Sir **CENSORED**-Alot Florio ranks Bucs 17th

[Vatican_Assassin]

What a joke this guy is and his hard on for always hating on the Bucs. He even has the Raiders ahead of the Bucs. Here are all the teams he has ranked ahead. Also, look at the smart azz remark he puts on line 7.  


1.  New England Patriots (No. 3; 6-1):  As if being the only 6-1 team in the league weren't enough, coach Bill Belichick gets bonus points for pulling off the ultimate con on the Vikings.  

2.  Baltimore Ravens (No. 7; 5-2):  The return of Donte' Stallworth could open up the offense; landing a focused and ticked off Randy Moss could blow it open.

3.  Indianapolis Colts (No. 5; 5-2):  A UFL team with Peyton Manning at quarterback would qualify for the NFL playoffs.

4.  New York Giants (No. 6; 5-2):  For Giants fans, the next best thing to a win is a loss by the Jets.  

5.  New York Jets (No.1; 5-2):  Steve Weatherford used to wear a watch during games.  He'd be better off with a tape measure.  

6.  Pittsburgh Steelers (No. 2; 5-2):  The NFL can schedule the Steelers against the World Series every year without ever having to worry about Pittsburgh's baseball team drawing eyeballs away from the football game.    

7.  Atlanta Falcons (No. 9; 5-2):  Don't laugh, but the NFC's best game of the week involves the Falcons hosting the Buccaneers.  

8.  Kansas City Chiefs (No. 10; 5-2):  Don't laugh, but the AFC's best game of the week involves the Chiefs visiting the Raiders.  

9.  Green Bay Packers (No. 12; 5-3):  It took eight weeks, but the Packers finally look like a team that could make it to the Super Bowl.  

10.  New Orleans Saints (No. 11; 5-3):  The schedule goes soft, just in the nick of time.  

11.  Oakland Raiders (No. 24; 4-4):  With 92 points in two games, the Raiders could have a shot at beating the Golden State Warriors.  

12.  Tennessee Titans (No. 4; 5-3):  It's a better first half than many expected the Titans to have, but it's not good enough to be competitive with the best of the best in the AFC.  

13.  Philadelphia Eagles (No. 14; 4-3):  The Eagles know a thing or two about Donovan McNabb lacking "cardiovascular endurance" to run the two-minute offense.  

14.  Miami Dolphins (No. 15; 4-3):  If this team figures out how to win games at home, they'll be more dangerous than Randy Moss with a Mr. Microphone.      

15.  Seattle Seahawks (No. 13; 4-3):  They should change their name from the Seahawks to the Sybils.  

16.  Houston Texans (No. 9; 4-3):  It's one thing to lose valiantly to the Colts.  It's quite another to just get blown off the field.  (And if you think it was as close as the final score suggested, you didn't watch the game.)      

17.  Tampa Bay Buccaneers (No. 18; 5-2):  Sorry, but beating a bad Cardinals team doesn't justify a big jump.

[jerseybucsfan]

Put it in the hands of one or two people and it becomes too personal, too biased.
SI, King puts us tied for 15th. That too is a joke.
ESPN.COM, which is four guys has us 14th.
ESPN also runs a national fan ranking. Last check, over 6,000 national voters put us 12th (I put us 10th).
I think anywhere around 13 or 14 is about right. 15 is too low and 17th for a team tied for the best record in the conference is absurd.

[BucBalla85]

If we beat atl this week we will jump significantly. We would be in the driver seat as far as a playoff spot.

[CyberDilemma]

The funniest part is he has the Raiders ranked 11th. Absolutely no other site has the Raiders ranked above the Bucs.

[tatmanfish]

the raiders being in thi top 15 is all i need to know to dismiss this. Really, mentioning Florio was all I needed and the Raiders ranking just confirmed it. lol

[buccanoles]

Still wondering (again) if he is selling that turd polish stuff?

[jerseybucsfan]

Raiders beat up a lousy Denver team and so-so Seattle team, scoring 92 points.
If we score enough, they say our D isn't good enough. Go to low-scoring games and they say we don't score enough.
They work it any way they want to justify us being lower. Whatever.

