Are 11-6 Chiefs for real?

[KempBolt 498]

 

 

Charles is our leading rusher and pass catcher, and he's closing games better than anyone else in the league right now. He had more rushing yards than any single back last week I believe, and he's a legit duel threat. He's trucking guys almost every week, and he's blocking like a boss this season too.

 

You just called him the best back in the AFC in your post before last, and now you're saying that he's a little overrated again. I don't really see how the two things are related. He clearly can't be both.

 

As for your eyes wide open Chiefs hate (see what I did there?) it's justified. They have a legit shot at being 9-0 when they first face Denver this season. It's exciting times for Chiefs fans. Oakland , Houston, Cleveland, and Buffalo before Denver. I can't see them losing any more than one and possibly zero of those games, but even if they split they're 7-2. It's nice that we're in the conversation for winning this division, even if it is only five games onto the season.

 

 

I said he's the best in our division (the AFC West), not in our conference (the AFC). He's certainly in the conversation for the best back in the entire AFC as well, but that's partially a function of most of the league's really good backs being NFC players at the moment (Lynch, Gore, Martin, McCoy, Morris, Forte, and Peterson).

I like Charles better than every back on that list not named Peterson, but one could make a case for McCoy imo. Morris is pretty great, and so is Lynch, but from what I've seen they're both one trick ponies. Gore is a work horse, and I really like him, but I think Charles is more dynamic than those guys.

 

Also, go back through the quotes on this thread. There's no "West" after AFC in regards to Charles being the best. I'm sure you meant West, but that's not what you typed.

 

 

There is. It got cut off when my post was quoted, but if you look at my original post it says "AFCW."

[seanbrock 1,684]

The Cheifs have some special teams game changers and a really good defense. The Cheifs should be putting more points on the board. They've had a really easy schedule so far. Regardless of the run\pass balance the Cheifs offense should be better. They really have it easy in a lot of ways. Jamaal Charles is an elite player and you've just got to get more out of Dwayne Bowe.

[AL_Royalty 489]

The Cheifs have some special teams game changers and a really good defense. The Cheifs should be putting more points on the board. They've had a really easy schedule so far. Regardless of the run\pass balance the Cheifs offense should be better. They really have it easy in a lot of ways. Jamaal Charles is an elite player and you've just got to get more out of Dwayne Bowe.

WEll, I guess I'll just tell you the same thing that I said before. It's not Bowe that we have to get more out of. It's Alex Smith. As for whether or not they should be scoring more points, they average almost 26 per game. That's more than respectable. Just because they're forcing turnovers and getting good returns doesn't mean that they should score 40 points per game or GTFO.

 

Denver has played no one, but they're supposedly the best team since the merger and damn near unbeatable by anyone but God himself. Yet their defense is atrocious. Our Defense is outstanding, but we don't score enough points so therefore 5-0 is simply a benefit of luck and a generous schedule? Please.

 

Would I like to see them scoring more points than that? Sure. Am I mad that we're not? No not really . we're 5-0. I'm cool with it. Your blind hatred for Andy Reid is making you unable to see the forest through the trees.

[KempBolt 498]

 

The Cheifs have some special teams game changers and a really good defense. The Cheifs should be putting more points on the board. They've had a really easy schedule so far. Regardless of the run\pass balance the Cheifs offense should be better. They really have it easy in a lot of ways. Jamaal Charles is an elite player and you've just got to get more out of Dwayne Bowe.

WEll, I guess I'll just tell you the same thing that I said before. It's not Bowe that we have to get more out of. It's Alex Smith. As for whether or not they should be scoring more points, they average almost 26 per game. That's more than respectable. Just because they're forcing turnovers and getting good returns doesn't mean that they should score 40 points per game or GTFO.

 

Denver has played no one, but they're supposedly the best team since the merger and damn near unbeatable by anyone but God himself. Yet their defense is atrocious. Our Defense is outstanding, but we don't score enough points so therefore 5-0 is simply a benefit of luck and a generous schedule? Please.

 

Would I like to see them scoring more points than that? Sure. Am I mad that we're not? No not really . we're 5-0. I'm cool with it. Your blind hatred for Andy Reid is making you unable to see the forest through the trees.

