Week 16 power rankings - the horror, the horror... (UPDATED)

by 3k on Dec 22, 2010 9:09 AM CST in 2010 St. Louis Rams season

(UPDATE: SI's in, and we slid down two spots. The table's been updated to include the SI rankings.)

Everybody's favorite dose of conventional wisdom comes a day late and, uh, one set of rankings short. I'll update this later today when Don Banks publishes SI's power rankings. In any case, these are just more reminders that we're not close to where we need to be. Things could be worse. We could be any other team in the NFC West.

Average ranking (# of rankings)	19.92 (12)
Average change from last week	-0.58
Highest ranking (source)	18th (multiple)
Lowest ranking (source)	25th (Sporting News)
Biggest positive change (source)	+1 (multiple)
Biggest negative change (source)	-2 (multiple)

SB Nation: 22nd (23rd last week) - SBN finally leapfrogs us ahead of the 'Chickens

The Rams lost by 14 and the Seahawks lost by 16 so St. Louis moves ahead of them. I'm not sure how else to separate these two. They'll meet in Week 17 for the division title.

The rest of the major power rankings after the jump.

ESPN: 20th (18th)

Losing to the 49ers in Week 16 probably would doom the Rams' playoff hopes.

NFL.com: 18th (16th)

CBS Sports: 23rd (23rd) - Prisco's rankings are consistently the worst. Please note the Niners are 21st. A

Losing at home to the Chiefs was a tough hit. They couldn't handle the run. But if they win their last two, they win the division.

Fanhouse: 18th (18th)

Sam Bradford has been 10 steps forward, 10 steps back in his first season. After being incredibly efficient early in the season, the rookie has thrown no TDs and five interceptions in his last three games. And yet, the Rams are still in the driver's seat for the NFC West title. Unreal. St. Louis faces the 49ers and Seahawks in the last two weeks.

USA Today: 19th (20th) - We slide up a spot ahead of the sliding Texans. The commentary though seems a couple weeks too late...

With better receivers, Sam Bradford might become a stud.

National Football Post: 21st (20th)

The Rams still control their own playoff fate—even with a 6-8 record.

Sporting News: 25th (24th)

Can someone please give QB Sam Bradford a home-run threat? And we're not talking Albert Pujols.

Pro Football Weekly: 18th (18th) - Somebody's paying attention. And yet we're still at 18th? Seems like more of a compliment than a realistic appraisal.

Conservative offense has its limits.

Pro Football Talk: 18th (18th)

Though the Rams have a long way to go to become the Greatest Show on Turf again, they’re much better than last year, when they were the Greatest Turds on Show.

Fox Sports: 18th (17th)

Despite losing to the visiting Chiefs last week, the Rams are still in the thick of the NFC West race. And even if they don't win the division, the Rams have made tremendous strides on both sides of the ball this season. They are clearly on the right track to becoming a good football team.

Sports Illustrated: 19th (17th)

The Rams are the NFC West's best hope to save a little face and avoid becoming the first division in NFL history to have a champion with a losing record. St. Louis has San Francisco at home this week and travels to Seattle in Week 17, and both are winnable games if St. Louis plays its best. If the Rams can get it done in that fashion, that 8-8 will feel pretty good to a Rams team that hasn't been relevant since 2004.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

LOL nm

SB Nation: 22nd (23rd last week) – SBN finally leapfrogs us ahead of the ’Chickens

by Da Rookie on Dec 22, 2010 9:28 AM CST reply actions

Regardless of the rankings.... i think Stl Fans have a larger problem

ramsn2012: JT,

I am concerned about the lack of interest in St. Louis with the Rams. Will Stan keep the Rams in St. Louis well past the 2014 season? Also, will a home playoff game sell out this year?

Thanks
Jim Thomas: I think it is a problem. TV ratings are as high as they’ve been since 2003, but so far that hasn’t translated into fans in the stands. Rams officials were disappointed to see so many Chiefs fans in the lower bowl _ most of those tickets were purchased by season ticket holders. And there were still lots of empty _ unsold _ seats in the upper bowl.

