A loss that shakes: The Chiefs must prove they are not who they now appear to be

[Hammock Parties]

Most ominous shit Sam has ever written

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/sp...223500455.html

SEATTLE

Do this job long enough and the signs make themselves obvious. The worst losses have a different sound afterward, the busy silence occasionally broken up by a locker door slamming, or team leaders declining to talk to reporters, or hope for hope’s sake.

The losses that sting make clear the difference between a team that’s earned the AFC’s No. 1 seed and a team that might still wear that title despite itself.

The moments that shake are the difference between a team that lost, and these Chiefs who lost their swagger after a 38-31 nationally televised loss here to the Seahawks.

“It seems extreme right now but that’s not the reality of it,” Chiefs coach Andy Reid said. “Just a fix a couple things and we’ll be alright.”

He might be right. Actually, that’s not true. He is right. Just a couple things. The Chiefs have now lost four games, by a total of 10 points, each of them decided in one form or another late in the fourth quarter.

They’ve lost to two AFC teams. The Patriots have lost three of five, and the Chargers have led the Chiefs for exactly 4 of 7,200 seconds this season. The Chiefs play the Raiders at home next week, which is the closest thing the NFL offers to a week 17 bye. Win that and the Chiefs have the No. 1 seed.

So, Reid is right. Just a couple things. This is not a disaster.

But you sure can see disaster from here.

“You have to find a way to win these games,” quarterback Patrick Mahomes said. “We haven’t been lately, so that’s the most frustrating thing. Everybody’s got to step up.”

Repeat: Just a couple things. We’ll be alright.

That works enough as coach speak in a postgame press conference, words that nobody in the room believes tell the whole story, but let’s play along. A couple things.

One would be the run defense. The Seahawks ran for the most predictable 210 yards in NFL history. Up the middle, around the edge, quarterback Russell Wilson on a scramble. Whatever. It all worked.

One would be the pass defense. The Chiefs again could not cover, and when they did cover, they could not make the play. They made up for all of that by missing far too many tackles.

One would be penalties. They padded their league-leading total with eight more, including one on a missed field goal and four others that gave the Seahawks first downs.

One would be the offense. Nobody wants to admit it, but this is two games in a row the offense has not been good enough. Last week against the Chargers, they needed one first down on their last possession. They went three and out. This week, they managed just 10 points with two turnovers (one that gifted the Seahawks a touchdown) before halftime. They had five possessions in which they punted or turned it over within three plays.

This team was always going as far as the offense would take it, whether that’s fair or not, and the last two weeks the offense hasn’t been good enough.

That’s four things, which is technically more than “a couple,” but this is no time for nitpicking so let’s get to the point.

Do you have confidence the Chiefs will fix these problems? And if so, why? How?

The Chiefs are in a precarious place. They are the probable No. 1 seed, even still, and are giving seldom-used rookie defensive backs the ol’ screw-it-how-much-worse-could-they-be opportunities in week 16 road games.

They have been the AFC’s best team for virtually the entire season, but at this point that feels more like an indictment on the rest of the conference than a reason to be confident in the Chiefs.

Assuming they beat the Raiders next week — and if they don’t, they’ve got much bigger problems — we are still three weeks from the Chiefs’ next real test.

And the heck of it is that Reid is factually accurate. They’re not that far off. The NFL’s gravitational pull means parody rules the day, always has, and the Chiefs will likely have homefield advantage, the best quarterback, and the best offense in the field.

That is an incredible place to be, particularly in what the organization originally forecasted as a transition year.

But the Chiefs are trending the wrong way, at the wrong time. That offense isn’t as dynamic as it once was. Eric Berry is playing again, but most of the biggest problems on defense still exist, even when he’s not on the sideline during the most important moments.

The Chiefs have everything in front of them, even still.

But the truth is a lot of their fans are terrified of what that means.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by O.city

So you're argument here is to score less points, slower, in order to give the defense more rest?

You're handicapping your best player by taking the ball out of his hands.

Scoring more points puts more pressure on the opposing offense to score points.

What the hell is patient on offense? Run it more and punt?

yeah, he's wrong. A big part of the time of possession issue is that we score a lot in 2 or three plays.

[Chiefnj2]

Health is the most important thing right now. Hill most of all. If he's hobbled in the post season then KC has zero chance. LDT is the second most important player to get healthy. Mahomes has been scrambling for his life way too often the last month. Finally, it will help to have Watkins come in for a half as a decoy. I don't think you can count on him for anything else past that.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Health is the most important thing right now. Hill most of all. If he's hobbled in the post season then KC has zero chance. LDT is the second most important player to get healthy. Mahomes has been scrambling for his life way too often the last month. Finally, it will help to have Watkins come in for a half as a decoy. I don't think you can count on him for anything else past that.

Yep. It's tough to run the TT Spread without him. We practice it all off-season then "pffft".

Feets don't fail me now.

FAX

[DRU]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Parody?! Who are the Chiefs a parody of? Is some other team parodying the Chiefs? Maybe some other year but not this one.

Why can't even "professional" writers use basic vocabulary correctly?

(I guess to be fair, this is the only error I've noticed in any of his articles.)

I think he meant parity. Maybe he was using speech to text and didn't catch it.

[Lurker]

Yes everyone. I'm aware he meant "parity" and not "parody". Why do you think I posted? I simply thought it was obvious and didn't think I needed to explicitly state it. I sincerely doubt it was auto-correct. It was more likely either complete ignorance or a temporary brain fart on Sam's part because the two words are homonyms. It's human to make such a mistake even if you know the difference.

Text-to-speech may have been the origin, but an editor should have caught the mistake. I'm disgusted with the quality of spelling and grammar in the world today, especially by posters in the online communities I frequent. To have the last dying bastion of decent editing (print media) make such a mistake provoked me into saying something. I guess I should of known better (sic).