 

 

A few obvious reasons why the Broncos are getting more love (mostly not saying it's right or wrong; just why it makes sense to me):

 

1) Denver has won each game by an average margin of 18.2 points and their opponents are a collective 9-17. KC has won by an average of 14 and their opponents are a collective 7-19. And the best team that KC has beaten (the 3-2 Titans) had to start Ryan Fitzpatrick at QB when the Chiefs got them. They had gotten all three of their wins with Jake Locker. So I think the combination of slightly smaller margin of victory, slightly weaker opponents, and the fact that your best opponent so far was missing a starter at its most important position has played a role in Denver getting more hype.

 

2) Denver is missing their #1 CB, their #1 pass rusher, their left tackle, and their center. KC, as far as I know, has had an issue at RT (where Fisher was playing like crap anyways) and that's about it. Enlighten me if I'm missing anything among the starters. But you could argue that Denver has not yet played 3 of their 5 best players this season.

 

3) 28 of KC's 128 points this season (22%) have come off of defense (14) or ST (14). Right or wrong, teams that score a large chunk of their points by a means other than offense are generally regarded as "flukier" than those that don't.

 

4) Denver is getting some of the best play in the history of the league at the most important position- QB. KC is getting... something less. Between two teams with the same record, the one with the elite quarterback rightfully gets more credit as a powerhouse.

[The Burfict Storm 39]

Chiefs defense has been the cornerstone of their success this season. The offense is nothing spectacular but does score enough points and protects each possession well.

[Dro 18]

Are the 5-1 Chiefs for real?

 

 

 

 

[seanbrock 1,684]

 

 

The Cheifs have some special teams game changers and a really good defense. The Cheifs should be putting more points on the board. They've had a really easy schedule so far. Regardless of the run\pass balance the Cheifs offense should be better. They really have it easy in a lot of ways. Jamaal Charles is an elite player and you've just got to get more out of Dwayne Bowe.

WEll, I guess I'll just tell you the same thing that I said before. It's not Bowe that we have to get more out of. It's Alex Smith. As for whether or not they should be scoring more points, they average almost 26 per game. That's more than respectable. Just because they're forcing turnovers and getting good returns doesn't mean that they should score 40 points per game or GTFO.

 

Denver has played no one, but they're supposedly the best team since the merger and damn near unbeatable by anyone but God himself. Yet their defense is atrocious. Our Defense is outstanding, but we don't score enough points so therefore 5-0 is simply a benefit of luck and a generous schedule? Please.

 

Would I like to see them scoring more points than that? Sure. Am I mad that we're not? No not really . we're 5-0. I'm cool with it. Your blind hatred for Andy Reid is making you unable to see the forest through the trees.

 

 

A few obvious reasons why the Broncos are getting more love (mostly not saying it's right or wrong; just why it makes sense to me):

 

1) Denver has won each game by an average margin of 18.2 points and their opponents are a collective 9-17. KC has won by an average of 14 and their opponents are a collective 7-19. And the best team that KC has beaten (the 3-2 Titans) had to start Ryan Fitzpatrick at QB when the Chiefs got them. They had gotten all three of their wins with Jake Locker. So I think the combination of slightly smaller margin of victory, slightly weaker opponents, and the fact that your best opponent so far was missing a starter at its most important position has played a role in Denver getting more hype.

 

2) Denver is missing their #1 CB, their #1 pass rusher, their left tackle, and their center. KC, as far as I know, has had an issue at RT (where Fisher was playing like crap anyways) and that's about it. Enlighten me if I'm missing anything among the starters. But you could argue that Denver has not yet played 3 of their 5 best players this season.

 

3) 28 of KC's 128 points this season (22%) have come off of defense (14) or ST (14). Right or wrong, teams that score a large chunk of their points by a means other than offense are generally regarded as "flukier" than those that don't.

 

4) Denver is getting some of the best play in the history of the league at the most important position- QB. KC is getting... something less. Between two teams with the same record, the one with the elite quarterback rightfully gets more credit as a powerhouse.

 

I'd also like to add that the Cheifs are +10 when it comes to turnovers this year.

 

Lets break down the defenses the Cheifs have played.

 

Jacksonville- 22nd in yards allowed with 379 per game and 31st in points allowed. The Cheifs scored 28 points and put up less than 300 yards against the Jags

 

Dallas- 28th in yards allowed with 409 per game and 23rd in the league in points allowed with 27.2 per game. The Cheifs scored 17 points against the Cowboys and racked up a whopping 313 yards

 

Philadelphia- 31st in yards allowed with a healthy 434 yards allowed per game and 30th in points allowed giving up 31.8 points per game. The Cheifs were forced to kick 4 field goals and even off the strength of a defensive TD were only able to put up 26 points. They were able to gain 394 yards, but the Eagles turned the ball over 5 times

 

New York Giants- 24th in the league in yards allowed with 391.3 yards allowed per game. 32nd in the league in points allowed with 34.8. The Cheifs posted 390 yards of offense and scored 24 points on offense, so really their offense has yet to score 30 points.

