View Full Version : Now, which AFC West team is...

Mile High Mania
04-23-2001, 06:47 AM
...best positioned for a division title run in 2001?

04-23-2001, 07:04 AM
Although it chaps my butt to admit it, the Raiders are in very good shape again this season.

I expect the Raiders and Broncos to vie for the AFC West title, but I think the Raiders are a more complete team. "The Fade" is history and Gruden is an excellent fit with the team.

Seattle is a year away from dominance. And by then they will not be our problem anymore.

The Chargers will be a better team [hard not to be at 1-15], and will spoil some parties, but are a year or so away from legitimate contention, IMO.

The Chiefs are at least a year [and a Defense] away from contention.

If you will excuse me, I have to go brush my teeth now. There is an awful taste in there.

Grudginly, very grudgingly, giving props to the Silver and Black.

keg in kc
04-23-2001, 07:04 AM
I thought Broncos before the draft, and nothing last weekend changes my mind.

Seattle made up the most ground, IMHO, but that won't translate into success until the middle of this season or even 2002, in which case it probably won't matter much to us (unless we meet them in the Super Bowl).

04-23-2001, 07:46 AM

I hate to say this crap too! Just my HO ! Honest to boot !

04-23-2001, 08:12 AM
And the winner with the weakest *** schedual..... The Donks.

04-23-2001, 08:36 AM
I can't give it to Seattle with a new, career backup Qb, two VERY young WRs, and potentially a soph Rb as well. Give them a year to work together before I offer my final answer on this team. The defense will be much improved, but the O is too tough to call.

San Diego will also greatly improved, but won't challenge for post-season.

Ditto KC.

I give Oakland the edge over Denver, because it was tails. :)

Mile High Mania
04-23-2001, 08:54 AM
Weak schedule? C'mon.... Everyone in the West virtually plays the same damn teams. Denver plays some of the tougher teams at home, but that doesn't equate to a weak schedule.

More favorable... yes. Weak... hardly.

04-23-2001, 09:31 AM
Comparing schedules between an 11-5 team and a 7-9 team, one would like to think that there would be a difference between schedules. In reality, KC schedule is almost exactly the same if not tougher than Denvers.

Against the NFC, KC gets to play Philadelphia and Denver gets to play Dallas. Who had the 7-9 season here?

It's a mystery to me why, but it allways seems that KC get's the toughest schedule of all the AFC West.

04-23-2001, 09:48 AM
M H M ....


Denver always gets the easier sch. compared to the Chiefs....I haven't figured that one out yet either...and that goes for Oakland too !

Mile High Mania
04-23-2001, 10:37 AM
Wow... it's way too early for whining. And you guys are the one that b*tch about McCaffery... geez.

Let's break down the non-AFCwest shedules:

KC Home-
Giants, Steelers, Colts, Philly
KC Away-
Skins, Zona, Jets, Jags

Oak Home-
Jets, Boys, Zona, Titans
Oak Away-
Dophins, Indy, Philly, Giants

Sea Home-
Philly, Jags, Dolphins, Boys
Sea Away-
Browns, Skins, Bills, Giants

Den Home-
Giants, Ravens, Pats, Skins
Den Away-
Indy, Zona, Boys, Dolphins

How do you look at these schedules and see that KC has a tougher schedule than anyone else? Maybe it's tougher b/c KC has a weaker team than Oak, Den or possibly Sea. I'm not sure.

04-23-2001, 10:52 AM
Who's whining? Only pointing out facts...

Why doesnt Denver play Philly instead of Dallas? Dallas went 5-11 and finished 4th in their division. I would have thought that the 1 and 2 would play the 1 and 2 respectively.

Instead, KC who was 3rd in their division plays them instead of you all. That's all I was pointing out.

Go back and look at last years schedule, Oakland had a cake walk of a schedule while we had one of the toughest...they finished one game behind us.

In 1999, Denver coming off of their 2nd straight SB played fewer playoff teams than KC did and KC went 7-9. Denver also got to play Cincy that year...how the hell does the SB champ play a pud team like that?

Mile High Mania
04-23-2001, 11:07 AM
There's a fine line b/t whining and pointing out facts.

There's a lot of both scattered throughout the post.

Why is Denver the only team to play the Ravens out of the West? Why is Denver the only team to play the two teams that were last in the SuperBowl?

