The 14-win club
 

If the Chiefs beat the Broncos and Raiders, they will join this list of teams who won 14 or more regular season games in two out of three seasons.

89/90 49ers
03/04 Patriots
85/86 Bears

20/21/22 Chiefs

Dynasty in the making!

Barring catastrophe, the Chiefs have also won at least 13 overall games in five consecutive years.

I'm sure this is also an exclusive list which someone should research.

Extra game....asterisk

no asterisk, refs stole a game from us this year

Yeah, I'd rather compare # of losses at this point.

Well actually I'd really rather just count super bowls.

It is. Stata all have asterisks now. Break the record in 16 games or its not a valid comparison

14 wins is a hell of a season if we get there. The organization has put together a great team regardless of how the season ends.

That applies to statistics for sure. Asterisk them like hell.

Wins tho? I think it’s fair to put us there. The NFl instituted the salary cap in 1994 so the talent pool was far less even in the 80s. Several high dollar teams(like those bears and niner ones) had a spending advantage over the league. That’s been long gone

We had to play a extra game against a first place NFC team

We earned every win and record we have

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Chiefs locked up their fifth-straight 12-win season on Saturday, marking the third-longest streak in NFL history. Only the 2003-09 Colts (7 straight) and 2010-17 Patriots (8 straight) compiled longer streaks.</p>&mdash; Matt McMullen (@KCChiefs_Matt) <a href="https://twitter.com/KCChiefs_Matt/status/1607372956984029189?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 26, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Saw this earlier for 12 games in the regular season. Assuming you're including playoffs for 13 game streaks, looks like the Colts had 5, and the Pats had 9(!).

It will mean more to me if CIN beats BUF. Otherwise we're playing in the WC round despite 14 wins..

Eventually we're going to have to just ignore the extra game asterisk.

They got over it when they moved from 14 to 16 games.

you kinda have to separate the records, stats and everything starting from last season. 14 wins is fantastic even with 17 games, but it's still never going to be as fantastic as 14 wins with 16 games and that's a reason why I hate that they did this shit.

Great accomplishment for sure, but “dynasty” requires 3+ Super Bowls in a short span. Not winning regular season games.

Why asterisk statistics? Why is 16 games considered the standard for statistics?

you are but a footnote on the greatness of patrick mahomes

and you know it you ****ing bitch!

That would eliminate all but the Patriots, Steelers, and Cowboys.

Even Joe Montana didn't win three Super Bowls in a short span; his wins were spread over the decade. I don't necessarily disagree with that outlook but it's hard to see anyone winning three or four Super Bowls in 5 or 6 years.

I think dynasties are defined by decades.

And every decade has one.

60s: Packers
70s: Steelers
80s: 49ers
90s: Cowboys
2010s: Patriots
20teens: {sigh} the ****ing Patriots

The 2020s are there for the taking for the Chiefs. But I think you need 3 SBs in a 10 year(ish) span to be a dynasty.

Bottom line is you just can't hold anyone to the Patriots standard. That team blew the curve something awful. By any other reasonable standard, the Chiefs can absolutely set themselves up as the next NFL dynasty.

But they gotta win a couple more rings to get there. If they don't, someone will. We'll be sitting there in 2031 with Mahomes in his mid 30s wondering how the hell the Bengals won 3 of the last 5 or something equally shitty.

The Chiefs have the ability to control their own narrative here. They just have to go do it.

Broncos fire their coach, Raiders bench their QB… All we worry about is a holder not spinning the laces right on kicks and if we make it to 14 wins.. We are jolly red giants stomping our way across the AFCW boys…

It’s the makings of a dynasty.

The 43 years of football based on a 16 game season?

If only the Chiefs didn't shit the bed against Tampa/Cincinnati in those playoff games. That said, every "almost" dynasty had losses like that in the surrounding years.

Tampa brought a better, more focused team to the SB

If we could’ve brought our Week 15 team to the SB it would’ve been competitive, but that’s not what happened

I'm still skeptical that the Brown family won't go ****ing cheapskate shitshow and ruin a good thing he has going once Burrow starts to make real money.

It's all sunshine and daisies right now. Let's see if his GM gets creative and manages to keep most of that talent on offense, and if the owner signs off on it.

Thus far the answer has been no.

Since Taylor has been here, the way they operate has done a 180. Mike Brown is more hands off right now. Plus, dude is in his 80s. Cant live forever...

