PDA

View Full Version : Why I love this place...


htismaqe
10-02-2006, 09:22 AM
Coming into yesterday's game, we were told that the 49ers had an up-and-coming offense, Alex Smith was dangerous, and Frank Gore was likely the best back we have faced yet this year. The defense was opportunistic and were gonna sack Huard over and over and over.

Now today I'm reading that we beat up on a "patsy".

I love this place.

Phobia
10-02-2006, 09:24 AM
It depends on who you talked to.

FAX
10-02-2006, 09:24 AM
I love ChiefsPlanet because the creamed corn recipes are fantastic!!

FAX

htismaqe
10-02-2006, 09:25 AM
I know there were people saying before the game that the 9'ers weren't that good and that the Chiefs were a better team than they were being given credit for.

Of course, those people were being called idiots too.

Gonzo
10-02-2006, 09:26 AM
I love ChiefsPlanet because of the award-winning Dr. Phil-like advice all the n00b's get. It really shows how much we all care.

Bill Parcells
10-02-2006, 09:29 AM
I love this place because..well..I just do..that is all..

Wile_E_Coyote
10-02-2006, 09:30 AM
sure beats the circle jerk of some BBs cough* finheaven *cough

Logical
10-02-2006, 09:32 AM
Parker you won't find me saying that, our defense just had a fantastic and opportunistic day, while our offense was varied and played very well and most of all did not seem to miss any of their opportunities. We had a complete game something you very rarely see for any team.

Stinger
10-02-2006, 09:32 AM
Some of us are here just to watch the mod abuse :D .

htismaqe
10-02-2006, 09:33 AM
Parker you won't find me saying that, our defense just had a fantastic and opportunistic day, while our offense was varied and played very well and most of all did not seem to miss any of their opportunities. We had a complete game something you very rarely see for any team.

For once, I wasn't talking about you. :D

Braincase
10-02-2006, 09:33 AM
Next week we're playing a team with incredible talent at receiver, a Heisman Trophy winning QB (being backed up by a former league and Super Bowl MVP), and a running back so good he was taken ahead of ... oh, never mind on that last one.

HemiEd
10-02-2006, 09:34 AM
I think most of those opinions came from different sources and perspectives though, didn't they?

My favorite went something like this, "we should eek out a close boring win."

OnTheWarpath58
10-02-2006, 09:37 AM
Coming into yesterday's game, we were told that the 49ers had an up-and-coming offense, Alex Smith was dangerous, and Frank Gore was likely the best back we have faced yet this year. The defense was opportunistic and were gonna sack Huard over and over and over.


I'll admit, that was me. And I still agree. I think the Niners were/are better than most give credit for.

Now today I'm reading that we beat up on a "patsy".

I love this place.


While it may look that way, they are not "patsies", IMO. The gameplan was solid on both sides of the ball, and the players executed it to perfection. The Niners are no pushover, but they were dominated in all three phases of the game yesterday. Kinda like the Pats going TO Cincinatti and pasting the Bengals after looking like hell at home against Denver. BB had a gameplan, the players executed it well, and they win going away.......

I'm excited about the fact that this D has gone 10 quarters plus 5+ minutes of an overtime without giving up a TD.

Funny thing is, Arizona is a similar team to SF. They have the weapons to be dangerous.

Radar Chief
10-02-2006, 09:38 AM
I think most of those opinions came from different sources and perspectives though, didn't they?

My favorite went something like this, "we should eek out a close boring win."

:LOL: :thumb:

Raiderhader
10-02-2006, 09:41 AM
Wow, I was hardly on this past week, there were actually people saying that the 9ers are good?

Easy 6
10-02-2006, 09:45 AM
Wow, I was hardly on this past week, there were actually people saying that the 9ers are good?
You would hardly believe it raderhader.

jidar
10-02-2006, 09:46 AM
CHIEFSPLANET IS MY ONLY FAVORITE PAST TIME.

THAT AND WHORES.

CHIEFSPLANET AND WHORES ARE MY ONLY FAVORITE PAST TIMES.

AND BOOZE

CHIEFSPLANET AND WHORES AND BOOZE ARE MY ONLY FAVORITE PAST TIMES.

Gonzo
10-02-2006, 09:48 AM
CHIEFSPLANET IS MY ONLY FAVORITE PAST TIME.

THAT AND WHORES.

CHIEFSPLANET AND WHORES ARE MY ONLY FAVORITE PAST TIMES.

AND BOOZE

CHIEFSPLANET AND WHORES AND BOOZE ARE MY ONLY FAVORITE PAST TIMES.

AND PRON

jidar
10-02-2006, 09:50 AM
AND PRON

AND PRON.

CHIEFSPLANET AND WHORES AND BOOZE AND PRON ARE MY ONLY FAVORITE PAST TIMES.

Raiderhader
10-02-2006, 09:56 AM
You would hardly believe it raderhader.



Eh, there is not a whole lot that takes place on this board that I have a hard time believing any more. Say for instance some fellow fans being ultra negative and saying we would lose to San Fran because they suck less than we do. While I find that laughable, I can see people saying it. But to see KC fans saying that we will lose because the '9ers are a better team? At one time I can see it being said and have a look of :spock: on my face.

We got us some dandies here, that's for sure.

Easy 6
10-02-2006, 09:59 AM
Eh, there is not a whole lot that takes place on this board that I have a hard time believing any more. Say for instance some fellow fans being ultra negative and saying we would lose to San Fran because they suck less than we do. While I find that laughable, I can see people saying it. But to see KC fans saying that we will lose because the '9ers are a better team? At one time I can see it being said and have a look of :spock: on my face.

We got us some dandies here, that's for sure.
I still enjoy it all........Without the darkness, there can be no light. :D

donkhater
10-02-2006, 10:00 AM
I don't know if it was on here, but I do know that on the FOX Sports NFL page they are asking the question if Dallas is a top five team after beating the Titans, yet KC's shutout was over just the hapless 49er's. Go figure.

