Chiefs An addition to the ***** resume - Page 4

**OnTheWarpath58** · 12-28-2012, 01:00 PM

I was bored, thought I'd run some numbers - hadn't done any Chiefs-related homework in a while.

Anywho, discussion in another thread got me to thinking about the "talent level" on this team. People seem to be getting back in the habit of blaming specifically the QB and coaching, while claiming that this roster, and those before it are loaded with talent.

For a team that supposedly has talent, all they've done is beat up on the weak sisters of the poor over the last 4 years of the ***** Nightmare.

23 wins in 4 years.

Those 23 wins came against teams with a collective 152-214 record and a .415 winning percentage. You can thank Green Bay dropping a metric ****ton of passes back in December of 2011 - take them out of the equation, and you're looking at a .375 winning percentage.

1 win in 4 years against a 10-win or better team.

3 wins in 4 years against a 9-win or better team.

20 wins against 8-8 teams or worse - 11 of those wins against teams with 6 wins or less.

So the "Executive of the Decade" was responsible for 5.75 wins per year, and we should consider ourselves lucky we "earned" that many.

In this era of parity in the NFL, a team with this much "talent" would be winning more than 5.75 games per year. Even without a QB. Even without a QB and HC.

Folks say that Mark Sanchez is a POS, and that we have more talent than the Jets. The same Jets that have won 34 games in the last 4 years. 11 more than the Chiefs.

Buffalo has shit for talent, plays in a brutal division, and has 2 fewer wins over the same time period.

Cleveland is hot garbage, and they've won 4 fewer games over the past 4 years. 1 game a year difference.

Jacksonville has 1 fewer win.

Miami has 4 MORE wins.

Oakland has 2 MORE wins.

The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that we have more "talent" than every one of the above teams.

The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that our QB play has been at least as good as the above teams, and in most cases, better.

The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that our coaching has been at least as good as the above teams, and in most cases, better.

The overwhelming majority of this board would be dead wrong on one of those three assessments. One of these things is not like the other.

Folks, it's time to wake up and realize that QB and HC are just part of the problem.

I see a lot of bad teams with bad QB's and bad HC's that have won as much or more than we have.

Sadly, the bottom line is that there isn't nearly as much "talent" on this roster that you think there is - and that we're a lot closer to the Cleveland's, Buffalo's and Jacksonville's of the NFL than you want to admit.

Dave · 12-28-2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

So it's going to take one of the greatest QB's in the history of professional football to win 10 games with this roster in the weakest division in the NFL.

Case closed, Your Honor.

Denver will finish with 5 more wins than last season.

If it had not been for all fluke plays last year, they are probably a 4-12 team.

Dave · 12-28-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt Tasty Cheeks

well thank God that didn't happen

I'll call this season a total success once *****/Crennel get canned, Cassel gets cut, and we draft Geno. Best season in a long, long, long, long, long time

Agreed.

It's too bad this season didnt happen last year.

Such is life as a Chiefs fan.

**OnTheWarpath58** · 12-28-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

Denver will finish with 5 more wins than last season.

If it had not been for all fluke plays last year, they are probably a 4-12 team.

Denver is also infinitely more talented than we are - people just refuse to admit it.

I'd trade every position group we have for theirs other than RB.

O.city · 12-28-2012, 02:33 PM

So with the narrative of "***** hasn't brought in any great players" I wanna ask, with who we have on board as our core, did he really need too?

Charles
Bowe
Albert
DJ
Hali
Houston
Flowers
Berry
Winston
Poe (who I'm higher on probably than most)
Moeaki
Breaston

Thats your core, with all pro type guys there. Exactly how many do you need?

I think we tend to downplay just how much the QB position and coaching have affected this team.

O.city · 12-28-2012, 02:36 PM

Lets go group by group

OL: Winston and Albert are bookends. They are great tackles and young. Hudson played alright as a new C early until he was hurt. Allen and Asamoah have flashed but also struggled.

This group is directly affected by QB play.

Dave · 12-28-2012, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Denver is also infinitely more talented than we are - people just refuse to admit it.

I'd trade every position group we have for theirs other than RB.

Peyton clearly inflates the talent on that team.

Look no further than the Colts in 2010. 10-6 with him. 2-14 without.

**OnTheWarpath58** · 12-28-2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

Lets go group by group

OL: Winston and Albert are bookends. They are great tackles and young. Hudson played alright as a new C early until he was hurt. Allen and Asamoah have flashed but also struggled.

This group is directly affected by QB play.

I don't need to go group by group.

Denver has more talent than we do. Mainly because they've drafted way better than we have, and have done better in FA.

What position group of ours would you rather have than Denvers?

Running back.

I'll wait for the rest, though there really shouldn't be any if you're being honest.

**DeezNutz** · 12-28-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I don't need to go group by group.

Denver has more talent than we do. Mainly because they've drafted way better than we have, and have done better in FA.

What position group of ours would you rather have than Denvers?

Running back.

I'll wait for the rest, though there really shouldn't be any if you're being honest.

I agree about Denver.

What about my comments about OAK and CLE?

Dave · 12-28-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I don't need to go group by group.

Denver has more talent than we do. Mainly because they've drafted way better than we have, and have done better in FA.

What position group of ours would you rather have than Denvers?

Running back.

I'll wait for the rest, though there really shouldn't be any if you're being honest.

It does not matter because that group isn't winning shit without an elite QB.

So, no. I do not care to trade if I don't have Peyton Manning or some other elite QB.

CJizzles · 12-28-2012, 02:47 PM

What's the difference between a talented core of players and a group of talented players?

