Chiefs Raiders were most fortunate/lucky team in 2016 - Page 3

TigeRRUppeRRcut · 07-21-2017, 05:20 PM

Per ESPN statisticians: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-bill-barnwell

2017 impact: The Raiders won 12 games but outscored their opponents by only 31 points, producing a Pythagorean expectation of 8.7 wins. That gap -- 3.3 wins -- is the fourth-largest since 1989. They're likely to decline.

--

This makes a whole lot of sense if you watched the games. It seemed pretty suspect they were getting strange calls in their favor, especially in that game played in Mexico.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/11/hous...reaction-score

O.city · 07-21-2017, 08:12 PM

Likely to have a regression to the mean with some of those return yes. Offense will have to be better

'Hamas' Jenkins · 07-21-2017, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26

You're acting like the Chiefs haven't been winning the past 4 seasons regardless of those stats.

This is their most talented roster yet.

You're full of shit.

Yes, the Chiefs have done an excellent job of beating bad teams and being reasonably competitive against decent ones whilst not threatening elite ones.

They are well-coached. That makes a difference. But they haven't won anything of consequence, and that's not an accident.

They showed you this script for almost an entire decade. If you have a well-coached team with a decently talented roster you're going to have a team that is around 9-7 to 10-6. Get lucky some years and you'll go 12-4 or 13-3. Get unlucky and you may hover around .500. Look at it objectively and stop tying your identity to the success of the team and it's not that hard to see.

TigeRRUppeRRcut · 07-21-2017, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Yes, the Chiefs have done an excellent job of beating bad teams and being reasonably competitive against decent ones whilst not threatening elite ones.

They are well-coached. That makes a difference. But they haven't won anything of consequence, and that's not an accident.

They showed you this script for almost an entire decade. If you have a well-coached team with a decently talented roster you're going to have a team that is around 9-7 to 10-6. Get lucky some years and you'll go 12-4 or 13-3. Get unlucky and you may hover around .500. Look at it objectively and stop tying your identity to the success of the team and it's not that hard to see.

We've beaten the falcons, pats, and broncos in the same year they went on to win the SB. We also beat the seahawks after they retained their roster the season following they won the SB.

**DaneMcCloud** · 07-21-2017, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Yes, the Chiefs have done an excellent job of beating bad teams and being reasonably competitive against decent ones whilst not threatening elite ones.

They are well-coached. That makes a difference. But they haven't won anything of consequence, and that's not an accident.

They showed you this script for almost an entire decade. If you have a well-coached team with a decently talented roster you're going to have a team that is around 9-7 to 10-6. Get lucky some years and you'll go 12-4 or 13-3. Get unlucky and you may hover around .500. Look at it objectively and stop tying your identity to the success of the team and it's not that hard to see.

If Mahomes is a Hall of Fame QB, they're going to win at least one Super Bowl.

That's what it takes, period.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 07-21-2017, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If Mahomes is a Hall of Fame QB, they're going to win at least one Super Bowl.

That's what is takes, period.

Probably. You could say the same about the Texans, Eagles, even the ****ing Bears, though.

**DaneMcCloud** · 07-21-2017, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Probably. You could say the same about the Texans, Eagles, even the ****ing Bears, though.

I think that Wentz is probably the guy that's on a HOF trajectory, more so than the others. Proven winner, 6'5, 235, great owner, etc.

I'm not sold on Watson. If Mahomes is given 18-24 games to sit, I like his chances.

Anything less decreases the possibility.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 07-21-2017, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerUppercut

We've beaten the falcons, pats, and broncos in the same year they went on to win the SB. We also beat the seahawks after they retained their roster the season following they won the SB.

Well, the Falcons never won the Super Bowl, the Patriots were a completely different team after that KC game (solved their interior line), but yes, the Chiefs did beat Denver playing with a brokedick Peyton Manning with a torn plantar fascia and the Seahawks

And lost to the Steelers, Colts, and Patriots in the playoffs, beating only the Brian Hoyer-led Houston Texans.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 07-21-2017, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think that Wentz is probably the guy that's on a HOF trajectory, more so than the others. Proven winner, 6'5, 235, great owner, etc.

