Sagarin NFL Ratings: Chiefs #8 (#32 SOS)
 

Anyone disagree? In the rating we have the worst schedule in the NFL so far, with Denver only 1 slot better. After this week when they've played Jax it might change, but we are playing the 2-3 Raiders so it might still be close.


http://sagarin.com/sports/nflsend.htm



On point differential however, we have an expected W/L record of 4.3-0.7 whereas Denver is only 3.8-1.2. However, the simple rating system (Pro Football Reference) has them at a whopping 15.4 vs us at 8.9 based on our low SOS. We're behind the same Sagarin teams like Seattle, Indy, NE, etc:

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/kan/2013.htm




I'm having trouble finding any computer ranking that puts us in the Top 5. This computer ranking system was the worst at 16th overall which seems stupid but at least he's predicting a 6.03 point win vs Oakland Sunday:
http://talismanred.com/ratings/nfl.shtml

At the start of the season, some info from last year is incorporated into the ranking, and at some point drops out.

Its such a bad schedule due to how terrible the NFC EAst is, and thats partly due to how the AFC West has improved as a whole by a lot and destroyed the NFC EAst. Plus Jacksonville..

Computer Rankings!!!

This doesn't go against the assertion that the Chiefs have played mostly a docket of shitty teams thus far, but somebody should do the math of the SOS of undefeated teams in the NFL. Say, for 5-0 teams historically. As a 5-0 team, that means you've dealt a loss to each team on your schedule. Naturally, that will lower the overall record of your opponents. Because you've been handing them losses.

Also, three of the under .500 teams the Chiefs have faced (Cowboys, Eagles, Giants) have also played the Broncos, another 5-0 team. There's another 3 losses. Those three teams, sure, are kinda poopy and smelly, but it doesn't help a poopy and smelly team to have had to face TWO perfect teams through the first 5 weeks of the season.

I'm willing to bet that a good portion of 5-0 teams in NFL history had low strengths of schedule. That's kinda how it works out, mathematically.

I'll say this,

You look at the talent on this team, and you look at the first nine games of the year.

Every single one of us would say "the Chiefs SHOULD have a good chance to win all of those games, but I bet they end up 8-1 or 7-2."

If we go into the bye 9-0, I'd say we did our job exactly as it needed to be done.

We're not pretending to be anything other than we are. And we are going to bring every ounce of everything we can against the Broncos.

It bears mentioning that the Cowboys and Eagles are 2-1 against non-Chiefs/Broncos teams.

The Giants are 0-4. The Jags are also 0fers.

The Titans are 3-1 against non-Chiefs teams.

My contention is that we've beaten three real good teams, and two shitrockets.

Shitrockets that we've beaten by at least three touchdowns each, by the way. This team is for real.

We lose one of those games before the bye and this place melts down lol

We're due for a letdown game eventually. The question is can we right the ship in-game fast enough to fix it.

My guess is our letdown game is Cleveland. Not necessarily a loss, but Cleveland is sneaking up on everybody this year.

Pretty sure this team will be on its game for Oakland, Houston, and Buffalo.

Cleveland's defense is sneaky good. Ray Horton is the guy everybody wanted as coordinator here, and I think The Bad Guy's source even said Horton was Andy's #1 choice for the job. We'd be running the same thing we're doing right now with Bob Newhart if we had Horton, so needless to say, that defense can murder people like ours does. I could see us struggling big time on offense, and if we don't rack up turnovers, we'll be in for a tough game.

It's a good thing that Brandon Weeden is a shithead.

Yeah...pick that game for our letdown game.

Losing to the Browns would be embarrasing. I still say Houston concerns me most. They are out gaining their opponents by like over 100 yards a game I heard.

beating the Cowboys and Eagles are two impressive victories. Tennessee wasn't a layup.

All pointless when their QB is throwing INT's all over the place.

Also before the season started, almost everybody expected Dallas,Philly & NY Giants to be good, not so much Tenn., so these teams have all plummeted and switched places.

As the season goes forward, Dallas will be well above 500, as will Tenn, one could say Philly is a possibility.

The Giants are just toast as well as the Jags.

How good is RG3 & Wash going to be when we face them on the road ? Or Bufffalo, Cleveland is better than first thought too, so our low SOS will climb up.

Wouldn't the Chiefs be up for Cleveland after the steamer they put on our chest last year?

I was thinking about this the other day, specifically the bolded part.

This idea also has merit..

Until you remember that the Eagles and Cowboys both have wins over the shitrocket Giants. The Boys only other win this season came against a slightly less shitty shitrocket in the Rams and the Eagles only other win came against the shitstain Redskins.

You can only play your schedule though. Before the season, everyone thought we were going to be facing a murderer's row so **** 'em now.

+1. Great post.

Playing Jacksonville will certainly hurt your SOS but I really think Dallas and Tenn are pretty good. Certainly the Giants are underachieving, they will probably go 4-12 but they are as good as an 8-8 team. Philly should end up about 8-8 as well.

