So it’s really just the Steelers [or Bills] right?

[RunKC]

I mean goddamn this conference seems wrapped up doesn’t it? Not trying to jinx us but it really seems like injuries are our biggest opponent at this point.

The Ravens are ****ing frauds. They’re a warm up for us. We literally made these guys look like the JV squad the last 2 meetings.

And sure the Bills and Titans may make us work for the win, but in all honesty we have to play pretty goddamn shitty to lose to those guys.

In order to have any shot at beating us you need 3 things:

1. Elite pass rush
2. Top 10 QB capable of making critical plays
3. Overall talented roster

Steelers are the only team in the AFC that has those 3 things, and even them it’s not like they’re some serious threat like the Patriots a couple years back, but they seem like the best of the rest.

I think at this point it would be disappointing for this team to not get to the SB 3 straight times.

We’re just that good, and we keep drafting well and get better and better.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

Cleveland punched Pittsburgh directly in the dick.

Is that what you call a 31-point loss?

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by daquix

What is your definition of “playoff caliber”?

Because apparently, making the actual playoffs isn’t your definition of playoff caliber lol.

What you seem to be saying is that no NFL team is perfect. And yeah, i’d agree.

No such thing as a perfect team. Even if there were, they'd probably find a way to lose anyway.

And history if replete with teams that made the playoffs through some ridiculous mathematical quirk or whatever, that had no business being in the playoffs. The Chiefs were that team more than once over the last 50 years, iirc. But there's always a team or two that shouldn't be in the playoffs, every year.

Again, that's why looking at overall record, or "SoV" or whatever is a fool's game when trying to determine actual contenders. Try betting money of things like "SoV," and see where that gets you.

If we went by SoV, then PIT should've steamrolled BUF, but everyone that paid any attention knew that wasn't going to happen. Because PIT is a bad team, regardless of record. The only question was would Josh Allen step up and play like a top QB, or would he shrink and possibly screw it up for BUF?

Hell, if BUF had played to their paper potential, they would've won by 3 TDs. Instead, they had to have a pick-6 just to make it double digits. In short, the Bills offense wasn't nearly as good as their "statistical" potential.

But they did win, and last year or the year before, they almost definitely would've lost, so there is that.

[diqlix]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

No such thing as a perfect team. Even if there were, they'd probably find a way to lose anyway.

And history if replete with teams that made the playoffs through some ridiculous mathematical quirk or whatever, that had no business being in the playoffs. The Chiefs were that team more than once over the last 50 years, iirc. But there's always a team or two that shouldn't be in the playoffs, every year.

Again, that's why looking at overall record, or "SoV" or whatever is a fool's game when trying to determine actual contenders. Try betting money of things like "SoV," and see where that gets you.

If we went by SoV, then PIT should've steamrolled BUF, but everyone that paid any attention knew that wasn't going to happen. Because PIT is a bad team, regardless of record. The only question was would Josh Allen step up and play like a top QB, or would he shrink and possibly screw it up for BUF?

Hell, if BUF had played to their paper potential, they would've won by 3 TDs. Instead, they had to have a pick-6 just to make it double digits. In short, the Bills offense wasn't nearly as good as their "statistical" potential.

But they did win, and last year or the year before, they almost definitely would've lost, so there is that.

I hear you.... But this year, there will be no crappy playoff teams making it. No losing record teams making it. At least not in the AFC.

PS, Buffalo had a higher SOV than Pitt before playing Pitt.

[diqlix]

Originally Posted by dlphg9

Well then how is it figured? I'm genuinely curious, because I thought you said that SOV was just the winning percentage of the teams you beat.

Oh i gotcha.

I see what you’re saying now.

Yes in the very unlikely scenario where a winless team beats an undefeated team, they would win SOV.

But when you’re looking at teams with 10+ wins, it’s a good stat.

[MahiMike]

Seems the Bills mafia has infiltrated CP. Mind your fingers.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by MahiMike

Seems the Bills mafia has infiltrated CP. Mind your fingers.

And watch for flying dildos.

Also, put away your folding tables.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by daquix

I hear you.... But this year, there will be no crappy playoff teams making it. No losing record teams making it. At least not in the AFC.

PS, Buffalo had a higher SOV than Pitt before playing Pitt.

PIT's schedule was pretty soft. Heck, KC's was supposed to be a cakewalk after week 5 or something. Didn't count on several teams playing significantly better than they did last season. And everyone wants to go "Super Bowl" mode when they play the Chiefs. How many trick plays did MIA pull in the first half? Would they have done that two or three years ago?

And there will be crappy teams that get in.

Um, did anyone else know that DEN is still mathematically in the hunt? That makes three AFC-W teams that could make the playoffs. Weird.

Anyway, with a 7th seed, it's almost a guarantee that some normally terrible team will get in. Two, if DEN somehow gets in.

[mililo4cpa]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

No such thing as a perfect team. Even if there were, they'd probably find a way to lose anyway.

And history if replete with teams that made the playoffs through some ridiculous mathematical quirk or whatever, that had no business being in the playoffs. The Chiefs were that team more than once over the last 50 years, iirc. But there's always a team or two that shouldn't be in the playoffs, every year.

Again, that's why looking at overall record, or "SoV" or whatever is a fool's game when trying to determine actual contenders. Try betting money of things like "SoV," and see where that gets you.

If we went by SoV, then PIT should've steamrolled BUF, but everyone that paid any attention knew that wasn't going to happen. Because PIT is a bad team, regardless of record. The only question was would Josh Allen step up and play like a top QB, or would he shrink and possibly screw it up for BUF?

Hell, if BUF had played to their paper potential, they would've won by 3 TDs. Instead, they had to have a pick-6 just to make it double digits. In short, the Bills offense wasn't nearly as good as their "statistical" potential.

But they did win, and last year or the year before, they almost definitely would've lost, so there is that.

I'll do you one better: Who cares about SoV, SoS, or any other bullcrap stat that people try to use to justify why we should be worried. At the end of the day, as Chiefs fans, the only thing we need to be concerned with is how Buffalo matches up with our team.

First, we have direct evidence that suggests we match up very well, seeing that we've already beat them once this year. Obviously, that is one game, but its evidence that we can beat them, without resorting to silly meaningless stats to do so. It doesn't mean the Chiefs would win a second matchup (See Chiefs v. Raiders this year), but if I were a fan of that losing team, I'd probably slow my roll a little bit.

But when you watch how the Chiefs won that game against the Bills, it wasn't some type of fluke thing that happened. The Chiefs, who are probably an average to below average running team, pounded the ball all over the Bills. They didn't win by slinging it all over the yard or 75 yard bombs....they methodically dismantled the Bills in that game.

Part of the reason is that the Bills had to respect the speed (and keep in mind Sammy Watkins was out of that game, and the Chiefs didn't have L. Bell yet either) and play off the receivers. Nothing that has happened since that game has changed for the Bills.....if they meet up again, the Bills are going to have to either (a) do the same or (b) play more on the ball. I'd argue that strategy would be worse for them. So, I'm curious how Mr. Bill here would recommend the Bills adjust their D in a theoretical second matchup.

The Chiefs also played very well on Defense that day as well. They didn't get a sack, but they harassed Allen quite a bit. Additionally, the Bills really couldn't run the ball, and they aren't a very good running team in general, so if you can frazzle Allen, then the Bills can be frazzled. The Chiefs pass D has been very good to decent throughout the year, and that matches up well against the Bills as well. So, again, I'd ask Mr. Bill what has changed from that first meeting to a theoretical second matchup that would lead Bills to execute better there? They had Diggs that night, they had John Brown...they had their full compliments of O weapons.

Finally, I'll say again what I generally say: It's the NFL, so any given week is a real thing. But I've watched and played a lot of football over the course of my lifetime, and these Chiefs are doing things that have not been seen before. Somebody posted in a different thread the Florio/Simms podcast, and they are absolutely correct (I'd recommend listening to it). These Chiefs have so many ways to beat you, and they play such complimentary ball, that it's tough to beat.

And there in lies the difference between the Chiefs and the Bills: I imagine that if Josh Allen throws 3 picks in a game, the Bills get rolled (cough cough, Tits game, and that was only 2 picks). Mahomes throws 3 picks (and add in another TO), they Chiefs go up 30-10.....They have a gear that no other team has demonstrated nor been able to keep up with

So, the Bills have a nice team, and I believe they are the biggest threat to the Chiefs in the AFC. They are having a very nice season for sure, and good for all those fans. They most certainly could they beat the Chiefs on any given day, but that's only because the Chiefs completely shit the bed. They don't match up well at all with the Chiefs, and nothing that's happened since their last matchup has changed.

[Azide22]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

What is "Strength of Victory"? What is the algorithm used to determine its statistical value?