Ditto for the love the Chargers got for steamrolling the Titans and the Raiders. It doesn't extend to the Midwest apparently.

FAX
10-02-2006, 10:01 AM
I'll admit that I've been so fearful of going 0 and 3 that I had wide receiver separation anxiety.

One has to admit that, given our oline issues, Trent's injury, and the "unknowns" of how the team would respond, Herm's gameplanning going in, Solari's new role as OC, and the extreme volatility in the nacho market, there was legitimate reason for some concern.

It's easy to say now that we shouldn't have been worried.

FAX

chagrin
10-02-2006, 10:05 AM
I proudly started Eddie Kennison Sunday on my fantasy team!

htismaqe
10-02-2006, 10:05 AM
I'll admit, that was me. And I still agree. I think the Niners were/are better than most give credit for.

I don't have any issue with thinking the Niners are a good team. I also don't have any issue with thinking they're a patsy.

I have an issue with thinking they're a good team PRIOR to the game and then trying to say they're a patsy AFTER the Chiefs completely dominated them.

Raiderhader
10-02-2006, 10:05 AM
I still enjoy it all........Without the darkness, there can be no light. :D



Oh, it's the proverbial blast. There is a reason I keep coming back to madness after six years.

htismaqe
10-02-2006, 10:06 AM
I'll admit that I've been so fearful of going 0 and 3 that I had wide receiver seperation anxiety.

One has to admit that, given our oline issues, Trent's injury, and the "unknowns" of how the team would respond, Herm's gameplanning going in, Solari's new role as OC, and the extreme volatility in the nacho market, there was legitimate reason for some concern.

It's easy to say now that we shouldn't have been worried.

FAX

See my previous post.

I have zero issues with people who were worried about Sunday's game. SF was getting pressure on the QB and scoring points. Being worried about being 0-3 was certainly legitimate.

Raiderhader
10-02-2006, 10:06 AM
I proudly started Eddie Kennison Sunday on my fantasy team!


I'll bet that paid dividends.

KC-TBB
10-02-2006, 10:07 AM
HAHAHA THEY FOOLED YOU! The first 2 games were a smokescreen, now the CARDS are about to see the WRATH OF HERM!!!!

FAX
10-02-2006, 10:18 AM
See my previous post.

I have zero issues with people who were worried about Sunday's game. SF was getting pressure on the QB and scoring points. Being worried about being 0-3 was certainly legitimate.

I see your point, Mr. htismaqe.

Frankly, I didn't see this coming. We were what, 7 point favorites? That's little more than home field advantage. Who would have thought that we would put up 41 and hold them to a goose egg the size of Mr. GoChiefs' one dropped nut?

So far, this is a crazy season for the Chiefs. Are we really that good? Or, are the 69ers really that bad? At this juncture, there's good reason for speculation on that question.

FAX

Kyle401
10-02-2006, 10:22 AM
I love this place because of Bwana's new sig.

Phobia
10-02-2006, 10:28 AM
Who would have thought that we would put up 41 and hold them to a goose egg the size of Mr. GoChiefs' one dropped nut?

I don't know about all that, but there was one moron who confidently predicted a 17+ point blowout. Somebody should give that guy some space to write a column or something, I mean if he can find an even bigger moron to publish his drivel....

jidar
10-02-2006, 10:29 AM
Whenever someone says todays secret word Pee-Wee always says 'SURPRISE, YOU SAID TODAYS SECRET WORD!'
What if the secret word was "Surprise"? Would Pee-Wee get stuck in some kind of secret word loop and would his head explode?

Bob Dole
10-02-2006, 10:29 AM
Bob Dole is trying not to be too excited over the win.

The 49ers came into the game averaging 381.7 yards of offense. They produced less than half that amount against the Chiefs -- 165 yards.

Looking back at the Denver game, we held them to 3 FGs in their own house, and most of the "experts" have them ranked as a top 10 team.

We might really have a defense after all.

FAX
10-02-2006, 10:32 AM
I don't know about all that, but there was one moron who confidently predicted a 17+ point blowout. Somebody should give that guy some space to write a column or something, I mean if he can find an even bigger moron to publish his drivel....

Good point, Mr. Phobia. One has to admire the fact that Mr. GoChiefs was right about the Chiefs' dominance over the 69ers. Plus, he never waivered.

That's more than I can say about myself.

FAX

Lzen
10-02-2006, 10:38 AM
I don't have any issue with thinking the Niners are a good team. I also don't have any issue with thinking they're a patsy.

I have an issue with thinking they're a good team PRIOR to the game and then trying to say they're a patsy AFTER the Chiefs completely dominated them.

Could you be more specific? :evil:

Phobia
10-02-2006, 10:47 AM
Good point, Mr. Phobia. One has to admire the fact that Mr. GoChiefs was right about the Chiefs' dominance over the 69ers. Plus, he never waivered.

That's more than I can say about myself.

FAX

Crap. Foiled.

Count Alex's Losses
10-02-2006, 10:52 AM
I don't know about all that, but there was one moron who confidently predicted a 17+ point blowout. Somebody should give that guy some space to write a column or something, I mean if he can find an even bigger moron to publish his drivel....

Today, we celebrate our independence day.

Kerberos
10-02-2006, 11:02 AM
I love this place because of Bwana's new sig.


That is a good reason to come back again and again huh?

:thumb:


.

