PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Rejoicing in Mediocrity


KChiefs1
11-26-2010, 12:56 PM
http://arrowheadaddict.com/2010/11/26/rejoicing-in-mediocrity/

The Kansas City Chiefs are not a good football team.*

If you have any delusions that the Chiefs are the best team in the NFL right now, just stop it.* They arenít and if you think they are then Iím a Nigerian prince who needs your help to get access to my fortune.* However, while the Chiefs are not a good football team, they are no longer a bad football team.

As a school teacher, there is a term that we learn called a Gain Score.* The Gain Score represents the amount of progress that a student makes.* Some might say, ďWell, why donít you just use grades?Ē* Grades arenít used because they arenít an accurate measure of progress.* They tell you how a student performed but not the amount they improved.* Thatís why an F student becoming a C student is more celebrated than a C student becoming an A student.* Even though the A student is the better student, the C student made more progress.* Ladies and gentlemen, the Chiefs are that C student.

In the previous three years, Kansas City averaged about 3 wins per season.* This season, with six wins, we have already improved our win total by 100% over those previous seasons (50% from just last season) and this season isnít over yet.* Weíve gone from being the 25th ranked offense in 2009 to being the 10th ranked this year.* Our defense has gone from being ranked 30th in 2009 to being ranked 21st.* While these statistics arenít everything, they are indicators that the Chiefs are making progress in the right direction.

That being said, the Chiefs still have problems.* Our wide receiver corps is poor.* Without outside linebacker Tamba Hali Iím not sure we would have a pass rush.* Our pass coverage seems sketchy.* Our offensive line has trouble getting the hard short yardage.* I could go on.* Even with all these problems, Iím still pleased with the Chiefs because the problems are less than the year before.

One of the biggest tells that the Chiefs are becoming a better football team is when the discussion turns to the NFL Draft.* Last year we had so many holes on our team it was a little overwhelming in figuring out who the Chiefs should draft.* This year there are words that are entering the conversation that didnít last year.* One example is the word depth.* Last year all of our picks were seen as possible starters because the Chiefs were so terrible.* This year weíre actually discussing the addressing of back-up positions in the draft.

Perhaps the thought that puts the biggest smile on my face is the youth of the Kansas City Chiefs.* The Chiefs are one of the youngest teams in the NFL.* Itís nice that weíre young but it puts a smile on my face because of the potential that exists in that youth.* If weíre a mediocre team now when the team is young, how good are we going to be when this team is tempered by experience?* I think the Chiefs are going to end up pretty good.

In preparation for the beginning of this season I had to take a moment and figure out what I felt the Chiefs had to do to show me that they were progressing in the right direction.* I had to figure out what had to occur for me to maintain hope in the Kansas City Chiefs.* For me there were two big results I wanted.* The first was to win at least six games.* I figured a 50% win total increase shows enough progress.* The other was for the Chiefs to have a winning record at Arrowhead Stadium.* Here we are with six games left in the regular season and both of those requirements have been met.* The Chiefs are only a mediocre team but thatís okay because they are, more importantly, a better team.*

So rejoice in their mediocrity.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 12:59 PM
The Kansas City Chiefs are not a good football team.* If you have any delusions that the Chiefs are the best team in the NFL right now, just stop it.*

Stopped reading after the second sentence. I don't even think the Chiefs are a good football team YET but seriously that is quite some leap. Since when is "good" = "best" ?
This article seems like it was written by someone who was in Special Ed.

edit: Went back and read the 1st paragraph just for a laugh. Wow. So they're not good, they're not bad, they're not the best.....

THE EARTH IS ROUND

Mr. Arrowhead
11-26-2010, 01:01 PM
Chiefs are decent and solid, but they are not good yet

milkman
11-26-2010, 01:02 PM
Except for that last line, it actually was an interesting piece.

There are a couple of things I disagree with, like suggesting that we cn already begin to address depth in this draft, because we still have too many needs at starting positions to concern ourselves with depth yet.

But all in all, it was an interesting perspective.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:03 PM
Chiefs are decent and solid, but they are not good yet

I think solid is debateable even. A 'solid' team does not get spanked so hard by bad teams.

Pasta Giant Meatball
11-26-2010, 01:03 PM
Did Hamas write this :D?

yeti
11-26-2010, 01:04 PM
C to A is a bigger jump than F to C. F to C is like tackling properly, being in the right position, not turning over the ball. C to A is game planning to your strengths/opp weakness, having a QB that can progress through reads, drafting well etc.

KChiefs1
11-26-2010, 01:04 PM
Stopped reading after the second sentence. I don't even think the Chiefs are a good football team YET but seriously that is quite some leap. Since when is "good" = "best" ?
This article seems like it was written by someone who was in Special Ed.

edit: Went back and read the 1st paragraph just for a laugh. Wow. So they're not good, they're not bad, they're not the best.....

THE EARTH IS ROUND

exactly my thoughts too...I don't think they are the best but I do think they are good.

I think a 10-6 record would be a remarkable accomplishment for this team.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:04 PM
But all in all, it was an interesting perspective.

Interesting? To say 'we aren't good' and 'we aren't the best' but 'we're not bad'...

I dunno it seems fairly obvious to me. Obvious is the opposite of interesting in my mind.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:05 PM
I think a 10-6 record would be a remarkable accomplishment for this team.

Absolutely.

It would be almost unbelievable....I really would be stunned and very very happy.

Hell , Even 9-7 which is maybe more likely, that would be great.

milkman
11-26-2010, 01:05 PM
I think solid is debateable even. A 'solid' team does not get spanked so hard by bad teams.

That is not at all true.

SB winners have been spanked by the dregs of the league, like Baltimore in 2000 and the Patriots in '02.

The Patriots pretty much had their asses handed to them by the Browns this year, who, while improving, are still not a good team.

milkman
11-26-2010, 01:07 PM
Interesting? To say 'we aren't good' and 'we aren't the best' but 'we're not bad'...

I dunno it seems fairly obvious to me. Obvious is the opposite of interesting in my mind.

It was interesting because he set up his main point by discussing these terms that you are critisizing.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-26-2010, 01:07 PM
Did Hamas write this :D?

It's a good question, but the answer is no.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:08 PM
That is not at all true.

SB winners have been spanked by the dregs of the league, like Baltimore in 2000 and the Patriots in '02.

The Patriots pretty much had their asses handed to them by the Browns this year, who, while improving, are still not a good team.


Which Superbowl winners have been spanked by two teams as bad as the 2010 Raiders and Broncos?

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:09 PM
It was interesting because he set up his main point by discussing these terms that you are critisizing.

I'm not criticizing the terms, I am criticizing the setup. I agree with the terms...It is just not article worthy since it is pretty obvious in my mind...

Rain Man
11-26-2010, 01:10 PM
Before I pass judgment on this article, I need to see all of the footnotes that are asterisked.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:11 PM
Before I pass judgment on this article, I need to see all of the footnotes that are asterisked.

ROFL

Coogs
11-26-2010, 01:12 PM
Before I pass judgment on this article, I need to see all of the footnotes that are asterisked.

WarPaint Illustrated? :)

milkman
11-26-2010, 01:16 PM
Which Superbowl winners have been spanked by two teams as bad as the 2010 Raiders and Broncos?

The one that stands out the most to me is the Patriots losing to a crappy Bills team by about 30 points, in '02, I think.

And the Raiders aren't nearly as bad as you are trying to paint them here, and teh Chiefs didn't get spanked by them anyway.

KChiefs1
11-26-2010, 01:17 PM
Before I pass judgment on this article, I need to see all of the footnotes that are asterisked.

not sure why that did that when I copied & pasted.:)

Mr. Laz
11-26-2010, 01:19 PM
it's pretty hard to jump from shitty to great without being average(mediocre) at some point.

so yes, enjoy the improvement even if it's not where we want to ultimately be

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:19 PM
The one that stands out the most to me is the Patriots losing to a crappy Bills team by about 30 points, in '02, I think.

And the Raiders aren't nearly as bad as you are trying to paint them here, and teh Chiefs didn't get spanked by them anyway.

Well to earn a 'solid' reputation maybe then we can agree you have to win a game on the road?

(In 02 they didnt lose to the bills...Im looking around to see if I can find what youre talking about)

(it was 03, the 1st game of the season they lost to the bills 31-0, but then won 17 out of the next 18 games, including the Superbowl)

Bowser
11-26-2010, 01:21 PM
Who the hell thinks we're the best team in football right now?

