Cincinatti Bengals... 2005

[jspchief]

Since the Bengals were a "play-off team" last year, I thought i'd look at the path that got them to the post season.

It took 11 wins to get them there:

1 against Houston (2-14)
1 against Tennessee (4-12)
1 against Green Bay (4-12)
1 against Detroit (5-11)
2 against Cleveland (6-10)
2 against Baltimore (6-10)
1 against Minnesota (9-7)
1 against Pittsburgh (11-5)
1 against Chicago (11-5)

8 wins against sub .500 teams
3 wins against teams with winning records, including against Chicago when they started a rookie 4th round QB that threw 5 INTs.

So next time someone tells me that the Bengals are the better team because they made the play-offs, I think I'll link this thread. Kansas City was ranked higher on offense and higher on defense. There's no reason to think we aren't the favorite in this game.

[Mecca]

However they were 6-2 on the road which is impressive no matter who you're playing.

[Scaga]

Since the Bengals were a "play-off team" last year, I thought i'd look at the path that got them to the post season.

It took 11 wins to get them there:

1 against Houston (2-14)
1 against Tennessee (4-12)
1 against Green Bay (4-12)
1 against Detroit (5-11)
2 against Cleveland (6-10)
2 against Baltimore (6-10)
1 against Minnesota (9-7)
1 against Pittsburgh (11-5)
1 against Chicago (11-5)

8 wins against sub .500 teams
3 wins against teams with winning records, including against Chicago when they started a rookie 4th round QB that threw 5 INTs.

So next time someone tells me that the Bengals are the better team because they made the play-offs, I think I'll link this thread. Kansas City was ranked higher on offense and higher on defense. There's no reason to think we aren't the favorite in this game.

True...but...
This 'Nati" team is pretty darn good and they're coached by one of the best. It's going to be a hell of a game.

[Hammock Parties]

Paging tk13 to the thread.

[ChiefsCountry]

Chiefs in 05

1 against Houston (2-14)
1 against NY Jets (4-12)
2 against Oakland (4-12)
1 against Washington (10-6)
1 against Miami (9-7)
1 against San Diego (9-7)
1 against New England (10-6)
1 against Cincinnati (11-5)
1 against Denver (13-3)

[jspchief]

However they were 6-2 on the road which is impressive no matter who you're playing.They beat two teams with a winning record on the road.

[tk13]

But that's how it works. I don't think that's really a good argument. That's how today's NFL is, everybody is so close together... The teams that have weaker schedules usually are the ones who make the postseason. Just like we did a few years ago... just like Pittsburgh and Cincy and Indy and Jacksonville did last year, etc. It's no coincidence that Pittsburgh and Cincy both made the playoffs, when their division got to play the bottom feeders in the AFC North and NFC North. Teams that have brutal schedules can have trouble making the playoffs, which is why Dick Vermeil always said the things he did.

[Eleazar]

They were a marginally in or out of the playoffs team just like we were.

[ChiefsCountry]

However they were 6-2 on the road which is impressive no matter who you're playing.

Road Victories
Cleveland
Tennessee
Detroit
Baltimore
Chicago
Pittsburgh

[jspchief]

But that's how it works. I don't think that's really a good argument. The teams that have weaker schedules usually are the ones who make the postseason. Just like we did a few years ago... just like Pittsburgh and Cincy and Indy and Jacksonville did last year, etc. It's no coincidence that Pittsburgh and Cincy both made the playoffs, when their division got to play the bottom feeders in the AFC North and NFC North. Teams that have brutal schedules can have trouble making the playoffs, which is why Dick Vermeil always said the things he did.That's kind of my point though.

There have been a lot of comments this week about how Cincinatti was good enough to make the play-offs, unlike the Chiefs. That ignores that Cincinatti got there on an easier schedule.

It's not like this is some mismatch. We're a statistically better team, than has shown more ability to beat good teams.

[Mecca]

Road Victories
Cleveland
Tennessee
Detroit
Baltimore
Chicago
Pittsburgh

The Chiefs would have pulled a 4-4 with that because I don't think we'd win in Pittsburgh or Chicago.....do you?

[jspchief]

The Chiefs would have pulled a 4-4 with that because I don't think we'd win in Pittsburgh or Chicago.....do you?Chicago in Kyle Orton's first game? Yes. We would have destroyed them.

Pittsburgh? Probably not. But that's like their Denver game, which they lost at home.

They got 1 more win than us against a clearly easier schedule. It's not like them making the play-offs over us is some testament to them being a significantly better team.

[Chiefnj]

Chicago in Kyle Orton's first game? Yes. We would have destroyed them.

Pittsburgh? Probably not. But that's like their Denver game, which they lost at home.

They got 1 more win than us against a clearly easier schedule. It's not like them making the play-offs over us is some testament to them being a significantly better team.

They won enough games. The Chiefs didn't. The Chiefs have a habit of losing those "easy on paper" games that the Bengals won. Hopefully Herm can change that.

[keg in kc]

You can't base anything on last year. This could go so many ways. We have no idea what kind of Chiefs team we'll field on Sunday, and who knows if Cincinnati is 'for real'. Personally, I'm of the opinion that they're a one-hit wonder along the lines of the '03 Chiefs or the '04 Chargers, and '06 will be a rough 'come back to earth' season for them. That's based more on seeing historical tendencies of young teams that come out of nowhere. They usually stumble. I said that last year about San Diego and people thought I was nuts...

