Good enough to be 11-2?

siberian khatru · 12-12-2005, 11:56 AM

If you're Carl Peterson, do you look at the season so far as three missed opportunities: Blowing a lead at home to Philly, and losing two winnable games on the road to Buffalo and Dallas? Do you think you really have an 11-2 team but for a couple of hiccups?

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Me, I think you are what you are. Especially since for 17 years now I've seen Chiefs teams suffering maddening inconsistency, plagued by bad losses and blown opportunities. I think we're an 8-5 team. I have no illusions about any kind of "hidden gem" we have -- that we're actually better than our record.

So rather than count on one hand the number of plays that could've made us 11-2, which will drive you nuts, I just see it as the same old, same old for this franchise (at least in the Carl Era).

What say you? Are we a sleeping giant or just a cut above mediocrity (or mediocrity itself)?

Thig Lyfe · 12-12-2005, 11:59 AM

We should be 11-2, based on what has happened. But this team at 8-5 is about right.

The Chiefs will not field a Super Bowl team as long as Carl Peterson is GM. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope I'm wrong this year, but it just doesn't look that way.

MOhillbilly · 12-12-2005, 12:00 PM

this KC team has 3/4 of the talent to be 11-2.

htismaqe · 12-12-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrowheadWolf

We should be 11-2, based on what has happened. But this team at 8-5 is about right.

The Chiefs will not field a Super Bowl team as long as Carl Peterson is GM. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope I'm wrong this year, but it just doesn't look that way.

The Chiefs would have fielded a Super Bowl team at least twice in the 90's had it not been for poor coaching.

And this current Chiefs team might be good enough, if it weren't for coaching...

Thig Lyfe · 12-12-2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The Chiefs would have fielded a Super Bowl team at least twice in the 90's had it not been for poor coaching.

And this current Chiefs team might be good enough, if it weren't for coaching...

Coaching by coaches who were hired by... Carl Peterson.

I don't mean to be a Carl hater, and I don't proclaim to know how to be a GM, but since he's 17 years into the 3-year-plan with Zero Super Bowl wins (and hardly any playoff wins period), he obviously is doing something wrong.

The Chiefs will probably have to rebuild at some point soon, and it should start with a new GM.

**Nzoner** · 12-12-2005, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrowheadWolf

I don't mean to be a Carl hater,

It's okay,really.

Amnorix · 12-12-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

And this current Chiefs team might be good enough, if it weren't for coaching...

I'm still not sure about this. What this suggests is that this team clearly has as much, or more, talent on the field than any other NFL team over the last few years and this year. I'm not at all sure that's right.

I think the complaints about your offensive coaches, in general, are absurd. Strictly, positively, absolutely absurd. I'm not directing this comment at you, but at the entire BB in general. Your team has consistently been at the top of the NFL in every offensive statistical category that matters over the last several years. To say that your offensive coaches aren't very good is pretty silly, to me.

Your WRs are good, but not great, which hampers the offense in certain situations, most especially if you're way behind or in running 2 minute drills and the like.

On defense, I *still* don't see above-average NFL talent on the team. Your D-Line is pretty much Larry-Moe-Curly. Your overall defense has a precisely zero Hall of Famers and only a small handful (maybe 3) that are definitely above average at their position for the NFL.

On special teams, you have Dante Hall, who is very good, but otherwise I believe you are, and have been, consistently average.

In short, KC is *still* trying to win on offense alone. Indy, meanwhile (and unfortunately) has really developed some excellent, excellent players on their defense, and have always had Vanderjerk, who for everything else you can say about him, is a darn good kicker.

FringeNC · 12-12-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I think the complaints about your offensive coaches, in general, are absurd. Strictly, positively, absolutely absurd. I'm not directing this comment at you, but at the entire BB in general. Your team has consistently been at the top of the NFL in every offensive statistical category that matters over the last several years. To say that your offensive coaches aren't very good is pretty silly, to me.

The complaints are absurd. I think it really boils down to the fact that there are a lot of Maulball fanboys (you know who you are) who look for any opportunity to belittle this wide-open approach, and who yearn for the return of a Marty clone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

On defense, I *still* don't see above-average NFL talent on the team. Your D-Line is pretty much Larry-Moe-Curly. Your overall defense has a precisely zero Hall of Famers and only a small handful (maybe 3) that are definitely above average at their position for the NFL.

Above average? If we could just be *average*. We are #27 in the league. What's so sad is Gunther could have been a returning hero had he just given us an *average* D. The only question is it coaching or talent? Given that the Chiefs opened the purse strings on D, and Gunther had his say on who he wanted, he seems to be the responsible party in either case. Again, we are #27 in the league.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

In short, KC is *still* trying to win on offense alone. Indy, meanwhile (and unfortunately) has really developed some excellent, excellent players on their defense...

Yep. The D is still worthless. It's not like Indy shredded us yesterday. It was the hapless Dallas Cowboy offense that shredded us. The D coaches should be ashamed. All and all, you understand the situation in KC much better than almost all on this board.

Chief Henry · 12-12-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The Chiefs would have fielded a Super Bowl team at least twice in the 90's had it not been for poor coaching.