I'm not sold on Watson. If Mahomes is given 18-24 games to sit, I like his chances.

Anything less decreases the possibility.

I'm not projecting any of those guys as HOFers, just making a general point about the importance of the positions. With that said, I agree that Mahomes needs to sit for at least a year, and perhaps more. If he's a car, all he is at this point is an engine and a nice set of tires.

**DaneMcCloud** · 07-21-2017, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I'm not projecting any of those guys as HOFers, just making a general point about the importance of the positions. With that said, I agree that Mahomes needs to sit for at least a year, and perhaps more. If he's a car, all he is at this point is an engine and a nice set of tires.

If Mahomes sits, the Chiefs will likely be in very good shape moving forward.

Outside of a few CPers, I think most Chiefs fans would agree.

Reerun_KC · 07-21-2017, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

It would take a plane crash for this team to finish below 11-5

So. You putting them in the AFC championship game as minimum this year?

As the team stands right now.

**DaneMcCloud** · 07-21-2017, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

So. You putting them in the AFC championship game as minimum this year?

As the team stands right now.

They won 12 last year and couldn't get out of the Divisional.

Only a fool would make that prediction.

Drink some more.

Reerun_KC · 07-21-2017, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

They won 12 last year and couldn't get out of the Divisional.

Only a fool would make that prediction.

Drink some more.

Most talented roster yet, year five of Alex and Andy, the dead weight expensive offense players gone, our one "true" constant on offense won't be held back by said players now.

How could you not think this is the year?

**DaneMcCloud** · 07-21-2017, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

Most talented roster yet, year five of Alex and Andy, the dead weight expensive offense players gone, our one "true" constant on offense won't be held back by said players now.

How could you not think this is the year?

I don't trust the WR's, I don't trust Ware to stay healthy, I don't trust Houston to be available for the playoffs, I don't trust any TE beyond Kelce.

BlackOp · 07-22-2017, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmdrzman

You dopes are dumber than you post if you think Oaklands a 8 win team- That offense they have is frekin insane- Hell, they were potent and in the top 5 last year and just brought in Beastmode and Jared Cook from the Packers-

Not to mention they brought in Cordelle Patterson who is 2nd in the NFL record books on return yardage after Jim Brown-

They got the best Defensive player in the league and getting back a healthy MEJ- They drafted well on defense.... This is a whole new Raiders team with more firepower on offense- Any team is gonna have to score 30 points to beat that team- Cause their gonna be the 99' Rams on offense this year-

Raiders put up a whopping 10 (at home) and 13 points on KC last year...KC even gifted them 3 turnovers in the last one.

Carr still hasn't beaten a play-off bound team that didn't have Osweiler at QB.

Raiders are fraudulent hype...

-King- · 07-22-2017, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackOp

Raiders put up a whopping 10 (at home) and 13 points on KC last year...KC even gifted them 3 turnovers in the last one.

Carr still hasn't beaten a play-off bound team that didn't have Osweiler at QB.

Raiders are fraudulent hype...

Maybe those games were rigged against them
Posted via Mobile Device

07-21-2017, 05:20 PM
TigeRRUppeRRcut Banned Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: 19th Hole Casino cash: $10004725	Raiders were most fortunate/lucky team in 2016 Per ESPN statisticians: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-bill-barnwell 2017 impact: The Raiders won 12 games but outscored their opponents by only 31 points, producing a Pythagorean expectation of 8.7 wins. That gap -- 3.3 wins -- is the fourth-largest since 1989. They're likely to decline. -- This makes a whole lot of sense if you watched the games. It seemed pretty suspect they were getting strange calls in their favor, especially in that game played in Mexico. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/11/hous...reaction-score
Posts: 11,680

07-21-2017, 08:12 PM	#31
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $2804064	Likely to have a regression to the mean with some of those return yes. Offense will have to be better
Posts: 81,178