I could see a blowout Sunday. They have a number of injuries on defense and I think LJ's going to have a field-day. That'll open things for the passing game, and I think it's going to be a shoot-out early, with our defense putting on the clamps in the second half. So I'm sticking with my 31-20 prediction. I think the Bengals end the year 8-8 or 9-7.

[AndChiefs]

You can't base anything on last year. This could go so many ways. We have no idea what kind of Chiefs team we'll field on Sunday, and who knows if Cincinnati is 'for real'. Personally, I'm of the opinion that they're a one-hit wonder along the lines of the '03 Chiefs or the '04 Chargers, and '06 will be a rough 'come back to earth' season for them. That's based more on seeing historical tendencies of young teams that come out of nowhere. They usually stumble. I said that last year about San Diego and people thought I was nuts...

I could see a blowout Sunday. They have a number of injuries on defense and I think LJ's going to have a field-day. That'll open things for the passing game, and I think it's going to be a shoot-out early, with our defense putting on the clamps in the second half. So I'm sticking with my 31-20 prediction. I think the Bengals end the year 8-8 or 9-7.

Exactly the point I made in another thread. The Bengals defense feasted on turnovers last year...exactly as our defense did in 2003. Sometimes the luck is your way. Without significant real improvement on their defense they're nothign but a pretender.

[jspchief]

They won enough games. The Chiefs didn't. Great. Thanks Mr. Madden. Nevermind my point.

[Chiefnj]

Great. Thanks Mr. Madden. Nevermind my point.

My third sentence addressed your point. Those easy wins haven't been easy for the Chiefs - losing to the winless Chargers, losing to the Bengals when the Chiefs were undefeated, the Texans in '04, etc.

[2112]

with all of the parity in the league now..your analysis is flawed dude..

[Coogs]

Without significant real improvement on their defense they're nothign but a pretender.

That pretty well describes us too!

[jspchief]

My third sentence addressed your point. Those easy wins haven't been easy for the Chiefs - losing to the winless Chargers, losing to the Bengals when the Chiefs were undefeated, the Texans in '04, etc....Losing to Buffalo at home.... Oh wait, that was Cincy.

Actually, I don't think you did address my point. People are using "they made the play-offs" as some sort of explanation of why the Bengals are better than us. That's completely flawed logic. It's flawed because they were on a different path. It's even further flawed because IMO it was an easier path.

I'm not trying to argue that we deserved the play-offs more. i'm just disputing the notion that their play-off berth is relevant to which team is better.

[RealSNR]

My third sentence addressed your point. Those easy wins haven't been easy for the Chiefs - losing to the winless Chargers, losing to the Bengals when the Chiefs were undefeated, the Texans in '04, etc.Umm... the Bengals went 4-12 the year we lost to the Chargers... Gun's last year

[jspchief]

Umm... the Bengals went 4-12 the year we lost to the Chargers... Gun's last yearpshaw. you don't get it. The Chiefs historically are bad, unlike the Bengals.

[RealSNR]

pshaw. you don't get it. The Chiefs historically are bad, unlike the Bengals.I guess so are the Broncos. Remember those two back-to-back season losses to the Bengals? And the Bears at home?

Wow, the AFC West just isn't that good at all. We can only hope to be teams with rich winning histories like the Bengals, Saints, and Cardinals. At least they never lose the games they should win!

[jspchief]

I guess so are the Broncos. Remember those two back-to-back season losses to the Bengals? And the Bears at home?

Wow, the AFC West just isn't that good at all. We can only hope to be teams with rich winning histories like the Bengals, Saints, and Cardinals. At least they never lose the games they should win!The Chiefs are going to actually have to prove something. Until they can put up their first winning season in 15+ years, they haven't shown me they can compete with teams like the Bengals.

[Nati Ice]

not including losses to us, because that just idiotic

Bengals
against Houston (2-13)
against Tennessee (4-11)
against Green Bay (4-11)
against Detroit (5-10)
against Cleveland (6-9)
against Cleveland (6-9)
against Baltimore (6-9)
against Baltimore (6-9)
against Minnesota (9-6)
against Pittsburgh (11-4)
against Chicago (11-4)
70-95 = 42%

Chiefs
against Houston (2-13)
against NY Jets (4-11)
against Oakland (4-11)
against Oakland (4-11)
against Washington (10-5)
against Miami (9-6)
against San Diego (9-6)
against New England (10-5)
against Denver (13-2)
64-70 = 48%


im not going to count both teams wins in the oppenents totals as that would be completely irrelevant and im also not going to count your win against cincy becuase you were playing for a playoff birth and we were playing our backups and tryng not to get hurt after already sealing up our playoff spot 2 weeks prior, at best that was a meaningless game. with that said, your oppenents win % would be 48% as compared to ours, at 42%. those arnt exactly bragging rights, especially when the team bragging didnt even make the palyoffs last year. why dont you all quit crying about last season, and about the past, and realize that green is 2-3 in home openers at arrowhead with 3 tds and 5 ints and your team has done nothing to improve itself.

prepare to be smacked in the mouth right in the middle of your own house on opening day.

