View Full Version : Good gone bad or bad got lucky?

10-18-2004, 12:57 PM
I am wondering about the general perception of the 1-4 Chiefs.

Looking for the POV.

10-18-2004, 12:57 PM
God hates the Chiefs.

10-18-2004, 01:07 PM
God has dumbed so much shit on the chiefs this year, we have the stadium of arrowhead full of it!

10-18-2004, 01:08 PM
Good gone bad that had an easy schedule last year.

The injuries sucked, but mostly we haven't played well at all ! It's more us not playing well than it is anybody defending us.

10-18-2004, 01:16 PM
You could make a pretty good case that the 2003 Chiefs were a lucky team that rode some amazing kick returns and a soft schedule into the playoffs where they were destroyed. If that is the case, then the 2003 Chiefs are the same team with a new [but equally porous] Defensive scheme [although the run D is looking good].

No one wants to believe that his team is crap, but we have gone from a great Offense, poor Defense and great Special Teams to a mediocre Offense, poor Defense and poor Special Teams.

Can injuries, bad luck, poor coaching decisions, so forth, truly account for that disparity?

I do not have much difficulty in believing that injuries hurt our Offense a lot. The poor playcalling [IMO] could be a result of Saunders trying to compensate for a complete and utter lack of WRs [although you have to give it up for Mortonís last couple of games].

But what happened to the running game? Tait was supposed to be the weakest OLineman. Does his loss explain the OL sieve we saw yesterday? Since Holmes has had very good games, I cannot credit that explanation.

Did the loss of Boerigter and Beisel make that much difference to our Special Teams? I know they were very good STers, but the drop in ST play seems too drastic to be attributable to [2] players.

Did we see the real Chiefs last season or are we seeing them this season?

Bothered, bewitched and bewildered.

Bob Dole
10-18-2004, 01:36 PM
God hates the Chiefs.

That's just silly.

Why would the team's GM hate his own team?

10-18-2004, 01:45 PM
I think it's probably a bit of both. The Chiefs <em>did</em> ride some serious luck and a soft schedule last year, but they were still a very good team. They don't seem to be as good a team this year, particularly on offense (I'd say the defense is better, if only marginally so). Beyond that, they've been unlucky, which is never in the recipie of a championship team. There's been some poor coaching this year, to be sure. The team needs to own that one, though. In your poll, you group poor coaching in with bad luck and injuries (and I'd add questionable calls, too). Luck, refs, and injuries are mostly out of your control. Coaching is not. Vermeil and staff need to own that mistake, and fix it. Like yesterday.

Taco John
10-18-2004, 01:46 PM
Pretty much the same team, right? Looks like a case of the easy schedule turning into a hard one...

10-18-2004, 01:50 PM
Pretty much the same team, right? Looks like a case of the easy schedule turning into a hard one...

I never really bought that "pretty much the same team" thing.

- Welbourne instead of Tait.
- Until yesterday, we never had the same starting receivers as last year.
- Different MLB
- Different starting D-Linemen
- A number of differences on ST.

It's a similar team, but for most games, 4-7 positions have been different than last year. I'd say that's on par with the typicaly year-to-year turnover in the NFL.

10-18-2004, 01:57 PM
The Chiefs were 13-3 last year whether they were lucky or not. Give them credit. They still did it. I figured the tougher schedule would make 10-6 an equally big achievement this year. That's still possible. But barely. However, what is missing from the team this year, compared to last year is a little luck and a little grit and determination.

Injuries have hit this season. Not the serious kind compared to some teams, but way moreso than last season. And more than we can afford given our depth at key positions like WR and LB.

Grit and Determination
Counting the last 3 games, our D is much better than it was the second half of last season. And we have still blown THREE 4th quarter leads in 4 losses. We can't the critical 1st down on offense, and that's been shooting us in the foot. That comes down to a sense of urgency, or tweaking the playcalling, or committing stupid penalties. Either way, the team has to play EVERY week from here to the end of the season the way they played in Baltimore. They had game-faces on that day, and it was an obvious difference from the other 4 games. JMO.

It's hard to take these losses this season because of our high expectations, and the performances that some players are putting up. Eric Warfield is playing like a top 5 corner. He has been awesome all year. Scott Fujita continues to improve, but he was slowed by injury yesterday. Lionel Dalton has been a find. All of these things are going well, and we're only 1-4. It sucks because this is a good team gone bad

KC Jones
10-18-2004, 01:58 PM
bad team?

good team?

Both really. A team with some amazing good strengths and some amazingly bad weaknesses. Making us overall a very average team. Give us an easy schedule and a few nice breaks and we'll go 13-3. Give us a really tough schedule and some bad breaks? We'll end up 7-9 or worse.

10-18-2004, 01:59 PM
I never really bought that "pretty much the same team" thing.

Good point. I forget exactly, but I think there were 15 different players on the roster at the beginning of this season compared to last season. Not always at key positions, but I thought that was a lot.

the Talking Can
10-18-2004, 02:02 PM
bad team....we're just like the Royals, half a season of success hiding the fact that we were never really very good...

10-18-2004, 02:25 PM
A good team suffering from bad luck, poor coaching, injuries, so forth.A bad team that rode an easy schedule and some good luck last season

How can I possibly choose between these two? Save 2 adjectives, they mean the same thing.

keg in kc
10-18-2004, 02:31 PM
I think it's something else: a good team that bought too much into into its own hype. It seems in these games like we expect to win, not in the sense of confidence but rather having this attitude that wins'll just be handed to us on a silver platter. We're entitled to wins; we don't have to to strive and struggle and claw like any other team. We're soft, and apparently won't do whatever it takes.

In other words, I think we've been out-fought. That's why I believe this team, which should by all rights be 4-1 right now, is where it is.

But hey, all we have to do now is win 9 of our final 11. Piece of cake, right?