And this current Chiefs team might be good enough, if it weren't for coaching...

Dam fine discription.

DaWolf · 12-12-2005, 03:13 PM

We're also a team that could have easily been 0-2 against Chokeland. Take that for what it's worth.

DV said when he was hired his No 1 stat in terms of how good your team is was margin of victory. His '99 Rams team was superb in that department. The 2003 Chiefs did pretty well in that column. These Chiefs aren't even close. They're talented, but they're just too inconsistent to be considered anything more than a bit above average...

philfree · 12-12-2005, 03:23 PM

I don't look at that way. I think our O just played one hell of a football game. I think the Cowboys held like crazy on the last scoring Drive and the officials ignored it and then called DJ for holding. I think Tynes missed the biggest kick of his career and cost us a chance to win the game. I do think there is a lot of mediocrity to be found around Chiefs Plantet though.

PhilFree

Hoover · 12-12-2005, 12:00 PM

Here's the deal

We only have 1 loss at home. Thats Good, but that is the game thats killing us. If we can go 7-1 at home and .500 on the road, thats a damn good record in any year.

Its not over yet folks.

sedated · 12-12-2005, 12:01 PM

Could be 11-2, could be 4-9.
Our only dominant wins are NYJ, MIA, HOU, & NE

MOhillbilly · 12-12-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

Could be 11-2, could be 4-9.
Our only dominant wins are NYJ, MIA, HOU, & NE

Denver was a dominant win. I dont care what the score said.

siberian khatru · 12-12-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

Could be 11-2, could be 4-9.
Our only dominant wins are NYJ, MIA, HOU, & NE

I really don't measure by dominant wins. I like dominant wins, but they're hard to come by in today's NFL. And it's been that way for years. I've said this before, but I remember Bill Walsh, when he was a TV analyst, say that the most important thing in the NFL is to have a pass rush in the last 2 minutes of a game. We can quibble whether that's the MOST important thing, but his point was that so many games are decided by 7 points or less and come down to one play made or not made.

And this team's history over the last 17 years, since they became competitive again, is to often fall one play short of victory, often in the most important games.

THAT'S what depresses me. Seeing the same shit over and over again -- a turnover, a missed FG, a dropped pass, a penalty, surrendering one big scoring play on D ... We just can't get over that hump. Championship teams make those one plays. They rarely dominate. They win lots of games -- their record looks dominant -- but most of those victories are decided by one or two plays.

12-12-2005, 11:56 AM	Topic Starter
siberian khatru 21st Century Schizoid Fan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Gates of Delirium Casino cash: $2584950	Good enough to be 11-2? If you're Carl Peterson, do you look at the season so far as three missed opportunities: Blowing a lead at home to Philly, and losing two winnable games on the road to Buffalo and Dallas? Do you think you really have an 11-2 team but for a couple of hiccups? Woulda, shoulda, coulda. Me, I think you are what you are. Especially since for 17 years now I've seen Chiefs teams suffering maddening inconsistency, plagued by bad losses and blown opportunities. I think we're an 8-5 team. I have no illusions about any kind of "hidden gem" we have -- that we're actually better than our record. So rather than count on one hand the number of plays that could've made us 11-2, which will drive you nuts, I just see it as the same old, same old for this franchise (at least in the Carl Era). What say you? Are we a sleeping giant or just a cut above mediocrity (or mediocrity itself)?
Posts: 69,129

12-12-2005, 12:00 PM	#3
MOhillbilly Mama Tried Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Missouri Casino cash: $9949903	this KC team has 3/4 of the talent to be 11-2. __________________ True Son of Liberty
Posts: 23,371

12-12-2005, 03:13 PM	#10
DaWolf Cry havoc... Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10007725	We're also a team that could have easily been 0-2 against Chokeland. Take that for what it's worth. DV said when he was hired his No 1 stat in terms of how good your team is was margin of victory. His '99 Rams team was superb in that department. The 2003 Chiefs did pretty well in that column. These Chiefs aren't even close. They're talented, but they're just too inconsistent to be considered anything more than a bit above average...
Posts: 6,798

12-12-2005, 03:23 PM	#11
philfree Indian Twitter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Free Agency Casino cash: $1686198	I don't look at that way. I think our O just played one hell of a football game. I think the Cowboys held like crazy on the last scoring Drive and the officials ignored it and then called DJ for holding. I think Tynes missed the biggest kick of his career and cost us a chance to win the game. I do think there is a lot of mediocrity to be found around Chiefs Plantet though. PhilFree __________________ [/SIGPIC]
Posts: 14,938

12-12-2005, 12:00 PM	#12
Hoover Rufus Dawes Jr. Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $1698179	Here's the deal We only have 1 loss at home. Thats Good, but that is the game thats killing us. If we can go 7-1 at home and .500 on the road, thats a damn good record in any year. Its not over yet folks.
Posts: 17,342

12-12-2005, 11:59 AM	#2
Thig Lyfe Banned Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Thigpen's America Casino cash: $10004900	We should be 11-2, based on what has happened. But this team at 8-5 is about right. The Chiefs will not field a Super Bowl team as long as Carl Peterson is GM. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope I'm wrong this year, but it just doesn't look that way.
Posts: 25,680