[Hammock Parties]

When was the last time the Bengals smacked ANYONE in the mouth? Your team is about as soft as they come. All finesse.

[jspchief]

prepare to be smacked in the mouth right in the middle of your own house on opening day.Sincerely,
2005 Jets fan

[Chiefnj]

...Losing to Buffalo at home.... Oh wait, that was Cincy.

Actually, I don't think you did address my point. People are using "they made the play-offs" as some sort of explanation of why the Bengals are better than us. That's completely flawed logic. It's flawed because they were on a different path. It's even further flawed because IMO it was an easier path.

I'm not trying to argue that we deserved the play-offs more. i'm just disputing the notion that their play-off berth is relevant to which team is better.

Are the Steelers a better team than KC because they won the Super Bowl last year?

[jspchief]

Are the Steelers a better team than KC because they won the Super Bowl last year?No. The Steelers are a better team for a number of other reasons, mostly having to do with a great defense and a solid offense that compliments their defense.

Were the Bengals more successful than the Chiefs last year? Of course. Does achieving more success against a completely different set of opponents mean they are better than us? No.

Are the Redskins better than us because they made the play-offs last year?

[2112]

prepare to be smacked in the mouth right in the middle of your own house on opening day.


please...that is nonsense!!!
and I'm not even a chief fan..the bengals are not a physical team..they did not show me much against the steelers last year(regular season).
and the steelers are physical..you guys squeeked out that win at heinz field by the skin on your ass..and got spanked at home..

it will be a hard fought game in a hostile environment..worse than pittsburgh..get over yourselves..please..

[Nati Ice]

When was the last time the Bengals smacked ANYONE in the mouth? Your team is about as soft as they come. All finesse.
never...

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/120fs388544.gif (http://s2.supload.com/free/120fs388544.gif/view/)
http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/235451458_0f62b1e2e3_o.gif (http://s2.supload.com/free/235451458_0f62b1e2e3_o.gif/view/)

[InChiefsHeaven]

The Chiefs are going to actually have to prove something. Until they can put up their first winning season in 15+ years, they haven't shown me they can compete with teams like the Bengals.
Geez. You had me going for a minute.

[InChiefsHeaven]

never...

http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/120fs388544.gif (http://s2.supload.com/free/120fs388544.gif/view/)
http://s2.supload.com/thumbs/default/235451458_0f62b1e2e3_o.gif (http://s2.supload.com/free/235451458_0f62b1e2e3_o.gif/view/)

wow. 2 nice tackles. I guess they are gods after all...

[jspchief]

Yea, that sack from Odell Thurman was very hardcore. I sure hope he doesn't do that to Trent Green on Sunday.

Oh wait. I guess I don't have to worry about that.

[Nati Ice]

wow. 2 nice tackles. I guess they are gods after all...
would you like me to post every tackle to every game?

dumb***

[RealSNR]

would you like me to post every tackle to every game?

dumb***We didn't even ask you to post those two that you just did, but you posted them anyway

[ChiefsCountry]

not including losses to us, because that just idiotic

Bengals
against Houston (2-13)
against Tennessee (4-11)
against Green Bay (4-11)
against Detroit (5-10)
against Cleveland (6-9)
against Cleveland (6-9)
against Baltimore (6-9)
against Baltimore (6-9)
against Minnesota (9-6)
against Pittsburgh (11-4)
against Chicago (11-4)
70-95 = 42%

Chiefs
against Houston (2-13)
against NY Jets (4-11)
against Oakland (4-11)
against Oakland (4-11)
against Washington (10-5)
against Miami (9-6)
against San Diego (9-6)
against New England (10-5)
against Denver (13-2)
64-70 = 48%


im not going to count both teams wins in the oppenents totals as that would be completely irrelevant and im also not going to count your win against cincy becuase you were playing for a playoff birth and we were playing our backups and tryng not to get hurt after already sealing up our playoff spot 2 weeks prior, at best that was a meaningless game. with that said, your oppenents win % would be 48% as compared to ours, at 42%. those arnt exactly bragging rights, especially when the team bragging didnt even make the palyoffs last year. why dont you all quit crying about last season, and about the past, and realize that green is 2-3 in home openers at arrowhead with 3 tds and 5 ints and your team has done nothing to improve itself.

prepare to be smacked in the mouth right in the middle of your own house on opening day.

Well our Bungals fan is going to be disappointed Sunday afternoon. Also his stats are flawed and little off oh well.

[2112]

We didn't even ask you to post those two that you just did, but you posted them anyway
nice reply!!!
beat me to it ;)

[RealSNR]

not including losses to us, because that just idiotic

Bengals
against Houston (2-13)
against Tennessee (4-11)
against Green Bay (4-11)
against Detroit (5-10)
against Cleveland (6-9)
against Cleveland (6-9)
against Baltimore (6-9)
against Baltimore (6-9)
against Minnesota (9-6)
against Pittsburgh (11-4)
against Chicago (11-4)
70-95 = 42%