The true test of whether those that are in control now can keep a contender will indeed be when Burrow gets paid, followed by Chase.

As Chiefs fans, we very much look forward to your team-building when you're approaching 100mm allotted to those two.

What do Bills fans know about winning Superbowls?

What about losing four consecutive super bowls? How does that shake out dynasty-wise?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok. Now when do we start acknowledging 17 game stats? 17 game seasons are not going away. When is the cutoff? Also the rules have been skewed to favor offenses, do we now asterisk any records created during that time?

It’s going to come down to how well your team drafts now that they are not getting Top 10 picks anymore. The key to winning with a franchise QB on contract #2 or later is to surround him with cheap, talented players and more often than not you do that in the draft. It’s very easy to look like a genius when you draft high, it’s much harder when you draft later in each round. Players like Burrow and Chase are long gone by then.

While winning 14 games is impressive for sure, the NFL going from 14 to 16 to 17 makes old stats obsolete against new stats.

Agree completely which is why I think an asterisk next to any stat is silly.

Everyone with half a moving brain cell, knowing football history mentally asterisks a lot of this shit.

This ain't the same league in which every Chiefs fan was holding their breath as a 36 year old Joe Montana was knocked to the turf wondering if he was gonna get up.

You got a 45 year old qb playing now, that it's virtually illegal to touch him.

Sending a receiver over the middle might as well have been a death sentence against some secondaries.

So yes, everyone that knows anything about football as it was, and how it is now, knows why these insane numbers are being put up.

For Christ's sake, the Chiefs turned the football over 5 times in a playoff game and held the Colts to 10 points for the game.

Turn the football over 5 times today. Best defense in the league ain't holding them to 10.

I forgot we turned the ball over 5 times in that Colts game. Really crazy they only scored 10.

Not sure anyone else can claim that stat.

Don’t disagree with anything you said which is why I think saying stats now should have an asterisk because of a 17th game are silly.

Me too. I only remember the three Bono interceptions. Who fumbled twice?

Just wait a few years when they go to an 18 game schedule where it might stay for a very long time. I think the exhibition season will be two games. We are finding out training camp and exhibition games don’t mean much anymore. The NFL will convert one exhibition game for another regular season game which is good for everyone. Season ticket holders will get a better deal that way too. This will allow for more international games which the NFL loves.

Vanover on special teams I think was the fumble.

The 4th pick I could be thinking they called incomplete before half, but if they had replay that was the 4th int.

So maybe it was only 4. Christ it was so bad it seems like 5.

Still 4/5 turnovers and only surrendering 10, never happen today.

Because an extra game of super easy offensive stats means quite a bit.

If Mahomes breaks Mannings yards in a season in 17 games, when Manning did it in 16, it matters. It doesn't mean as much if he needed an extra game to do it.

But the point is that even if Manning did it in 16 games when it was easy to play offense, shouldn’t that have an asterisk? I mean it would have been easier to move the ball vs say when Marino played even though both played 16 games? The point is that times change and to discredit an achievement or put an asterisk next to it because it doesn’t line up with a preconceived definition of what is an acceptable criteria is silly.

Misread as the 14-inch club and wondered why it needed its own thread

https://i.imgur.com/BBBqdWO.gif

If it needs an asterisk, then Mahomes gets 2 asterisks, because it will have taken him 17 games to break a record set in 16 games.

It's like TJ Watt tying the sack record in the 17th game.

For a long time, all of these records are going to gave the spectre of a 16 game benchmark looming over it.

Oh you got 23 sacks in 17 games? Do it in 16.

You beat Mannings passing yards in 17 games? He set the record in 16 games.

The extra game is a massive advantage that will lead to record books being rewritten.

The record will become a statistic that's meaning is found in the eye of the beholder.

Some will chest pound and cheer the record holder, and others will be unimpressed if it took the extra game to do it.

It'll just be numbers that nobody really gives a shit about anymore.

Fair enough.