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:22 PM
Who the hell thinks we're the best team in football right now?

Exactly. That is what I want to know. Maybe this article is geared towards those three people?

Marcellus
11-26-2010, 01:35 PM
Well to earn a 'solid' reputation maybe then we can agree you have to win a game on the road?

(In 02 they didnt lose to the bills...Im looking around to see if I can find what youre talking about)

He is referring to the season they let Lawyer Milloy go the week before the season started. He signed with the Bills who were NE first opponent.

They got blown out big time and everyone criticized BB for letting Milloy go and how the team loved him and he was a key player for them.

NE went on to win their 2nd SB that season.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:37 PM
He is referring to the season they let Lawyer Milloy go the week before the season started. He signed with the Bills who were NE first opponent.

They got blown out big time and everyone criticized BB for letting Milloy go and how the team loved him and he was a key player for them.

NE went on to win their 2nd SB that season.

Yah it was 03. They only lost badly one time, and they went 14-2 and won the superbowl.

I personally don't think we are there yet...

We need to win a road game before I am willing to call this team "Solid." Losing to the Raiders and the Broncos and struggling against Cleveland and Buffalo.....We have a little bit to go before solidity IMO. Starting with winning some road games....

Don't get me wrong though..I believe we will get there.

Marcellus
11-26-2010, 01:38 PM
Yah it was 03. They only lost badly one time, and they went 14-2 and won the superbowl.

I personally don't think we are there yet...

We need to win a road game before I am willing to call this team "Solid."

No we aren't near there yet, but his point was good teams do get blown out by bad teams on occasion.

chiefzilla1501
11-26-2010, 01:42 PM
The one premise I really disagree with is the idea that the Chiefs are a C student. While I think that's fair, what should be mentioned is that in this league, most of the best teams are a B+ at best. I know this team has holes and needs. But I think way too many people get hung up on building a team that is top to bottom without holes.

The Chiefs need another pass rusher, a Nose Tackle, and quality depth. And they could stand to improve a lot at the QB position. Getting better corners, Inside Linebackers, Offensive Linemen, and receivers are luxuries, but not necessary for us to get over the hump. It's not like we're building Rome from the ashes. Honestly, if we get an absolute stud OLB OR a stud QB, you may not even need the other two pieces.

milkman
11-26-2010, 01:43 PM
Yah it was 03. They only lost badly one time, and they went 14-2 and won the superbowl.

I personally don't think we are there yet...

We need to win a road game before I am willing to call this team "Solid."

His point is that this team has shown improvement, much more than we, as fans, should expect.

I am not putting the Chiefs in the same category as the '03 Patriots.

I am simply pointing out that even good teams get their asses spanked, so suggesting that the "solid" teams don't get spanked by bad teams is ill informed.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:44 PM
No we aren't near there yet, but his point was good teams do get blown out by bad teams on occasion.

I agree with that. I Guess arguing over a term like 'solid' is difficult because your definition of solid and mine might not be the same. Personally I don't see a solid team getting blown out by the Broncos, beaten by the Raiders, AND struggling to win games on the road.

Also the 2003 Patriots got blown out the 1st game of the season, lost the 4th game and GREW as the season went. They didn't start out that way. They started out more similar to the 2002 patriots (9-7 or whatever).

Bowser
11-26-2010, 01:44 PM
You've got to be good before you can be considered great, and I think they Chiefs are well on their way to being good.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 01:46 PM
His point is that this team has shown improvement, much more than we, as fans, should expect.


I agree with this, but again it seems pretty obvious. I guess I will file this article right next to my "Cassel is OK but not great" and "Jamaal Charles needs more carries" and "Pittsburgh has a pretty good team" articles...

I will put it right next to my favorite book:


http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/1670/1226217737653.jpg

Fritz88
11-26-2010, 01:49 PM
Spot on.

milkman
11-26-2010, 01:52 PM
I agree with that. I Guess arguing over a term like 'solid' is difficult because your definition of solid and mine might not be the same. Personally I don't see a solid team getting blown out by the Broncos, beaten by the Raiders, AND struggling to win games on the road.

Also the 2003 Patriots got blown out the 1st game of the season, lost the 4th game and GREW as the season went. They didn't start out that way. They started out more similar to the 2002 patriots (9-7 or whatever).

