PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Chiefs are a fluke


donkhater
09-08-2011, 06:27 AM
About the only analyst for any media outlet that hasn't pegged the Chiefs a fluke is Merril Hoge, who actully picked them to repeat. I think there are two reasons for this:

1. Their preseaon performance. Granted, this isn't giving Chiefs fans much faith in the squad to start the year, but it IS preseason. The goals are much different.

2. The way they finished last year. Despite their record, I would imagine that few people actually watched this team play. Hence the only real time they saw KC was in their atrociuos playoff loss. They did look bad in that game, but that doesn't mean they haven't improved.

Ultimately I don't think KC's record of 10-6 was a fluke. They were improved AND did have a favorable schedule. What WAS a fluke was that a 10-6 record won the division. Both San Diego and Oakland played well enough in spurts last year to think that they should have put up better records than they did. I think it surprised people that 10-6, with the schedule THE ENTIRE AFC WEST PLAYED, was enough to win the division. So the 'fluke' may be that SD and Oak underacheived, not that KC overachieved. At least, that's what I think.

Tuckdaddy
09-08-2011, 06:35 AM
About the only analyst for any media outlet that hasn't pegged the Chiefs a fluke is Merril Hoge, who actully picked them to repeat. I think there are two reasons for this:

1. Their preseaon performance. Granted, this isn't giving Chiefs fans much faith in the squad to start the year, but it IS preseason. The goals are much different.

2. The way they finished last year. Despite their record, I would imagine that few people actually watched this team play. Hence the only real time they saw KC was in their atrociuos playoff loss. They did look bad in that game, but that doesn't mean they haven't improved.

Ultimately I don't think KC's record of 10-6 was a fluke. They were improved AND did have a favorable schedule. What WAS a fluke was that a 10-6 record won the division. Both San Diego and Oakland played well enough in spurts last year to think that they should have put up better records than they did. I think it surprised people that 10-6, with the schedule THE ENTIRE AFC WEST PLAYED, was enough to win the division. So the 'fluke' may be that SD and Oak underacheived, not that KC overachieved. At least, that's what I think.

A new season starts this week and this is what you post? BAN HIM!

Bugeater
09-08-2011, 06:48 AM
This is a completely brand new topic that has never been discussed before.

Marcellus
09-08-2011, 07:02 AM
R

Rooster
09-08-2011, 07:13 AM
This is a completely brand new topic that has never been discussed before.

LMAOLMAO

Deberg_1990
09-08-2011, 07:15 AM
This is a completely brand new topic that has never been discussed before.

What grade do you give Matt Cassel?

TEX
09-08-2011, 07:16 AM
10-6 was no fluke and neither was winning the division. The Chiefs lead from start to finish. They did what every team did in the division and that was play the games that were on the schedule. They won more than the other teams. Thus, they won the division. No fluke.

All the other temas had the same chance and failed. SD was always a step back and once Oakland played themselves into contention, they folded as usual. Both teams proved incapable of winning the division when the whole body of work throughout the season was considered and when team strengths and weakenesses were realized. The only team that proved capable won the thing. KC played better than all the rest of the AFC west from start to finish and won the division. No fluke.

Reerun_KC
09-08-2011, 07:28 AM
http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/images/smilies/banned.gif

Gadzooks
09-08-2011, 07:50 AM
Stop trolling!

Fire Me Boy!
09-08-2011, 07:56 AM
We'd have been 16-0 if the following things happened:

1. Charles had more carries.
2. We won the six games we lost.

bsp4444
09-08-2011, 08:16 AM
Actually, only about half of that had to happen.

|Zach|
09-08-2011, 08:17 AM
Media talking heads?

Yes. I am convinced.

In other news SD has already won the Superbowl. Right?

RippedmyFlesh
09-08-2011, 08:46 AM
10-6 was no fluke and neither was winning the division. The Chiefs lead from start to finish. They did what every team did in the division and that was play the games that were on the schedule. They won more than the other teams. Thus, they won the division. No fluke.

All the other temas had the same chance and failed. SD was always a step back and once Oakland played themselves into contention, they folded as usual. Both teams proved incapable of winning the division when the whole body of work throughout the season was considered and when team strengths and weakenesses were realized. The only team that proved capable won the thing. KC played better than all the rest of the AFC west from start to finish and won the division. No fluke.

The fluke to me was not KC going 10-6 but SD starting 2-5 and oak 6-0 in the division.SD may start slow but 7 games in a funk is a long time for a team that good.
Thank God for norv.

notorious
09-08-2011, 08:47 AM
Bring on the season so that they can be proven wrong or right.

loochy
09-08-2011, 08:52 AM
This is a fluke:

http://naturescrusaders.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pblue-whale-fluke.jpg

This is also a fluke:

http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/134603/350wm/C0071606-Male_schistosome_fluke_worm-SPL.jpg

This is not a fluke:

http://www.kryptonitekollectibles.com/images/cat/chiefs_logo_small.gif

PGM
09-08-2011, 06:02 PM
Those guys are pretty clueless, so...

BossChief
09-08-2011, 06:07 PM
your mom getting laid was a fluke

Okie_Apparition
09-08-2011, 06:07 PM
Mathews will run all over the Chiefs opening day & the 49ers are going to kill us!! :OHNOES:

Discuss Thrower
09-08-2011, 06:12 PM
One thing I forgot until today and reading "experts'" predictions is the fact Kansas City, if one is willing to accept this premise, "should have" won two games last season in losing to Indianapolis and Houston. Or at the very least won one of the two, which would have:
a) eliminated the Chargers from contention outright
b) given the Chiefs one more victory against a winning opponent and a division champion had that one hypothetical win came against the Colts.

Of course this is all supposition and things could have happened much differently than it did had they actually beaten the Colts or Texans in terms of losing another game down the line. I still think it's interesting regardless.

Hog Farmer
09-08-2011, 06:15 PM
I think we can match up with anybody now. This season is gonna suprise alot of people.

Chocolate Hog
09-08-2011, 06:17 PM
E

petegz28
09-08-2011, 06:18 PM
Yes, SD and OAK played good in spurts. But they shared the same weak schedule as we did and we did better.

BossChief
09-08-2011, 06:18 PM
I think we can match up with anybody now. This season is gonna suprise alot of people.

absolutely this

especially if Baldwin is able to return quickly and produce

rocknrolla
09-08-2011, 06:27 PM
About the only analyst for any media outlet that hasn't pegged the Chiefs a fluke is Merril Hoge, who actully picked them to repeat. I think there are two reasons for this:

1. Their preseaon performance. Granted, this isn't giving Chiefs fans much faith in the squad to start the year, but it IS preseason. The goals are much different.

2. The way they finished last year. Despite their record, I would imagine that few people actually watched this team play. Hence the only real time they saw KC was in their atrociuos playoff loss. They did look bad in that game, but that doesn't mean they haven't improved.

Ultimately I don't think KC's record of 10-6 was a fluke. They were improved AND did have a favorable schedule. What WAS a fluke was that a 10-6 record won the division. Both San Diego and Oakland played well enough in spurts last year to think that they should have put up better records than they did. I think it surprised people that 10-6, with the schedule THE ENTIRE AFC WEST PLAYED, was enough to win the division. So the 'fluke' may be that SD and Oak underacheived, not that KC overachieved. At least, that's what I think.

FAIL!

BCD
09-08-2011, 06:44 PM
Frankly, I'm surprised Hoge said that. Historically, he's always hated the Chiefs.

rocknrolla
09-08-2011, 07:01 PM
Frankly, I'm surprised Hoge said that. Historically, he's always hated the Chiefs.

He doesn't give out compliments too often.

beach tribe
09-08-2011, 07:16 PM
I think we can match up with anybody now. This season is gonna suprise alot of people.

