Something sad
 

I was just snooping around ESPN.com and happened to catch this.

In 2004, when the Chiefs went 7-9, they scored just one less point than they year before when they went 13-3.

2004: 483 points
2003: 484 points

Here's the catch, though. In 2004 they gave up OVER ONE HUNDRED MORE POINTS than in 2003.

2004: 435 PA
2003: 332 PA

There's no other evidence needed. The Chiefs need to improve this team (Defense especially) in the off-season IMMENSELY. Hopefully Priest will get it done, because he gets it while CP and DV obviously don't.

Any idea who Priest is negotiating with? How much cap room does he have?

Priest Holmes should be the first Player/GM.

Who's with me?

Not me. I'm sure most around here would probably end up hating him when he didn't draft the right guy or sign the right free agents or have his first rookie 1st rounder hold out.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. In 2003 we got more points from Dante and, I believe, the defense. Dante fer sure. In 2004, the offense failed to score, or even get a first down, at critical times. I think we slipped a bit on O last year.

The D, of course, just plain stinks and has for quite awhile. In 2003 we surrendered fewer than 20 points in a game 7 times. In 2004 we did that twice.

You are correct! We did get points from ST and D. Was that skill or by chance. But, that was the reason I was skeptical of the 13-3 record going to help us win a S.B. in 2004.

I, too, believe the O is on the verge of slipping just a bit. Therefore, it is urgent the they get the D right this coming year.

The D was getting more turnovers the first half of last year and things just seemed to be rolling our way.

True, but that doesn't account for the 100 more points given up.

I was just saying, I think there was more than a one-point difference in scoring. The aggregate was nearly identical, but the situations in which we scored/didn't score this year had a major impact on the record.

The D the first half of 2003 forced a lot of turnovers, which covered up for its propensity to surrender yards in chunks. Plus, the O and special teams were more efficient, which led to more wins.

In 2004, our D didn't force turnovers, it continued to give up huge chunks of yards and our O and ST weren't able to paper over those D mistakes.

I think those 100 points were mostly attributable to turnovers, or lack thereof. My gut also tells me that the more-efficient O in 2003 gave the D a few more leads to play with, which helped it. How many times in 2004 did we lament blown scoring opps which would have given us two-score leads and perhaps taken a bit of pressure off the D?