Originally Posted by Brock (Post 8583251)

If the injuries pretty much cancel each other out, WTF are you bringing them up?

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583255)

It only strengthens my point.

If there were no injuries at all in the NFL last year, we're probably still a 7-8 win team. Sure, we'd get better by having a couple of players back. So would other teams.

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 8583258)

Your argument is reeruned. Just leave the thread now and save face.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583255)

It only strengthens my point.

If there were no injuries at all in the NFL last year, we're probably still a 7-8 win team. Sure, we'd get better by having a couple of players back. So would other teams.


You can't look at last year's team as a legit 7-win team.

Originally Posted by Vanilla Thunder (Post 8583158)

Man if we won the Super Bowl in my lifetime I wouldn't be complaining for a LONG time. Football is my favorite sport and the Chiefs are my favorite team so the Chiefs winning the Super Bowl would be icing on the sports cake for me. You could take all my teams away but the Chiefs.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583252)

The Broncos were definitely paper tigers, and that's why their front office had the foresight to get Manning and dump Tebow.

Originally Posted by frazod (Post 8583237)

The problem with the 2010 Division win was that the division sucked and the schedule was ridiculously easy. They didn't beat a single good team (perhaps one "meh" team in eternally underperforming San Diego), and got curbstomped in the playoffs. Basically they were the 2007 Jayhawks, only Baltimore was waiting for them at the end and not the Chokies.

Originally Posted by Micjones (Post 8583268)

we're playing the weakest schedule in the AFC West again this season.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583226)

DUDE.

I keep telling you:

You can't look at last year's team as a legit 7-win team.

We got practically gifted five of those wins because we played Caleb Hanie, Tim Tebow, Donovan McNabb, Curtis Painter and Kyle Boller.

Hanie and Tebow threw up all of 3 points against us. Boller threw up 0.

Painter sucked for an entire scoreless half, paving the way for our "comeback." McNabb was McNabb.

Last year's Chiefs were a 4-12 team that ran into some really shitty quarterbacks. I would be shocked if we held 3 teams to 3 or fewer points this season.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583255)

It only strengthens my point.

If there were no injuries at all in the NFL last year, we're probably still a 7-8 win team. Sure, we'd get better by having a couple of players back. So would other teams.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 8582873)

I don't disagree with much except for the idea that the 2012 team can't possibly be appreciably better than the 2010 version. They're better at virtually every position on both lines (obviously in several cases because the same players are better players now than they were two years ago), they're much better at wide receiver, they're likely better at running back (even if Charles isn't the old Charles), they're better at linebacker both inside and out. They're either going to be equal or better at safety. The only positions on the entire roster that don't look to be improved are corner (where the starters are at the least adequate but the depth is questionable) and quarterback (which is unfortunately exactly the same).

And all of that, aside from the Poe pick, was the case before the draft. Which is why I actually liked that they drafted the way that they did, as opposed to making need picks/safe picks on players with less upside.

I think the team as a whole is built to win 10 or 11 games. The question is how many games the quarterback position will cost them. With someone appreciably better than Cassel behind center (say Manning) I think they'd actually be a playoff favorite. All this assuming the injury bug last year was an aberration and not a trend.

Unfortunately we're stuck with Cassel, and there isn't anybody on the bench who's going to come in and save us. Although at least it won't be Palko. Who by himself probably cost us several games last year.

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 8583275)

Huh? Wha?:doh!:

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583299)

Try to keep up.

Let's say we get Charles, Berry and Moeaki healthy for an entire season and Cassel doesn't get hurt.

That's great.

That's basically the same team that got swept by the Raiders in 2010.

What makes you think they could beat a healthy Raiders team in 2011?

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583299)

Try to keep up.

Let's say we get Charles, Berry and Moeaki healthy for an entire season and Cassel doesn't get hurt.

That's great.

That's basically the same team that got swept by the Raiders in 2010.

What makes you think they could beat a healthy Raiders team in 2011?

Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 8583287)

One thing that seems to be escaping some people...

We have some serious "unknowns" coming into this season.

1. NT. Kelly Gregg may not be an all pro, but he was a steady veteran presence. The guy did his job. We are replacing him with a 100% unknown commodity, whether it be Powe or Poe. That could have a significant impact on our run D.

2. Center. Again, replacing a veteran with a 100% unknown. A lot of people just assume the guy we are putting at center is going to be an upgrade, but we really have no idea. The center often plays a pivotal role in recognizing blocking assignments, and we're putting in a guy that doesn't have that experience. There's also the issue of chemistry, which is always important on an O-line.


