Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

13 Oct 2005

Dr. Z's Power Rankings: Colts Riding High

Paul Zimmerman has the Colts on the top, as you'd expect. Thanks to reader Vern for explaining how to link to the printer-friendly version, but I guess it doesn't really make any difference when SI.com makes the printer-friendly version two pages, too. SI.com, you're lucky you have Peter King and Dr. Z, because otherwise I'd never link to you as punishment for your annoying policy of spreading everything across multiple pages.

Posted by: Michael David Smith on 13 Oct 2005

13 comments, Last at 13 Oct 2005, 3:13pm by masocc

Comments

1
by MJK (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 11:59am

Damn, these are funny! I loved the jibe about forced listening to Sunday night ESPN broadcasts being too cruel...

2
by JonL (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:09pm

This made me think of something: how bad will the Texans end up? Historically bad, or will that honor go to the 49ers? And what do they do in the draft? Drafting highly touted offensive lineman obviously hasn't worked.

3
by princeton73 (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:17pm

any column that mentions Buckets Goldenberg is OK by me

4
by zlionsfan (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:17pm

Glad to see I'm not the only one who finds their little boost-the-page-hit-totals trick annoying ... and furthermore, you can't even e-mail SI about it, unless you can find the hidden "contact us" link. I couldn't.

I liked the discussion of the muffed punt. Too bad the obnoxious guy in the bar on Monday wouldn't understand it ... 10-20 minutes of "HE GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO CATCH IT!" The down side to watching games in public ...

5
by KSR (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:23pm

I think the Texans are making a serious run at the Matt Leinart sweepstakes. Bad as the 49ers are, they can win games, especially in the NFC West. Instead, I see Detroit giving Houston a run at the first overall pick. The real question is how much of the Texans ineffectiveness is Carr's v. the O-Line's fault. I suspect there's enough blame to go both ways. Additionally, are the Texans willing to cut their losses and invest yet another first overall pick on a QB? Should be interesting to see how this one shakes out. Detroit's also in a similar situation in that both the QB and recievers bear blame for ineffectiveness. Same for them, are they willing to give up on Harrington and make a bid for Leinart?

6
by zip (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:28pm

Re: #5

"I see Detroit giving Houston a run at the first overall pick. "

You realize that Detroit is leading its division, right?

Yes, Detroit is bad, but they play in the NFC North, and they already have 2 victories. I cannot imagine the chain of events that would have to transpire for Detroit to end up with the #1 pick, short of trading for it.

7
by DMP (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:33pm

MDS,
It has officially become open season on Joey Harrington (FINALLY, by the way). And yet somehow it is not so for David Carr. Now is the time for and Every Play Counts: Harrington vs. Carr. I'll be more than happy with EPC: Joey Bloey. The people are clamoring for it. Ok, I'M clamoring for it.

8
by Tarrant (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:41pm

If the rule is that, even if they touch it and it bounces off, no one else can touch the ball until he catches it, and furthermore, that if he has to take another step forward or two to make the "actual catch", that doesn't count as "advancing the ball"...

Why couldn't a player call fair catch, "accidentally" push the ball upward and forward 5 yards, run forward, do it again, and continue onward toward the end zone, with the opponents never being able to touch them because they haven't actually made a final catch of the ball?

Or, as someone suggested last weekend, hire a soccer player to learn how to do headers or footers or whatever on the football, and have them work it down the field to victory? If they mess up, then they can simply fall on the ball (and since the opposition cannot make a move to dive on it until it hits the ground, since then they wouldn't be giving a "fair chance" to catch, he'd almost always get it).

It really seems like this rule is ripe for abuse, and is a stupid rule. I'll grant that the referee may have applied it correctly, but if the punt is muffed, it should be live.

T.

9
by James, London (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 12:46pm

"On recounting the many failures in the 52-3 humiliation by the Pack, Jim Haslett mentioned, "dropped balls, poor coverage." Sounds like a medical problem."

Very Very Funny.

10
by Jerry Garcia (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 1:00pm

Seems like Tampa Bay is getting a lot of credit for, well, for something but I don't know what. They just got beaten by a 41 year old QB, and they gave up 2 touchdowns to an old, injured running back. & I thought defense was their strong suit (?) Well, maybe they're getting credit for what they might do someday - you know, like Shockey!

11
by mawbrew (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 1:33pm

Regarding the humor, I thought the comment about Cowher and the spit flying was pretty good (even if Z only reported it).

Re: 7

I agree Carr has been given more respect than Harrington. I attribute that to a couple of things

-Higher expectations in Detroit

-A general perception that Detroit has superior (to Houston) personell otherwise.

Re: 6

I generally agree that Detroit is unlikely to perform that poorly the rest of the year. OTOH, I think there is a slight chance (based only on what's been reported about internal dissent) that they could have a meltdown and just pack it in.

12
by Bill Krasker (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 1:37pm

#8,

According to the Note to Rule 3-1-5, "Any ball intentionally muffed forward is a bat, and may be a foul." In other words, an intentional "muff" isn't a muff at all.

13
by masocc (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 3:13pm

Re: #12

That sound you've just heard was the groan of millions of hackey sack players at liberal arts colleges across America, as their dreams of freeloading are once again restricted to a 5-6 year maximum. (They'd forgotten about the mandatory drug testing, of course).