How Many Games Will the Chiefs Win?

[KempBolt 498]

The Chiefs are, once again, coming into the season with a lot of high expectations and "sleeper" picks. I decided I wanted to look into what past teams have done in this spot. In order to get a decent sample size, I'm going back to 1978 (when the NFL went to 16 games).

 

-1978 49ers (2-14): 2-14 in 1979; 0 game improvement

-1979 49ers (2-14): 6-10 in 1980; 4 game improvement

-1979 Lions (2-14): 9-7 in 1980; 7 game improvement

-1980 Saints (1-15): 4-12 in 1981; 3 game improvement

-1981 Colts (2-14): 0-8-1 in 1982; 1.5 game regression*

-1981 Patriots (2-14): 5-4 in 1982; 3 game improvement*

-1982 Colts (0-8-1): 7-9 in 1983; 6.5 game improvment*

-1982 Oilers (1-8): 2-14 in 1983; 1 game improvement*

-1982 Broncos (2-7): 9-7 in 1983; 7 game improvement*

-1982 Rams (2-7): 9-7 in 1983; 7 game improvement*

-1983 Buccaneers (2-14): 6-10 in 1984; 4 game improvement

-1983 Oilers (2-14): 3-13 in 1984; 1 game improvment

-1984 Bills (2-14): 2-14 in 1985; 0 game improvement

-1985 Bills (2-14): 4-12 in 1986; 2 game improvement

-1985 Buccaneers (2-14): 2-14 in 1986; 0 game improvement

-1986 Buccaneers (2-14): 4-11 in 1987; 2 game imrprovement**

-1989 Cowboys (1-15): 7-9 in 1990; 6 game improvement

-1990 Patriots (1-15): 6-10 in 1991; 5 game improvement

-1991 Colts (1-15): 9-7 in 1992; 8 game improvement

-1992 Patriots (2-14): 5-11 in 1993; 3 game improvement

-1992 Seahawks (2-14): 6-10 in 1993; 4 game improvement

-1994 Oilers (2-14): 7-9 in 1995; 5 game improvement

-1996 Jets (1-15): 9-7 in 1997; 8 game improvement

-1999 Browns (2-14): 3-13 in 2000; 1 game imrprovement

-2000 Chargers (1-15): 5-11 in 2001; 4 game improvement

-2001 Lions (2-14): 3-13 in 2002; 1 game improvement

-2001 Panthers (1-15): 7-9 in 2002; 6 game improvement

-2002 Bengals (2-14): 8-8 in 2003; 6 game improvement

-2004 49ers (2-14): 4-12 in 2005; 2 game improvement

-2005 Texans (2-14): 6-10 in 2006; 4 game imrpovement

-2006 Raiders (2-14): 4-12 in 2007; 2 game imrpovement

-2007 Dolphins (1-15): 11-5 in 2008; 10 game improvment***

-2008 Lions (0-16): 2-14 in 2009; 2 game improvement

-2008 Rams (2-14): 1-15 in 2009; 1 game regression

-2008 Chiefs (2-14): 4-12 in 2009; 2 game improvement

-2009 Rams (1-15): 7-9 in 2010; 6 game improvement

-2009 Lions (2-14): 6-10 in 2010; 4 game imrpovement

-2010 Panthers (2-14): 6-10 in 2011; 4 game imrpovement

-2011 Rams (2-14): 7-8-1 in 2012; 5.5 game improvement

-2011 Colts (2-14): 11-5 in 2012; 9 game improvement***

 

*Excluding this data due to strike shortened 1982 season (9 games)

**1987 was a 15 game season, but it makes no difference to the overall data so it is being included

***Made the playoffs

 

So here's what I get from the data:

 

1. Teams almost always improve. Out of 34 instances, only 1 team got worse the next season and only 3 teams followed with the exact same record. So 88% of the teams that have gone 2-14 or worse since 1978 have followed with a better season. This trend towards the league average is consistent with teams that post very good records.

