28th is a crazy power ranking for a team that finished with the 14th best record in the league last year despite having QB play for 17 games that was somewhere between Josh Freeman and Joe Webb. I’m probably just being a homer, but I can see the Bears taking a step back. They didn’t improve their roster a ton and I’m not convinced Ben Johnson won’t see the second year struggles that a lot of coaches seem to have after the team has had a full season to get sick of them and the league has a full year of tape on what they want to run. He’s a good enough coach where I don’t see them crashing and burning or anything, but I could see a bit of a sophomore slump.
Power rankings get clicks, so they are created for that purpose. But, they aren't objective or empirical. Over-unders are designed to attract equal money on each side, so there is still some noise, but (unlike power rankings) there are real consequences for getting them wrong.
It's perfectly fair to have MIN 8.5, CHI 9.5 and GB/DET 10.5. We know that points for/against is more predictive than actual wins; in 2025 the Norris teams were so ranked in the same order as their 2026 over-unders. It's almost as if the girls and boys in the desert who set lines know what they are doing. . .
Minnesota sports teams play better when they are the underdog. I'm fine with the ranking. I also think the NFC in general is likely to improve vs last year (until the unpredictable happens), meaning a bigger challenge for the Vikes. Prove them wrong guys.
The NFL would be much less entertaining if it were more predictable. It's hard to anticipate which teams will be volatile in advance. Hell, even the extended Davis family didn't have the Chefs missing the playoffs last year. Fun stat: the Rams haven't been a 6, 7 or 8 win team since 2015, and were only a 9 win team once during that span.
It seems likely that at least one of the Bears (ask the 2022 Vikings about the sustainability of 4th quarter comebacks), Rams (reasons stated in the piece), or Iggles (aging OL, Barkley's at the point where he could fall off a cliff, no big contested-ball receiver) will crash and miss the playoffs. Of course, one of those three might also be playing in LA in February.
Like last year, there doesn't seem to be one or two dominant teams. Of course, having now said that, the Cowboys will probably go 15-2 and win each playoff game by double digits.
Rankings are purely for entertainment and something sportswriters can write about when nothing is going on. The thing to watch is Vegas and they don't always get it right ether. Until proven otherwise I take my usual stand for the last 60 years and say Super Bowl winners.
I don't see any team in the NFC going 14-3. 10-7 will be good enough for a playoff berth. I'd bet the over on the Vikings expected win total. It won't be easy for the Seahawks, Eagles or Bears to win their respective division titles and I think the Falcons are the top team in the south.
To misquote Winston - The Vikings are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. I would add as a negative losing Greenard (and again, the riddle is how does Turner do in replacing him)
Also I think hurting the Vikings (in opinion makers eyes) is the draft
Lots of hate on the Banks pick and then virtually no splashy players (lots of potentially good meat and potato players that the team will need but the Vikings were not sexy in this draft)
I will add again, I think one underrated (but potentially big move) was getting Thorson as a UDFA.
28th is a crazy power ranking for a team that finished with the 14th best record in the league last year despite having QB play for 17 games that was somewhere between Josh Freeman and Joe Webb. I’m probably just being a homer, but I can see the Bears taking a step back. They didn’t improve their roster a ton and I’m not convinced Ben Johnson won’t see the second year struggles that a lot of coaches seem to have after the team has had a full season to get sick of them and the league has a full year of tape on what they want to run. He’s a good enough coach where I don’t see them crashing and burning or anything, but I could see a bit of a sophomore slump.
I think it is important not to have too much emotion about these things (rankings at this point) but 28 is pretty ridiculous.
Your point about the Bears is a definite possibility
Power rankings get clicks, so they are created for that purpose. But, they aren't objective or empirical. Over-unders are designed to attract equal money on each side, so there is still some noise, but (unlike power rankings) there are real consequences for getting them wrong.
It's perfectly fair to have MIN 8.5, CHI 9.5 and GB/DET 10.5. We know that points for/against is more predictive than actual wins; in 2025 the Norris teams were so ranked in the same order as their 2026 over-unders. It's almost as if the girls and boys in the desert who set lines know what they are doing. . .
Well said. Ranking are merely clickbait but over-unders are meaningful (as money is behind them).
Minnesota sports teams play better when they are the underdog. I'm fine with the ranking. I also think the NFC in general is likely to improve vs last year (until the unpredictable happens), meaning a bigger challenge for the Vikes. Prove them wrong guys.
The NFL would be much less entertaining if it were more predictable. It's hard to anticipate which teams will be volatile in advance. Hell, even the extended Davis family didn't have the Chefs missing the playoffs last year. Fun stat: the Rams haven't been a 6, 7 or 8 win team since 2015, and were only a 9 win team once during that span.
It seems likely that at least one of the Bears (ask the 2022 Vikings about the sustainability of 4th quarter comebacks), Rams (reasons stated in the piece), or Iggles (aging OL, Barkley's at the point where he could fall off a cliff, no big contested-ball receiver) will crash and miss the playoffs. Of course, one of those three might also be playing in LA in February.
Like last year, there doesn't seem to be one or two dominant teams. Of course, having now said that, the Cowboys will probably go 15-2 and win each playoff game by double digits.
Rankings are purely for entertainment and something sportswriters can write about when nothing is going on. The thing to watch is Vegas and they don't always get it right ether. Until proven otherwise I take my usual stand for the last 60 years and say Super Bowl winners.
I don't see any team in the NFC going 14-3. 10-7 will be good enough for a playoff berth. I'd bet the over on the Vikings expected win total. It won't be easy for the Seahawks, Eagles or Bears to win their respective division titles and I think the Falcons are the top team in the south.
To misquote Winston - The Vikings are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. I would add as a negative losing Greenard (and again, the riddle is how does Turner do in replacing him)
Also I think hurting the Vikings (in opinion makers eyes) is the draft
Lots of hate on the Banks pick and then virtually no splashy players (lots of potentially good meat and potato players that the team will need but the Vikings were not sexy in this draft)
I will add again, I think one underrated (but potentially big move) was getting Thorson as a UDFA.