quality of an opponent is determined by examining the opponent's record against other teams.

The Times's computer model collapses runaway scores and takes note of a home-field advantage. Recent games count more than earlier games.

The top team is assigned a rating of 1.000; the ratings of all other teams are percentages reflecting their strength relative to the top team. This week, for example, there is a fairly large difference between Oakland (No. 1) and Philadelphia (2), while there is a smaller difference between Philadelphia (2) and Tennessee (3).

OPPONENTS'
PERFORMANCES
Rank Team Previous
Rank Record Average
Scoring
Margin Rating Record Average
Scoring
Margin
[b:57cd84da74]1 Oakland Raiders 3 11-5-0 9.1 1.000 105-86-1 1.2[/b:57cd84da74]
2 Philadelphia Eagles 1 12-4-0 10.9 0.971 94-98-1 -0.8
3 Tennessee Titans 2 11-5-0 2.7 0.963 97-94-1 0.2
4 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 4 12-4-0 9.4 0.945 93-97-2 -0.1
5 Pittsburgh Steelers 6 10-5-1 2.8 0.870 101-91-1 1.2
6 New York Giants 8 10-6-0 2.6 0.854 93-98-1 -0.9
[b:57cd84da74]7 New York Jets 12 9-7-0 1.4 0.837 95-97-0 0.8[/b:57cd84da74]
8 Green Bay Packers 5 12-4-0 4.4 0.799 98-93-1 0.5
9 Atlanta Falcons 7 9-6-1 5.5 0.782 92-100-0 -0.6
10 Cleveland Browns 14 9-7-0 1.5 0.773 97-93-2 0.7
11 Indianapolis Colts 13 10-6-0 2.3 0.770 95-96-1 -0.1
12 New England Patriots 16 9-7-0 2.2 0.742 101-90-1 1.1
13 Denver Broncos 17 9-7-0 3 0.735 101-91-1 0.7
14 Miami Dolphins 11 9-7-0 4.8 0.724 97-95-0 0.6
15 Kansas City Chiefs 9 8-8-0 4.3 0.719 99-93-0 0.9
16 San Francisco 49ers 10 10-6-0 1 0.694 104-88-0 0.9
17 Seattle Seahawks 18 7-9-0 -0.9 0.683 98-93-1 0.5
18 New Orleans Saints 15 9-7-0 2.8 0.637 91-99-2 -0.9
19 Buffalo Bills 23 8-8-0 -1.1 0.632 86-106-2 -1
20 Washington Redskins 20 7-9-0 -3.6 0.618 99-93-0 0.6
21 Minnesota Vikings 22 6-10-0 -3.3 0.605 98-93-1 0.8
22 Baltimore Ravens 19 7-9-0 -2.4 0.591 98-92-2 0.9
23 St. Louis Rams 25 7-9-0 -3.3 0.588 99-93-0 0.6
24 Carolina Panthers 24 7-9-0 -2.8 0.579 84-106-2 -2.1
25 Jacksonville Jaguars 21 6-10-0 0.8 0.557 94-97-1 -0.3
26 San Diego Chargers 26 8-8-0 -2.1 0.478 90-102-0 -0.9
28 Chicago Bears 27 4-12-0 -6.1 0.371 100-91-1 1.3
28 Houston Texans 29 4-12-0 -8.9 0.371 93-98-1 -1.1
29 Dallas Cowboys 28 5-11-0 -7 0.367 88-104-0 -2.1
30 Cincinnati Bengals 32 2-14-0 -11.1 0.299 96-94-2 -0.1
31 Arizona Cardinals 31 5-11-0 -9.7 0.283 93-99-0 -0.6
32 Detroit Lions 32 3-13-0 -9.1 0.234 91-100-1 -0.7

[Tony]

It's too bad that championships aren't handed out according to newpaper polls, because that's the only way you'd get one this year.

Enjoy your last game of the season this Sunday.

[daraydaz]

Thank's for the insight Tony, now go get me that Sicilian Pie I ordered.

[85inthehall]

in college ball Miami was the runaway #1 team inth coutry with nothing to worry about against a 13 point dog from ohio...what happened? games are played on the field not in the papers.
JP

[Raiderrooter]

I don't put much into polls. But I do think that bing in the top tier in most catogories give a team an edge. #1 offense, #3 against the run are things a team has worked on and achieved which makes a team harder to beat. Riaders in the last 8 weeks have faced all the top runners in the league and have held them in check for the most part. I see more of the same this Sunday and I think Chad (I can't do no wrong) Pennington will force some balls into coverage and get picked a few times.

[ShadeTree#55]

"We're old," Kennedy, the Raiders' mammoth offensive tackle, says. "Go on, say the word. We're old. Old. We got a lot of old players around here. A lot of old guys. It's all right to say it. O-l-d. That's us."

[crizpynutz]

And your point? Didn't John Elway not win a Superbowl until his late 30's? How about Walter Payton? Old is only a bad thing if the player can't play. Rod Woodson, Rich Gannon, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown and Bill Romonowski have proved they can still play as 3 of them are going to the Pro Bowl and not just because of their names, but for their production on the field.

[ShadeTree#55]

Your boy said it not me..

[crizpynutz]

No kidding, and his point was the same. Who cares of some of the guys on the team are OLD. They are great players. Not just in the past but right now.

[daraydaz]

There's no substitute for experience and as long as these guys are productive it's a moot point. I'm tired of hearing we're old, our supposed cap woes et al et al.

[Raider34]

No kidding, can't they come up with something more original.

[the Vinman]

You want original? How about old and ugly?

[javdog2001]

[quote:cf5afd235e="the Vinman"]You want original? How about old and ugly?[/quote:cf5afd235e]


??? I don't think you'll score high with Raiders or Jets fans with that one.