PDA

View Full Version : Good enough to be 11-2?


siberian khatru
12-12-2005, 11:56 AM
If you're Carl Peterson, do you look at the season so far as three missed opportunities: Blowing a lead at home to Philly, and losing two winnable games on the road to Buffalo and Dallas? Do you think you really have an 11-2 team but for a couple of hiccups?

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Me, I think you are what you are. Especially since for 17 years now I've seen Chiefs teams suffering maddening inconsistency, plagued by bad losses and blown opportunities. I think we're an 8-5 team. I have no illusions about any kind of "hidden gem" we have -- that we're actually better than our record.

So rather than count on one hand the number of plays that could've made us 11-2, which will drive you nuts, I just see it as the same old, same old for this franchise (at least in the Carl Era).

What say you? Are we a sleeping giant or just a cut above mediocrity (or mediocrity itself)?

Thig Lyfe
12-12-2005, 11:59 AM
We should be 11-2, based on what has happened. But this team at 8-5 is about right.

The Chiefs will not field a Super Bowl team as long as Carl Peterson is GM. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope I'm wrong this year, but it just doesn't look that way.

MOhillbilly
12-12-2005, 12:00 PM
this KC team has 3/4 of the talent to be 11-2.

Hoover
12-12-2005, 12:00 PM
Here's the deal

We only have 1 loss at home. Thats Good, but that is the game thats killing us. If we can go 7-1 at home and .500 on the road, thats a damn good record in any year.

Its not over yet folks.

sedated
12-12-2005, 12:01 PM
Could be 11-2, could be 4-9.
Our only dominant wins are NYJ, MIA, HOU, & NE

MOhillbilly
12-12-2005, 12:04 PM
Could be 11-2, could be 4-9.
Our only dominant wins are NYJ, MIA, HOU, & NE


Denver was a dominant win. I dont care what the score said.

siberian khatru
12-12-2005, 12:09 PM
Could be 11-2, could be 4-9.
Our only dominant wins are NYJ, MIA, HOU, & NE

I really don't measure by dominant wins. I like dominant wins, but they're hard to come by in today's NFL. And it's been that way for years. I've said this before, but I remember Bill Walsh, when he was a TV analyst, say that the most important thing in the NFL is to have a pass rush in the last 2 minutes of a game. We can quibble whether that's the MOST important thing, but his point was that so many games are decided by 7 points or less and come down to one play made or not made.

And this team's history over the last 17 years, since they became competitive again, is to often fall one play short of victory, often in the most important games.

THAT'S what depresses me. Seeing the same shit over and over again -- a turnover, a missed FG, a dropped pass, a penalty, surrendering one big scoring play on D ... We just can't get over that hump. Championship teams make those one plays. They rarely dominate. They win lots of games -- their record looks dominant -- but most of those victories are decided by one or two plays.

htismaqe
12-12-2005, 12:12 PM
We should be 11-2, based on what has happened. But this team at 8-5 is about right.

The Chiefs will not field a Super Bowl team as long as Carl Peterson is GM. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope I'm wrong this year, but it just doesn't look that way.

The Chiefs would have fielded a Super Bowl team at least twice in the 90's had it not been for poor coaching.

And this current Chiefs team might be good enough, if it weren't for coaching...

Thig Lyfe
12-12-2005, 12:16 PM
The Chiefs would have fielded a Super Bowl team at least twice in the 90's had it not been for poor coaching.

And this current Chiefs team might be good enough, if it weren't for coaching...

Coaching by coaches who were hired by... Carl Peterson.

I don't mean to be a Carl hater, and I don't proclaim to know how to be a GM, but since he's 17 years into the 3-year-plan with Zero Super Bowl wins (and hardly any playoff wins period), he obviously is doing something wrong.

The Chiefs will probably have to rebuild at some point soon, and it should start with a new GM.

Nzoner
12-12-2005, 12:18 PM
I don't mean to be a Carl hater,

It's okay,really.

Amnorix
12-12-2005, 12:19 PM
I'm not a big fan of Parcells, but I give him credit for this one -- you're as good (or as bad) as your record says you are. Why are you 8-5 and not 11-2? Because you didn't play well enough to be 11-2, that's why. You can hurt your brain trying to adjust for strength of schedule, injuries, bad luck, etc., but the best approach is just to accept that you are what your record says you are.

Amnorix
12-12-2005, 12:27 PM
And this current Chiefs team might be good enough, if it weren't for coaching...


I'm still not sure about this. What this suggests is that this team clearly has as much, or more, talent on the field than any other NFL team over the last few years and this year. I'm not at all sure that's right.

I think the complaints about your offensive coaches, in general, are absurd. Strictly, positively, absolutely absurd. I'm not directing this comment at you, but at the entire BB in general. Your team has consistently been at the top of the NFL in every offensive statistical category that matters over the last several years. To say that your offensive coaches aren't very good is pretty silly, to me.

Your WRs are good, but not great, which hampers the offense in certain situations, most especially if you're way behind or in running 2 minute drills and the like.

On defense, I *still* don't see above-average NFL talent on the team. Your D-Line is pretty much Larry-Moe-Curly. Your overall defense has a precisely zero Hall of Famers and only a small handful (maybe 3) that are definitely above average at their position for the NFL.

On special teams, you have Dante Hall, who is very good, but otherwise I believe you are, and have been, consistently average.