What I'm happy about is our UPCOMING schedule. There's no reason this team shouldn't win 3 of 4. Three straight home games coming up against Oakland, I mean it's Oakland. An overachieving Cleveland team, and then vs Matt "I throw at least 1 pick six a game" Schaub. I can't imagine Schaub having to face this defense, it should be pretty entertaining. Then @ a mediocre Buffalo team.

How epic would it be for the 9-0 Chiefs going against a 9-0 Dungver game? It would be the talk of the land. Alot to ask, but the defense is playing so well it's possible.

This

I'd disagree strongly the giants are an 8-8 quality team. First team ever I heard to start with 6 straight losses all with 25 or more allowed and 3 or more turnovers per. That's a bad team

As Bob Dole pointed out earlier in the week, 20% of our opponent's losses are to us.

SOS after 5 games should not be weighted much in any analysis.

That's the one I'd pick.

It's not preventing the Donkeys from being 1 in Sagarin though

Luckily this is not college football, so who gives a **** what a computer thinks.

i think we lose against BUF. our oline will get ass****ed again.

Its got to be more than just SOS. Atlanta (#17) is 1-4 with their only victory against #30. SOS is #12. Texans have a better record at 2-3 and their SOS is #2 but they're ranked 21st. Jets have a winning record, #13 SOS and they're 25th. :spock::rolleyes::shrug:

It will be right before the bye so we have to read about it for 2 weeks.

Good Gawd... i'm not even daring to go that far, wont even think about it because its too much to ask.

If we can get to 6-0 i'd be totally thrilled, its almost a mathematical certainty we go to the playoffs after that, barring some supremely spiteful act of God.

Just kill these faders at home and i can deal with the rest, there are certainly going to be some losses in the future but they'll end up being good for the team.

Kinda like the old saying "you learn more from losing than winning", the losses will help keep them angry and sharp.

9-0 isn't squat. If it happens, it happens. Hell, I remember 13-3 vividly and what really mattered is that the Chiefs lost when they should have won. Many "pro" predictors would have the Chiefs at anywhere from 1-4 to 3-2 before the season started, and felt they were generous with that.

This team doesn't seem to be like that at all. They really don't seem to care what anybody thinks beside Reid. They actually try and win the game for a full hour as if their paychecks depended upon it. Lots of work-horse type attitude that really shows in the 4th when philosophy and some guts combine.

IMHO

Moves up to #6 today. But SOS is still #32, barely, despite Denver playing Jax. (We stay behind Denver because Oakland is now #30 in Sagarin)

The records of our opponents so far this year, minus all Chiefs/Broncos games:

Jags: 0-4

Cowboys: 3-1

Eagles: 3-1

Giants: 0-4

Titans: 3-2

Raiders: 2-2

I maintain my opinion from earlier in this thread: We have beaten two shitrockets, one decent team, and three good teams.

This isn't the BCS, who cares about SOS.

exactly this ^

Well, if you're taking out the Chiefs and Broncos, you should probably look at their wins, too...

Conclusion: What a crapfest. Kind of the problem with comparing schedules though... there are so many shitty-mediocre teams, there just aren't many tests in the regular season. Unfortunately, the previous big tests haven't really proven themselves to be contenders, but fortunately they'll have at least a couple of huge tests along with maybe 2-3 others.

I have to say, the Giants does not look like a 0-4 team. They are just snake bitten so hard, it's silly.

I hate the SOS argument. I mean there are two 6-0 teams in our division basically playing the same teams.

The SOS is important because it explains why we're only #6 overall despite having the record we have. It won't improve either with our next two dog opponents. I think our fans who are still a bit conflicted on how good we really are have a fair point to make.

Yep.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...eat-to-broncos

On the other hand, it's not like the Chiefs randomly selected the Jaguars. Regardless of the SOS or not, the bad teams like Jacksonville and I guess I'll throw in the Giants because of their record, they dominated those teams, although the Giant game took a little while to get it going.

Still, KC is beating the bad teams they should be beating, and beating average teams. I should also point out that beating teams on the road is no easy task, and KC is 3-0 in that regard.

No doubt. You can only play who you're scheduled to play.

But on the flip side of that, surely you can understand why the national media, and even fans of the team aren't exactly sure how good they are just yet.

They've let two bad teams hang around until the 4th quarter, and almost let a backup QB beat them.

And speaking of backup QB's, this is shaping up to look a lot like 2010, when we kept facing backup QB's. Looks like we're going to get a backup 5 weeks in a row. Yes, we're taking advantage of it, but it doesn't give a clear picture of what to expect when we actually play a team with a real offense.

Funny how Denver's opponents have an equally shitty record, yet nobody seems to hold that against them.

I guess even Sagarin's computer is set to ballwash Manning. :shake:

LMAO ya

Please don't say that. Even though I'm afraid you might be right.