Just a quick search shows the 2007 New York Giants got blown out 41-17 by a mediocre (8-8) Minnesota Vikings team in week 12.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 02:00 PM
Just a quick search shows the 2007 New York Giants got blown out 41-17 by a mediocre (8-8) Minnesota Vikings team in week 12.

We have already established that 'solid' teams can get blown out once and still be considered solid.

I still don't think the Chiefs are a solid team, YET.

But that is just based on my definition of solid. I think we need to win some road games to be solid.

milkman
11-26-2010, 02:13 PM
We have already established that 'solid' teams can get blown out once and still be considered solid.

I still don't think the Chiefs are a solid team, YET.

But that is just based on my definition of solid. I think we need to win some road games to be solid.

I am not even suggesting that the Cheifs are solid, but other than the Donkeys, which game did we get blown out in?

The Raiders went to overtime, which is the other game you mentioned, and maybe it's just me, but a game that goes into overtime is not by any definition, reasonable or otherwise, a blow out.

And I am still only arguing that the mian point, that this team is improving, a word that isn't synonymous with solid, is a valid point.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 02:36 PM
I am not even suggesting that the Cheifs are solid,

Someone else did earlier in the thread, then you started responding to my response to them. If you follow it back, you'll see. (My argument of the word solid was with someone else - I agree with what you are saying).

milkman
11-26-2010, 02:43 PM
Someone else did earlier in the thread, then you started responding to my response to them. If you follow it back, you'll see. (My argument of the word solid was with someone else - I agree with what you are saying).

Yeah, followed it back, and the reason I responded is because you said that "solid" teams don't get spanked by bad teams like the Donkeys and Raiders.

Clearly they can and do, and the Chiefs weren't spanked by the Raiders.

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 02:49 PM
Yeah, followed it back, and the reason I responded is because you said that "solid" teams don't get spanked by bad teams like the Donkeys and Raiders.

Clearly they can and do, and the Chiefs weren't spanked by the Raiders.

Solid teams do not get beaten by bad teams on a regular basis. You are pointing out the exceptions to rule. Exceptions always exist. Just because you can find an exception does not nullify the rule. It seems like you are just arguing for arguments sake.....

One of the things that in my opinion makes a team solid is the ability to beat bad teams AND beat them on the road. The Chiefs haven't proven they can do this yet. Until then they are not solid.

If you think the Chiefs are 'solid' that is fine. I'm just not ready to make that statement yet.

milkman
11-26-2010, 02:55 PM
Solid teams do not get beaten by bad teams on a regular basis. You are pointing out the exceptions to rule. Exceptions always exist. Just because you can find an exception does not nullify the rule. It seems like you are just arguing for arguments sake.....

One of the things that in my opinion makes a team solid is the ability to beat bad teams AND beat them on the road. The Chiefs haven't proven they can do this yet. Until then they are not solid.

If you think the Chiefs are 'solid' that is fine. I'm just not ready to make that statement yet.

Not arguing to argue, I was simply disputing your assertion that solid teams don't get blown out by bad teams.

And while it is an exception when it happens, it does happen more than you seem to think it does.

I simply found exceptions that involved SB winners.

I am not going to go looking at games for every team over the years to point out more examples.

It happens.

Again, we don't disagree about the Chiefs and the use of the word "solid" to describe them.

We simply disagree about wether you made an accurate statement.

chasedude
11-26-2010, 03:03 PM
After watching too many losing seasons, a winning season is GREAT improvement.

I have no expectations for this team.

I forget the exact quote I saw, but it had something to do with "Disappointment only comes from unfulfilled expectations."

Pawnmower
11-26-2010, 03:14 PM
We simply disagree about wether you made an accurate statement.

I was inaccurate in describing the Chiefs loss to the Raiders as a spanking. My bad. It felt like a spanking watching it, even though the score was close. To me it was one of those games where the score was MUCH closer than it 'felt.' So you are right, I was inaccurate.

The Chiefs have only been spanked by one bad team this year (so far).

I still believe that a team can't be considered solid if they get spanked by bad teams (with an S). So, so far the Chiefs have not been proven unsolid by this Criteria.

I do have other Criteria though, not just that one.

I think the main point of what I said (The Chiefs are not solid - yet) still stands despite my inaccuracy.