The only thing comparable to a Rams win is a 49er loss!

by DevsLaRams on Dec 22, 2010 10:40 AM CST reply actions

Really;The Roof literally falls in on Minnesota Vikings

and their lease expires this year. but the Rams are moving in 2014? Annoying

by Da Rookie on Dec 22, 2010 11:05 AM CST reply actions

I hear what your saying but some insiders see it different

RamFan80: Thanks, Jim. I was at the game Sunday, and I didn’t think the KC fans were any louder or more prominent than when the Steelers or Packers fans come into the Dome. Also, I think if the Rams had played a more competitive game, the Rams fans would have had more to cheer about, and all this talk about KC fans taking over the Dome wouldn’t be happening. You mentioned Rams officials noticed the number of KC fans in the lower bowl. Do you get a sense that ownership is concerned about support in St. Louis, and could that be a factor in a possible move when the lease is up?
Jim Thomas: I think there is some concern.

The only thing comparable to a Rams win is a 49er loss!

by DevsLaRams on Dec 22, 2010 1:43 PM CST up reply actions

Industry City Viqueens!

If that does not scream (flaming) California what does? Can’t even keep the Raiders…Can’t keep a team with a owner that has Alzheimer’s? Yeah Kronke is that stupid??

by Da Rookie on Dec 22, 2010 3:41 PM CST up reply actions

Lots of teams don't have a lot of fans in the stands, it's the economy we are living in.

The NFL needs to lower the price for tickets next season. They should be happy that people are watching them now, thats the 1st step.

Is that great man formally known as Tevin T. Broner

by Tevin Broner on Dec 22, 2010 11:17 AM CST reply actions

so true

by Jas the Mace on Dec 23, 2010 12:05 PM CST up reply actions

St. Louis fans will support any team that gives an honest effort

and doesn’t quit. They won’t support a team of rockheads who make the same mistakes over and over, year after year, or who give up when things start to go against them.

Look at the St. Louis Blues. They have been playing in the NHL for almost 50 years and have never won the Stanley Cup. Most years they have to fight to the end to make the playoffs. Yet they have no problem with fan attendance and support because the team works hard, has guys who give their all every night, and who can beat anybody on any given night. They’ve sold out most of their home games this year.

And there’s no need to even discuss the Cardinals. They go over 3 million in attendance almost every year.

The problem with the Rams is that they lost all their good players from the GSOT years and replaced them with rockheads and softees. While they have gotten rid of a bunch of them, some of the new guys are proving to fit the same mold. Get a Rams team with guys who have some talent, who don’t make lots of stupid mistakes, and who fight for 60 minutes every game and you won’t have a problem with the fan support.

The L.A. talk is just talk. They have two stadium proposals. One is for a 65,000 seat stadium downtown that is impossible to pull off and is just a crazy dream. The other is for a 75,000 seat stadium 20 miles east of L.A. in an area none of the 32 current owners think will work. Both require the team to share some of the revenue with the stadium builders, something no NFL team does now. Finally, the builder for the Industry site says he will buy a team if necessary to get them to move to L.A. Somehow I don’t think most owners, and certainy not Stan Kroenke, will be willing to sell their team (or a large part of it) to Roski so it can move to his stadium.

by andyhawk on Dec 22, 2010 11:32 AM CST reply actions

for your viewing pleasure

check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MqdzsK0owY&feature=player_embedded

The only thing comparable to a Rams win is a 49er loss!

by DevsLaRams on Dec 22, 2010 2:09 PM CST up reply actions

I think I saw Jack Nicholson and Dyan Cannon down there on the sideline!

A berm with a giant “Los Angeles” on it as well as “Los Angeles” in big letters along the top of the stadium? I’ve got to wonder if all that was to help sell the idea to the city, or just proof that the people of LA are really that narcissistic.

by CFB_fan on Dec 22, 2010 3:23 PM CST up reply actions

Now if LA could get a baseball team

Then I would be worried. Yawn….

by Da Rookie on Dec 22, 2010 3:49 PM CST up reply actions

Living in Seattle, it may be different

But going to a Mariners game (MLB for all those who aren’t thinking clearly) is about 15 bucks a pop for the bleacher seats. The time honored tradition of then moving down to better seats normally always can happen. But regardless, you’re talking about 50 dollars of your money for two people, parking, and maybe a hot dog for each person.

For the Seahawks, that price triples. The cheapest seats you can find are in the nose bleeds of Qwest field, for about 65 bucks a pop. 10 dollars or so to park if you’re lucky, and a couple of 6 dollar hot dogs later, you’re looking at a 150 dollar investment.

Hmm….tough choice…

Number 8 is great

by Eric Nagel on Dec 22, 2010 11:39 AM CST reply actions