Nuh uhhh. Haven't you heard? We sucked it up in the pre-season so we should just pack it in, and jump in the luck sweepstakes.
The Raiders are better than us. The Chargers? Shit, no way we can compete.
We shouldn't even be playing in the same league as most NFL teams.
All our players are going to regress, and everybody else's players are going to develop.
Get with the program. It's gonna be a looong miserable season.


Oh yeah, Ryan Fitzpatrick is way better than Cassel.
Cassel is the worstest ever.

Epic Fail 007
09-08-2011, 07:52 PM
you idiot then why are you here ,go away,you want a fluke the raiders were a fluke ,idiot

Marcellus
09-08-2011, 08:15 PM
One thing I forgot until today and reading "experts'" predictions is the fact Kansas City, if one is willing to accept this premise, "should have" won two games last season in losing to Indianapolis and Houston. Or at the very least won one of the two, which would have:
a) eliminated the Chargers from contention outright
b) given the Chiefs one more victory against a winning opponent and a division champion had that one hypothetical win came against the Colts.

Of course this is all supposition and things could have happened much differently than it did had they actually beaten the Colts or Texans in terms of losing another game down the line. I still think it's interesting regardless.

I think it's relevant because a couple plays differently, literately 2 per game, we could have won both games.

We have improved on offense and defense over the off season so it's fair to say we win those games type games this year.

loochy
09-12-2011, 07:20 PM
OK I take my previous statement back.


The Chiefs were a fluke.

prhom
09-12-2011, 07:40 PM
Last year we ran the ball well, didn't turn it over, and didn't have any major injuries (except Cassel resulting in the Croyle vs SD debacle). This year we can't seem to run, turn it over constantly, and have lost 3 important players already. I think we'll eventually play a little tougher than we did against the Bills, but the injury component really takes away our ability to dig out of this hole we're in.

beach tribe
09-12-2011, 07:40 PM
Weren't a fluke but ARE fucked w/o Berry.
Moeaki loss doesn't help either.
Fn Screwed.

prhom
09-12-2011, 07:45 PM
Weren't a fluke but ARE ****ed w/o Berry.
Moeaki loss doesn't help either.
Fn Screwed.

Yep, not many teams can replace their starters and not see a big drop in performance. There's definitely a huge difference between our starters and the second string.

Douche Baggins
09-12-2011, 07:45 PM
I was way ahead of the curve with the "fraud" label last year.

I take no joy in it.

MahiMike
09-12-2011, 07:48 PM
What grade do you give Matt Cassel?

6th.

6th grade.

OnTheWarpath58
09-12-2011, 07:50 PM
I think we can match up with anybody now. This season is gonna suprise alot of people.

Welp, you were half right.

Ace Gunner
09-12-2011, 07:54 PM
I was way ahead of the curve with the "fraud" label last year.

I take no joy in it.

pat yourself on the back

of your vest bomb

TEX
09-13-2011, 07:15 AM
Nuh uhhh. Haven't you heard? We sucked it up in the pre-season so we should just pack it in, and jump in the luck sweepstakes.
The Raiders are better than us. The Chargers? Shit, no way we can compete.
We shouldn't even be playing in the same league as most NFL teams.
All our players are going to regress, and everybody else's players are going to develop.
Get with the program. It's gonna be a looong miserable season.


Oh yeah, Ryan Fitzpatrick is way better than Cassel.
Cassel is the worstest ever.

Get your ass to Vegas ASAP, and bet everything you own!

durtyrute
09-13-2011, 07:31 AM
Can one be a fluke if they start off shitty?

Smed1065
09-13-2011, 07:34 AM
What grade do you give Matt Cassel?

OMG, least I did not have to post.

-100...........

After watching the NFL, it sucked.

Garage garbage..........

Smed1065
09-13-2011, 07:35 AM
Like a N00b on the iterwebs, while house was burning.......