The Bengals tie today will fuck the Chiefs in the draft

[Mr. Flopnuts]

You heard it here first.

[beach tribe]

Great thread.

[Mecca]

The Chiefs trying to win games is going to fuck them in the draft, god damn them.

[2bikemike]

I was wondering how that would affect the draft?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Just off the top of my head, I'm not sure how it could.

Their winning precentage doesn't change. A tie = a loss.

cdcox would be the guy to ask...

[Mr. Laz]

i don't think so


we win the tie-breaker due to strength of schedule i think

2 Kansas City 1-9 .535
3 Cincinnati 1-9 .569


tie = loss due to tie-breaker

[Mecca]

The only way it would really matter is if the teams finished tied then the Chiefs would be considered worse by having 1 more loss.

[007]

i don't think so


we win the tie-breaker due to strength of schedule i think

2 Kansas City 1-9 .535
3 Cincinnati 1-9 .569


tie = loss due to tie-breaker

1-8-1 is better than 1-9

[dirk digler]

1-8-1 is better than 1-9

That is what I am thinking. A tie will help us not hurt us

[OnTheWarpath15]

1-8-1 is better than 1-9

I'm not positive, but I don't think that's right.

A team's winning percentage is what is used, IIRC.

Both teams have a .100 winning percentage.

The next tiebreaker would be opponent SOS, which we would hold as of now.

[the Talking Can]

why are ties allowed...that is so gay

[Mr. Laz]

I'm not positive, but I don't think that's right.

A team's winning percentage is what is used, IIRC.

Both teams have a .100 winning percentage.

The next tiebreaker would be opponent SOS, which we would hold as of now.
and we win the SOS tie-breaker


NFL Draft Basics
Determining Order of Selection

By James Alder, About.com

• The team with the lowest winning percentage at the end of the previous season drafts first in the NFL Draft.

• The rest of the teams are placed in order from lowest winning percentage to the highest.

• The Super Bowl winner drafts last, even if they do not have the highest winning percentage.

• The Super Bowl loser drafts next to last.

• Strength of schedule for the previous season is the first tie-breaker for teams with the same winning percentage.

• Divisional and conference records are the next step in the tie-breaking procedure.

• As a last resort, a coin toss is used to determine the order of selection for teams with the same winning percentage.

• If a playoff and non-playoff team end the season with the same winning percentage, the non-playoff team selects before the playoff team regardless of strength of schedule.

[OnTheWarpath15]

and we win the SOS tie-breaker

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you...

[eazyb81]

I'm not positive, but I don't think that's right.

A team's winning percentage is what is used, IIRC.

Both teams have a .100 winning percentage.

The next tiebreaker would be opponent SOS, which we would hold as of now.

No, Cincy will have a higher winning percentage than KC after this tie.

[Mecca]

The Chiefs and Bengals play each other so it likely won't matter...

[dirk digler]

I'm not positive, but I don't think that's right.

A team's winning percentage is what is used, IIRC.

Both teams have a .100 winning percentage.

The next tiebreaker would be opponent SOS, which we would hold as of now.

He post shows the winning percentage

Because the Bengals are 1-8-1 and played 10 games makes their percentage better

[Shaid]

I'm not positive, but I don't think that's right.

A team's winning percentage is what is used, IIRC.

Both teams have a .100 winning percentage.

The next tiebreaker would be opponent SOS, which we would hold as of now.

You're wrong on this one. Someone will be along shortly with a link to prove it. I'm too lazy to look it up.:D

[dirk digler]

The Chiefs and Bengals play each other so it likely won't matter...

This is weird but this will be like the 2 or 3rd season where we ended the season playing the Bengals.

If we end up 1-14 and they end up 1-13-1 going into that last week the Chiefs should just bench all the starters and let the Bengals win

[Rausch]

I'm not afraid of the Bengals to do anything to hurt anyone come crunchtime...

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Great thread.

Yeah, I'm sure it will never be relevant and probably won't get 10 responses. My bad.

[OnTheWarpath15]

NFL.com hasn't updated the standings yet.

Both teams have 1 win in 10 games. .100 winning percentage.

Now, if they calculate the winning percentage based solely on wins vs losses, instead of percentage of wins vs. games played, then it would matter.