Everyone is touting Philly as this dangerous team, but who did they play last year? They played a bunch of shag teams and did fairly well. Is McNabb good? Sure, but his WRs are mediocre and the RB is a li'l above average when healthy.

Is Philly better than Dallas? Yes, but let's see what Philly does with a perceived tougher schedule this year.

Here are the 4 games (per team) that differentiate the KC and Denver schedules:

Denver: Ravens, Dolphins, Pats and Boys
KC: Jags, Jets, Philly and Steelers

The Pats and Boys are just as questionable to me as the Jets and Steelers, when you consider the strength of the schedules.

04-23-2001, 11:19 AM
m h m .....

Providing the divisonal games all split 4-4...Denver has the weaker away games...but you do have the Ravens at home...tuff game.....50-50 win/loss......This will be a fun year to watch the AFC WEST unfold !

04-23-2001, 11:24 AM
Im sorry, Brad, I know this must be a sore spot w/you all in Denver since it is the truth.

I merely pointed out the difference between our NFC competition and wondered why, since the NFL uses prior years finishing order to make up the schedule why we played Philly instead of you all.

If they are so easy as you say, since they didnt play anyone last year, then I guess Denver getting Dallas and KC getting Philly is a wash.

Again, my original point still stands, looking at the schedules of an 11-5 team vs. a 7-9 team, one would think that there would be a difference, your last post proves my point--there is essentially no difference even though the two teams were separated by 4 games (25% of the entire season).

Mile High Mania
04-23-2001, 12:51 PM
Titus... this didn't hit a sore spot with me, sorry if it sounds so. I get your point. My original retort was to the fact that some of you stated Denver had a "weaka$$" schedule. I don't think they do, and if the Philly game is the main difference... then the arugment is silly. I don't see Philly as a top 10 or 12 team in the NFL.

As I said, yes Philly is tougher than Dallas, but if you take those two teams out of our discussions for KC and Denver ... I don't see KC having a murderous schedule compared to Denver.

Simply put, Philly does not make KC's schedule tougher... especially since KC is home vs Philly and Denver is on the road on Thanksgiving.

Joe Seahawk
04-23-2001, 12:55 PM
Alright, Who's stuffing the ballot box...:)

I'm going to have to get Marcia Clark in here and certify this poll, before it's tampered with anymore

04-23-2001, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Mile High Mania
Wow... it's way too early for whining. And you guys are the one that b*tch about McCaffery... geez.

Let's break down the non-AFCwest shedules:

KC Home-
Giants, Steelers, Colts, Philly
KC Away-
Skins, Zona, Jets, Jags

Oak Home-
Jets, Boys, Zona, Titans
Oak Away-
Dophins, Indy, Philly, Giants

Sea Home-
Philly, Jags, Dolphins, Boys
Sea Away-
Browns, Skins, Bills, Giants

Den Home-
Giants, Ravens, Pats, Skins
Den Away-
Indy, Zona, Boys, Dolphins

How do you look at these schedules and see that KC has a tougher schedule than anyone else? Maybe it's tougher b/c KC has a weaker team than Oak, Den or possibly Sea. I'm not sure.

I think you can look from the perpective of each team and point out the toughness or easiness of schedule.... You can't really say till the year plays out.... For example, from Oaklands perspective, we're the only team without a layup on the road... every team can point something out...

You know somewhere in cyberland some Poindexter from the NFC is looking at SD to be a slam dunk because they went 1-15 last year.... I think we all know they weren't a 1-15 team...

I'd just like to know the bright bulb that has us going to Indy 2 years in a row... A home and home is appropriate.... and the poor Jets get to come to Oakland for the 3rd year in a row...
If the NFL had any sense of humor... The Ravens would play at Arrowhead this year.....
10 wins may take this division this year... there are no gimmee games in the AFCWest.

Mile High Mania
04-23-2001, 02:27 PM
Huladude... I do think that Oakland has the toughest schedule, but outside of that there's not that much difference. I think Denver has the luxury of playing the stronger teams on their schedule early and at home.

But, just b/c they're at home it doesn't make the Giants or Ravens that much easier for Denver.

Overall, it should be a very competitive year for the division.

04-23-2001, 02:43 PM
Again, Brad, I think we are saying the same thing, just slightly different.

There is, in essence, no major difference between KC's and Denvers schedules--I agree--but that IS the problem--KC finished the season 4 games worse that Denver.