 

Tennessee- 9th in yards allowed at 321.2 per game and tied for 10th in points allowed with 19 per game. The Cheifs scored 19 points but racked up 365 yards. If it wasn't for a defensive score their offense could have lost them this game to a team starting their back up QB.

 

Bad offensive performances and the fact that they start with better field position than any team in the league and are like I just said, +10 in turnover margin annnnd the fact that the Cheifs are maybe the best defense in the league at just getting off the field in general, holding teams to 25% on 3rd down and are second in the league in time on the field (not sure what the opposite of Time of possession is lol) tell me that when the Cheifs play actually good teams whose QB is healthy that their offense is not going to be able to keep up. They've played some really shitty defenses and STILL managed to suck dick offensively. It's not blind hatred for Andy Reid. I have the numbers to back up what I'm saying.

[AL_Royalty 489]

I have stats too, but you already threw them out there. Since when is having the best defense in the league and a guy who's on pace for over 2,000 yards a bad thing? How Is the fact that they're forcing turnovers and making QB's cry at an alarming rate a knock on a team? Like I said: "blind hatred."

[seanbrock 1,684]

I have stats too, but you already threw them out there. Since when is having the best defense in the league and a guy who's on pace for over 2,000 yards a bad thing? How Is the fact that they're forcing turnovers and making QB's cry at an alarming rate a knock on a team? Like I said: "blind hatred."

Come on bro. I already said that the Chiefs have an awesome defense but teams with bad offenses tend not to do well against good teams. I thought the Chiefs would drop their first game against the Raiders but beating the Raiders at home still isn't anything special and the Chiefs have still yet to beat anyone besides the Titans who were forced to start Fitzpatrick. If you guys manage to beat some quality teams I'll eat my crow but are the Chiefs for real? Not to me. They aren't super bowl contenders in my eyes. They could make the playoffs but I still think that November is going to be a rough month for KC.

 

Oh and btw,weak schedules, defense and DC's have carried Reid to any success he's ever had. He hasn't won a Playoff game since the death of Jim Johnson(RIP)

Edited October 15, 2013 by seanbrock

[BwareDWare94 723]

When your defense is playing as well as KC's is, that dramatically alters your offensive gameplan. The Chiefs offense is not forced to do anything more than necessary, and scoring twenty some points a game has been enough for them, so far.

 

You're writing off a team that has a brand new QB with sub par weapons. Dwayne Bowe isn't, and never has been, as good as people think. Donnie Avery is inconsistent. A.J. Jenkins is a piece of trash. Their TE is a practice squad guy. They run the ball and score a lot of TDs with Jamaal Charles, which lengthens drives and takes the idea of Alex Smith being statistically excellent out of the picture.

 

It is, quite frankly, not necessary for the Chiefs offense to produce much more than it does. Though they've faced sub par teams so far, they have faced 4 good defenses. I know Dallas has 3 balloon games but otherwise they've held teams to 17, 16, and 7 points, respectively. Oakland's defense isn't bad. Jacksonville's certainly isn't. Tennessee's is rather impressive, imo.

 

They scored more than enough against Philly and NYG, with sub par defenses. Have you been watching any NFL games this year aside from Denver's? Who else is dropping 30, consistently? Not that many teams. You realize that other good offenses like New England (only scored 30 twice) and New Orleans (only three times) aren't putting up the mind bending offensive stats this year? There are a ton of defensive games in the NFL this season. It's awesome, and it's exactly why Kansas City aren't a fluke.

[GA_Eagle 595]

 

 

You're writing off a team that has a brand new QB with sub par weapons.

.

I realize it's not your whole point but isn't that what you're supposed to do with teams that have poor weapons and a QB that isn't playing well with them?

[The Burfict Storm 39]

Classic trap/sandwich game against Houston coming up next Sunday.

[BwareDWare94 723]

 

 

You're writing off a team that has a brand new QB with sub par weapons.

.

I realize it's not your whole point but isn't that what you're supposed to do with teams that have poor weapons and a QB that isn't playing well with them?

 

 

He's not turning the ball over. He may not be throwing 2-3 TDs a game but he's not making crucial mistakes, either. He'll get better as the year goes along.