But if that's the way they do it, that's retarded.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I'm surprised you guys think the Chiefs aren't going to win another game this year. I'll bet we win two.

[Mr. Laz]

why are ties allowed...that is so gay

and thus

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5218373#post5218373 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=236750)

[Basileus777]

This tie can only hurt us if we win another game and Cinci doesn't.

[blueballs]

who the fuck are you

[Rausch]

why are ties allowed...that is so gay

If you can't win a game in 4 hours fuck you. Go home.

Get off my TV.

[Rausch]

who the **** are you

I've been saying that a lot lately...

[eazyb81]

NFL.com hasn't updated the standings yet.

Both teams have 1 win in 10 games. .100 winning percentage.

Now, if they calculate the winning percentage based solely on wins vs losses, instead of percentage of wins vs. games played, then it would matter.

But if that's the way they do it, that's retarded.

Look at this:

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/standings.nsf/Seasons/2002

This is the final standings in 2002, the last time there was a tie in the NFL. You can see the different winning percentages between Pittsburgh, a team that won 10 and had a tie, with another team that won 10 and didn't have a tie.

[dirk digler]

NFL.com hasn't updated the standings yet.

Both teams have 1 win in 10 games. .100 winning percentage.

Now, if they calculate the winning percentage based solely on wins vs losses, instead of percentage of wins vs. games played, then it would matter.

But if that's the way they do it, that's retarded.

A tie is a half-win half-loss

Most leagues consider ties something like a half-win. So if a team goes 5-3-2, you would add up with wins to get to six (5 + half + half) and divide it by the total number of games, 10, to get a winning percentage of .600.

The NFL used to do it so that ties did not count, and a percentage of wins and losses only was used for winning percentage. Therefore, a team that was 14-0 was just ahead of 13-0-1 -- which makes sense. The problem with that -- A team that went 13-0-1 was better than a team that went 13-1. The league finally realized that made no sense and went to the half-win system.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Look at this:

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/standings.nsf/Seasons/2002

This is the final standings in 2002, the last time there was a tie in the NFL. You can see the different winning percentages between Pittsburgh, a team that won 10 and had a tie, with another team that won 10 and didn't have a tie.

A tie is a half-win half-loss

Then I stand corrected.

Though it doesn't change how stupid it is.

Benefiting teams who finish with a tie? This isn't fucking hockey.

You either win, or you don't. Thus, it is called WINNING percentage.

[HolmeZz]

A team that went 13-0-1 was better than a team that went 13-1. The league finally realized that made no sense and went to the half-win system.

Uh, that makes perfect sense to me. A tie > a loss.

[beach tribe]

Yeah, I'm sure it will never be relevant and probably won't get 10 responses. My bad.

I apologize. I've been snappy ever since we punted on 4th, and 2.

[dirk digler]

Then I stand corrected.

Though it doesn't change how stupid it is.

Benefiting teams who finish with a tie? This isn't ****ing hockey.

You either win, or you don't. Thus, it is called WINNING percentage.

It makes sense to me since you didn't lose so why get punished for a loss?

[OnTheWarpath15]

It makes sense to me since you didn't lose so why get punished for a loss?

You didn't win, either.

Winning percentage implies that you are calculating a percentage of games won based on games played.

To a degree, I'm picking a nit, but you either win, or you don't. There should be no benefit for a tie, IMO. This isn't hockey.

What's next, a formula to benefit a team for an overtime loss?

This is moot anyway, if we win another game and the Bengals don't.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I apologize. I've been snappy ever since we punted on 4th, and 2.

No worries dude. Me too........

[chiefzilla1501]

I don't know why people are so obsessed with getting a top pick in the draft.

I would rather draft 4 or 5 than in the top 3. You pay a lot less money and it's much easier to trade out of that spot if you don't like what you have.

I think with rookie contracts as they are, a lot of teams would prefer not to be in the top 3 these days.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

who the fuck are you

If you don't
already know then
you're searching
in the wrong hole

[dirk digler]

This is moot anyway, if we win another game and the Bengals don't.

It depends. We could throw the last game against them and end up #2. :)

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I'll bet the number 1 pick in the draft is a team that has a minimum of 2 wins.

