Rankings

[rwalling]

So Michael's on ESPN radio rattling off his top teams and it's SD, Balt., NO and I'm thinking to myself...

"Self, haven't we played those teams lately? Didn't we come within about 15 minutes of coaching brain damage of beating all three of those teams? Why am I wasting my time and brain cells listening to this tool?"

At that point my radio abruptly started playing Led Zepplin.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

So Michael's on ESPN radio rattling off his top teams and it's SD, Balt., NO and I'm thinking to myself...

"Self, haven't we played those teams lately? Didn't we come within about 15 minutes of coaching brain damage of beating all three of those teams? Why am I wasting my time and brain cells listening to this tool?"

At that point my radio abruptly started playing Led Zepplin.

Well, we might have been in the top 3 if Carson's great-great-great-great grandmother had had certain relations with one of her slaves, if Irvin sticks to his prior theories.

Seriously, I can't believe anyone pays attention to that crackhead. Normally I mean that facetiously, but in this case, no, he is in fact a crackhead.

[BengalszoneBilly]

So Michael's on ESPN radio rattling off his top teams and it's SD, Balt., NO and I'm thinking to myself...

"Self, haven't we played those teams lately? Didn't we come within about 15 minutes of coaching brain damage of beating all three of those teams? Why am I wasting my time and brain cells listening to this tool?"

At that point my radio abruptly started playing Led Zepplin.

As soon as I hear the huge sucking sound of Micheal opening his mouth, getting ready to spout some more nonsense into the airwaves, I automatically change the station, be it radio or television. BTW, where are his beloved Cowgirls on his list anyway? He had them rocketing up the charts not too long ago!

[AMC]

Michael Irvin = colossal waste of time, space and energy

[SkinneymulleT]

Michael Irvin = racist crackhead!

[CBin2k7]

I don't understand why people would even respect Irvin's opinion. His own colleagues don't even respect him. Jaws and TJ are hilarious when they consistently have that look on their face after he says something stupid.

I am so tired of Irvin and the Sharpe(s), just because they have good soundbites during their playing days, doesn't mean these guys are good broadcasters.

Get them off my screen, give me more Marshall Faulk.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

If I could understand a word Shannon Sharpe says, it might be different.

If I re-call, the last 3 teams the Bengals' beat included the Ravens, New Orleans and Oakland, and lost to San Diego 49-41 in a ridiculous 2nd half defensive collapse that doesn't happen often in a lifetime.

But you know, Romo is the best QB ever and Dallas will be back on top on Irvin's list after their next win.

BTW San Diego beat Buffalo and Oakland recently by a combined total of 10 points.

Their trampling of a reeling Denver was impressive - but prior to that, they weren't exactly setting the world on fire.

Honestly the Bengals' should've pummelled them and may do so if they ever get the chance again.

There's just no team in the NFL right now that impresses me much I guess. The Bengals' are definitely flying under the radar.

[HoosierCat]

The Bengals' are definitely flying under the radar.

On that, I agree completely. And, if they should win next Monday night, expect that to continue. Oh, you'll find the odd mention about the "red-hot" or "surging" Cincinnati club, but those will be outnumbered by the "can they stay out of prison through the playoffs"-type cheap shots. No, in the event of a Bengals victory all the talk will be about the "historic collapse" of Indy, etc., etc., and how the Bengals just came in at the right time or something...

Oh, well. Can't say the "no respect" bit bothers me. I mean, it seemed to work well enough for Pitt last year, eh?

Oh, and speaking of ijit pundits, for anyone (else) who finds Gregg Easterbrook's TMQ column grating, you might enjoy this...

http://kissmesuzy.blogspot.com/2006/12/tue...retentious.html

[jjakq27]

So Michael's on ESPN radio rattling off his top teams and it's SD, Balt., NO and I'm thinking to myself...

"Self, haven't we played those teams lately? Didn't we come within about 15 minutes of coaching brain damage of beating all three of those teams? Why am I wasting my time and brain cells listening to this tool?"

At that point my radio abruptly started playing Led Zepplin.

For me, a good Zep tune usually has a way of changing the mood for the better. Hopefully it did the same for you. In Michael Irvin's case, I'll bet "The Song Remains the Same" came on.

I wish they'd go back to just Chris Berman and Tom Jackson and get rid of Irvin and Steve Young. Sterling Sharpe is decent most of the time but the show is better when it's just TJ and Boomer.