[KempBolt 498]

I think it's fair to point out that the Chiefs have not needed to score a lot of points and that has made their offensive gameplan conservative. But I also think it's fair to point out that over the course of his career, Alex Smith has been hot garbage when the gameplan has been anything other than conservative. And even in said conservative gameplan, Smith isn't playing well. That's an unpopular thing to point out because they're winning, but in today's NFL 56.5% completion is pathetic- especially when you consider that 97% of his targets have been inside 20 yards and 79% of his targets have been inside 10. The 6.16 YPA also rates him 32nd in the league right now.

 

If they had an unknown quantity under center (like a rookie or first year starter), I think you could say something like just wait until they have to open up their offense and then you'll see if they can score more points. But we have the benefit of 7 previous seasons of Alex Smith. We know what happens when an offense attempts to feature him. It's not pretty.

[southgadawg 52]

No offense guys....but I have read a lot of talk in this thread about QB play (although certainly not the main focus of the thread).

 

I want to know since when is the quarterback THE team? I know they get held accountable probably as much as any individual in team sports...but seriously they are only as good as the team around them. Think how many "good" (and notice I didn't say "great" quarterbacks have had less than thrilling seasons (and I am talking about winning percentage NOT stats) for their team when injuries decimate that team's starters? All the game is about when you boil it all down is scoring more points than YOUR opposition in each given game. So far the Chiefs have done that.

 

The Chiefs appear for now as a good team that is learning what it can and can't do. Do they have weaknesses? Certainly. But for now it has been enough. They will be tested sure enough when they meet the media darling Broncos who have one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time.

Edited October 15, 2013 by southgadawg

[oochymp 2,393]

you know, there's only one thing that needs to happen to win a football game, you've gotta score more points than your opponent, it doesn't matter if that's a 51-48 game or a 17-16 game, they both go down as wins, why hold it against a team that their goal is the latter?

[KempBolt 498]

It's totally myopic to ignore the effect poor QB play could have on the long term success of the Chiefs. QB play drives consistent success in this league. You don't have to be Peyton Manning, but you should probably complete 60% of your passes against shitty defenses when you're dinking and dunking down the field. It's silly to think that Smith's play won't bite Kansas City at some point if it doesn't improve substantially.

 

The question is "are they for real?" Well, if "for real" means a top 5 team and superbowl contender, then the answer is no, and the reason is the QB. Let's not try and pretend that this team is somehow exempt from the reality that elite teams have at least good quarterbacks.

 

I fully expect KC to end up with a good record and make the playoffs. They're 6-0 against opponents that amount to 7-19. And aside from their games against INDY and in the division against SD, and DEN, they don't really have any challenges left on their schedule. Their other games are against the imploding Texans, Browns, Bills, Redskins and Raiders. I can easily see them sweeping that slate and doing so won't mean much to me.

 

This is a team that will likely make the playoffs with an 11+ win record and then run into a brick wall. I've been saying it for years, and I'll continue to say it: the Chiefs won't have sustained success, even with all their talent, until have find a franchise caliber QB. They haven't yet.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The Chiefs and Broncos, who are the NFL's last undefeated teams, have the two weakest schedules thus far in the league. Does that really surprise anyone?

[RazorStar 4,025]

Well when you win games, your schedule gets weaker.

[oochymp 2,393]

Well when you win games, your schedule gets weaker.

that's true, but it's really not that big of a difference, opponents of both teams have a total record of 11-25 (same record because they've played five of the same teams [Jax, Dal, Phi, NYG, and Oak] and the sixth team each has played [bal and Ten] are both 3-3) that means even if you throw out the six games those teams played against the Chiefs or Broncos they've still got combined records of 11-19 (.367) which is a bit better than the .306 record that includes losses to KC and Denver, but is still a pretty damn weak schedule, also worth noting that they've both played two of the three remaining winless teams

[KempBolt 498]

The Chiefs and Broncos, who are the NFL's last undefeated teams, have the two weakest schedules thus far in the league. Does that really surprise anyone?

 

 

 

Does the fact that it's unsurprising make it irrelevant to the question at hand?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

It was kind of rhetorical to begin with... No need to actually answer.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Rivers looks like he's trying to take a shit in that sig.

[KempBolt 498]

Rivers looks like he's trying to take a shit in that sig.

 

He only does that on the sideline if it's an away game.

[Thanatos 2,847]

KC is capable of beating anybody in the league.

 

I dont think they will be able to take down Denver on the road. Other than that, they can win any game.