[Mr. Laz]

<table><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="left"> Tennessee Titans (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/results.nsf/Teams/2002-ten)</td> <td> 11</td> <td>5</td> <td> 0</td> <td>.688</td> <td>367</td> <td>324</td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="left"> Pittsburgh Steelers (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/results.nsf/Teams/2002-pit)</td> <td>10</td> <td>5</td> <td>1</td> <td>.656</td> <td>390</td> <td>345</td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="left"> Indianapolis Colts (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/results.nsf/Teams/2002-ind)</td> <td> 10</td> <td>6</td> <td>0</td> <td>.625</td> <td>349</td> <td>313</td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="left"> Denver Broncos (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/results.nsf/Teams/2002-den)</td> <td> 9</td> <td>7</td> <td>0</td> <td>.563</td> <td>392</td> <td>344</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Lonewolf Ed]

NFL.com hasn't updated the standings yet.

Both teams have 1 win in 10 games. .100 winning percentage.

Now, if they calculate the winning percentage based solely on wins vs losses, instead of percentage of wins vs. games played, then it would matter.

But if that's the way they do it, that's retarded.

So, how does a tie count in terms of overall percentage? Let's say the season began with two teams tying. A win puts a team at 1.000, a loss at .000, but what does the tie do, put them at .500? That would not be right, either... I am perplexed here.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

It doesn't hurt us. It just doesn't help us as much as a loss would. The thing that sucks is that now we have to lose to them at the end of the season.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

It doesn't hurt us. It just doesn't help us as much as a loss would. The thing that sucks is that now we have to lose to them at the end of the season.

We're going to win that game. We're probably going to beat Oakland, and quite possibly Denver too. I could easily see us 4-12 by the time the season is over. Of course, I could easily see us 1-15 too. I just don't think it's going to happen.

[Rain Man]

So, how does a tie count in terms of overall percentage? Let's say the season began with two teams tying. A win puts a team at 1.000, a loss at .000, but what does the tie do, put them at .500? That would not be right, either... I am perplexed here.

I believe that's right. Their wins and losses are equal. In a tie, the two teams split credit for the win.

[Mr. Laz]

So, how does a tie count in terms of overall percentage? Let's say the season began with two teams tying. A win puts a team at 1.000, a loss at .000, but what does the tie do, put them at .500? That would not be right, either... I am perplexed here.
here is the final standings from 2002 showing a tie and the difference

<table><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="left"> Tennessee Titans (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/results.nsf/Teams/2002-ten)</td> <td> 11</td> <td>5</td> <td> 0</td> <td>.688</td> <td>367</td> <td>324</td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="left"> Pittsburgh Steelers (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/results.nsf/Teams/2002-pit)</td> <td>10</td> <td>5</td> <td>1</td> <td>.656</td> <td>390</td> <td>345</td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="left"> Indianapolis Colts (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/results.nsf/Teams/2002-ind)</td> <td> 10</td> <td>6</td> <td>0</td> <td>.625</td> <td>349</td> <td>313</td></tr></tbody></table><table><tbody><tr align="center"><td align="left"> Denver Broncos (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/results.nsf/Teams/2002-den)</td> <td> 9</td> <td>7</td> <td>0</td> <td>.563</td> <td>392</td> <td>344</td></tr></tbody></table>

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I don't know why people are so obsessed with getting a top pick in the draft.

I would rather draft 4 or 5 than in the top 3. You pay a lot less money and it's much easier to trade out of that spot if you don't like what you have.

I think with rookie contracts as they are, a lot of teams would prefer not to be in the top 3 these days.

I couldn't hate this argument any more if it fucked my mother.

Not only do you give yourself fewer options in the first round with this pick, you are giving up 3-4 slots in every round when you pick like this.

Just in the second round, the difference between pick 33 and pick 38 is worth a mid fourth round pick.

Furthermore, with the cap set up the way it is, and how far we are under it, for us to even be in the galaxy of worrying about the cap is completely off base.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

We're going to win that game. We're probably going to beat Oakland, and quite possibly Denver too. I could easily see us 4-12 by the time the season is over. Of course, I could easily see us 1-15 too. I just don't think it's going to happen.