Steve Young had some type of top 5 QB list last week and Carson Palmer was not in there. Not sure why though.....

[Stripes]

While I don't think the Bengals deserve to be listed in the top three, I do agree that Irvin is a tool more often than not. Props, Walls, for the Zeppelin mention.

[jjakq27]

Time to throw Bob Costas into that pile of poop too. He is always trying to be Mr. Perfect Journalism too.

Nice cheap shot Bobby boy.

"With NBC's Bob Costas glibly pointing out to a national television audience the Bengals have as many wins as arrests (eight), Lewis spoke about cornerback Deltha O'Neal's driving while intoxicated charge"

http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=5762

[jonahdsage]

If I could understand a word Shannon Sharpe says, it might be different.

oh i've said that too many times to count. how does someone who can't really speak english get hired to be a commentator? You have to speak english and have decent insight to do that job . . . really, that's all you need to do. not real high requirements there (most people on T.V. seem to keep saying dumber and dumber things anyway). shannon doesn't even do either of those things poorly, it'd be an upgrade to say he did them pretty bad. he's just plain awful. it's like he talks with a mouthful of marshmallows and gatorade. i also heard ditka say today, in regards to the colts having to get ready for rudi, "the colts need to keep in mind that cincinnati has a relatively good quarterback and some good receivers." i'm not going to even talk about where t.j., chad, and carson line up in the NFL stats wise -- these guys are just biased fools. go bengals

[Whur CHad At?]

Im suprised he didn't put the cowboys cause of TO, just for that reason

[tsh2006]

At that point my radio abruptly started playing Led Zepplin.

True story: The song "What is and what should never be" was written about Irvin.

[derekshank]

So Michael's on ESPN radio rattling off his top teams and it's SD, Balt., NO and I'm thinking to myself...

"Self, haven't we played those teams lately? Didn't we come within about 15 minutes of coaching brain damage of beating all three of those teams? Why am I wasting my time and brain cells listening to this tool?"

I don't want to disagree with the premise of this thread, because I agree that Irvin is an idiot. In fact, the vast majority of former player analysts are terrible and obviously biased in everything they say (Marino is terrible too).

That said... I guess I don't see what all the fuss about Irvin's top 3 teams is about. Yes, we beat the Saints and Ravens recently. Yes, we almost beat the Chargers. Does that mean that we should be ranked ahead of them? Should the Falcons or Buccaneers be ranked higher than us because they beat us?

San Diego is clearly the #1 team in the NFL right now. After that... you have a bunch of teams with some very obvious flaws. The Bears could lose any game because Grossman is so inconsistent. The Colts are dead last in rushing defense. The Cowboys got absolutely spanked by the Saints on Sunday night. The Patriots inconsistency on offense is embarrassing. With all these facts... what is the problem with his top 3 again?

You can't put an 8-5 team at #2. Sorry... but you can't. I don't completely agree with his top 3, but I just don't have a problem with them. If you want to listen to Zepplin instead of Irvin... well, you're probably making the right choice. But that should be based on his previous history... not his current power rankings.

[jjakq27]

At that point my radio abruptly started playing Led Zepplin.

True story: The song "What is and what should never be" was written about Irvin.

So was "How Many More Times".

[ShulaSteakhouse]

So Michael's on ESPN radio rattling off his top teams and it's SD, Balt., NO and I'm thinking to myself...

"Self, haven't we played those teams lately? Didn't we come within about 15 minutes of coaching brain damage of beating all three of those teams? Why am I wasting my time and brain cells listening to this tool?"

I don't want to disagree with the premise of this thread, because I agree that Irvin is an idiot. In fact, the vast majority of former player analysts are terrible and obviously biased in everything they say (Marino is terrible too).

That said... I guess I don't see what all the fuss about Irvin's top 3 teams is about. Yes, we beat the Saints and Ravens recently. Yes, we almost beat the Chargers. Does that mean that we should be ranked ahead of them? Should the Falcons or Buccaneers be ranked higher than us because they beat us?

San Diego is clearly the #1 team in the NFL right now. After that... you have a bunch of teams with some very obvious flaws. The Bears could lose any game because Grossman is so inconsistent. The Colts are dead last in rushing defense. The Cowboys got absolutely spanked by the Saints on Sunday night. The Patriots inconsistency on offense is embarrassing. With all these facts... what is the problem with his top 3 again?