Now, had Denver finished 8-8, I wouldnt be suprised, but an 11-5 team that gets the same schedule as a 7-9 team is a little skewed, IMO.

In 2000, coming off the 6-10 season, Denver got to play the Ohio cupcakes, but KC at 7-9 doesnt get that luxury.

I would have thought KC would have had a couple of 'gimmies' on the schedule. In reality, there are none.

04-23-2001, 02:50 PM
KC Titus, last years records have no bearing at all on the non-conference schedule. It is simply a rotation that ensures that over X amount of years, everybody plays everybody the same amount of times, both home and away. Sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes not...

And since the divisional part of the schedule is pre-determined, too, the only place last years records come into play is the 4 non-divisional conference games. All the 1st place teams play each other, all the 2nd play each other, etc....

It's not really as much a record-driven schedule as the league makes it out to be. The scheduling gets alot more consistent next year after realignment, no more of this junk!

Baby Lee
04-23-2001, 02:56 PM
Why is Denver the only team to play the Ravens out of the West? Why is Denver the only team to play the two teams that were last in the SuperBowl?

Shhreettt!! That's a foul. Asking the same question twice.


04-23-2001, 02:58 PM
cjderby: thanks, I was assuming that the out of conference schedule was also determined by schedule, but tend to believe you are correct.

Yes, alignment will solve many of these scheduling problems at least prior to the season.

We can never really tell the true difficulty of the schedule until after it has been played. Injuries and FA's and rookies make contenders to teams that you would have assumed to be a doormat the year before -- See Baltimore last year.

Mile High Mania
04-23-2001, 03:09 PM
Ok, for JC ... if you read the two questions, they are not the same. The first refers to the Ravens, the second refers to the Ravens and Giants. Two questions referring to the same game, though.

Anywho, Titus... we are saying the same thing. The only way that I can describe it is this, it came down to one of us playing Philly and the other playing Dallas on Thanksgiving. So, the NFL said Denver at Dallas or KC at Dallas on Thanksgiving? You make the call.

Let's look at it like this - in 2001, the AFC West plays the NFC East. So, since Philly and Dallas are the main debate here with the NFC competition, let's take out the NFC East in this scenario.

Non AFC West & NFC East schedule:

Denver: Ravens, Colts, Dolphins and Pats
KC: Colts, Jaguars, Jets and Steelers

There you have it... that's what an 11-5 record gets you compared to 7-9.

04-23-2001, 03:22 PM
MHM, please read my response again. There is no judgement made by the NFL on who plays Dallas or Philly or anybody else. That was predetermined years ago by the non-conference schedule rotation., Both the "who" and the "where" are pre-set. The only year-to-year judgement the NFL has on non-conference scheduling is the "when"...

For post-realignment, the same concept for non-conference will be used. They'll have to determine a new rotation, but once they do, you can figure out your non-conference schedule as many years into the future as you want. Or at least until the next realignment! :)

Baby Lee
04-23-2001, 03:33 PM
A syllogism for MHM

P1. Denver is the only AFC West team to play the Raven's in 2001 regular season.

P2. Only two teams play in any given SB.

P3. The Ravens were one of the two teams to participate in the 2001 SB. The Giants were the other.

P4. All AFC West teams play the Giants

C. Denver is the only team from the AFC West to play BOTH teams from the 2001 SB.

Mile High Mania
04-23-2001, 05:16 PM
Geez... are you done? Figured you could follow along without having to break down so simply. I'll try to do better next time. :-)

Lots of homer picks for KC... looks like you guys are poised for greatness. It will definitely be a fun season.

Joe Seahawk
04-23-2001, 05:50 PM
I Think Denver and Oakland are the faves going in.

K.C. Sea, and San Diego all have question marks.. However, any one of the 5 teams could win the division this year IMO..

There is no team in this division that would shock me if they won..(I hope that makes sense)

04-23-2001, 07:32 PM
Wow, there are either a lot of blind homers or I am missing something. With our schedule and the need to gell an entirely new offensive philosophy and revert to the old aggressive Defensive philosophy suggests at best 10-6, I doubt that will win the division. But here is to hoping the rest of you are correct.

Mile High Mania
04-23-2001, 07:49 PM
Joe, can you clear this up for me?