There is no way in hell this team wins in Denver. None.

[RNR]

I believe that's right. Their wins and losses are equal. In a tie, the two teams split credit for the win.

So who takes credit for the loss?

[OnTheWarpath15]

I couldn't hate this argument any more if it ****ed my mother.

Not only do you give yourself fewer options in the first round with this pick, you are giving up 3-4 slots in every round when you pick like this.

Just in the second round, the difference between pick 33 and pick 38 is worth a mid fourth round pick.

Furthermore, with the cap set up the way it is, and how far we are under it, for us to even be in the galaxy of worrying about the cap is completely off base.

Joe Thomas, or Levi Brown?

Braylon Edwards, or Cadillac Williams?

Larry Fitzgerald, or Sean Taylor?

Andre Johnson, or Terrance Newman?

[beach tribe]

0-0-1>0-1-0

In the standings, and draft order.

End of story.

[beach tribe]

There is no way in hell this team wins in Denver. None.

I disagree.

[Mr. Laz]

I would rather draft 4 or 5 than in the top 3. You pay a lot less money and it's much easier to trade out of that spot if you don't like what you have.

I think with rookie contracts as they are, a lot of teams would prefer not to be in the top 3 these days.

Herm is that you?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Joe Thomas, or Levi Brown?

Braylon Edwards, or Cadillac Williams?

Larry Fitzgerald, or Sean Taylor?

Andre Johnson, or Terrance Newman?

Answers in bold, of course. You need a franchise RT who leads the league in sacks allowed with a top five pick.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I disagree.

I will bet you 7500 dollars in casino cash that they lose that game.

[Mecca]

Answers in bold, of course. You need a franchise RT who leads the league in sacks allowed with a top five pick.

Funny story, I'm completely against taking RB's in the top 10 but with that class, when Arizona's pick came up I turned to my friend and went "they should take Peterson here"

Imagine their offense had they done that...

[unothadeal]

So who takes credit for the loss?

Herm will choose someone to blame after watching the film.

[chiefs1111]

Funny story, I'm completely against taking RB's in the top 10 but with that class, when Arizona's pick came up I turned to my friend and went "they should take Peterson here"

Imagine their offense had they done that...

That would be freaking scary stuff...

[chiefzilla1501]

I couldn't hate this argument any more if it ****ed my mother.

Not only do you give yourself fewer options in the first round with this pick, you are giving up 3-4 slots in every round when you pick like this.

Just in the second round, the difference between pick 33 and pick 38 is worth a mid fourth round pick.

Furthermore, with the cap set up the way it is, and how far we are under it, for us to even be in the galaxy of worrying about the cap is completely off base.

If a trade-down can land you an extra 2nd round pick, that pick can be used on a top-flight center, guard, right tackle, or LB.

So if you trade down, you still get to draft in the top 10 and you get a top-flight player at a position of need. I never understood why there's so much resistance to that idea.

[Rausch]

Hate to piss in the punchbowl but if you lose all but 1 of 16 games it won't matter who you get with your first pick.

You suck.

Hard. Bad. In many ways.

It means your team is weak in all 3 areas, most of the time, and when it counts.

It means next year is like this year with or without Herm. If you think your team can win less than 3 games and hit the playoffs the next year you're sniffing pesticides...

[kstater]

I don't know why people are so obsessed with getting a top pick in the draft.

I would rather draft 4 or 5 than in the top 3. You pay a lot less money and it's much easier to trade out of that spot if you don't like what you have.

I think with rookie contracts as they are, a lot of teams would prefer not to be in the top 3 these days.

This is retarted. Your and idiot.

[FringeNC]

a tie counts as a half win and a half loss when calculating winning percentage.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Hate to piss in the punchbowl but if you lose all but 1 of 16 games it won't matter who you get with your first pick.

You suck.

Hard. Bad. In many ways.

It means your team is weak in all 3 areas, most of the time, and when it counts.

It means next year is like this year with or without Herm. If you think your team can win less than 3 games and hit the playoffs the next year you're sniffing pesticides...

I damn sure have never said this. The point isn't to compete in '09. It's to compete in the third year of the rebuild. Right now, this team is a lot like the '07 Dolphins in that they are finding a way to lose a lot of close games and they are nowhere near as bad as their record indicates. This is good for now and the future.