Cochise
10-02-2006, 11:04 AM
Not looking forward to next week's game... obviously we're still DoooOOOoOOOooooooOommmeedddddd

Dartgod
10-02-2006, 11:10 AM
MY FAVORITE PAST TIME IS CHIEFSPLANET...CHIEFSPLANET AND WHORES...WHORES AND CHIEFSPLANET. MY TWO FAVORITE PASTIMES ARE CHIEFSPLANET AND WHORES.....AND BOOZE. MY *THREE* FAVORITE PAST TIMES ARE CHIEFSPLANET, WHORES AND BOOZE.....AND AN ALMOST FANATICAL DEVOTION TO PR0N. MY *FOUR*...NO, *AMONGST* MY FAVORITE PAST TIMES...AMONGST MY PAST TIMES ARE SUCH ELEMENTS AS CHIEFSPLANET, WHORES, BOOZE AND PRON....
Fixed your post...

Halfcan
10-02-2006, 11:10 AM
I picked the game 38-10 in a blowout-it turned out much better than I could have dreamed.

Think about this...If I had posted what reality ended up being... 41-0

Dante runs one back
Hali 1 1/2 sacks
DJ huge game 1 1/2 sacks
San Fran shut out with less than 100 yards passing
EK get a TD
LJ gets 2 TD's
Dante catches a TD

I would have been called a Homer.

Halfcan
10-02-2006, 11:14 AM
I don't know about all that, but there was one moron who confidently predicted a 17+ point blowout. Somebody should give that guy some space to write a column or something, I mean if he can find an even bigger moron to publish his drivel....

Thanks, but I don't have time to write much-lol I posted that I thought it would be 38-10. 41-0 was much better though!!

Cochise
10-02-2006, 11:19 AM
Just wait until Trent Green retires.

burt
10-02-2006, 11:20 AM
I don't know about all that, but there was one moron who confidently predicted a 17+ point blowout. Somebody should give that guy some space to write a column or something, I mean if he can find an even bigger moron to publish his drivel....

Spew out enough bullshit....sooner or later you are right. A broken clock is right twice a day.

Hound333
10-02-2006, 11:21 AM
See I worry about getting these kinds of wins. Every year we pound some team and show what we could do. Every year we lose games we shouldn't. I just know that we will somehow end up 9-7 or 8-8 just out of the play-offs.

I hope they prove me wrong because I obviously want them to win every week. I just grow tired of them starting weak and going on a 4-5 game winning streak at the end of the year when it doesn't matter and pushing our draft pick down.

DaFace
10-02-2006, 11:23 AM
Somebody on another thread mentioned this and it seems to make sense. It's not that individuals around here are necessarily bi-polar. Instead, it's that people are more vocal depending on the circumstances.

For example, the pessimists around here have been very vocal for the past few weeks, while the optimists have been quietly hanging around. Now, the pessimists have to shut up a bit, and the optimists become more vocal.

Something like that.

htismaqe
10-02-2006, 11:28 AM
Somebody on another thread mentioned this and it seems to make sense. It's not that individuals around here are necessarily bi-polar. Instead, it's that people are more vocal depending on the circumstances.

For example, the pessimists around here have been very vocal for the past few weeks, while the optimists have been quietly hanging around. Now, the pessimists have to shut up a bit, and the optimists become more vocal.

Something like that.

I don't think that's it at all.

It's that a large portion of Chiefsplanet membership lives by the following:

If the Chiefs lose, it's because the Chiefs suck.

If the Chiefs win, it's because the OTHER TEAM sucks.

DaFace
10-02-2006, 11:30 AM
I don't think that's it at all.

It's that a large portion of Chiefsplanet membership lives by the following:

If the Chiefs lose, it's because the Chiefs suck.

If the Chiefs win, it's because the OTHER TEAM sucks.

I'm sure there are some that think like that, but I doubt they're in the majority. I think the people who are logical about it just get tired of debating about whether or not we suck (at least I know that's how I feel). I tend to speak my mind once and then stay out of the doomsday threads.

FAX
10-02-2006, 11:32 AM
I'm sure there are some that think like that, but I doubt they're in the majority. I think the people who are logical about it just get tired of debating about whether or not we suck (at least I know that's how I feel). I tend to speak my mind once and then stay out of the doomsday threads.

I'm beginning to wonder, Mr. DaFace, if maybe you're just infatuated with this place.

FAX

Halfcan
10-02-2006, 11:36 AM
I don't think that's it at all.

It's that a large portion of Chiefsplanet membership lives by the following:

If the Chiefs lose, it's because the Chiefs suck.

If the Chiefs win, it's because the OTHER TEAM sucks.

Nice points. Plus I think folks on here BELIEVE every thing the media says. If it is printed it is true.

Hopefully this week-the board will be positive.

We should spank Arizona 35-9

cdcox
10-02-2006, 11:37 AM
People give the impression that they think the outcome of a single game is perfectly reliable indicator of how good the two teams are in an absolute sense. Some might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, they are great. Others might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, the 49ers are a bad team. Neither view is adequately supported by the outcome of a single game.

Every person who has followed a team understands that they play better on some days than others. So when you think of how strong a team is, think about it in terms of a probability distribution of performances during a given week. I've plotted two hypothetical distributions for the Chiefs and the 49ers below. I'm hypothetically showing the Chiefs as the stronger team, because their distribution of performances is shifted toward the right relative to SF. So in this case on an average day (at the peak of the two distributions) the Chiefs would beat the 49ers (I'm ignoring home field advantage, for simplicity). However, if KC played poorly enough and SF played well enough, SF would win even though KC is the better team in this hypothetical case. This is called an upset. I've shown that on October 1, in this hypothetical case, the Chiefs played near the top of their ability while the 49ers played near the bottom of theirs, thus leading to a 41-0 route. I've also placed hypothetical indications of the Chiefs' performance on their two previous games on the figure.

However, the truth of the matter is, we really don't know where either team's distribution lies in reality. That is why I kept saying hypothetical in the above paragraph. It is particularly difficult in the beginning of the season, because we have so few data to work with and a team's distribution can change significantly from one year to another. Obscuring reality even more for the Chiefs was that after two games, it appeared that the defense was much better, and the offense was much worse. On Sunday, we got received additional data that the defense is indeed much better and some evidence that the offense still has some fire. We also received a surprise that Herm was willing to be more aggressive with a back up QB than he indicated based on the Bronco's game. However, that evidence is not very strong because 1) it is still based on a few data points (3 games) and 2) we really don't know how good the 49ers offense is (remember, their stats were compiled against competition of unknown but suspect quality) and defense is (probably not very good). Each game played adds more data that helps us better define each teams distribution. In 3 more games, we will have a much better, but still not perfect idea of what the distribution of each of the 32 teams performance distributions look like.

Going back to before Sunday's game, it looked like the two teams distributions were closer together than they (probably) actually were. This mislocation of each team's distribution was a result of 1) too little data and 2) unequal competition. So the opinion before the game that we might have trouble with the 49ers and after the game that they were patsies are not necessarily contradictory.

FAX
10-02-2006, 11:39 AM
Damn. Mr. cdcox stole my post.

FAX

Dartgod
10-02-2006, 11:40 AM
People give the impression that they think the outcome of a single game is perfectly reliable indicator of how good the two teams are in an absolute sense. Some might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, they are great. Others might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, the 49ers are a bad team. Neither view is adequately supported by the outcome of a single game.

Every person who has followed a team understands that they play better on some days than others. So when you think of how strong a team is, think about it in terms of a probability distribution of performances during a given week. I've plotted two hypothetical distributions for the Chiefs and the 49ers below. I'm hypothetically showing the Chiefs as the stronger team, because their distribution of performances is shifted toward the right relative to SF. So in this case on an average day (at the peak of the two distributions) the Chiefs would beat the 49ers (I'm ignoring home field advantage, for simplicity). However, if KC played poorly enough and SF played well enough, SF would win even though KC is the better team in this hypothetical case. This is called an upset. I've shown that on October 1, in this hypothetical case, the Chiefs played near the top of their ability while the 49ers played near the bottom of theirs, thus leading to a 41-0 route. I've also placed hypothetical indications of the Chiefs' performance on their two previous games on the figure.

However, the truth of the matter is, we really don't know where either team's distribution lies in reality. That is why I kept saying hypothetical in the above paragraph. It is particularly difficult in the beginning of the season, because we have so few data to work with and a team's distribution can change significantly from one year to another. Obscuring reality even more for the Chiefs was that after two games, it appeared that the defense was much better, and the offense was much worse. On Sunday, we got received additional data that the defense is indeed much better and some evidence that the offense still has some fire. We also received a surprise that Herm was willing to be more aggressive with a back up QB than he indicated based on the Bronco's game. However, that evidence is not very strong because 1) it is still based on a few data points (3 games) and 2) we really don't know how good the 49ers offense is (remember, their stats were compiled against competition of unknown but suspect quality) and defense is (probably not very good). Each game played adds more data that helps us better define each teams distribution. In 3 more games, we will have a much better, but still not perfect idea of what the distribution of each of the 32 teams performance distributions look like.

Going back to before Sunday's game, it looked like the two teams distributions were closer together than they (probably) actually were. This mislocation of each team's distribution was a result of 1) too little data and 2) unequal competition. So the opinion before the game that we might have trouble with the 49ers and after the game that they were patsies are not necessarily contradictory.
Your and idiot? :shrug:

I got nothing...

Count Alex's Losses
10-02-2006, 11:41 AM
So...the 49ers are an orange tit, and the Chiefs are a red tit?

FringeNC
10-02-2006, 11:41 AM
San Francisco is a patsy, and I said it before the game. I said there was no excuse for not putting up 30+ points and 400 yards.

The offense did what it should have done against a shitty defense.

The defense on the other hand was impressive.

Donger
10-02-2006, 11:42 AM
People give the impression that they think the outcome of a single game is perfectly reliable indicator of how good the two teams are in an absolute sense. Some might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, they are great. Others might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, the 49ers are a bad team. Neither view is adequately supported by the outcome of a single game.

Every person who has followed a team understands that they play better on some days than others. So when you think of how strong a team is, think about it in terms of a probability distribution of performances during a given week. I've plotted two hypothetical distributions for the Chiefs and the 49ers below. I'm hypothetically showing the Chiefs as the stronger team, because their distribution of performances is shifted toward the right relative to SF. So in this case on an average day (at the peak of the two distributions) the Chiefs would beat the 49ers (I'm ignoring home field advantage, for simplicity). However, if KC played poorly enough and SF played well enough, SF would win even though KC is the better team in this hypothetical case. This is called an upset. I've shown that on October 1, in this hypothetical case, the Chiefs played near the top of their ability while the 49ers played near the bottom of theirs, thus leading to a 41-0 route. I've also placed hypothetical indications of the Chiefs' performance on their two previous games on the figure.

However, the truth of the matter is, we really don't know where either team's distribution lies in reality. That is why I kept saying hypothetical in the above paragraph. It is particularly difficult in the beginning of the season, because we have so few data to work with and a team's distribution can change significantly from one year to another. Obscuring reality even more for the Chiefs was that after two games, it appeared that the defense was much better, and the offense was much worse. On Sunday, we got received additional data that the defense is indeed much better and some evidence that the offense still has some fire. We also received a surprise that Herm was willing to be more aggressive with a back up QB than he indicated based on the Bronco's game. However, that evidence is not very strong because 1) it is still based on a few data points (3 games) and 2) we really don't know how good the 49ers offense is (remember, their stats were compiled against competition of unknown but suspect quality) and defense is (probably not very good). Each game played adds more data that helps us better define each teams distribution. In 3 more games, we will have a much better, but still not perfect idea of what the distribution of each of the 32 teams performance distributions look like.