If we were scoring 45 points a game, I don't think anyone would have doubts about us either.

Valid points on the back-up QB's argument, and I can see that point. The other side of the argument between 2010 and 2013 was that the 2010 defense was nowhere near good compared to 2013. Surely we can agree that 2013 defense is worlds better than 2010?

It's also not KC fault that the other team has to play with back-up QB, as that's just the way it goes in the NFL these days, either by injury or ineffectiveness. Last year, our back-up QB (as well as the starter) was terrible, and 14 teams benefited from it.

Gabbert/Henne (Henne only played a small fraction in the 4th quarter)
Romo.
Vick.
E. Manning.
Fitzgerald.
Pryor.

Out of the 6 teams we played, only Fitzgerald was the only back-up QB, and he was a starter in Buffalo, so it's not like he is Brady Quinn by any means.

Right or wrong, it's part of the reason why there are a lot of doubters in the national media.

That Talisman link in the first post looks really strange by the numbers, and he has KC barely winning over Houston this week. I'd be pretty surprised if we lost that game. But if we do the doubters will be on fire.

The 1972 Dolphins guys on TV each seem to have little concern about their strength of schedule during that season.

It's kind of explained in the link.... the Broncos have played one more top 10 team than the Chiefs and even though their SoS is about the same, the difference of 3 points comes from the margin of victory.

Sagarin rating:
Broncos: 28.62
Chiefs: 25.3
Difference: 3.32

Average margin of victory:
Broncos: 17.83
Chiefs: 14.5
Difference: 3.33

SOS isnt important
Sagarin ratings aren't important
Paper Champions are not crowned

The Chiefs and Broncos is are the best teams in the league. That's all that is important.

I don't see any way to prove we are better than, say, Seattle.

Eye test.

Dropped from 6th to 9th after yesterdays win.

ROFL

sagarin is ****ing worthless.

LMAO

But what's our BCS ranking?

fify

I don't know, according to his rankings we have played 1 game vs his top-16. Everyone in front of us has played 3, including the Colts who have played a whopping 5. Until we start beating teams with a pulse, we're not going to do well in his rating. Nor should we.

I think most power rankings factor in the present week more than previous weeks while this seems to factor in everything equally. I'm okay with this.

Peter King has us at number 1 which is fine too.

I mean, the Colts won at SF, beat Seattle, beat Denver, played at SD. We haven't played anything close to that difficult a schedule. Even Miami at home isn't a bad team.

Crazy. Its apparently better to lose to a good team than beat a bad one.

I guess we won't win the Sagarin Lombardi this year. LMAO

Sagarin Pure Points match up well with NFL lines. Despite our "ranking", we'd be a favorite over any team in the NFL at home according to his Pure Point (only one that matters) rating. Seems okay to me.

Why does anyone give a shit what some geeks computer rankings say? This isn't the NCAA where the championship game is decided by rankings. Beat whatever team is put in front of you and go on to the next week.

Shit like this makes me want to go out in the street and punch the next mother****er I see with a pocket protector and glasses right in the ****ing face.

I don't know. You can't just look at our schedule and say it's weak. I mean Dallas went up to the wire against Peyton and would've probably won the game had Romo not thrown the pick. The Texans were the first ranked defense, and the Titans on the road are no joke either with their Defense. I would at least put us top 5.

I think the data shows quite conclusively our schedule is weak. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious about our team after decades of being let down. If we split with Denver and SD I'll be a true believer.

Even if its a girl?

According to the Simple Rating System, our team total is only 7.5. That is comprised of 8.2 for defense, and -0.7 for offense.

Denver is 11.6. 19.5 offense and -7.6 defense. Colts are 10.0. 3.8 offense and 6.2 defense.

If she's a Pats fan, hell yes

Only if she is wearing a gimp costume. Then that bitch would definitely deserve it.

Cancel the rest of the season now.....

Not a **** is given

It does, which is why it's still odd to me the spread was only 6.5 when Houston is 10 behind us in that metric. Granted the Fasano goal line review would've made it an 8 point game.

Fell another slot to #10. Replaced by Cinci who moved up to 8. We still have the worst schedule obviously, and a team between the Rams and Vikings (quality wise) would be expected to be .500 in his rating.


We have still only played one top-16 team, Dallas who is 7th.

Dallas? Wtf? We beat Dallas....

Dallas at #7? They have lost to every good/average team they have played. Three of their four wins have come against the shitty NFC least and their other win was against the Rams. Sagarin can take his rankings and shove them up his leaking asshole and you should be shot in the face for posting them here.

Yeah by 1. At home.

Amazing how the NFC East has started to win now that they don't have to get annihilated by the AFC West every week...maybe that has something to do with SOS. Hmmm

Dallas didn't get annihilated by anyone in te afc west .... they had 3 nailbiter losses and two of them were in the road. If they were in our division, they'd be a serious contender.

Preach