A very small infusion of talent and a better coach would have this team at .500. You give this team a top 5 draft pick, and another solid draft, and they are a 6-7 win team next year. Then you can make the push the next two years.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

If a trade-down can land you an extra 2nd round pick, that pick can be used on a top-flight center, guard, right tackle, or LB.

So if you trade down, you still get to draft in the top 10 and you get a top-flight player at a position of need. I never understood why there's so much resistance to that idea.

Because you are passing up an impact player for a player at a less important position.

Do you ever think why you are getting that second round pick? Because there is that big of a difference in talent between who you would get if you stood pat and who you get if you trade down.

This team needs playmakers, not finishing pieces.

[kstater]

Because you are passing up an impact player for a player at a less important position.

Do you ever think why you are getting that second round pick? Because there is that big of a difference in talent between who you would get if you stood pat and who you get if you trade down.

This team needs playmakers, not finishing pieces.

Exactly. You trade down to get extra picks for depth, not for hoping an extra 2nd rounder will pan out to be a starter. While the team needs depth, they also need cornerstones.

[Mr. Laz]

Updated: Sunday November 16, 2008 05:13 PM

<table style="width: 653px; height: 150px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr class="cnnRow1"> <td class="cnnCol0" colspan="2">West</td> <td class="cnnCol1">W</td> <td class="cnnCol2">L</td> <td class="cnnCol3">T</td> <td class="cnnCol4">Pct</td> <td class="cnnCol5">PF</td> <td class="cnnCol6">PA</td> <td class="cnnCol7">Home</td> <td class="cnnCol8">Road</td> <td class="cnnCol9">AFC</td> <td class="cnnCol10">NFC</td> <td class="cnnCol11">Div</td> <td class="cnnCol12">Streak</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnRow2"> <td class="cnnCol0">
</td> <td class="cnnCol1">http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/images/football/nfl/logos/broncos_30.gifBroncos (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/broncos/index.html)</td> <td class="cnnCol2">6</td> <td class="cnnCol3">4</td> <td class="cnnCol4">0</td> <td class="cnnCol5">.600</td> <td class="cnnCol6">248</td> <td class="cnnCol7">271</td> <td class="cnnCol8">3-2-0</td> <td class="cnnCol9">3-2-0</td> <td class="cnnCol10">3-4-0</td> <td class="cnnCol11">3-0-0</td> <td class="cnnCol12">2-1-0</td> <td class="cnnCol13">WON 2</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnRow2"> <td class="cnnCol0">
</td> <td class="cnnCol1">http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/images/football/nfl/logos/chargers_30.gifChargers (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/chargers/index.html)</td> <td class="cnnCol2">4</td> <td class="cnnCol3">5
</td> <td class="cnnCol4">0</td> <td class="cnnCol5">.444</td> <td class="cnnCol6">244</td> <td class="cnnCol7">218</td> <td class="cnnCol8">3-1-0</td> <td class="cnnCol9">1-4-0</td> <td class="cnnCol10">4-3-0</td> <td class="cnnCol11">0-2-0</td> <td class="cnnCol12">2-1-0</td> <td class="cnnCol13">WON 1</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnRow2"> <td class="cnnCol0">
</td> <td class="cnnCol1">http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/images/football/nfl/logos/raiders_30.gifRaiders (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/raiders/index.html)</td> <td class="cnnCol2">2</td> <td class="cnnCol3">8</td> <td class="cnnCol4">0</td> <td class="cnnCol5">.200</td> <td class="cnnCol6">128</td> <td class="cnnCol7">235</td> <td class="cnnCol8">1-4-0</td> <td class="cnnCol9">1-4-0</td> <td class="cnnCol10">2-5-0</td> <td class="cnnCol11">0-3-0</td> <td class="cnnCol12">1-2-0</td> <td class="cnnCol13">LOST 4</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnRow2"> <td class="cnnCol0">
</td> <td class="cnnCol1">http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/images/football/nfl/logos/chiefs_30.gifChiefs (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/chiefs/index.html)</td> <td class="cnnCol2">1</td> <td class="cnnCol3">9</td> <td class="cnnCol4">0</td> <td class="cnnCol5">.100</td> <td class="cnnCol6">165</td> <td class="cnnCol7">273</td> <td class="cnnCol8">1-4-0</td> <td class="cnnCol9">0-5-0</td> <td class="cnnCol10">1-5-0</td> <td class="cnnCol11">0-4-0</td> <td class="cnnCol12">1-2-0</td> <td class="cnnCol13">LOST 6</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<table style="width: 676px; height: 150px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr class="cnnRow1"> <td class="cnnCol0" colspan="2">North</td> <td class="cnnCol1">W</td> <td class="cnnCol2">L</td> <td class="cnnCol3">T</td> <td class="cnnCol4">Pct</td> <td class="cnnCol5">PF</td> <td class="cnnCol6">PA</td> <td class="cnnCol7">Home</td> <td class="cnnCol8">Road</td> <td class="cnnCol9">AFC</td> <td class="cnnCol10">NFC</td> <td class="cnnCol11">Div</td> <td class="cnnCol12">Streak</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnRow2"> <td class="cnnCol0">
</td> <td class="cnnCol1">http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/images/football/nfl/logos/steelers_30.gifSteelers (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/steelers/index.html)</td> <td class="cnnCol2">6</td> <td class="cnnCol3">3</td> <td class="cnnCol4">0</td> <td class="cnnCol5">.667</td> <td class="cnnCol6">198</td> <td class="cnnCol7">140</td> <td class="cnnCol8">2-2-0</td> <td class="cnnCol9">4-1-0</td> <td class="cnnCol10">5-1-0</td> <td class="cnnCol11">1-2-0</td> <td class="cnnCol12">3-0-0</td> <td class="cnnCol13">LOST 1</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnRow2"> <td class="cnnCol0">
</td> <td class="cnnCol1">http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/images/football/nfl/logos/ravens_30.gifRavens (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/ravens/index.html)</td> <td class="cnnCol2">6</td> <td class="cnnCol3">4</td> <td class="cnnCol4">0</td> <td class="cnnCol5">.600</td> <td class="cnnCol6">222</td> <td class="cnnCol7">180</td> <td class="cnnCol8">3-1-0</td> <td class="cnnCol9">3-3-0</td> <td class="cnnCol10">6-3-0</td> <td class="cnnCol11">0-1-0</td> <td class="cnnCol12">3-1-0</td> <td class="cnnCol13">LOST 1</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnRow2"> <td class="cnnCol0">
</td> <td class="cnnCol1">http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/images/football/nfl/logos/browns_30.gifBrowns (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/browns/index.html)</td> <td class="cnnCol2">3</td> <td class="cnnCol3">6
</td> <td class="cnnCol4">0</td> <td class="cnnCol5">.333</td> <td class="cnnCol6">172</td> <td class="cnnCol7">194</td> <td class="cnnCol8">1-4-0</td> <td class="cnnCol9">2-2-0</td> <td class="cnnCol10">2-4-0</td> <td class="cnnCol11">1-2-0</td> <td class="cnnCol12">1-3-0</td> <td class="cnnCol13">LOST 2</td> </tr> <tr class="cnnRow2"> <td class="cnnCol0">
</td> <td class="cnnCol1">http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/images/football/nfl/logos/bengals_30.gifBengals (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/bengals/index.html)</td> <td class="cnnCol2">1</td> <td class="cnnCol3">8</td> <td class="cnnCol4">1</td> <td class="cnnCol5">.150</td> <td class="cnnCol6">138</td> <td class="cnnCol7">249</td> <td class="cnnCol8">1-3-1</td> <td class="cnnCol9">0-5-0</td> <td class="cnnCol10">1-6-0</td> <td class="cnnCol11">0-2-1</td> <td class="cnnCol12">0-3-0</td> <td class="cnnCol13"> TIED 1
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

[cdcox]

We were going to draft before the Bengals based on SOS any way, so the tie neither hurts nor helps us. Bengals winning would have been great.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

The Chiefs and Bengals play each other so it likely won't matter...

unless we TIE them!

[Mr. Laz]

you know we will win a couple of meaningless games at the end of the year and drop down to around 6th


we are the Kansas City Cursed err Chiefs after all

[bringbackmarty]

I don't think we beat anybody.

