Peter King's preseason rankings

[Greg C.]

Here are Peter King's preseason rankings of NFL teams. Obviously they don't mean much at this point, and he knows it, but he has some interesting comments.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/02/rankings/index.html

I'm okay with the Packers being #8. That means he expects them to be in the mix at the end of the season. It is a little irritating to have the Vikings ranked at #7, though.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Here are Peter King's preseason rankings of NFL teams. Obviously they don't mean much at this point, and he knows it, but he has some interesting comments.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/02/rankings/index.html

I'm okay with the Packers being #8. That means he expects them to be in the mix at the end of the season. It is a little irritating to have the Vikings ranked at #7, though.

Yeah, I'm ok with us at 8. Let them think that way.

The thing is, the Giants get no respect. Their D almost completely shuts down the best O in the history of the NFL and #6? Wow. Sure, they'll probably lose Strahan but let's not forget their coach outcoached both Belichick and MM in the Playoffs, and they shut up TO.

 

[Packnic]

thats all sound reasoning for every single pick i think.

 

[Bertram]

lol

that's all I have to say.

Who is the Vikings going to beat with Tarvaris Jackson and John Booty at QB?

lol

Well I don't care if we're ranked 8th, we'll still go to the championship game and win this time.

 

[warhawk]

thats all sound reasoning for every single pick i think.

I don't like Minny above us. Their QB play will have to get a whole lot better than it has been for them to move up to eight. The only way we finish worse than the Vikes is if OUR QB doesn't play up to a standard we need him to.

They have a good interior DL and an All Pro DE. So do we.

I don't think Jackson has had one half yet after two years as good as the one half that AR was given a chance to go in and do something.

 

[porky88]

I thought what he said about the Packers is spot on.

 

[°Jacob°]

I cant believe he put the vikes ahead of the packers when he said that the packers even getting at the rank their at is by assuming that Arod will do as good as he did for that half of the dallas game and grant is still good,

Arod got a 100+ QB rating that game,,,

if he gets 100 more or less rating every game i would have to say the pack will go 13-3 again...

 

[Greg C.]

I cant believe he put the vikes ahead of the packers when he said that the packers even getting at the rank their at is by assuming that Arod will do as good as he did for that half of the dallas game and grant is still good,

Arod got a 100+ QB rating that game,,,

if he gets 100 more or less rating every game i would have to say the pack will go 13-3 again...

He was not predicting that Rodgers would get a 100+ QB rating for every single game. Just that Rodgers would play well this year.

 

[NodakPaul]

< grin >

Hmmm, I honestly think that the Packer and the Vikings are pretty evenly matched this year. For all the advantage that the Pack has on offense, the Vikings have as much advantage on defense. And that is assuming that Rodgers lives up to expectations.

Personally it doesn't matter to me who is at #7 and #8, you could flip them around for all I care. And I think it is a fair assessment.

 

[Zombieslayer]

< grin >

Hmmm, I honestly think that the Packer and the Vikings are pretty evenly matched this year. For all the advantage that the Pack has on offense, the Vikings have as much advantage on defense. And that is assuming that Rodgers lives up to expectations.

Personally it doesn't matter to me who is at #7 and #8, you could flip them around for all I care. And I think it is a fair assessment.

Our O (in terms of points scored) was #4 and our D was #6. Your O was #16 and your D was #12. A big part of our O of course was because Brett Favre was MVP runner up, and a big weakness in your O was your coach's lack of foresight. He didn't gameplan very well.

Your D however is on the rise, and I expect it to be a pretty solid D next year, definitely in the top 10. I think the Vikings will give us a good run. However, I don't have much confidence in your coaching, whereas I think MM is a top 5 coach.

How this all translates to wins and losses is anyone's guess. I'm guessing we win 10, you win 8 or 9.

 

[longtimefan]

thats all sound reasoning for every single pick i think.

I don't like Minny above us. Their QB play will have to get a whole lot better than it has been for them to move up to eight. The only way we finish worse than the Vikes is if OUR QB doesn't play up to a standard we need him to.