Going back to before Sunday's game, it looked like the two teams distributions were closer together than they (probably) actually were. This mislocation of each team's distribution was a result of 1) too little data and 2) unequal competition. So the opinion before the game that we might have trouble with the 49ers and after the game that they were patsies are not necessarily contradictory.

You know, that graph could also be representative of a married couple's sexual activity and performance.

cdcox
10-02-2006, 11:45 AM
You know, that graph could also be representative of a married couple's sexual activity and performance.

You are correct, Donger. It could represent many things. It is really a lens through which to view the entire universe.

Calcountry
10-02-2006, 11:52 AM
I don't think that's it at all.

It's that a large portion of Chiefsplanet membership lives by the following:

If the Chiefs lose, it's because the Chiefs suck.

If the Chiefs win, it's because the OTHER TEAM sucks harder.I fixed your post.

Inspector
10-02-2006, 12:02 PM
I come here to read Mr. Mecca's insightful posts.

And, as a bonus, so far Mr. Mecca has not charged for this service.

I like free things for the most part.

htismaqe
10-02-2006, 12:08 PM
People give the impression that they think the outcome of a single game is perfectly reliable indicator of how good the two teams are in an absolute sense. Some might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, they are great. Others might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, the 49ers are a bad team. Neither view is adequately supported by the outcome of a single game.

Every person who has followed a team understands that they play better on some days than others. So when you think of how strong a team is, think about it in terms of a probability distribution of performances during a given week. I've plotted two hypothetical distributions for the Chiefs and the 49ers below. I'm hypothetically showing the Chiefs as the stronger team, because their distribution of performances is shifted toward the right relative to SF. So in this case on an average day (at the peak of the two distributions) the Chiefs would beat the 49ers (I'm ignoring home field advantage, for simplicity). However, if KC played poorly enough and SF played well enough, SF would win even though KC is the better team in this hypothetical case. This is called an upset. I've shown that on October 1, in this hypothetical case, the Chiefs played near the top of their ability while the 49ers played near the bottom of theirs, thus leading to a 41-0 route. I've also placed hypothetical indications of the Chiefs' performance on their two previous games on the figure.

However, the truth of the matter is, we really don't know where either team's distribution lies in reality. That is why I kept saying hypothetical in the above paragraph. It is particularly difficult in the beginning of the season, because we have so few data to work with and a team's distribution can change significantly from one year to another. Obscuring reality even more for the Chiefs was that after two games, it appeared that the defense was much better, and the offense was much worse. On Sunday, we got received additional data that the defense is indeed much better and some evidence that the offense still has some fire. We also received a surprise that Herm was willing to be more aggressive with a back up QB than he indicated based on the Bronco's game. However, that evidence is not very strong because 1) it is still based on a few data points (3 games) and 2) we really don't know how good the 49ers offense is (remember, their stats were compiled against competition of unknown but suspect quality) and defense is (probably not very good). Each game played adds more data that helps us better define each teams distribution. In 3 more games, we will have a much better, but still not perfect idea of what the distribution of each of the 32 teams performance distributions look like.

Going back to before Sunday's game, it looked like the two teams distributions were closer together than they (probably) actually were. This mislocation of each team's distribution was a result of 1) too little data and 2) unequal competition. So the opinion before the game that we might have trouble with the 49ers and after the game that they were patsies are not necessarily contradictory.

So you came up with 3 paragraphs worth of mathematics to essentially say "I have no conviction."

:D

Gonzo
10-02-2006, 12:10 PM
People give the impression that they think the outcome of a single game is perfectly reliable indicator of how good the two teams are in an absolute sense. Some might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, they are great. Others might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, the 49ers are a bad team. Neither view is adequately supported by the outcome of a single game.

Every person who has followed a team understands that they play better on some days than others. So when you think of how strong a team is, think about it in terms of a probability distribution of performances during a given week. I've plotted two hypothetical distributions for the Chiefs and the 49ers below. I'm hypothetically showing the Chiefs as the stronger team, because their distribution of performances is shifted toward the right relative to SF. So in this case on an average day (at the peak of the two distributions) the Chiefs would beat the 49ers (I'm ignoring home field advantage, for simplicity). However, if KC played poorly enough and SF played well enough, SF would win even though KC is the better team in this hypothetical case. This is called an upset. I've shown that on October 1, in this hypothetical case, the Chiefs played near the top of their ability while the 49ers played near the bottom of theirs, thus leading to a 41-0 route. I've also placed hypothetical indications of the Chiefs' performance on their two previous games on the figure.

However, the truth of the matter is, we really don't know where either team's distribution lies in reality. That is why I kept saying hypothetical in the above paragraph. It is particularly difficult in the beginning of the season, because we have so few data to work with and a team's distribution can change significantly from one year to another. Obscuring reality even more for the Chiefs was that after two games, it appeared that the defense was much better, and the offense was much worse. On Sunday, we got received additional data that the defense is indeed much better and some evidence that the offense still has some fire. We also received a surprise that Herm was willing to be more aggressive with a back up QB than he indicated based on the Bronco's game. However, that evidence is not very strong because 1) it is still based on a few data points (3 games) and 2) we really don't know how good the 49ers offense is (remember, their stats were compiled against competition of unknown but suspect quality) and defense is (probably not very good). Each game played adds more data that helps us better define each teams distribution. In 3 more games, we will have a much better, but still not perfect idea of what the distribution of each of the 32 teams performance distributions look like.

Going back to before Sunday's game, it looked like the two teams distributions were closer together than they (probably) actually were. This mislocation of each team's distribution was a result of 1) too little data and 2) unequal competition. So the opinion before the game that we might have trouble with the 49ers and after the game that they were patsies are not necessarily contradictory.

:drool:

cdcox
10-02-2006, 12:23 PM
So you came up with 3 paragraphs worth of mathematics to essentially say "I have no conviction."