[bringbackmarty]

out of players on defense.

[chiefzilla1501]

Because you are passing up an impact player for a player at a less important position.

Do you ever think why you are getting that second round pick? Because there is that big of a difference in talent between who you would get if you stood pat and who you get if you trade down.

This team needs playmakers, not finishing pieces.

But my point is, the value of that top 5 pick is team-specific, but most people will have you believe that each team values picks equally. I loved the Dorsey pick. I loved passing up the opportunity to trade down to get him and was crossing my fingers that the Chiefs wouldn't trade down. I was furious when the Chiefs were actually considering trading down to not draft DJ a few years ago--I couldn't fathom why their pick wasn't handed in within split-seconds.

These were players that the Chiefs knew would contribute immediately. What I don't agree with is blindly taking BPA regardless of how badly you need that type of a player. I don't agree with taking a playmaker if that's going to push another playmaker to the bench or to a lesser position or to a position he has no experience in. The Raiders were loaded with good, young RBs, and yet they used their #3 pick on a BPA RB. How many years did the Lions take a WR because he was BPA? As I said in another thread, it needs to be a blend of BPA and need in the first round.

As for why teams would trade a high pick, it's because they value certain players differently than the Chiefs do. The Chiefs might get added value out of Oher, but not nearly as much as a team with no Left Tackle would. If Oher grades high enough and he falls to the Chiefs, I guarantee that a team will shoot for the moon to get him.

So again, I am only advocating a trade-down because as of now, it seems like the only players who will be there for the Chiefs will be players who we don't badly need or reaches. Things can change between now and then. But I just don't buy the idea of blind BPA.

[DaneMcCloud]

you know we will win a couple of meaningless games at the end of the year and drop down to around 6th


In no way, shape or form can I see this happening

[beavis]

We were going to draft before the Bengals based on SOS any way, so the tie neither hurts nor helps us. Bengals winning would have been great.

It actually helps us. Not as much as a win(by Cinci), but it still helps.

[Rausch]

I damn sure have never said this. The point isn't to compete in '09. It's to compete in the third year of the rebuild.

Well fuck me.

I'll be sure to clear all the cancer, car crashes, and anything else that might shorten my life off my schedule while the Chiefs decide to get their $3it together.

Dusting off my hibernation helmet to sit out the next 2 years or so because my hobby decided it wasn't possible to make a return on my entertainment investment until then...

[cdcox]

It actually helps us. Not as much as a win(by Cinci), but it still helps.

Not really. Going into this week KC and Cincy both had one win. But KC would draft first because their strength of schedule is worse. It is not very likely that Cincinnati's SOS will get worse than the Chiefs in the remainder of the games.

Another way to look at it:

going into this week

KC and Cincy lose the rest of their games, the loser of the week 17 game between the two teams would draft first.

If KC and Cincy had the same number of wins at the end of the season, KC would draft first.


after this weeks results with the Cincy tie

KC and Cincy lose the rest of their games, the loser of the week 17 game between the two teams would draft first.


If KC and Cincy had the same number of wins at the end of the season, KC would draft first.

Nothing really changed.

[StcChief]

1-8-1 is better than 1-9agreed....

the tie in our case is better (draft position wise)

[cdcox]

It is not very likely that Cincinnati's SOS will get worse than the Chiefs in the remainder of the games.


Whoops, I just ran the simulations to verify this and I stand corrected. Cincinnati could very easily have a weaker SOS than us by the end of the season.

So the tie did help a little.

[StcChief]

Whoops, I just ran the simulations to verify this and I stand corrected. Cincinnati could very easily have a weaker SOS than us by the end of the season.

So the tie did help a little.exactly... how could it not? in the big list of tie breakers. a Tie is between a W/L

[Hermcock]

Whoever started this thread needs to be Darwin'd so he can't pass on his genes.

[beavis]

Whoops, I just ran the simulations to verify this and I stand corrected. Cincinnati could very easily have a weaker SOS than us by the end of the season.

So the tie did help a little.

Valid point I guess, but there's no way it didn't help. They got half a win. Anyway you slice it, it added a little bit of cushion.