Chiefs
against Houston (2-13)
against NY Jets (4-11)
against Oakland (4-11)
against Oakland (4-11)
against Washington (10-5)
against Miami (9-6)
against San Diego (9-6)
against New England (10-5)
against Denver (13-2)
64-70 = 48%


im not going to count both teams wins in the oppenents totals as that would be completely irrelevant and im also not going to count your win against cincy becuase you were playing for a playoff birth and we were playing our backups and tryng not to get hurt after already sealing up our playoff spot 2 weeks prior, at best that was a meaningless game. with that said, your oppenents win % would be 48% as compared to ours, at 42%. those arnt exactly bragging rights, especially when the team bragging didnt even make the palyoffs last year. why dont you all quit crying about last season, and about the past, and realize that green is 2-3 in home openers at arrowhead with 3 tds and 5 ints and your team has done nothing to improve itself.

prepare to be smacked in the mouth right in the middle of your own house on opening day.Yes. Our team has done nothing to improve itself like the Bungholers did. We didn't sign a veteran CB to complement Surtain, we didn't draft a blue chip prospect at DE, we didn't hire a head coach with a different philosophy about defense, and we didn't replace 3 of our 4 starters on the defensive line. We are the exact same defense as last year.

Dipshit.

[Nati Ice]

Yes. Our team has done nothing to improve itself like the Bungholers did. We didn't sign a veteran CB to complement Surtain, we didn't draft a blue chip prospect at DE, we didn't hire a head coach with a different philosophy about defense, and we didn't replace 3 of our 4 starters on the defensive line. We are the exact same defense as last year.

Dipshit.
so what youre telling me is that you are relying on an elderly cb, a rookie, and a brand new system?

awesome

[jspchief]

so what youre telling me is that you are relying on an elderly cb, a rookie, and a brand new system?

awesomeYes. That and the fact that we were already better than you on defense to begin with.

[RealSNR]

so what youre telling me is that you are relying on an elderly cb, a rookie, and a brand new system?

awesomeIt's more than what you've done to fix your defense, besides lose LBs to injury.

Larry is licking his chops

[StcChief]

Let's not let the fact get in the way....

Nati ICE = Beer/HOMER Bungle Glasses.

[Mecca]

I think the teams are pretty evenly matched as far as being good offenses and bad defenses.....The Bengals problem is basically Larry Johnson. The Chiefs problem is basically going to be if the Bengals are smart enough to sit in 3 WR's and make the Chiefs get a pass rush. If those things happen and no one gets near Palmer I expect Chris Henry to post a monster game.

[Halfcan]

We are going to kick their asses just like last year-end of story.

[beer bacon]

please...that is nonsense!!!
and I'm not even a chief fan..the bengals are not a physical team..they did not show me much against the steelers last year(regular season).
and the steelers are physical..you guys squeeked out that win at heinz field by the skin on your ass..and got spanked at home..

it will be a hard fought game in a hostile environment..worse than pittsburgh..get over yourselves..please..

You won't be singing the same tune after Brian Simmons shuts down LJ!

[InChiefsHeaven]

would you like me to post every tackle to every game?

dumb***
wow. 2 nice tackles = Bengals smacking people in the mouth. I could post many great tackles by the Chiefs defense, even from last season...you know, when we had a better defense...but I'm sure you would not agree that the Chiefs smack people in the mouth...

....bunghole...

[Nati Ice]

wow. 2 nice tackles = Bengals smacking people in the mouth. I could post many great tackles by the Chiefs defense, even from last season...you know, when we had a better defense...but I'm sure you would not agree that the Chiefs smack people in the mouth...

....bunghole...
hmmm... "inchiefshell," clearly thats some kind of prediction for where youll be after sundays game, right?

[InChiefsHeaven]

Wow, I wasted post number 2000 on a Bunghole fan...

[Halfcan]

I think the teams are pretty evenly matched as far as being good offenses and bad defenses.....The Bengals problem is basically Larry Johnson. The Chiefs problem is basically going to be if the Bengals are smart enough to sit in 3 WR's and make the Chiefs get a pass rush. If those things happen and no one gets near Palmer I expect Chris Henry to post a monster game.

Dumping Eric Burnfield should move us up at least 10 spots in defense-not to mention adding 2 DT's, HOFer Ty Law, Bonecrusher, Hali, and the return of Key Fox.

I expect great things from this D this year, starting with pounding the shit out of Palmer.

[Lzen]

those arnt exactly bragging rights, especially when the team bragging didnt even make the palyoffs last year.

Ok, this is idiotic. Did you not even comprehend the thread starter? Switch schedules last year and the Bengals would've been the team on the outside of the playoffs looking in at the Chiefs.

[Mecca]

Dumping Eric Burnfield should move us up at least 10 spots in defense-not to mention adding 2 DT's, HOFer Ty Law, Bonecrusher, Hali, and the return of Key Fox.

I expect great things from this D this year, starting with pounding the shit out of Palmer.

Best tackle combo we'll face this year.......explain to me how Law and Surtain matter if he keeps throwing to the guy Benny Sapp can't cover? That's the thing that worries me about this game, the Bengals should sit in 3-4 WR's taking the 1-2 of the Chief's LB's off the field.....the Chiefs blitz Palmer has a 1 on 1 mismatch somewhere he finds it fast enough we're toast....we don't blitz he picks on the slot all day.

[ChiefsCountry]

not including losses to us, because that just idiotic

Bengals
against Houston (2-13)
against Tennessee (4-11)
against Green Bay (4-11)
against Detroit (5-10)
against Cleveland (6-9)
against Cleveland (6-9)
against Baltimore (6-9)
against Baltimore (6-9)
against Minnesota (9-6)
against Pittsburgh (11-4)
against Chicago (11-4)
70-95 = 42%

Chiefs
against Houston (2-13)
against NY Jets (4-11)
against Oakland (4-11)
against Oakland (4-11)
against Washington (10-5)
against Miami (9-6)
against San Diego (9-6)
against New England (10-5)
against Denver (13-2)
64-70 = 48%


How you added your flawed stats up is pretty simple, why count a team's win total twice when you played them twice. Pretty dumb. Correct totals should be this:

Bengals
against Houston (2-13)
against Tennessee (4-11)
against Green Bay (4-11)
against Detroit (5-10)
against Cleveland (6-8)
against Baltimore (6-8)
against Minnesota (9-6)
against Pittsburgh (11-4)
against Chicago (11-4)
Opponents W/L 58-75 43%

Chiefs
against Houston (2-13)
against NY Jets (4-11)
against Oakland (4-10)
against Washington (10-5)
against Miami (9-6)
against San Diego (9-6)
against New England (10-5)
against Denver (13-2)
against Cincinnati (11-4)
Opponents W/L 72-62 53%

Correct Winning Pct should be 43% to 53%.

Heck I'll take the Bengals out and its 51%.

[keg in kc]

Call me naive, but I think the 'gals will try the same thing we're going to do, pound us with the running game. I think both HC's will try to shorten the game, keep the opposition's O on the bench while still scoring points. I just don't expect it to work as well for them as it will for us.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Ok, this is idiotic.

That's all you really had to say, isn't it?

[Mecca]

Call me naive, but I think the 'gals will try the same thing we're going to do, pound us with the running game. I think both HC's will try to shorten the game, keep the opposition's O on the bench while still scoring points. I just don't expect it to work as well for them as it will for us.

I think that's bad for them....their mismatches with our defense are in the passing game.

[Hammock Parties]

Call me naive, but I think the 'gals will try the same thing we're going to do, pound us with the running game. I think both HC's will try to shorten the game, keep the opposition's O on the bench while still scoring points. I just don't expect it to work as well for them as it will for us.

That's right. You know why? Because...

http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/7518/565100737vygf4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[jspchief]

I think that's bad for them....their mismatches with our defense are in the passing game.Specifically with the short passing game.

Lucky for us, that's barely a part of their offense. They barely use a receiving TE and they don't use many of the short crossing routes that will kill our Cover 2.

In the past, I'd have said we were screwed on the edges, with our slow safeties not be able to provide support, but I think(hope) the deep zone they'll play will offset that a bit.

[chagrin]

So the Fraidy Cats make it to the playoffs once in 11 years and now they bag us for not getting there for just a few, big deal

[keg in kc]

I think that's bad for them....their mismatches with our defense are in the passing game.
That doesn't mean they won't pass, just that we'll see a lot of Rudy Johnson.

Fact is, Palmer only passed 40 or more times once last season, and twice in his career. I don't think he's going to drop back 40 times in his first game back from a major injury in a hostile road environment. Unless we build a substantial lead, I see 30-35 pass attempts. And maybe less.

[Mecca]

Specifically with the short passing game.

Lucky for us, that's barely a part of their offense. They barely use a receiving TE and they don't use many of the short crossing routes that will kill our Cover 2.

In the past, I'd have said we were screwed on the edges, with our slow safeties not be able to provide support, but I think(hope) the deep zone they'll play will offset that a bit.

All they have to do is go to 3 wides and send Chris Henry into intermediate areas between the LB's and Safeties......I don't know if they're smart enough to do it, but that's what I'd do.

I hope the Bengals play their base 2 WR's most of the time cause that's better for us they start spreading us out I see alot of trouble.....

[Nati Ice]

How you added your flawed stats up is pretty simple, why count a team's win total twice when you played them twice. Pretty dumb. Correct totals should be this:

Bengals
against Houston (2-13)
against Tennessee (4-11)
against Green Bay (4-11)
against Detroit (5-10)
against Cleveland (6-8)
against Baltimore (6-8)
against Minnesota (9-6)
against Pittsburgh (11-4)
against Chicago (11-4)
Opponents W/L 58-75 43%

Chiefs
against Houston (2-13)
against NY Jets (4-11)
against Oakland (4-10)
against Washington (10-5)
against Miami (9-6)
against San Diego (9-6)
against New England (10-5)
against Denver (13-2)
against Cincinnati (11-4)
Opponents W/L 72-62 53%

Correct Winning Pct should be 43% to 53%.

Heck I'll take the Bengals out and its 51%.

Ok, this is idiotic.

[keg in kc]

All they have to do is go to 3 wides and send Chris Henry into intermediate areas between the LB's and Safeties......I don't know if they're smart enough to do it, but that's what I'd do.

I hope the Bengals play their base 2 WR's most of the time cause that's better for us they start spreading us out I see alot of trouble.....Two ways to look at that. Going 3 wide means they pull a TE or a FB. I expect more max protect and play action than that, to give Palmer time and to keep us from hitting him. That's the real issue, how much risk they're going to be willing to take right out the gate. Or how much they need to; they may feel they can beat us without going 3-wide, that either I formation or 2TE/2WR singleback is enough to attack our defense.