In short, KC is *still* trying to win on offense alone. Indy, meanwhile (and unfortunately) has really developed some excellent, excellent players on their defense, and have always had Vanderjerk, who for everything else you can say about him, is a darn good kicker.

RedandGold
12-12-2005, 12:28 PM
The way I look at it, truly good teams don't play down to their competition. If we were truly an 11-2 type of team, we wouldn't have lost the close games against Philly, Buffalo, and Dallas. We would have buried each of these teams before the 4th quarter even started.

We are good enough to hang with most of the above-average teams in the NFL, but I don't see us as the type of team that could sack up and win on the road once the playoffs rolled around.

FringeNC
12-12-2005, 12:45 PM
I think the complaints about your offensive coaches, in general, are absurd. Strictly, positively, absolutely absurd. I'm not directing this comment at you, but at the entire BB in general. Your team has consistently been at the top of the NFL in every offensive statistical category that matters over the last several years. To say that your offensive coaches aren't very good is pretty silly, to me.

The complaints are absurd. I think it really boils down to the fact that there are a lot of Maulball fanboys (you know who you are) who look for any opportunity to belittle this wide-open approach, and who yearn for the return of a Marty clone.

On defense, I *still* don't see above-average NFL talent on the team. Your D-Line is pretty much Larry-Moe-Curly. Your overall defense has a precisely zero Hall of Famers and only a small handful (maybe 3) that are definitely above average at their position for the NFL.

Above average? If we could just be *average*. We are #27 in the league. What's so sad is Gunther could have been a returning hero had he just given us an *average* D. The only question is it coaching or talent? Given that the Chiefs opened the purse strings on D, and Gunther had his say on who he wanted, he seems to be the responsible party in either case. Again, we are #27 in the league.


In short, KC is *still* trying to win on offense alone. Indy, meanwhile (and unfortunately) has really developed some excellent, excellent players on their defense...

Yep. The D is still worthless. It's not like Indy shredded us yesterday. It was the hapless Dallas Cowboy offense that shredded us. The D coaches should be ashamed. All and all, you understand the situation in KC much better than almost all on this board.

Frankie
12-12-2005, 12:56 PM
We won the home game against Oakland and we came close to losing it. That offsets yesterday's game in the equation. Going by odds, we should have had one win between the Eagles and the Buff games. It works out to be 9 & 4. We are a 9-4 team in an 8-5 suit.

ROYC75
12-12-2005, 01:08 PM
We are what we are...... why complain ? The players and coach's have to step it up to another level of play. If they are not capable, find another guy who is.

Lbedrock1
12-12-2005, 01:22 PM
I guess I dont like the playoff format. With a weak division you can get a automatic bid to the playoffs. I think they should expand the wild card or go strictly by record for a playoff birth. You win your division and it should be just that division champ. Your record would still have to be good enough to make the playoffs. The Chiefs could go 11-5 and be sitting at home watching the patriots play.

joesomebody
12-12-2005, 01:32 PM
I guess I dont like the playoff format. With a weak division you can get a automatic bid to the playoffs. I think they should expand the wild card or go strictly by record for a playoff birth. You win your division and it should be just that division champ. Your record would still have to be good enough to make the playoffs. The Chiefs could go 11-5 and be sitting at home watching the patriots play.I think its just sour grapes on our part. We would be happy to be sitting in the Pat's shoes.

If a division crown no longer matters, I think it would belittle division rivalries... these rivalries don't exist for bragging rights alone.

That said, in today's NFL there aren't supposed to be divisions that are easy to win... And the AFC West is consistantly one of the hardest in the league, so it makes it easy for us to want division record not to matter, however I think the NFL works the way it is, and there's always next year if we sit at home and that Pat's will win their division, so deserve the play offs.

BigMeatballDave
12-12-2005, 01:41 PM
11-2? Hell, I say 12-1. The San Diego game was very winnable...

DanT
12-12-2005, 01:51 PM
We've had Warfield, Roaf and Stills yet for long stretches, played a bunch of solid ball clubs--including the Dolphins under bizarre circumstances--and are in the playoff hunt at 8-5. I would consider this another example of the kind of tearms fielded in the Carl Peterson era--an era way the hell better than the era in the wilderness that preceded the Carl Peterson era, in which the Chiefs played in a home stadium with empty seats numbering in the tens of thousands and whose fans were grateful to even be in the playoff hunt in December.

Chief Henry
12-12-2005, 01:53 PM
The Chiefs would have fielded a Super Bowl team at least twice in the 90's had it not been for poor coaching.

And this current Chiefs team might be good enough, if it weren't for coaching...



Dam fine discription.

DaWolf
12-12-2005, 03:13 PM
We're also a team that could have easily been 0-2 against Chokeland. Take that for what it's worth.

DV said when he was hired his No 1 stat in terms of how good your team is was margin of victory. His '99 Rams team was superb in that department. The 2003 Chiefs did pretty well in that column. These Chiefs aren't even close. They're talented, but they're just too inconsistent to be considered anything more than a bit above average...

philfree
12-12-2005, 03:23 PM
I don't look at that way. I think our O just played one hell of a football game. I think the Cowboys held like crazy on the last scoring Drive and the officials ignored it and then called DJ for holding. I think Tynes missed the biggest kick of his career and cost us a chance to win the game. I do think there is a lot of mediocrity to be found around Chiefs Plantet though.


PhilFree:arrow: