Football The dominance cycle of AFCW teams

Msmith · 04-26-2010, 07:49 AM

In the past 20 years or so, there were always at least two teams in AFCW being very competitive, the Broncos with Shananhan, the Chiefs with Marty and up to early 2000's, the Raiders in the late 90s. The Chargers who is at top the past five years is due to the major suckage of other three teams, like bad coaching (KC), bad drafting (Oak), bad personnel (Den). However, bad things just like good things won't last forever.

Which team would come out from the cocoon first?

Ugly Duck · 04-26-2010, 08:47 AM

Chiefs fans say KC will. Raider fans say Oakland will. Bronco fans say Denver will.

My take: Oakland has drafted so high for so long that there are actually some salvageable players in the mess. We've just upgraded our QB to the mediocre level. I'm hoping that a modicum of success in the W/L column will lure a real head coach to Oakland. Then we come out of our cocoon.

**notorious** · 04-26-2010, 08:49 AM

Oakland has the talent to do damage now, while the Chiefs are a long ways away.

Denver is dying a slow horrific death, so I don't know where to put them yet.

Mile High Mania · 04-26-2010, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious

Oakland has the talent to do damage now, while the Chiefs are a long ways away.

Denver is dying a slow horrific death, so I don't know where to put them yet.

SD is on top and I think it's a mix of both good players and the other 3 AFCW teams doing dumb things. SD is not 'elite', but they are very good... they have blemishes and that is what keeps them outside the top 4-5 teams in the AFC for me.

Oakland could improve with Campbell and dropping Jamarcus. Yes, they have holes and nobody trusts that the leadership is there, but they can be dangerous. They need some players to step up and they have a lot of youth with good upside. Can they put it together? That remains to be seen.

Chiefs have done a lot of good things recently, I think they still sorely lack that impact #1 WR, but they have 2 good WRs. And, after drafting another top RB... they have a great 3-headed threat that *should* help them bypass some of the issues at WR and TE until players can step up.

KC has what *should be* a very good coaching staff that can pick these players up and move forward, but they have a number of holes that will prevent them from consistently winning in 2010.

Denver... I won't even try to justify anything they've done, at least not on this board.

Overall, I think they're going to be improved on defense which has been their problem for years.

Offensively, it's hard to say they can be prolific after the moves of the last 2 off-seasons. Denver's defense needs to play like it did in the first 6 games of 2009, they fell apart in the final 10 games. Denver never broke .500 with Cutler and Marshall. Remove those 2, replace them with very capable players (which I think they have) and get consistent improvement from the defense (which I think they can have with the new DL) and I think they can do well enough to sniff 7-9 wins.

Overall... it's SD and then the other 3. There's not a ton of difference right now between Denver, KC or Oakland. Each team has solid players and question marks.

Both Oakland and KC have been more consistently bad than Denver has been over the last several years ... but, Denver has had such a dramatic overhaul since McD came on board, it's really hard to project what the persona of this team will be in 2010 and beyond.

The schedule is tough for everyone... I really don't think anyone other than SD wins more than 9 games. Projecting what Den, Oak and KC might do at this point is a total crapshoot. I'll hold off for a bit.

Priest31kc · 04-26-2010, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

SD is on top and I think it's a mix of both good players and the other 3 AFCW teams doing dumb things. SD is not 'elite', but they are very good... they have blemishes and that is what keeps them outside the top 4-5 teams in the AFC for me.

Oakland could improve with Campbell and dropping Jamarcus. Yes, they have holes and nobody trusts that the leadership is there, but they can be dangerous. They need some players to step up and they have a lot of youth with good upside. Can they put it together? That remains to be seen.

Chiefs have done a lot of good things recently, I think they still sorely lack that impact #1 WR, but they have 2 good WRs. And, after drafting another top RB... they have a great 3-headed threat that *should* help them bypass some of the issues at WR and TE until players can step up.

KC has what *should be* a very good coaching staff that can pick these players up and move forward, but they have a number of holes that will prevent them from consistently winning in 2010.

Denver... I won't even try to justify anything they've done, at least not on this board.

Overall, I think they're going to be improved on defense which has been their problem for years.

Offensively, it's hard to say they can be prolific after the moves of the last 2 off-seasons. Denver's defense needs to play like it did in the first 6 games of 2009, they fell apart in the final 10 games. Denver never broke .500 with Cutler and Marshall. Remove those 2, replace them with very capable players (which I think they have) and get consistent improvement from the defense (which I think they can have with the new DL) and I think they can do well enough to sniff 7-9 wins.

Overall... it's SD and then the other 3. There's not a ton of difference right now between Denver, KC or Oakland. Each team has solid players and question marks.

Both Oakland and KC have been more consistently bad than Denver has been over the last several years ... but, Denver has had such a dramatic overhaul since McD came on board, it's really hard to project what the persona of this team will be in 2010 and beyond.

The schedule is tough for everyone... I really don't think anyone other than SD wins more than 9 games. Projecting what Den, Oak and KC might do at this point is a total crapshoot. I'll hold off for a bit.