[ChiefsCountry]

Your the idiot who brought that stupid pct in the first place.

[Brock]

The Bengals problem is basically Larry Johnson.

And Trent Green and Tony Gonzalez and Eddie Kennison. You're nuts if you think those guys aren't going to make some noise in this game.

[Mecca]

Two ways to look at that. Going 3 wide means they pull a TE or a FB. I expect more max protect and play action than that, to give Palmer time and to keep us from hitting him. That's the real issue, how much risk they're going to be willing to take right out the gate. Or how much they need to; they may feel they can beat us without going 3-wide, that either I formation or 2TE/2WR singleback is enough to attack our defense.

And herein lies the problem......I don't think we can pressure Palmer without sending blitzers...which will open up the field to a very smart accurate strong armed QB....

[keg in kc]

I think there's a chance Sunday's going to be Samie Parker's coming-out party, too.

[RealSNR]

I think there's a chance Sunday's going to be Samie Parker's coming-out party, too.Herm wants a low-scoring game. This ain't going to be the case

[Mecca]

Herm wants a low-scoring game. This ain't going to be the case

If he wants a low scoring game this is the wrong team to try that against.......

[keg in kc]

And herein lies the problem......I don't think we can pressure Palmer without sending blitzers...which will open up the field to a very smart accurate strong armed QB....It depends on how good Edwards and Reed really are. I think Allen and Hali (yes, I said Hali, I've seen enough) are both capable of wreaking havoc if they're put in 1-on-1 situations, regardless of the name of the tackle they're going up against. I really liked the way we shifted the ends around, had them lining up in different stances in different spots on the line. The defense looks to be getting aggressive in terms of creating their own mismatches.

I really think Sunday's going to be interesting in a lot of ways. It's the first time we really get to see what Edwards has done with the defense. We've seen little pieces here and there in the preseason, but mostly we've just been playing base.

I'm looking forward to it. We'll get beat some, but what we need isn't a defense that stops them every time. We need a defense that can stop them a time or two more than we would have in the past. Do that, and we win.

[keg in kc]

Herm wants a low-scoring game.I think you're wrong about that, but we can't know for sure until Sunday.

[htismaqe]

I cant' wait until this offense hangs 35 on the Bungles...

Then all you Herm haters can SHUT THE **** UP.

[vailpass]

Lucky for some of you that Edwards won't let his team underestimate Cincinatti like you are doing here.
At least you better hope not.

[Hammock Parties]

So we lose 38-35?

DAMMIT, HERM!

[keg in kc]

Lucky for some of you that Edwards won't let his team underestimate Cincinatti like you are doing here.
At least you better hope not.Who's underestimating Cincinnati?

[htismaqe]

Lucky for some of you that Edwards won't let his team underestimate Cincinatti like you are doing here.
At least you better hope not.

I think it's gonna be a tough game, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if they won. The only thing more funny than the Chiefs fans here underestimating the Bengals is the Chiefs fans underestimating the CHIEFS.

[Brock]

Who's underestimating Cincinnati?

By not acknowledging the fact that they are an unstoppable dynamo that beat up on a bunch of weak sisters last year, we are, I guess.

[Calcountry]

You can't base anything on last year. This could go so many ways. We have no idea what kind of Chiefs team we'll field on Sunday, and who knows if Cincinnati is 'for real'. Personally, I'm of the opinion that they're a one-hit wonder along the lines of the '03 Chiefs or the '04 Chargers, and '06 will be a rough 'come back to earth' season for them. That's based more on seeing historical tendencies of young teams that come out of nowhere. They usually stumble. I said that last year about San Diego and people thought I was nuts...

I could see a blowout Sunday. They have a number of injuries on defense and I think LJ's going to have a field-day. That'll open things for the passing game, and I think it's going to be a shoot-out early, with our defense putting on the clamps in the second half. So I'm sticking with my 31-20 prediction. I think the Bengals end the year 8-8 or 9-7.I felt the same thing about San Diego last year. True to form, Marty brought them back to mediocrity, and shipped off their QB for an unproven QB.

Great. :thumb:

I saw a stat the other day that was very interesting, yet quite disturbing.

In the last 3 years, KC was something like 6th on the list in total regular season wins.

[vailpass]

Who's underestimating Cincinnati?

You might be...

... and who knows if Cincinnati is 'for real'. Personally, I'm of the opinion that they're a one-hit wonder along the lines of the '03 Chiefs or the '04 Chargers,
...
I could see a blowout Sunday. They have a number of injuries on defense and I think LJ's going to have a field-day.... So I'm sticking with my 31-20 prediction. I think the Bengals end the year 8-8 or 9-7.

[keg in kc]

You might be...I'm not sure how exactly I'm underestimating anything. As I've outlined, I'm expecting a close game at halftime with us pulling away in the second half to an eventual 10-point-ish win, but with them still putting at least 20 on the board.

In more detail, they're not particularly good defensively, and their weaknesses fall right into our strengths. We run the ball well and we don't turn it over. Beyond that, they've got a QB coming off a major injury, so I'm expecting them to try the same sort of approach with us, to run the ball, passing with more of an eye on protecting the QB than taking risks. I think we're better-suited to stopping that than they are. I certainly recognize that their offense is one of the best, but I'm not convinced they'll be as potent Sunday as they will be later in the year. I think we're fortunate to have them when we do.