True and they did a good job in year one of drafting late.

rd1- Dax Hill S. Flashed a few times in PS, hasn't played a lot of downs due to Bell and Bates hogging all the snaps. (wait and see)

rd2- Cam Taylor-Brit CB. Starting due to injury. Hit's like a truck and shows flashes of being a good cover corner. (solid)

rd3- Zac Carter DT. Not many snaps. Low in dline rotation. (wait and see)

rd4- Cordell Volson OG. Starting LG and improves every week. Started off slow getting mauled by a couple big uglies but has settled down and will be at worst, an average starting OG. (starter)

lmao Cam Taylor Britt is burnt toast...allowed 450 yards and 3 TD in only 8 games

he's lucky the bengals play the scheme they do to hide him...if the chiefs play the bengals again they're going to get him

bengals fans massively overrate their defensive talent....chiefs were a fumble and missed FG away from putting up 34

ROFL

How many times are you going to roll out these ridiculous false-bravado boasts only to fall flat on your face?

*and then he goes to the excuse board*


This is my shocked face --> https://media.tenor.com/OqT3Cp_wyMcA...r-seinfeld.gif

exactly what i was thinking. at this point comparing the majority of stats to the past just feels disingenuous.

i really ****ing hate the new extended seasons, shit just doesn't feel the same.

facts hurt?

go look at the advanced stats yourself

Here's what the advanced stats say...

Bengals = W
Chiefs = L

The Bengals will have to hit on more picks then that to maintain that level of success. The NFL is designed to prevent dominant teams from staying dominant through a combination of salary cap (forcing teams to triage who they keep and lose), and having them draft late in every round. This is when the GM proves their true worth. You have the QB, but he’s going to be very expensive very soon. The great thing about Mahomes’ contract is that it’s large, but team friendly. He knew when he signed it that the yearly amount would get surpassed relatively quickly. Does Burrow take a team friendly deal like that? If not you are looking at $50+ million for him. KC traded Tyreek vs giving him a market setting WR contract. Chase will reset the market when he’s due. Does Cincinnati give him $30+ million a year?

Also winning teams tend to atrophy good coaches as other teams poach them. The good ones can lose them and still keep winning. Will be interesting once Zac starts losing staff and has to replace them.

These are things the Bengals will have to deal with very soon. I only mentioned two players, there are other positions that will have to be addressed to include the OLine unless Burrow getting abused year in and year out is acceptable. NE with Brady was an anomaly and it’s why dynasties are so hard to build. The Bengals rose quickly, now the hard part is about to begin.

TB12 could take less bc his wife was a supermodel.

Not exactly a replicateable situation.

Holmes, i've been watching football for a long time. I know how it works.

Holmes? Whatever. It looks like discussing football with you has devolved into this. At least you held out for a short amount of time before just randomly spewing stuff like a standard troll.

You have been watching football for a long time? Interesting. Not sure if that is true or not as your posts don’t reflect that. Perhaps this is another tall tale like your “investment clients” that you were just “joking” about until exposed. Most likely your Bengals fandom is the same and you became a “fan” about midway through last year.

Brodie Croyle had the potential to do that.

How exactly am i supposed to reply to someone who appears to be giving me a lesson on how NFL teams operate when i've been watching the NFL closely for 44 years, having the experience of seeing how the team i root for operates compared to how other teams operate--specifically following contracts and structure?

Am i supposed to intrinsically just not know because i've never had a QB like Burrow who is going to get paid? No, because the Bengals had a QB like that named Carson Palmer and i've already pointed out where that didn't work out so well because Mike Brown. Mike Brown is now hands off, as i've explained multiple times as well and based on the team's current MO is different than it has ever been and, again, as i've already posted, they finally sold the naming rights to the stadium and use other never-before-used revenue streams so that they have the cash they need in escrow for guarantees and they've started structuring contracts in a more 'normal NFL way' for a few years now, based on what other teams have done.

TL;DR I was already aware of how that works, but thank you for taking the time to type it out, just in case.

almost time

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Chiefs have 116 wins in 10 seasons with Andy Reid. The only teams with that many wins in a 10-season span are Brady/Belichick’s Patriots and the 80/90s 49ers</p>&mdash; Doug Clawson (@doug_clawson) <a href="https://twitter.com/doug_clawson/status/1611384269850677249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 6, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

**** yeah

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The only teams in NFL history with multiple 14-win seasons in a three-year span. <a href="https://t.co/REsvodtA8T">pic.twitter.com/REsvodtA8T</a></p>&mdash; ��️ Red Tribe Cinema (@ClayWendler) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClayWendler/status/1611882005616283649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Amazing

the chiefs win 14 games next year...they join the 89-92 niners as the only franchise to do it 3 times in 4 years

get a ring first though, or no one will care

Inevitable.

And against that gauntlet of a first half schedule we had, and no Tyreek. Fantastic!