McCluster will be our slot WR, and hes listed as one

**RealSNR** · 04-26-2010, 09:35 AM

Raiders. I think they could give San Diego a pretty good fight for the division as early as this season.

**Gadzooks** · 04-26-2010, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

Raiders. I think they could give San Diego a pretty good fight for the division as early as this season.

**RealSNR** · 04-26-2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zooks

Who the **** else is going to take 2nd in this awful division?

Jason Campbell is going to make an immediate difference. I see 8 wins AT LEAST. And the way the Chargers **** up constantly during the regular season, the Raiders will just tail them for the division.

**Gadzooks** · 04-26-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

Who the **** else is going to take 2nd in this awful division?

Jason Campbell is going to make an immediate difference. I see 8 wins AT LEAST. And the way the Chargers **** up constantly during the regular season, the Raiders will just tail them for the division.

Jason Campbell is no savior and he has no one to throw to (other than Miller).
There are still so many question marks with the Turds. They have a lot of talent on paper but their run D was crap last year and I don’t see McLain and Houston turning the ship around in their first season.
They had a god awful O line last year and look to bolster it with 2 rookie tackles

The Chargers have the 3rd easiest schedule this season. I don’t see them coming out of the gate as a .500 team this year.
IMO the Chiefs an Turds are headed in the right direction but I doubt either will remotely challenge the Bolts for a division title next season.

Taco John · 04-26-2010, 09:52 AM

We're good for 10 wins this year.

Hydrae · 04-26-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

We're good for 10 wins this year.

You are counting the Chiefs, Broncos and Raiders in that total, aren't you?

Taco John · 04-26-2010, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hydrae

You are counting the Chiefs, Broncos and Raiders in that total, aren't you?

However it comes. Yeah, we've flatlined the last few years at .500, but given the improvements we've made to our defense this season, I can see us winning 10 games.

**Mr. Kotter** · 04-26-2010, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

We're good for 10 wins this year.

After the 6-0 start in 2010, you'd have bet a whole lot on the same thing...

How'd that work out for you? I can't remember. Heh.

**Slainte** · 04-26-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

We're good for 10 wins this year.

In a 52-week season.

DJ's left nut · 04-26-2010, 10:18 AM

The Raiders will contend first.

The Chiefs second (though by 'contend' I mean for a playoff birth; this team's not doing a thing in the Playoffs with Matt Cassel at the controls and he's here for another 1/2 decade).

The Broncos haven't even hit bottom yet. Give them 2010 to truly bottom out, 2011/12 to languish in agony, then they'll begin their ascent right as the Chargers are starting to age.

04-26-2010, 07:49 AM	Topic Starter
Msmith Veteran Join Date: Jan 2004 Casino cash: $8198035	The dominance cycle of AFCW teams In the past 20 years or so, there were always at least two teams in AFCW being very competitive, the Broncos with Shananhan, the Chiefs with Marty and up to early 2000's, the Raiders in the late 90s. The Chargers who is at top the past five years is due to the major suckage of other three teams, like bad coaching (KC), bad drafting (Oak), bad personnel (Den). However, bad things just like good things won't last forever. Which team would come out from the cocoon first?
Posts: 2,071

04-26-2010, 08:47 AM	#2
Ugly Duck MVP Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Petaluma, CA, USA Casino cash: $9955920	Chiefs fans say KC will. Raider fans say Oakland will. Bronco fans say Denver will. My take: Oakland has drafted so high for so long that there are actually some salvageable players in the mess. We've just upgraded our QB to the mediocre level. I'm hoping that a modicum of success in the W/L column will lure a real head coach to Oakland. Then we come out of our cocoon. __________________ “In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” ― Carl Sagan
Posts: 10,146

04-26-2010, 08:49 AM	#3
notorious Supporter Join Date: May 2005 Location: Who knows? Casino cash: $-974116	Oakland has the talent to do damage now, while the Chiefs are a long ways away. Denver is dying a slow horrific death, so I don't know where to put them yet.
Posts: 88,588

04-26-2010, 09:35 AM	#6
RealSNR Special Teams ACE!!! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Where the hell is SNR Casino cash: $-1534792	Raiders. I think they could give San Diego a pretty good fight for the division as early as this season.
Posts: 93,429

04-26-2010, 09:52 AM	#10
Taco John Sapere Aude Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $427937	We're good for 10 wins this year. __________________ Ehyeh asher ehyeh. Donger's Razor: "The most establishment-friendly explanation that gives leftist and neocon politicians the most amount of cover is the only possible explanation, even when gaping holes and leaps of logic are required to get there."
Posts: 79,765

04-26-2010, 10:18 AM	#15
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $-850901	The Raiders will contend first. The Chiefs second (though by 'contend' I mean for a playoff birth; this team's not doing a thing in the Playoffs with Matt Cassel at the controls and he's here for another 1/2 decade). The Broncos haven't even hit bottom yet. Give them 2010 to truly bottom out, 2011/12 to languish in agony, then they'll begin their ascent right as the Chargers are starting to age. __________________ "If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags."
Posts: 66,857