I could be wrong. It's just my opinion after all.

Either way, I'm not predicting a blowout reminiscent of last year's Jets opener. Just a solid, clear-cut victory. I think we're going to be a better team than people believe we'll be, and we're tough to beat at home even when we're not that good.

[jspchief]

You might be...Keg's points are valid. The 2005 Bengals are a carbon copy of the 2003 Chiefs. Awesome offense, shitty defense that gets by on turnovers, weak schedule.

Now that doesn't mean they'll suck this year. The Chiefs were still dangerous in '04, simply because of their offense.

But the point remains that the Bengals are for the most part an unproven team who's first taste of success came with all the stars aligning perfectly.

Every Chiefs fan knows this will be a tough game. Even the stupid ones that pretend otherwise. But at the same time we should have every reason to be confident that we are a better team. We were a better team last year, and neither team has made so many moves as to clearly change that.

[vailpass]

I'm not sure how exactly I'm underestimating anything. As I've outlined, I'm expecting a close game at halftime with us pulling away in the second half to an eventual 10-point-ish win, but with them still putting at least 20 on the board.

In more detail, they're not particularly good defensively, and their weaknesses fall right into our strengths. We run the ball well and we don't turn it over. Beyond that, they've got a QB coming off a major injury, so I'm expecting them to try the same sort of approach with us, to run the ball, passing with more of an eye on protecting the QB than taking risks. I think we're better-suited to stopping that than they are. I certainly recognize that their offense is one of the best, but I'm not convinced they'll be as potent Sunday as they will be later in the year. I think we're fortunate to have them when we do.

I could be wrong. It's just my opinion after all.

Either way, I'm not predicting a blowout reminiscent of last year's Jets opener. Just a solid, clear-cut victory. I think we're going to be a better team than people believe we'll be, and we're tough to beat at home even when we're not that good.

Cool, got ya. When you said the Bengals were a one-year wonder and that you could see a blowout on Sunday it seemed to me as though you weren't putting much stock into Cinci as a legitimate opponent.

[ChiefsCountry]

This going to be a tough test but I don't see Cincy as a good as Denver or Pittsburgh or even gasp San Diego. Also it proves how tough the AFC West is, look at the teams the AFC West played and its amazing to have three teams above .500.

[vailpass]

Keg's points are valid. The 2005 Bengals are a carbon copy of the 2003 Chiefs. Awesome offense, shitty defense that gets by on turnovers, weak schedule.

Now that doesn't mean they'll suck this year. The Chiefs were still dangerous in '04, simply because of their offense.

But the point remains that the Bengals are for the most part an unproven team who's first taste of success came with all the stars aligning perfectly.

Every Chiefs fan knows this will be a tough game. Even the stupid ones that pretend otherwise. But at the same time we should have every reason to be confident that we are a better team. We were a better team last year, and neither team has made so many moves as to clearly change that.
Yep, I see your point. I'm curious to see if the two rookie D players the KC fans are on this board are so high on are as good as advertised.

I'm just ****ing happy that in a couple hours all the time for talking will be in the rear view mirror and theNFL season wil be officially underway.

Here's to another season enjoying God's gift to the American man,

:toast:

[ChiefsCountry]

Here's to another season enjoying God's gift to the American man,

:toast:

Beer, football, or women? :p

[vailpass]

Beer, football, or women? :p

LMAO
You can enjoy all 3 in your armchair...at the same time.

[htismaqe]

Beer, football, or women? :p

God's gift to the American man is the Honda Accord.

[keg in kc]

Cool, got ya. When you said the Bengals were a one-year wonder and that you could see a blowout on Sunday it seemed to me as though you weren't putting much stock into Cinci as a legitimate opponent.I think they *could" be a one-year wonder. As I said, they remind me of the '03 Chiefs and the '04 Chargers.

Although, even if they are, they're still a dangerous team. We're not good enought to take anyone for granted. Not that any NFL team is, in this parity day and age.

I also thought Parker made a valid point when he mentioned KC fans underestimating the Chiefs. We were 10-6 last year, and we have what looks like a very good draft class. Losing Roaf is a loss, there's no question about that; what remains to be seen is just how debilitating a loss it turns out to be.

You listen locally (and read here to a point) and most of the fanbase has already written off both Sunday's game and the season. I don't get that, and maybe I'm reacting a little to that...

[Halfcan]

Best tackle combo we'll face this year.......explain to me how Law and Surtain matter if he keeps throwing to the guy Benny Sapp can't cover? That's the thing that worries me about this game, the Bengals should sit in 3-4 WR's taking the 1-2 of the Chief's LB's off the field.....the Chiefs blitz Palmer has a 1 on 1 mismatch somewhere he finds it fast enough we're toast....we don't blitz he picks on the slot all day.

I think we will be blitzing from every direction.

How are they going to stop LJ?? We are going to control the clock, dominate the game, and destroy the bungholes again. I am not worried at all.

[mrotS]

Since the Bengals were a "play-off team" last year, I thought i'd look at the path that got them to the post season.