I'm not saying any of this makes us the 27th ranked team in the league. But there seems to be a lot of people ready to believe that this team is the best of the last 2 seasons, plus upgrades at every spot where we have someone new. The reality is we may or may not actually be better at those spots.

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 8583310)

I am trying to keep up, seriously, but it is hard when you contradict yourself in the same thread. You said this team is not a 7 or 8 win team, then you said it is, which is it?
.

Originally Posted by Micjones (Post 8583311)

We weren't exactly good at either of those spots anyway.
So I'm not sure there will be a HUGE dropoff at either position.

Originally Posted by Micjones (Post 8583311)

We weren't exactly good at either of those spots anyway.
So I'm not sure there will be a HUGE dropoff at either position.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583315)

I didn't contradict myself.

I said we weren't as good as our record indicated last year.

Then I said if there were no injuries at all in the NFL, we were still probably going to win 7 or 8 games. Chiefs would get better, but so would other teams.

Originally Posted by Micjones (Post 8583268)

The division has improved, but so has this team and we're playing the weakest schedule in the AFC West again this season. We were better than 10 teams just last year sans Charles, Moeaki, Berry and Cassel (at the end of the year)...playing a 1st Place schedule. Somehow with a ton more talent and a significantly weaker schedule we're one of the five-worst teams in the league?

**** outta here.

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 8583325)

but if they had no injuries they would have won 7 or 8.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 8583337)

Dude, you've got some seriously circular logic going on here.

There's just no objective way to say "yeah, we had injuries but so did other teams, so we were WORSE than a 7-9 team".

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583344)

What I'm trying to say here is that you can't apply last year's record to this coming season.

We are unlikely to face five horrible quarterbacks.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583351)

You're still stuck on 5 terrible QBs.

What about the the best QB in the NFL that we beat?

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583338)

Nah. We would have easily made the playoffs last year without injuries.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583315)

I didn't contradict myself.

I said we weren't as good as our record indicated last year.

Then I said if there were no injuries at all in the NFL, we were still probably going to win 7 or 8 games. Chiefs would get better, but so would other teams.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583353)

We deserve credit for that.

But remember, the quarterback who took part in that is gone and we're stuck with a lesser QB.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583353)

We deserve credit for that.

But remember, the quarterback who took part in that is gone and we're stuck with a lesser QB.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583370)

I don't care what Orton did in that game.
I care that our D manhandled that offense. 14 points.

Originally Posted by DaWolf (Post 8583379)

I like Silver, but he's obviously not a fan of Pioli's based on his post-Haley firing articles (he likes Haley and texts the guy often). So not surprising that he'd be down on the Chiefs.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 8583366)

Who won 10 games in 2010, with fewer weapons...

Originally Posted by Buckweath (Post 8583409)

Even with Tyler Palko under center for a whole season, this team is not the 28th best in the league. Improved Oline, the return of Berry, Charles, Moeaki, and probably not as unlucky regarding injuries this year, Peyton Hillis who has a lot to prove, and most importantly, a young defense that`s ready to become elite IMO, 28th?? Are you kidding me?


QB is by far the most important position in football but I hate when people make it sound like it`s really the only position that matters. A team is more than just a QB really.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583384)

Clay has gone full reerun

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583419)

Orton > Cassel.

Cassel would not have thrown for 300 yards against Green Bay.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583384)

Clay has gone full reerun

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583370)

I don't care what Orton did in that game.

Originally Posted by Buckweath (Post 8583422)

We`re talking about the 2010 season.

That`s right, last time Cassell played a full season with this team, two years ago, the Chiefs were arguably a top 10-15 team in the league. Now, you`re going to tell me that the supporting cast is worse than in 2010??

Sure Charlie Weiss might have helped but come on now..

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583419)

Orton > Cassel.

Cassel would not have thrown for 300 yards against Green Bay.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583420)

This is all true, for the most part, but we're not winning a SB without a solid QB.

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 8583425)

I like how people on here pretend 2010 was a super bowl year.

That year we needed San Diego to shit themselves and Denver was horrible. We're playing the NFC South and AFC North which had 3 playoff teams last year. That's not exactly the AFC South and NFC West of 2010.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583421)

What's reeruned about looking at our schedule, and seeing an absence of:

Caleb Hanie
Tim Tebow
Kyle Boller
Curtis Painter
Donovan McNabb?