:D

To have an abolute conviction when in comes to the outcome of a yet-to-be played NFL game is pure folly. We can rightly only speak of percentages, and then only approximately.

Mr. Laz
10-02-2006, 12:25 PM
Coming into yesterday's game, we were told that the 49ers had an up-and-coming offense, Alex Smith was dangerous, and Frank Gore was likely the best back we have faced yet this year. The defense was opportunistic and were gonna sack Huard over and over and over.

Now today I'm reading that we beat up on a "patsy".

I love this place.
you love this place because it provides a daily location to tell other Chiefs' fans how much you think they suck.

runnercyclist
10-02-2006, 12:27 PM
Coming into yesterday's game, we were told that the 49ers had an up-and-coming offense, Alex Smith was dangerous, and Frank Gore was likely the best back we have faced yet this year. The defense was opportunistic and were gonna sack Huard over and over and over.

Now today I'm reading that we beat up on a "patsy".

I love this place.

I tend to believe the latter, but you have to beat up the "weak sisters of the poor"

Same drill this week.

Bob Dole
10-02-2006, 12:34 PM
We also received a surprise that Herm was willing to be more aggressive with a back up QB than he indicated based on the Bronco's game. However, that evidence is not very strong because 1) it is still based on a few data points (3 games) and...

Actually, it's based on fewer than 3 games. Closer to 9.3 quarters, and one might suggest that the 1.3 quarters from week one is invalid because 90% or more of the game prep was likely focused on Green being under center.

(Bob Dole just wanted to argue. Please carry on.)

Raiderhader
10-02-2006, 12:38 PM
People give the impression that they think the outcome of a single game is perfectly reliable indicator of how good the two teams are in an absolute sense. Some might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, they are great. Others might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, the 49ers are a bad team. Neither view is adequately supported by the outcome of a single game.

Every person who has followed a team understands that they play better on some days than others. So when you think of how strong a team is, think about it in terms of a probability distribution of performances during a given week. I've plotted two hypothetical distributions for the Chiefs and the 49ers below. I'm hypothetically showing the Chiefs as the stronger team, because their distribution of performances is shifted toward the right relative to SF. So in this case on an average day (at the peak of the two distributions) the Chiefs would beat the 49ers (I'm ignoring home field advantage, for simplicity). However, if KC played poorly enough and SF played well enough, SF would win even though KC is the better team in this hypothetical case. This is called an upset. I've shown that on October 1, in this hypothetical case, the Chiefs played near the top of their ability while the 49ers played near the bottom of theirs, thus leading to a 41-0 route. I've also placed hypothetical indications of the Chiefs' performance on their two previous games on the figure.

However, the truth of the matter is, we really don't know where either team's distribution lies in reality. That is why I kept saying hypothetical in the above paragraph. It is particularly difficult in the beginning of the season, because we have so few data to work with and a team's distribution can change significantly from one year to another. Obscuring reality even more for the Chiefs was that after two games, it appeared that the defense was much better, and the offense was much worse. On Sunday, we got received additional data that the defense is indeed much better and some evidence that the offense still has some fire. We also received a surprise that Herm was willing to be more aggressive with a back up QB than he indicated based on the Bronco's game. However, that evidence is not very strong because 1) it is still based on a few data points (3 games) and 2) we really don't know how good the 49ers offense is (remember, their stats were compiled against competition of unknown but suspect quality) and defense is (probably not very good). Each game played adds more data that helps us better define each teams distribution. In 3 more games, we will have a much better, but still not perfect idea of what the distribution of each of the 32 teams performance distributions look like.

Going back to before Sunday's game, it looked like the two teams distributions were closer together than they (probably) actually were. This mislocation of each team's distribution was a result of 1) too little data and 2) unequal competition. So the opinion before the game that we might have trouble with the 49ers and after the game that they were patsies are not necessarily contradictory.


This is why I love this place. ROFL

SNR
10-02-2006, 01:21 PM
Know why I love this place?

cdcox posts the smartest thing said on this thread and everyone looks at it like, "duhhhhh"

FAX
10-02-2006, 01:25 PM
Know why I love this place?

cdcox posts the smartest thing said on this thread and everyone looks at it like, "duhhhhh"

LMAO

FAX

cdcox
10-02-2006, 01:32 PM
What I love about this place is the fact when I post stuff like this, half the people think I'm smart and the other half think that I am out of my mind. Which overall is probably about the right reaction.

htismaqe
10-02-2006, 07:28 PM
you love this place because it provides a daily location to tell other Chiefs' fans how much you think they suck.

Sometimes the truth is both sad and unavoidable...

Logical
10-02-2006, 07:56 PM
People give the impression that they think the outcome of a single game is perfectly reliable indicator of how good the two teams are in an absolute sense. Some might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, they are great. Others might argue that because the Chiefs won 41 to nothing, the 49ers are a bad team. Neither view is adequately supported by the outcome of a single game.

Every person who has followed a team understands that they play better on some days than others. So when you think of how strong a team is, think about it in terms of a probability distribution of performances during a given week. I've plotted two hypothetical distributions for the Chiefs and the 49ers below. I'm hypothetically showing the Chiefs as the stronger team, because their distribution of performances is shifted toward the right relative to SF. So in this case on an average day (at the peak of the two distributions) the Chiefs would beat the 49ers (I'm ignoring home field advantage, for simplicity). However, if KC played poorly enough and SF played well enough, SF would win even though KC is the better team in this hypothetical case. This is called an upset. I've shown that on October 1, in this hypothetical case, the Chiefs played near the top of their ability while the 49ers played near the bottom of theirs, thus leading to a 41-0 route. I've also placed hypothetical indications of the Chiefs' performance on their two previous games on the figure.