They have a good interior DL and an All Pro DE. So do we.

I don't think Jackson has had one half yet after two years as good as the one half that AR was given a chance to go in and do something.

Wonder if Peter said the Viks have a q/b that actually played lot of the season where as the Packers didn't..

I bet he thought something like that and based his rankings on that..

 

[NodakPaul]

thats all sound reasoning for every single pick i think.

I don't like Minny above us. Their QB play will have to get a whole lot better than it has been for them to move up to eight. The only way we finish worse than the Vikes is if OUR QB doesn't play up to a standard we need him to.

They have a good interior DL and an All Pro DE. So do we.

I don't think Jackson has had one half yet after two years as good as the one half that AR was given a chance to go in and do something.

Wonder if Peter said the Viks have a q/b that actually played lot of the season where as the Packers didn't..

I bet he thought something like that and based his rankings on that..

Nope, he didn't say anything like that.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/02/rankings/1.html

7. Minnesota. I can hear you all out there saying, "Too soon." Well, here's my question: What year in recent NFL history hasn't a Green Bay (2007), New Orleans (2006), Chicago (2005) or Pittsburgh (2004) jumped from nowheresville to Super-Bowl contention?

The Vikings do have a totally unproven passing game, but they still outscored Philly, Washington and Denver last year with the best running game in the league for about half the season. Minnesota had the biggest (by far) edge in average rushing margin per team last year, rushing for 5.3 yards a tote while surrendering 3.1 yards per carry. And though I don't love the Jared Allen signing for the long haul (too dangerous), I love it for 2008. Allen's quickness on the turf of the Metrodome ... scary. Maybe 20-sack scary.

8. Green Bay. This pick is predicated on two assumptions: That Aaron Rodgers is almost as good for 16 weeks as he was for one half in Dallas last November and that Ryan Grant's last eight weeks of 2007 are no mirage. If Rodgers can play and Grant can stay upright for 16 weeks, this is an 11-win team, or better.

 

[NodakPaul]

Our O (in terms of points scored) was #4 and our D was #6. Your O was #16 and your D was #12. A big part of our O of course was because Brett Favre was MVP runner up, and a big weakness in your O was your coach's lack of foresight. He didn't gameplan very well.

Your D however is on the rise, and I expect it to be a pretty solid D next year, definitely in the top 10. I think the Vikings will give us a good run. However, I don't have much confidence in your coaching, whereas I think MM is a top 5 coach.

How this all translates to wins and losses is anyone's guess. I'm guessing we win 10, you win 8 or 9.

Here is the way I look at it. The biggest question mark on either team is the QB position. Rodgers simply hasn't played enough in the NFL to make an accurate prediction on how he will do. And TJack, unfortunately, has. :wink:

But where as the Packers definately downgraded in overall talent with the loss of Fav-re, the Vikings upgraded with the additions of Berrian, Allen, and Williams.

So while the Packers are looking to prove that they can continue to win without one of the best QBs to play the game, the Vikings have already proven that they already can despite our QB... Factor in the Vikings upgrades - especially at defense, and I stand by my prior statement that both teams are strikingly similar in strength.

 

[Zombieslayer]

Here is the way I look at it. The biggest question mark on either team is the QB position. Rodgers simply hasn't played enough in the NFL to make an accurate prediction on how he will do. And TJack, unfortunately, has. :wink:

But where as the Packers definately downgraded in overall talent with the loss of Fav-re, the Vikings upgraded with the additions of Berrian, Allen, and Williams.

So while the Packers are looking to prove that they can continue to win without one of the best QBs to play the game, the Vikings have already proven that they already can despite our QB... Factor in the Vikings upgrades - especially at defense, and I stand by my prior statement that both teams are strikingly similar in strength.

ONE of the best? Ouch!

And 10 wins vs 8 or 9, that's pretty close. I think the division may come down to the final game.

Allen & Williams a definite upgrade. Berrian an upgrade? No.