It took 11 wins to get them there:

1 against Houston (2-14)
1 against Tennessee (4-12)
1 against Green Bay (4-12)
1 against Detroit (5-11)
2 against Cleveland (6-10)
2 against Baltimore (6-10)
1 against Minnesota (9-7)
1 against Pittsburgh (11-5)
1 against Chicago (11-5)

8 wins against sub .500 teams
3 wins against teams with winning records, including against Chicago when they started a rookie 4th round QB that threw 5 INTs.

So next time someone tells me that the Bengals are the better team because they made the play-offs, I think I'll link this thread. Kansas City was ranked higher on offense and higher on defense. There's no reason to think we aren't the favorite in this game.


Does it really matter how you get there? why don't you look up last years Super Bowl champs path to get there?

[vailpass]

I
You listen locally (and read here to a point) and most of the fanbase has already written off both Sunday's game and the season. I don't get that, and maybe I'm reacting a little to that...

WTF?

Cowherd mentioned the Cinci-KC game as one of the must-see games of this weekend. I think it will be a great game.

I can't say I'm rooting for KC but I do happen to have LJ on my fantasy squad so if he should happen to run wild........

[htismaqe]

I think they *could" be a one-year wonder. As I said, they remind me of the '03 Chiefs and the '04 Chargers.

Although, even if they are, they're still a dangerous team. We're not good enought to take anyone for granted. Not that any NFL team is, in this parity day and age.

I also thought Parker made a valid point when he mentioned KC fans underestimating the Chiefs. We were 10-6 last year, and we have what looks like a very good draft class. Losing Roaf is a loss, there's no question about that; what remains to be seen is just how debilitating a loss it turns out to be.

You listen locally (and read here to a point) and most of the fanbase has already written off both Sunday's game and the season. I don't get that, and maybe I'm reacting a little to that...

That's pretty much what I'm reacting to as well.

For me personally, I wasn't happy we hired Herm. There were other choices I like better.

But the guy comes out and says, flat-out "I'd be stupid to mess with this offense" and not a fan says a SINGLE word. But when he says he wants to control the ball at the end of the game, it's the end of the world, he's gonna kill our offense...

[htismaqe]

WTF?

Cowherd mentioned the Cinci-KC game as one of the must-see games of this weekend. I think it will be a great game.

I can't say I'm rooting for KC but I do happen to have LJ on my fantasy squad so if he should happen to run wild........

You seriously haven't picked up on this?

All you'd have to do is stick around this place for a couple of days to read a dozen threads on how Herm is going to ruin this team...

[keg in kc]

He also had a statement yesterday where he again said that he's not going to change the offense, that he just wants to manage certain situations differently than we have in the past.

I don't know that I've even seen it posted here...

[ChiefsCountry]

I also thought Parker made a valid point when he mentioned KC fans underestimating the Chiefs. We were 10-6 last year, and we have what looks like a very good draft class. Losing Roaf is a loss, there's no question about that; what remains to be seen is just how debilitating a loss it turns out to be.


Going back looking at our season last year, when I was doing research to prove a point to the Bungal fan, we should have been 13-3. Blown lead to Philly, didnt show up offensively at Buffalo, and the Dallas game. Pretty scary considering how are defense was last year.

[keg in kc]

It's not the quote I'm thinking of, but this was thought-provoking:Q: What did you think of Kansas City’s receivers as you prepared to play them in last year’s opener with the Jets?

EDWARDS: “I thought they were good receivers – probably not appreciated. Unless you have one of those star receivers then all of a sudden you’re just a guy. You’re a guy that doesn’t have a dance in the endzone, didn’t catch 10 touchdowns a year. The last time I checked these guys have been pretty productive receivers. I think Samie (Parker) has a great upside and I think Kennison has done a good job and Dante Hall, if you get him the ball he can be potent.

“The way I like to play is I like to get the ball around to everybody because when you have gifted players you have the ability to get it to more than one guy. That’s always harder to defend when you’re on defense. When you know they have one guy that you like to get the ball to it’s not easier to defend but you obviously can do some things maybe to combat that. With the ability of these three guys and this good tight end we have the ability to get the ball to a lot of different guys. We’re a formation offense and run a lot of formations to get match-ups.”Yes indeedy, that just shouts "no more passing, run, run, run!" to me.

And I just realized something. Their (meaning the Jets) run/pass ratio last year, even with the QBs going down like flies...384 rushes to 470 passes. Of course, they lost a million games so they were behind all the time, but still...

[the Talking Can]

holeeeeeeeee crap am I excited about this season....maybe it's because I haven't been around as much, lol

the big question is our defense, obviously...but I think the story will be our offense...Trent still gets NO LOVE from anyone...I see Tony G and Parker having big games with the play action pass...who will cover Tony??

Trent has shredded much better D's than the Bengals, and unless Turley's back explodes I expect more of the same...hell, just Trent, LJ, and Gonzo constitute the foundation of a solid offense, throw in an interior OL of Waters,Weigmann, Shields, the best blocking TE in the league in Dunn, a 1000 WR, and speedster in Parker...all together a unit that has run the same offense for 5 years...and now I realize why no one in the media, or on the radio, or here, is talking about how the Bengals will stop us....what would they say?

Herm still doesn't thrill me, but our veterans do...enjoy every snap Trent takes, he's the best QB we'll have for a long time if history is a guide...

I'm a homer, and I'm dreaming of Law and Surtain this year...not Surtain and McCleon. DJ. Allen. Hali....oh yeah...