However, the truth of the matter is, we really don't know where either team's distribution lies in reality. That is why I kept saying hypothetical in the above paragraph. It is particularly difficult in the beginning of the season, because we have so few data to work with and a team's distribution can change significantly from one year to another. Obscuring reality even more for the Chiefs was that after two games, it appeared that the defense was much better, and the offense was much worse. On Sunday, we got received additional data that the defense is indeed much better and some evidence that the offense still has some fire. We also received a surprise that Herm was willing to be more aggressive with a back up QB than he indicated based on the Bronco's game. However, that evidence is not very strong because 1) it is still based on a few data points (3 games) and 2) we really don't know how good the 49ers offense is (remember, their stats were compiled against competition of unknown but suspect quality) and defense is (probably not very good). Each game played adds more data that helps us better define each teams distribution. In 3 more games, we will have a much better, but still not perfect idea of what the distribution of each of the 32 teams performance distributions look like.

Going back to before Sunday's game, it looked like the two teams distributions were closer together than they (probably) actually were. This mislocation of each team's distribution was a result of 1) too little data and 2) unequal competition. So the opinion before the game that we might have trouble with the 49ers and after the game that they were patsies are not necessarily contradictory.I love this place because if you name a subject there is almost alway a reliable source of information to provide, if it is statistics and probability give me Mr. cdcox everytime.

Logical
10-02-2006, 08:00 PM
Not looking forward to next week's game... obviously we're still DoooOOOoOOOooooooOommmeedddddd

You obviously have not been reading previous posts, reference post 10 from htismaqe

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by Logical
Parker you won't find me saying that, our defense just had a fantastic and opportunistic day, while our offense was varied and played very well and most of all did not seem to miss any of their opportunities. We had a complete game something you very rarely see for any team. <HR SIZE=1>For once, I wasn't talking about you. :D

Skip Towne
10-02-2006, 08:00 PM
I love this place because if you name a subject there is almost alway a reliable source of information to provide, if it is statistics and probability give me Mr. cdcox everytime.
Ah, Seedy ain't so much. :p

Lzen
10-02-2006, 08:07 PM
I don't think that's it at all.

It's that a large portion of Chiefsplanet membership lives by the following:

If the Chiefs lose, it's because the Chiefs suck.

If the Chiefs win, it's because the OTHER TEAM sucks.


Cough, cough.....Logical....cough, cough......

Thig Lyfe
10-02-2006, 08:07 PM
AND PRON.

CHIEFSPLANET AND WHORES AND BOOZE AND PRON ARE MY ONLY FAVORITE PAST TIMES.

And embroidery.

Logical
10-02-2006, 08:13 PM
Cough, cough.....Logical....cough, cough......
One more time for those who dont read the posts, here is what Parker repliec to me in post 10.
Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by Logical
Parker you won't find me saying that, our defense just had a fantastic and opportunistic day, while our offense was varied and played very well and most of all did not seem to miss any of their opportunities. We had a complete game something you very rarely see for any team. <HR SIZE=1>For once, I wasn't talking about you. :D

big nasty kcnut
10-02-2006, 08:15 PM
Well i wasn't worry cause i believe in this team.

Mark M
10-02-2006, 08:49 PM
cdcox posts the smartest thing said on this thread and everyone looks at it like, "duhhhhh"

So it wasn't just me?

MM
~~:shrug:

tommykat
10-02-2006, 09:03 PM
So it wasn't just me?

MM
~~:shrug:

But we miss your stories etc...Sniffle

chiefsfan1963
10-02-2006, 09:13 PM
all I said is that KC had to decisively beat the niners to prove to me that they had a chance to make the playoffs this year. They now have to do the same against the Cards and make it at least a game against the Steelers. It's not going to get any easier. It will be interesting to watch.

Ari Chi3fs
10-02-2006, 09:32 PM
See I worry about getting these kinds of wins. Every year we pound some team and show what we could do. Every year we lose games we shouldn't. I just know that we will somehow end up 9-7 or 8-8 just out of the play-offs.

I hope they prove me wrong because I obviously want them to win every week. I just grow tired of them starting weak and going on a 4-5 game winning streak at the end of the year when it doesn't matter and pushing our draft pick down.


Yeah, I recall use drubbing the Falcons like 56 to something a couple years back...

Lzen
10-02-2006, 09:55 PM
One more time for those who dont read the posts, here is what Parker repliec to me in post 10.

Oh I read the posts on this thread. I've also read enough of your posts over the years to know you aren't exactly an optimist when it comes to the Chiefs.

Logical
10-03-2006, 01:33 AM
Oh I read the posts on this thread. I've also read enough of your posts over the years to know you aren't exactly an optimist when it comes to the Chiefs.True but this thread was about people changing their opinions of the opposition before and after the result. You have to admit I really don't do that.

ChiefFan31
10-03-2006, 03:01 AM
One thing I thought of today, and wanted to say to a co-worker Charger fan. It sure is nice playing teams from the Bay Area instead of ones who are pretty good i.e. Ravens, Bungholes...

Looking forward to another get healthy, get confident game against the crap O and D lines that the Cards employ with those all world skill position guys they have :)

Hey, werent the Cards the Cinderalla story of the preseason??

jspchief
10-03-2006, 07:21 AM
True but this thread was about people changing their opinions of the opposition before and after the result. You have to admit I really don't do that.I'm not sure anyone really does much of that. I think htismaqe is taking opinions from different posters and combining them to create a collective planet opinion that fits his gripe.

I'd like to see a few examples of these people that said the niners were good beforehand, and lousy afterward. Sure there might be some people that came in and said that they weren't as good as they thought, but I honestly don't think there is a single poster here that is guilty of what htismaqe is accusing them of. Chiefs fan A says one thing, Chiefs fan B says something else, and htis tweaks it to be "Chiefs fan is talking out of both sides of his mouth".

htismaqe
10-03-2006, 09:25 AM
I'm not sure anyone really does much of that. I think htismaqe is taking opinions from different posters and combining them to create a collective planet opinion that fits his gripe.