[nmkinley]

I don't pay much attention to power rankings, but from what I see, anywhere in the mid-teens would be about right.  Just looking at that list above, I'd say we beat SEA and maybe HOU, but others?  We don't match up well against OAK, as they'd likely run for 300 yds against us.  

These are all just opinions anyways.  If we start beating the teams above us, then we'll move up.  But at this point, I don't see them ranking anyone we've beaten ahead of us, so nothing obviously unfair there.

[bucinnj]

Only ranking that truly matters is in February and clearly we're not yet ready for that conversation.

[John Galt?]

The Raiders being ranked high doesn't bother me because they have been playing lights out the last few weeks.

What I see as craptastic is having the Phins, and pathetic Seahawks ranked over us.


John Galt?'s far more observant power rankings:

1. Pittsburgh- I don't care that the lost to the Saints in New Orleans on Halloween. They are still the best all around team in football.

2. New England- of course they are good, they get 12 draft picks every single year.

3. Baltimore-Flacco wins games,Defense wins championships

4. NY Giants- The REAL best team in the NFC

5. Indy- Manning, nuff said

6. NY Jets-good D but inconsistent QB and injury plagues secondary

7. Atlanta- a good QB+good running game+good D+a top flight WR=a damn good team

8. Tennessee- Chris Johnson + a stout D= top 10 team. If they can keep their QB healthy, they are a playoff team.

9. KC- vet QB, D, and a good OL

10. GB- if not for the carnage at RB, they'd have 1-2 more wins.

11. New Orleans- the hang over is starting to wear off and Peirre Thomas should be back soon.

12. Philly- if a team can win 4 games with a new QB injury every week, how tough will they be when their QBs are healthy?

13. Oakland- Jason Campbell has an 82.5 QB rating and is 3-1 in games he completed. Ranked 4th in the NFL in scoring O, 8th in total O, and 2nd in rushing O, plus a D that is ranked 9th in the league.
 
14. Tampa- Sorry but refusing to quit when things go bad, week after week, does deserve a jump up.

15. Chicago- their QB sucks but their D is allowing only 16.3 pts/gm and that's "da bears" good.

16. Seattle-they've beaten Chicago and a bunch of crap teams, they've lost to Denver and St. Louis,-can you say inconsistent?

[jerseybucsfan]

Raiders have four losses. Sorry. I give teams one-game leeway in rankings, but we're not talking about a team with recent winning. Bucs should be 13 in your poll, not behind a team that was 2-4 before the last two big games.

[John Galt?]

jerseybucsfan wrote:

Raiders have four losses. Sorry. I give teams one-game leeway in rankings, but we're not talking about a team with recent winning. Bucs should be 13 in your poll, not behind a team that was 2-4 before the last two big games.

yes we are talking about a team with recent winnings. And look at their offensive and defensive rankings.

Plus 2 of their losses were while Campbell was out and Bruce Gradkowski was running the show. And one was to a healthy Titans team. The other (to SF) was Campbell's first game back and without McFadden.

Now if the Bucs beat Atl, I'll move them up about 5 spots. If they lose, but stay within 8, I'll still move them up.

This week is a good test for both Tampa and Oakland (vs KC)

[jerseybucsfan]

Bucs 31, Falcons 24
Chiefs 27, Raiders 20.

[escobar]

Not a fan of Florio, but I can't really disagree with the rankings. Oakland ranking higher is a surprise I guess, but for the millionth time until we beat a quality team we're going to be looked at as a team that can't. You guys have to remember the national media has no loyalty to the Bucs, they couldn't care less if we win or lose or where we rank, they (usually) just care about results. They watched us get smoked by the only two winning teams we played, that's all they care about.

[jerseybucsfan]

There's a matter of levels of bias. Some picked us to go 6-10 or so .... they'll give us our due in most cases. But most said 3 or 4 wins HOPING it would be so. Now they won't admit we're not that team to the point of embarrassing themselves.