Chiefs What I learned this weekend

JD10367 · 09-15-2009, 06:05 AM

Going to turn this thread serious, since there are a bunch of threads on the main page which actually touch on my point and I'm too lazy to dupe-post in all of 'em....

It's very hard to tell what's "for real" when it's only Week One. What we've seen might be true indications of a team, or simply because it's, well, the first week. Players are shaking off the rust, settling into their roles. In '04 the Bills blew out New England; didn't seem to indicate how that season would go. In '07, the Giants didn't look so hot for half a year; it ended okay for them.

At first glance, it looks like the "beasts" might not be so good, and the "pushovers" better than expected. Although three lost and the fourth SHOULD have, the Chiefs, Raiders, Bills, and Broncos all put up a good fight, much better than anyone expected. On the other side of the ball, the Ravens, Chargers, and Patriots didn't look so hot. Does this mean KC, Buffalo, Oakland, and Denver are all playoff-bound? Probably not. And it probably doesn't mean that Baltimore, San Diego, and New England will have losing records.

We really can't judge things off one game. It's best to judge things in four-game sets. The Chiefs gave up a crapload of yards and points to Baltimore. Is that because Baltimore's O will be unstoppable, or is it because the Chiefs' D sucks ass? Well, let's revisit that after the next three games.

I know it sounds like fence-sitting but, really, one week does not make a basis for judging how a team will play, and how a team will end up. What you can take, as a more accurate indicator, is attitude, and flashes from certain players. But even that's not always concrete (e.g. that Buffalo/NE game in '04, where the Bills looked unstoppable and Brady looked like crap).

This week's Oakland/KC tilt looks like a good one. But whichever team wins, be it by 1 or by 40, doesn't really mean that team is that much better or worse. It's a long year.

09-15-2009, 06:05 AM	#15
JD10367 Cheaterlover* Join Date: May 2009 Location: RI Casino cash: $10010716	Going to turn this thread serious, since there are a bunch of threads on the main page which actually touch on my point and I'm too lazy to dupe-post in all of 'em.... It's very hard to tell what's "for real" when it's only Week One. What we've seen might be true indications of a team, or simply because it's, well, the first week. Players are shaking off the rust, settling into their roles. In '04 the Bills blew out New England; didn't seem to indicate how that season would go. In '07, the Giants didn't look so hot for half a year; it ended okay for them. At first glance, it looks like the "beasts" might not be so good, and the "pushovers" better than expected. Although three lost and the fourth SHOULD have, the Chiefs, Raiders, Bills, and Broncos all put up a good fight, much better than anyone expected. On the other side of the ball, the Ravens, Chargers, and Patriots didn't look so hot. Does this mean KC, Buffalo, Oakland, and Denver are all playoff-bound? Probably not. And it probably doesn't mean that Baltimore, San Diego, and New England will have losing records. We really can't judge things off one game. It's best to judge things in four-game sets. The Chiefs gave up a crapload of yards and points to Baltimore. Is that because Baltimore's O will be unstoppable, or is it because the Chiefs' D sucks ass? Well, let's revisit that after the next three games. I know it sounds like fence-sitting but, really, one week does not make a basis for judging how a team will play, and how a team will end up. What you can take, as a more accurate indicator, is attitude, and flashes from certain players. But even that's not always concrete (e.g. that Buffalo/NE game in '04, where the Bills looked unstoppable and Brady looked like crap). This week's Oakland/KC tilt looks like a good one. But whichever team wins, be it by 1 or by 40, doesn't really mean that team is that much better or worse. It's a long year.
Posts: 12,916