Are you implying that Seattle, Oakland, Denver, San Diego and KC are all in the same division. And, furthermore are you suggesting that any of those teams could win the division?

That's just crazy! No wonder, you're a Seahawk fan.

ps- yes, this was said in jest (jest refers to humor in the dictionary somewhere). hahaha

I would be frickin amazed if the Chargers won the division or even more than 8 games, though.

Joe Seahawk
04-23-2001, 08:28 PM
Chargers already have a good D now you add Marcellus Wiley and I think they signed another free agent defensive player as well. (name escapes me )

Flutie is a huge improvement at qb this year, also Ld should give them a ground game..

This division will be tough this year thats for sure..

Chargers winning 8 games would not suprise me in the least...

I know what you mean about my earlier post!..:) For some reason I could not come up with a good way to phrase my point...:D

04-23-2001, 08:35 PM
Oh I feel the Raiders are best positioned forgot to mention that, (ooh that sucked!).

As far as the great schedule debate I have to go along with MHM and JQ. If I threw out the inner division games I would rate toughness of schedule very even.

I think we KC fans are over-reacting because we have traditionally had a very tough time with Jacksonville (especially in Jacksonville), but unless they turn it around from last season they are softer than the Titans and Ravens by a large margin.

Chiefs/Seahawks Jags, Broncos Ravens, Raiders Titans -- So Jags equal softer schedule Seattle and KC
Chiefs/Broncos/Raiders have Colts but Seattle has the Browns so softer schedule Seattle
All have Giants so no advantage/disadvantage here
All except Chiefs have Boys, Chiefs have Steelers disadvantage Chiefs
Chiefs/Seahawks/Raiders have Philly, Denver has Pats softer schdule advantage Denver
Chiefs/Raiders/Broncos have Arizona while Seattle has Bills disadvantage Seahawks
Chiefs/Seahawks/Broncos have Redskins Oakland has Jets advantage Oakland
RaidersSeahawks/Broncos have Dolphins Chiefs have Jets advantage Chiefs

I ignored home and away because looking it over these things basically offset each other over the whole schedule so what do we end up with:

KC has advantage over other teams two (2) times and disadvantage one (1) time - net advantage 1 time
Seattle has advantage over other teams two times and disadvantage one (1) time - net advantage 1 time
Oakland has advantage over other teams one (1) time
Denver has advantage over other teams one (1) time

So folks based on my analysis this schedule is pretty darn even, now since it is supposed to be weighted by record it is more unfair to the Seahawks and Chiefs.

Any comments on my analysis are appreciated but possibly ignored (LOL)

04-23-2001, 08:37 PM
I agree that Denver and Oakland have the best shot at taking the division. Seattle could surprise although I think they are 1 year away from contending.

The Chargers and Chiefs will struggle the most but will be no push overs.

IMO this will be the most competitive division in FB. Unless of course you consider the NFC Central. With the likely winner goint 9-7 or 8-8 it will automatically be a competitive division.

Joe Seahawk
04-23-2001, 08:38 PM
In retrospect The trade Holmy made for Hasselback was truly brilliant..

We moved from 10 to 17 (but still got a steal in Hutchinson)

Then he trades SF to move back to 9th (also re-attaining the third he lost in the Hasselback deal) And still got one of the 2 WR he wanted..

It's almost like we got Hasselback for free.....Joe
giving Holmy his props

Mile High Mania
04-24-2001, 06:15 AM
Logical... I was waiting for you to say, "You see it's all rather simple when you break it down". Similar to Bakay on those ESPN shows on Sundays.

Anywho, I agree that the schedules *should* be softer for the teams that played poorly last year... but, depending on the other divisions you play it sometimes doesn't work out like that.

Oh well, KC fans you should give it this spin...
Maybe the NFL is rewarding you with a tougher schedule b/c they feel you're much better than a 7-9 team and that it would be disprectful to give you an easy stretch of games. :-)

Joe - you have many reasons to be pumped about the birds. Run wild, brutha and throw out that smack.

04-24-2001, 07:13 PM
Yeah, Yeah thats the Ticket, we were actually better than 7-9 the NFL realized that and gave us the schedule for the 12-4 team we really were.

LMAO, because it was rather simple when I broke it down. Oh well I guess I am just a logic geek!

Brad, I look forward to two exciting games between the Chiefs and the Bronco's with quite a bit more scoring.