Buffalo's strength of victory is NOT way above KCs, though its close!. SOV is the win percentage of the teams you've beaten.

Beating the Jets doesn't help you at all...

[Azide22]

Originally Posted by daquix

The combined win/loss percentage of all the teams that a team has defeated.

The Bills have played a very tough schedule. They’ve played 8 teams that are either in the playoffs or within 1 game of being in the playoffs (“in the hunt”).

Those 2 Jets wins drag it way down. If KC and Buffalo tied , but KCs only win was against NO, KCs current opponent wins is 79, Buffalo 78. (Thats the easiest way to calculate it).

[Azide22]

Originally Posted by dlphg9

Strength of victory is not a stat. You could have a 0-15 team beat a 15-0 team and that would mean that the 1-15 team has the highest strength of victory. Big whoop.

It only matters because it is a tiebreaker, and a potentially important one - because it comes right after Common games in the conference tiebreaker.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Azide22

It only matters because it is a tiebreaker, and a potentially important one - because it comes right after Common games in the conference tiebreaker.

Exactly.

It's not relevant in the way he used it. A 1-15 team and a 15-1 team would never be compared by strength of victory because one team has 15 wins and the other only has 1. There's no comparison between those teams.

SOV is absolutely useful in looking at the Chiefs and Bills, however because they're in direct competition for playoff seeding.

What hurts Buffalo is their SOS is higher than their SOV. They lost to good teams while beating the Jets twice and teams like the Chargers.

The worst part for the Bills is that they have games remaining against the Patriots and Broncos while the Steelers have Cleveland and Indy.

[Azide22]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Exactly.

It's not relevant in the way he used it. A 1-15 team and a 15-1 team would never be compared by strength of victory because one team has 15 wins and the other only has 1. There's no comparison between those teams.

SOV is absolutely useful in looking at the Chiefs and Bills, however because they're in direct competition for playoff seeding.

What hurts Buffalo is their SOS is higher than their SOV. They lost to good teams while beating the Jets twice and teams like the Chargers.

The worst part for the Bills is that they have games remaining against the Patriots and Broncos while the Steelers have Cleveland and Indy.

Remember though- strength of victory ONLY matters this year in a 3 way tie, and only then if Chiefs lose to Chargers specifically in their 2 losses. In any 2 way tie among these 3 teams, it won't get to SOV. So with the one exception scenario, it's just an academic conversation.

Oh and Buffalo's SOV would almost assuredly end up ahead of Pittsburgh in a tiebreaker situation, no matter how this plays out, because Pittsburgh isn't likely to lose to Cincinnati...

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Exactly.

It's not relevant in the way he used it. A 1-15 team and a 15-1 team would never be compared by strength of victory because one team has 15 wins and the other only has 1. There's no comparison between those teams.

SOV is absolutely useful in looking at the Chiefs and Bills, however because they're in direct competition for playoff seeding.

What hurts Buffalo is their SOS is higher than their SOV. They lost to good teams while beating the Jets twice and teams like the Chargers.

The worst part for the Bills is that they have games remaining against the Patriots and Broncos while the Steelers have Cleveland and Indy.

Thanks. Now I understand why this stat exists.

[diqlix]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Exactly.

It's not relevant in the way he used it. A 1-15 team and a 15-1 team would never be compared by strength of victory because one team has 15 wins and the other only has 1. There's no comparison between those teams.

SOV is absolutely useful in looking at the Chiefs and Bills, however because they're in direct competition for playoff seeding.

Exactly.

As with anything else in life, you have to use it in context.

Obviously in an extreme scenario where a 1-15 team beats a 15-1 team, yes the SOV will be skewed.

But that pretty much never happens.

When you are looking at teams with all 10+ wins, you KNOW that didn't happen, so the conversation about the stats potential faults is irrelevant.

What hurts Buffalo is their SOS is higher than their SOV. They lost to good teams while beating the Jets twice and teams like the Chargers.

The Bills have had more games against teams that are currently in a playoff spot, than any team in the NFL.

I'll repeat that - the Bills have played more playoff teams than ANY other team.

Of the Bills 13 games, 8 have been against teams that are either in a playoff spot RIGHT NOW, or within 1 game of a playoff spot ("in the hunt").

To put that into perspective, of the Chiefs 13 games, only 5 have been against teams that are in a playoff spot.

That's not a knock on the Chiefs, it's just a fact.

So for you to say that they just beat the bad teams like the Jets and Chargers is not fair.