You can't put an 8-5 team at #2. Sorry... but you can't. I don't completely agree with his top 3, but I just don't have a problem with them. If you want to listen to Zepplin instead of Irvin... well, you're probably making the right choice. But that should be based on his previous history... not his current power rankings.

The Falcons should've been ranked higher at the time - the Chargers should be now.

But NO's and the Ravens? Hardly.

The Saints are everyone's feel-good story and pimps like Irvin like the loud prison thug demeanor of the Ravens' defense.

Like HC said the Bengals' attention will continue to be on the DUI's and arrests - which might be a good thing - let them not have to buy into hype and carry a "something to prove" attitude into the last 3 games, they will need it.

It's a shame how Carson Palmer is apparently taken for granted by everyone including his own fans, but that said he has to win something first before he'll get the accolades - and he's also fighting the Bengal stigma from years' past.

[derekshank]

The Falcons should've been ranked higher at the time - the Chargers should be now.

But NO's and the Ravens? Hardly.

The Saints are everyone's feel-good story and pimps like Irvin like the loud prison thug demeanor of the Ravens' defense.

Like HC said the Bengals' attention will continue to be on the DUI's and arrests - which might be a good thing - let them not have to buy into hype and carry a "something to prove" attitude into the last 3 games, they will need it.

It's a shame how Carson Palmer is apparently taken for granted by everyone including his own fans, but that said he has to win something first before he'll get the accolades - and he's also fighting the Bengal stigma from years' past.

I don't know... seems like homer thinking to me. I'm a homer... so I don't disagree, but I can't argue when I see a team that is 10-3 ranked higher than a team that is 8-5. We're hot... and if we stay hot, we'll be in the top 3 or 4 by playoff time, but a 4-game winning streak shouldn't put us in the top 5.

Tennessee is also pretty hot right now... but power rankings do have to take the early part of the season into consideration as well. Tennessee is not a top 10 team, and the Bengals are only 4 weeks removed from losing 5 out of 6 games. I can't fault analysts for not having us in their top 5... especially since I don't know of a single one that has us there right now.

[BengalPimp]

Well, we might have been in the top 3 if Carson's great-great-great-great grandmother had had certain relations with one of her slaves, if Irvin sticks to his prior theories.

Seriously, I can't believe anyone pays attention to that crackhead. Normally I mean that facetiously, but in this case, no, he is in fact a crackhead.

Let us not forget the hookers, and scissor stabbing incidents.

[BengalChamps]

Michael Irvin = colossal waste of time, space and energy

If wanted to waste more time on crackheads, it would be to try and get rid of them. Any ideas on removing Irvin?

[ShulaSteakhouse]

The Falcons should've been ranked higher at the time - the Chargers should be now.

But NO's and the Ravens? Hardly.

The Saints are everyone's feel-good story and pimps like Irvin like the loud prison thug demeanor of the Ravens' defense.

Like HC said the Bengals' attention will continue to be on the DUI's and arrests - which might be a good thing - let them not have to buy into hype and carry a "something to prove" attitude into the last 3 games, they will need it.

It's a shame how Carson Palmer is apparently taken for granted by everyone including his own fans, but that said he has to win something first before he'll get the accolades - and he's also fighting the Bengal stigma from years' past.

I don't know... seems like homer thinking to me. I'm a homer... so I don't disagree, but I can't argue when I see a team that is 10-3 ranked higher than a team that is 8-5. We're hot... and if we stay hot, we'll be in the top 3 or 4 by playoff time, but a 4-game winning streak shouldn't put us in the top 5.

Tennessee is also pretty hot right now... but power rankings do have to take the early part of the season into consideration as well. Tennessee is not a top 10 team, and the Bengals are only 4 weeks removed from losing 5 out of 6 games. I can't fault analysts for not having us in their top 5... especially since I don't know of a single one that has us there right now.

Yep - totally understand your point - but then they shouldn't be "weekly power rankings" and should be based on records - I look at it as who's hot, who's not, and fettering them out. So I guess I find "power rankings" to be very faulty and illogical.

The Bengals' are the better team than the Ravens and Saints, because they have not lost since beating them both, IMO. You simply don't beat a team 31-16 on the road, and then rank the Saints higher than the Bengals' 3-4 weeks later, if the Bengals' still haven't lost since then, and beat the Ravens who were 9-2 at the time 2 weeks later, and are now 8-5 to boot! I don't get it at all.

[TJJackson]

Dr Z has us up at 4 (up from 8)

I think that's more than fair