 

2. How much improvement? The average game improvement of all teams included in the sample size was 3.5 games. And before anyone balks at the inclusion of teams with records worse than 2-14, excluding those teams actually drops the average improvement to 3.0 games.

 

3. Playoffs? Only 2 teams out of the 34 followed with a playoff appearance (6%). 21% achieved winning records, but 5 out of the 7 of them were 9-7 who missed the playoffs.

 

So where does that leave me and my guess for the Chiefs? Well, an average follow-up season for a 2-14 team would leave them at ~5-11. That said, they weren't exactly your normal 2-14 team. Based on talent on the roster, I think an extra two games is fair. So with the use of this data, I predict 7-9 in 2013 (which is where my gut pegged them anyways). And I think that's roughly where they'll stay until they get a difference maker at quarterback.

Edited July 10, 2013 by KempBolt

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

6-12... Alex Smith doesn't make them much better then they were before. Naturally they are going to improve, but, meh.

[KempBolt 498]

6-12... Alex Smith doesn't make them much better then they were before. Naturally they are going to improve, but, meh.

 

6-10 or 4-12?

[Dutch 874]

Dmac and numbers

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Er... This is awkward. haha. 6-10. >_>

Edited July 11, 2013 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[AL_Royalty 489]

10-6. Yes, yes. I'm a Chiefs fan. Sure, this pick could be laced with homoerotic undertones. However, as Kemp said already, there is hype and expectation behind this team: AGAIN. They have talent, and with a much less complete and talented team and Matt Cassel at the helm they won 10 games in 2010. They won seven games in 2011 with no Charles or Berry and, yes, Cassel AND Tyler Palko playing QB.

 

With everyone healthy, Charles beasting, a coach that isn't absolutely awful, and a halfway decent QB, there's nothing anyone can tell me to make me think that his team isn't better than the one that won 17 games in two seasons. I don't think 10 wins is a stretch at all, either.

 

They should sweep the Raiders—though they never do—they should at least split with SD—and honestly I feel they have a chance to sweep them too—and it's not as big of a reach to think that they can compete with Denver in at least one of their two games. After that they have the Browns, Bills, Eagles, Titans, and Jags on their schedule. After that, factor in the fact that nearly every team in football beats at least one team that they "shouldn't," and ten wins is pretty reasonable.

 

Go

Edited July 12, 2013 by RazorStar

[KempBolt 498]

10-6. Yes, yes. I'm a Chiefs fan. Sure, this pick could be laced with homeristic undertones. However, as Kemp said already, there is hype and expectation behind this team: AGAIN. They have talent, and with a much less complete and talented team and Matt Cassel at the helm they won 10 games in 2010. They won seven games in 2011 with no Charles or Berry and, yes, Cassel AND Tyler Palko playing QB.

 

With everyone healthy, Charles beasting, a coach that isn't absolutely awful, and a halfway decent QB, there's nothing anyone can tell me to make me think that his team isn't better than the one that won 17 games in two seasons. I don't think 10 wins is a stretch at all, either.

 

They should sweep the Raiders—though they never do—they should at least split with SD—and honestly I feel they have a chance to sweep them too—and it's not as big of a reach to think that they can compete with Denver in at least one of their two games. After that they have the Browns, Bills, Eagles, Titans, and Jags on their schedule. After that, factor in the fact that nearly every team in football beats at least one team that they "shouldn't," and ten wins is pretty reasonable.

 

Go

 

I'm not here to say it's impossible, because it isn't. But I don't see how you can say it's not a stretch to project an 8 game improvement when only one 2-14 team has been able to improve by 8 games since the league went to a 16 game schedule in 1978. In other words, 96% of the teams that have gone 2-14 have been unable to do what you are predicting your team will do. I don't fault you for predicting it; you believe in your team and that's great. But I don't get saying it's not a stretch at all. That's a pretty big stretch.

[AL_Royalty 489]

I'm not here to say it's impossible, because it isn't. But I don't see how you can say it's not a stretch to project an 8 game improvement when only one 2-14 team has been able to improve by 8 games since the league went to a 16 game schedule in 1978. In other words, 96% of the teams that have gone 2-14 have been unable to do what you are predicting your team will do. I don't fault you for predicting it; you believe in your team and that's great. But I don't get saying it's not a stretch at all. That's a pretty big stretch.

Wow. You disagree with something I say. Shocker... It's not a stretch, given that it just happened last season. Have you ever heard of the 4 minute mile effect? Basically, it's that nearly everything that hasn't been done, once done, becomes attainable by many.

 

Just look at the passing game in recent years. Forever there was Dan Marino and the impossible dream of 5,000 yards, now 4,500 is a benchmark for success, and 5,000 is hit every season. Every year for the last ten years there is a team that goes from worst to first. EVERY year.

 

To be honest, I didn't know that the Colts were the first team to ever go from that bad to double digits in a season, but there have been plenty of bad teams to hit playoff paydirt in recent years. The Redskins were horrendous before they got a competent QB. They won more than 2 games, but they just as easily could have lost 14.

 

It would be one hell of a turnaround, but I honestly don't see it as a stretch at all. Maybe it's because I follow the team closely and know what they're capable of, but they have a good roster. Top to bottom, these guys can flat out play on any given Sunday. Last year was just terrible, and it legitimately was at least 90% QB and coaching. Both of those things have been replaced, so if the new blood is better than the old guard—and even you HAVE to agree with me in that they can't really be any worse—this team will be far better off.

 

As I said before: I'm not guaranteeing it or anything, but I don't think it's a stretch either. I'm sure you'd say 8 is reasonable, which means that if a few balls bounce the wrong way it could be 6. If those same balls bounce the right way, it could be 10.

[KempBolt 498]

Wow. You disagree with something I say. Shocker... It's not a stretch, given that it just happened last season. Have you ever heard of the 4 minute mile effect? Basically, it's that nearly everything that hasn't been done, once done, becomes attainable by many.

 

Just look at the passing game in recent years. Forever there was Dan Marino and the impossible dream of 5,000 yards, now 4,500 is a benchmark for success, and 5,000 is hit every season. Every year for the last ten years there is a team that goes from worst to first. EVERY year.

 

To be honest, I didn't know that the Colts were the first team to ever go from that bad to double digits in a season, but there have been plenty of bad teams to hit playoff paydirt in recent years. The Redskins were horrendous before they got a competent QB. They won more than 2 games, but they just as easily could have lost 14.

 

It would be one hell of a turnaround, but I honestly don't see it as a stretch at all. Maybe it's because I follow the team closely and know what they're capable of, but they have a good roster. Top to bottom, these guys can flat out play on any given Sunday. Last year was just terrible, and it legitimately was at least 90% QB and coaching. Both of those things have been replaced, so if the new blood is better than the old guard—and even you HAVE to agree with me in that they can't really be any worse—this team will be far better off.

 

As I said before: I'm not guaranteeing it or anything, but I don't think it's a stretch either. I'm sure you'd say 8 is reasonable, which means that if a few balls bounce the wrong way it could be 6. If those same balls bounce the right way, it could be 10.

 

Lol, no I disagree. But I like your posts so rock on. I'll disagree and still be amused.

[AllYouNeedIsLovie 377]

I'm thinking they'll be around .500. Obviously, the upgrades at HC and QB will make a huge impact, but I still am worried that Jamaal Charles once again won't be getting as many carries as he should be getting. But, this Chiefs team has a lot of talent and if Alex Smith can continue to be smart with the football, they should be much more competitive than they were last year. I went with 8 wins.

[theMileHighGuy 656]

Andy Reid will coach like Andy Reid, and abandon the run game and force Alex Smith to throw 45 times a game. I might give them 5 wins.

[HUMCALC 3]

I say 8