I don't think were the 28th best team in the league. But to think we're a lock for 10-6, when we have the worst QB in the division, can't beat the Raiders and are now counting on three recently torn ACLs to be rock solid....well, that's just homer talk.

7-9, perhaps 8-8 if we get another miracle from Philip Rivers.

Originally Posted by Buckweath (Post 8583422)

That`s right, last time Cassell played a full season with this team, two years ago, the Chiefs were arguably a top 10-15 team in the league.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583432)

We weren't the only team who played/beat those QBs, genious.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 8583429)

And?

Cassel WON 10 GAMES IN 2010.

He's a shit QB and this team was still good enough to make the playoffs. That's pretty ****ing sad in and of itself but it strongly suggests that you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 8583425)

I like how people on here pretend 2010

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 8583431)

They still won 10 games, with arguably one of the worst QBs in the league.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583439)

I doubt we beat the Packers without Orton.

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 8583443)

Yes in 2010 without beating 1 team with a winning record.


This is 2012.

Originally Posted by Buckweath (Post 8583409)

Even with Tyler Palko under center for a whole season, this team is not the 28th best in the league. Improved Oline, the return of Berry, Charles, Moeaki, and probably not as unlucky regarding injuries this year, Peyton Hillis who has a lot to prove, and most importantly, a young defense that`s ready to become elite IMO, 28th?? Are you kidding me?


QB is by far the most important position in football but I hate when people make it sound like it`s really the only position that matters. A team is more than just a QB really.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 8583445)

I guaran-damn-tee you we beat the Steelers with Cassel.

It works both ways.
.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 8583449)

We have a last place schedule again this year. :hmmm:

Originally Posted by TEX (Post 8583450)

This team is not good enough to overcome its QB. It's the # 1 thing holding the Chiefs back...:shake:

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583438)

I don't know why that matters.

We're talking solely about the Chiefs and their prospects for a decent season this year.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583452)

Agree. So we'd be 7-9 either way.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583455)

Because you're the one who is making excuses for the Chiefs for playing 5 shitty QBs. Other teams beat them and lost to them.

Why is it a black mark for the Chiefs to have beaten these QBs but not anyone else?

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 8583453)

Do you think all the NFC South teams will finish the season with a losing record? And only AFC North team will finish with a winning record?

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 8583469)

What does that have to do with anything?

They finished 7-9 last year, playing a FIRST PLACE schedule.

The chances of them getting worse, even with Cassel, are very small.

Originally Posted by CJizzles (Post 8583486)

Still waiting for someone here to say they'd rather have Seattle's or St. Louis' roster over ours.


This ranking system he has come up with is nothing more than opinion of this guy.

It has most certainly ruffled some feathers here.

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 8583494)

Last years schedule wasn't hard. We lost 5 games to non-playoff teams and beat 2 teams picking in the top 3. Great accomplishment.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583452)

Agree. So we'd be 7-9 either way.

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis (Post 8583498)

I'd rather have Sam Bradford or Russell Wilson as our QB. As far as I'm concerned, you build your roster around your QB rather than build a team and then pray that your QB doesn't lose every game for you.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583510)

Our 2011 "first-place schedule" featured:

Ryan Fitzpatrick
Donovan McNabb
Curtis Painter
Kyle Boller
Matt Moore
Tim Tebow x2
Caleb Hanie
Mark Sanchez
Carson Palmer

That's 10 pretty laughable quarterbacks, some of whom beat us.

More difficult matchups:

Philip Rivers x2
Tom Brady
Ben Roethlisberger
Aaron Rodgers
Matt Stafford

Our 2012 "last-place schedule" features:

Matt Ryan
Drew Brees
Philip Rivers x2
Joe Flacco
Josh Freeman
Ben Roethlisberger
Andy Dalton
Peyton Manning x2
Cam Newton

Easier matchups:

Ryan Fitzpatrick
Carson Palmer x2
Cleveland's QB
Andrew Luck.

Just looking at the quarterbacks we have to play, the 2012 schedule is BY FAR more difficult than 2011.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583523)

So, you have no faith on our D?

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583523)

So, you have no faith on our D?

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 8583535)

You'd have a point if this were 1996.

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat (Post 8583539)

We went 9-7 in in 1996 and missed the playoffs with a very solid defense and a top rushing attack.

I'll give you 1 guess why.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8583540)

Could someone please explain to me why its cool to be so negative about your favorite team?