PS - Anyone tempted to correct the grammar of my last sentence would do well to look up the meaning of the word 'sic' instead.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Yes everyone. I'm aware he meant "parity" and not "parody". Why do you think I posted? I simply thought it was obvious and didn't think I needed to explicitly state it. I sincerely doubt it was auto-correct. It was more likely either complete ignorance or a temporary brain fart on Sam's part because the two words are homonyms. It's human to make such a mistake even if you know the difference.

Text-to-speech may have been the origin, but an editor should have caught the mistake. I'm disgusted with the quality of spelling and grammar in the world today, especially by posters in the online communities I frequent. To have the last dying bastion of decent editing (print media) make such a mistake provoked me into saying something. I guess I should of known better (sic).

PS - Anyone tempted to correct the grammar of my last sentence would do well to look up the meaning of the word 'sic' instead.

Unless you were quoting someone, perhaps you should look up the meaning of 'sic.'

Also, unless you no longer intend on communicating ever, it should be 'my previous sentence.'

[007]

Well, it all comes down to one last game with 76,000 rabid fans screaming their asses off, well minus the gold section that sits inside and watches on the tv. If the defense can't feed off of the energy the crowd will come with on Sunday, they don't deserve to win in the post season. If they lose to the faiders, I may not even watch the playoff game.

I've sat through all the one and dones and am getting highly sick of it. Pour it out every season just for them to let me down again. It needs to stop and it needs to stop now.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Unless you were quoting someone, perhaps you should look up the meaning of 'sic.'

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of sic
intentionally so written —used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed OR to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original

That "OR" is especially important. There is no need to be quoting some other person's error. I suppose I "could of" singled out any of several CPers who never fail to make that particular error. I "could of" been quoting them. My usage is correct any way you look at it.

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Also, unless you no longer intend on communicating ever, it should be 'my previous sentence.'

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of last
3a : next before the present : most recent

I agree the phrase, "my previous sentence", is preferable to the phrase, "my last sentence." However, there is nothing wrong with the way I said it. Both are correct, even though the former provides more clarity.

I'll add that I am not a professional writer and I do not have an editor. This is a casual setting. Sam Mellinger, and his editor, on the other hand should be held to a higher standard, at least in the context of publishing an article for a major newspaper.

Years ago I thought you were a good poster. I'm not sure when the transition into "CryBaby Lee" occurred. It's a real shame. Your attempt to embarrass me has failed. But I'm a little embarrassed for you if it makes you feel any better. Check your facts next time.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Lurker

That "OR" is especially important. There is no need to be quoting some other person's error. I suppose I "could of" singled out any of several CPers who never fail to make that particular error. I "could of" been quoting them. My usage is correct any way you look at it.





I agree the phrase, "my previous sentence", is preferable to the phrase, "my last sentence." However, there is nothing wrong with the way I said it. Both are correct, even though the former provides more clarity.

I'll add that I am not a professional writer and I do not have an editor. This is a casual setting. Sam Mellinger, and his editor, on the other hand should be held to a higher standard, at least in the context of publishing an article for a major newspaper.

Years ago I thought you were a good poster. I'm not sure when the transition into "CryBaby Lee" occurred. It's a real shame. Your attempt to embarrass me has failed. But I'm a little embarrassed for you if it makes you feel any better. Check your facts next time.

Hey, let's not get this twisted. I didn't ASK you to come into this thread and flop your grammatical balls on the table.

YOU are the one who came in here with the post 'you know, I really get irritated how poorly people communicate online. I'm disgusted by everyone making grammatical errors. . . And if you think I'VE made any grammatical errors, well I think you are in sore need of further education. . .'

That post was BEGGING for a dragging, and I provided it.

And you admit it deserved it and merited it. But you then have to try to foist this pseudo-psychological angle where I attacked you out of the blue. You attacked the board out of the blue and I gently and with good nature brought you back down a peg.

I wouldn't have even replied if you hadn't initiated the holier-than-thou routine. And I didn't reply with malice. If you sense malice, it's your own chagrin, not my temperamental transformation.

Originally Posted by Lurker

Yes everyone. I'm aware he meant "parity" and not "parody". Why do you think I posted? I simply thought it was obvious and didn't think I needed to explicitly state it. I sincerely doubt it was auto-correct. It was more likely either complete ignorance or a temporary brain fart on Sam's part because the two words are homonyms. It's human to make such a mistake even if you know the difference.

Text-to-speech may have been the origin, but an editor should have caught the mistake. I'm disgusted with the quality of spelling and grammar in the world today, especially by posters in the online communities I frequent. To have the last dying bastion of decent editing (print media) make such a mistake provoked me into saying something. I guess I should of known better (sic).

PS - Anyone tempted to correct the grammar of my last sentence would do well to look up the meaning of the word 'sic' instead.

[Naptown Chief]

Lawd have mercy

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

not my temperamental transformation.

I'll admit that I have an unfair advantage in the sense that you have a long post history which is much easier to target than my limited posting. I probably shouldn't have used it.

Aside from that, I'll let the posts speak for themselves.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Lurker

I'll admit that I have an unfair advantage in the sense that you have a long post history which is much easier to target than my limited posting. I probably shouldn't have used it.

Aside from that, I'll let the posts speak for themselves.

Half this board has pulled that 'you used to be cool, what happened?' gambit from time to time. A thorough reading will demonstrate that it generally coincides with whether they agree with me at the moment or not, as opposed to any actual change in my philosophy or temperament. Plenty more than you have gone from chums to bitter enemies back to chums as events dictate.

As momma was fond of saying “you can get glad in the same pants you got mad in.”

That said, I too am more than content to let the posts speak for themselves as to who was good-natured and who was a meanie crybaby.