I'd like to see a few examples of these people that said the niners were good beforehand, and lousy afterward. Sure there might be some people that came in and said that they weren't as good as they thought, but I honestly don't think there is a single poster here that is guilty of what htismaqe is accusing them of. Chiefs fan A says one thing, Chiefs fan B says something else, and htis tweaks it to be "Chiefs fan is talking out of both sides of his mouth".

Actually, there's two people that I saw do it. And no, I'm not calling them out by name.

I also heard the same thing in 810 and 610 this past week.

jspchief
10-03-2006, 09:30 AM
Actually, there's two people that I saw do it. And no, I'm not calling them out by name.
Why not?

If they are stupid enough to show their asses like that, and it's enough of an issue that it deserves it's own thread, why not call them to the carpet?

People make a lot of bullshit comments, and deserve to be held to it.

htismaqe
10-03-2006, 09:33 AM
Why not?

If they are stupid enough to show their asses like that, and it's enough of an issue that it deserves it's own thread, why not call them to the carpet?

People make a lot of bullshit comments, and deserve to be held to it.

Because I'm voicing my GENERAL displeasure with a problem I PERCIEVE with the fan base. It's been going on far longer than one game, so I'd rather not single out people over that one game...

It's the kinder, gentler "me".

Chiefnj
10-03-2006, 09:34 AM
Actually, there's two people that I saw do it. And no, I'm not calling them out by name.

I also heard the same thing in 810 and 610 this past week.

So, you started this thread over two people that you won't name?

I'm glad they brought you so much entertainment.

My own thoughts on the game:

I was very surprised that: (a) the D shutout a San Fran O that I thought was going to put points on the board, (b) the OL was able to protect Huard, (c) Huard was able to throw the ball as well as he did.

It was a great step in the right direction. Hopefully, they can win on the road against a bad team. I'm still not sold on them until I see them beat a playoff caliber team home or away.

Demonpenz
10-03-2006, 09:43 AM
That's really shitty for the niners having alex smith. What a weak year for a #1 that was. I don't know what their cap situation is but I wouldn't have let brandon loyd go. That team doesn't look like it has any direction. How old is the d line for niners like. They need to start rebuilding from the trenches out. Alex smith can probably be serviceable with a good oline, but he was running for his life on sunday. Are the chiefs that good, or are the niners that bad? We will see i guess. THe chiefs were getting good pressure with 4 D linemen which is always huge. If you can do that your in great shape.

Easy 6
10-03-2006, 09:49 AM
That's really shitty for the niners having alex smith. What a weak year for a #1 that was. I don't know what their cap situation is but I wouldn't have let brandon loyd go. That team doesn't look like it has any direction. How old is the d line for niners like. They need to start rebuilding from the trenches out. Alex smith can probably be serviceable with a good oline, but he was running for his life on sunday. Are the chiefs that good, or are the niners that bad? We will see i guess. THe chiefs were getting good pressure with 4 D linemen which is always huge. If you can do that your in great shape.
I totally agree bout' Lloyd, they sure didnt make sure they had anyone better before that move. Only reason i can think of is maybe he lost the teams respect after horribly short arming that ball or 2 in last years game.

King_Chief_Fan
10-03-2006, 10:00 AM
I like coming here because htismaqe proves at least once a day if not more that my thinking he is an ass hat is true.

FAX
10-03-2006, 10:04 AM
I like coming here because htismaqe proves at least once a day if not more that my thinking he is an ass hat is true.

I beg to differ, Mr. King_Chief_Fan.

Mr. htismaqe is not an ass hat. He is a mod.

That is like being king of the forest.

FAX

htismaqe
10-03-2006, 10:06 AM
I like coming here because htismaqe proves at least once a day if not more that my thinking he is an ass hat is true.

Wow, my feelings are hurt. So bad.

htismaqe
10-03-2006, 10:07 AM
So, you started this thread over two people that you won't name?

I'm glad they brought you so much entertainment.

My own thoughts on the game:

I was very surprised that: (a) the D shutout a San Fran O that I thought was going to put points on the board, (b) the OL was able to protect Huard, (c) Huard was able to throw the ball as well as he did.

It was a great step in the right direction. Hopefully, they can win on the road against a bad team. I'm still not sold on them until I see them beat a playoff caliber team home or away.

No, I started this thread because I'm sick and ****ing tired of people feeling it necessary to BITCH about a 41-0 victory.

Mr. Laz
10-03-2006, 10:09 AM
No, I started this thread because I'm sick and ****ing tired of people feeling it necessary to BITCH about a 41-0 victory.
and how about the people who find it necessary to NEVER STOP bitching about other people bitching? :spock:

htismaqe
10-03-2006, 10:10 AM
and how about the people who find it necessary to NEVER STOP bitching about other people bitching? :spock:

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

Double standards. Another reason I love this place.

Mr. Laz
10-03-2006, 10:12 AM
What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

Double standards. Another reason I love this place.
so then why so mad?

i mean if all these bitching people bring you so much happiness then shouldn't you just STFU and say "Thank you" instead. :moon:

htismaqe
10-03-2006, 10:14 AM
so then why so mad?

i mean if all these bitching people bring you so much happiness then shouldn't you just STFU and say "Thank you" instead. :moon:

Did you read my post?

I said I LOVE this place. I AM saying thank you. :p

Mr. Laz
10-03-2006, 10:16 AM
you must be into S&M then ....... hurts so good.

htismaqe
10-03-2006, 10:32 AM
Wow, nice database error there. Somehow it assigned my post to you.

Anyway, what I said was:

Basically.

Eerily similar to those people who get pissed about every little thing the Chiefs do, but still buy tickets and support the team.