Just curious.

Is there a number?

Just trying to get everyone's interpretation of the two.

**DeezNutz** · 12-28-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJizzles

What's the difference between a talented core of players and a group of talented players?

Just curious.

Is there a number?

Just trying to get everyone's interpretation of the two.

When I say "core" I mean talent at key positions, ones that, while not as important as QB, are essential to fielding a championship team.

CJizzles · 12-28-2012, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

When I say "core" I mean talent at key positions, ones that, while not as important as QB, are essential to fielding a championship team.

Not being a smartass.

I honestly didn't know the difference between the two, or how to interpret either.

Dartgod · 12-28-2012, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

So with the narrative of "***** hasn't brought in any great players" I wanna ask, with who we have on board as our core, did he really need too?

Charles
Bowe
Albert
DJ
Hali
Houston
Flowers
Berry
Winston
Poe (who I'm higher on probably than most)
Moeaki
Breaston

Thats your core, with all pro type guys there. Exactly how many do you need?

CJizzles · 12-28-2012, 02:52 PM

Oakland is clearly better.

Mostly because Janikowski is better than Succop.

Field goals.

**** yeah!

**OnTheWarpath58** · 12-28-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I agree about Denver.

What about my comments about OAK and CLE?

I'd say pretty spot on.

This Denver conversation is just more proof about the mindset of our fanbase.

Denver won 8 games with Tim ****ing Tebow as QB.

While we've been drafting guys like Tyson Jackson, Poe, Arenas, McCluster, Moeaki and signing guys like Breaston and Hillis...

...Denver has been drafting guys like Von Miller, Demaryius Thomas, Erik Decker, Dumervil, Franklin, Beadles and Wolfe and signing guys like Tracy Porter, Dan Koppen, Justin Bannan, Chris Harris, etc.

They've made good moves, while we've made poor moves. It shouldn't be a surprise that they are more talented than we are.

Manning is just icing on the cake.

12-28-2012, 01:00 PM
OnTheWarpath58 FACTORY OF SADNESS Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $3883494	An addition to the * resume I was bored, thought I'd run some numbers - hadn't done any Chiefs-related homework in a while. Anywho, discussion in another thread got me to thinking about the "talent level" on this team. People seem to be getting back in the habit of blaming specifically the QB and coaching, while claiming that this roster, and those before it are loaded with talent. For a team that supposedly has talent, all they've done is beat up on the weak sisters of the poor over the last 4 years of the *** Nightmare. 23 wins in 4 years. Those 23 wins came against teams with a collective 152-214 record and a .415 winning percentage. You can thank Green Bay dropping a metric ton of passes back in December of 2011 - take them out of the equation, and you're looking at a .375 winning percentage. 1 win in 4 years against a 10-win or better team. 3 wins in 4 years against a 9-win or better team. 20 wins against 8-8 teams or worse - 11 of those wins against teams with 6 wins or less. So the "Executive of the Decade" was responsible for 5.75 wins per year, and we should consider ourselves lucky we "earned" that many. In this era of parity in the NFL, a team with this much "talent" would be winning more than 5.75 games per year. Even without a QB. Even without a QB and HC. Folks say that Mark Sanchez is a POS, and that we have more talent than the Jets. The same Jets that have won 34 games in the last 4 years. 11 more than the Chiefs. Buffalo has shit for talent, plays in a brutal division, and has 2 fewer wins over the same time period. Cleveland is hot garbage, and they've won 4 fewer games over the past 4 years. 1 game a year difference. Jacksonville has 1 fewer win. Miami has 4 MORE wins. Oakland has 2 MORE wins. The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that we have more "talent" than every one of the above teams. The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that our QB play has been at least as good as the above teams, and in most cases, better. The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that our coaching has been at least as good as the above teams, and in most cases, better. The overwhelming majority of this board would be dead wrong on one of those three assessments. One of these things is not like the other. Folks, it's time to wake up and realize that QB and HC are just part** of the problem. I see a lot of bad teams with bad QB's and bad HC's that have won as much or more than we have. Sadly, the bottom line is that there isn't nearly as much "talent" on this roster that you think there is - and that we're a lot closer to the Cleveland's, Buffalo's and Jacksonville's of the NFL than you want to admit.
Posts: 45,742

12-28-2012, 02:33 PM	#49
O.city MVP Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $84828	So with the narrative of "***** hasn't brought in any great players" I wanna ask, with who we have on board as our core, did he really need too? Charles Bowe Albert DJ Hali Houston Flowers Berry Winston Poe (who I'm higher on probably than most) Moeaki Breaston Thats your core, with all pro type guys there. Exactly how many do you need? I think we tend to downplay just how much the QB position and coaching have affected this team.
Posts: 20,027

12-28-2012, 02:36 PM	#50
O.city MVP Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $84828	Lets go group by group OL: Winston and Albert are bookends. They are great tackles and young. Hudson played alright as a new C early until he was hurt. Allen and Asamoah have flashed but also struggled. This group is directly affected by QB play.
Posts: 20,027

12-28-2012, 02:47 PM	#55
CJizzles BOOM!1! Join Date: Aug 2004 Casino cash: $29587	What's the difference between a talented core of players and a group of talented players? Just curious. Is there a number? Just trying to get everyone's interpretation of the two.
Posts: 10,589

12-28-2012, 02:52 PM	#59
CJizzles BOOM!1! Join Date: Aug 2004 Casino cash: $29587	Oakland is clearly better. Mostly because Janikowski is better than Succop. Field goals. **** yeah!
Posts: 10,589

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode