Throw out the first two games.

onejayhawk · 10-13-2011, 11:29 AM

Not only were they up against team who have been better than expected, the Chiefs were simply not ready to play.

However, in game 3 vs the Chargers, they at least showed up and stood up. Then add two wins against bad teams, and you have what looks like a mediocre to decent team. At least there is some sign of potential. The defense, which was dead last after two weeks, was middle pack for the next three. ST play has been top 3rd. Offense top half. all of this, only if you discard the Buffalo and Detroit games.

So, considering the first two games an abberation, what do you think of the state of the team now?

J

King Carls 5 Year Plan · 10-13-2011, 04:56 PM

unfortunately, i dont believe they were an aberration. yes, the Bills and Lions are better than most thought going into this season, but we still lost. losses in Sept still count. the Chargers game was almost exactly what we thought it would be. they suck early. SD tried everything possible to give the Chiefs the game, yet we ended up losing, again. the 2 wins we have have a combined 1-7 record this year. the Colts are terrible and maybe in the Suck 4 Luck drivers seat. we didn't crush the bad teams on our schedule so far. you say the Chiefs are mediocre to decent, right now. i say they have to beat a mediocre to decent team before we can talk like that. remember, our 2 victories might be against the 2 worst teams in football. that isn't really a bragging point for me. lets see how we do against the rest of our schedule before we throw out games that count because "they were better than we thought" and Haley didn't get them prepared for the season

nepg · 10-13-2011, 05:19 PM

The Vikings are far from the worst team in football. They've had a tough schedule and some close losses. They're a decent team that's had some bad luck, but the Chiefs were just better than them.

King Carls 5 Year Plan · 10-13-2011, 05:40 PM

this isn't horse shoes. you don't get credit for close losses and moral victories. i'm not trying to be an asshole, but you are what your record is. they are 1-4 and haven't looked good for a full 60 minutes yet. they have enough talent to turn it around if they feed AD the ball, despite the effort (or lack there of) from McNabb

nepg · 10-14-2011, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Carls 5 Year Plan

this isn't horse shoes. you don't get credit for close losses and moral victories. i'm not trying to be an asshole, but you are what your record is. they are 1-4 and haven't looked good for a full 60 minutes yet. they have enough talent to turn it around if they feed AD the ball, despite the effort (or lack there of) from McNabb

Horseshoes? No. But Beating the Vikings isn't quite as black and white as "they beat an 0-4 team". The Vikings really aren't that bad. They've had some bad luck. The Vikings presented some serious challenges to the Chiefs like a dangerous pass rush and incredible rushing attack. The Chiefs did a great job dealing with those challenges and came out the winner.

The Colts, that's a bad team. However, the Colts came out in the first half and were playing really well. It was scary how good they looked. Any team in the NFL would have been losing to the Colts with the way they were playing. But the Chiefs weathered the initial onslaught, kept themselves in the game, and pulled out a win.

The Chargers "tried to let the Chiefs win"? The Chiefs stayed in the game. They didn't pull it off in the end, but they had the ball at the 50 with time enough to score at least a field goal to tie it or a TD to win it. Let's be real here, this isn't some aberration by the Chargers. They always have trouble closing good teams out if those teams don't just lay down. San Diego has never had the killer instinct, and that's why they've never won when it matters.

vidae · 10-14-2011, 09:44 AM

The Chiefs aren't even close to a decent team right now. We've lost to good teams and beat ****** teams. We're a ****** team right now. And I'm not the type of person to "forget two games" like that.

onejayhawk · 10-16-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Carls 5 Year Plan

this isn't horse shoes. you don't get credit for close losses and moral victories. i'm not trying to be an asshole, but you are what your record is. they are 1-4 and haven't looked good for a full 60 minutes yet. they have enough talent to turn it around if they feed AD the ball, despite the effort (or lack there of) from McNabb

Sure you do. Dont be silly. This is not about standings. This about where the team is at going forward. There is a school of thought that Matt Casselll is the spawn of the devil, and all our trouble arisies from his presence. That is just as short sighted as saying all losses are equal.

To take an example, consider the disaster we call the 2009 season. Those of us who paid attention, understood that major strides had been accomplished during all the losses. In aprticular, we understood that the 30th rated OL was really much better, and that LT was not a high priority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

The Chiefs aren't even close to a decent team right now. We've lost to good teams and beat ****** teams. We're a ****** team right now. And I'm not the type of person to "forget two games" like that.

I hold the first two games against Haley, because he did not have the team ready. OTOH, they are not indicative of where the team is now, or, more importantly, will be next week agaisnt the Raiders. If the Chiefs get blown out of that game, I will conceed that they truly suck. Until that happens, cut us some slack.

BTW, if we regularly beat shiite teams, the we are NOT a shiite team.

J

King Carls 5 Year Plan · 10-16-2011, 01:58 PM

i'm getting sick and tired of having words put in my mouth. this is my last post discussing Cassel and his future as the Chiefs QB.

i have never blamed Cassel for all of the Chiefs problems. i have never called him a devil spawn. in no way shape or form have i said anything close to that. what i have said is apparently difficult for Cassel supporters to understand. let me try it again. Cassel is an OK QB. that's what he is, OK. IMO, Cassel will NEVER lead the Chiefs to a SB title. because of that opinion, i would rather see the Chiefs draft a young QB with a much higher ceiling to have a better shot at winning one. we have now seen enough of Cassel to see who he is. maybe some of a differing philosophy think Cassel can be that good. that's fine. we can agree to never agree. however, i challenge any of those Cassel believers to look at history. look at the QBs taking their teams deep into the playoffs year in and year out and getting to SBs. how does Cassel compare to them.

that is all. sorry for one last post.. /rant

onejayhawk · 10-16-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Carls 5 Year Plan

i'm getting sick and tired of having words put in my mouth. this is my last post discussing Cassel and his future as the Chiefs QB.

i have never blamed Cassel for all of the Chiefs problems. i have never called him a devil spawn. in no way shape or form have i said anything close to that. what i have said is apparently difficult for Cassel supporters to understand. let me try it again. Cassel is an OK QB. that's what he is, OK. IMO, Cassel will NEVER lead the Chiefs to a SB title. because of that opinion, i would rather see the Chiefs draft a young QB with a much higher ceiling to have a better shot at winning one. we have now seen enough of Cassel to see who he is. maybe some of a differing philosophy think Cassel can be that good. that's fine. we can agree to never agree. however, i challenge any of those Cassel believers to look at history. look at the QBs taking their teams deep into the playoffs year in and year out and getting to SBs. how does Cassel compare to them.

that is all. sorry for one last post.. /rant

Sorry. I did not intend to put words in your mouth. I was speaking more generally. You attitude is a bit excessive IMO, but not irrational. There are those, not necessarily in this forum, who are not rational on the subject of Matt Cassell.

I happen to agree that Cassell will never lead any team to the SB. that does not make him a bad fit here and now. Were I, for example, Cincinatti, I would much rather be starting Cassell than Dalton. Ditto Painter in Indianapolis. In our case, I would much rather he start than Stanzi, for this season, and possibly longer.

J

vidae · 10-16-2011, 03:17 PM

That is the bottom line.. Cassel will never lead us to a championship. If you believe that he is not capable of doing that, there is no reason to not draft a young guy this year. These "stop gaps" are fine for pretty much every position BUT QB.

If we have the opportunity to draft a QB, we have to. We need a QB who can improve past what Cassel is, and that is "just okay."

I like Cassel but I'm being completely and 100% being realistic with the kind of player he is. He's solid, not good, and he never will be.

onejayhawk · 10-16-2011, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

That is the bottom line.. Cassel will never lead us to a championship. If you believe that he is not capable of doing that, there is no reason to not draft a young guy this year. These "stop gaps" are fine for pretty much every position BUT QB.

If we have the opportunity to draft a QB, we have to. We need a QB who can improve past what Cassel is, and that is "just okay."

I like Cassel but I'm being completely and 100% being realistic with the kind of player he is. He's solid, not good, and he never will be.

We drafted a young guy last year. Did you forget. Stanzi may not be the long term answer, but I do not think we should sell the team bus to get another one. Getting Landry Jones in round 2 would suit.

Dont underestimate "Just OK." I want him as an option for some time to come. If nothing else, it will give a young QB time to learn the ropes while Cassell absorbs the hits.

J

vidae · 10-16-2011, 04:44 PM

Of course I didn't forget Stanzi, but if we're picking top 10 then Stanzi doesn't even compare to the talent level of those guys. There is a reason Stanzi went in the 5th round. And when you have a very talented team at multiple positions, and you need a QB, you're not putting your franchise on the back of a 5th rounder.

And there is no way Landry Jones makes it to the second round. Cassel isn't the answer and Stanzi most likely isn't the answer. If you have a top 10 pick and a top franchise capable QB falls to you, you HAVE to take him. Period.

bored of education · 10-16-2011, 09:41 PM

I want Stanzi starting after the bye and see what we have.

Bengalsrocket · 10-16-2011, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

Sorry. I did not intend to put words in your mouth. I was speaking more generally. You attitude is a bit excessive IMO, but not irrational. There are those, not necessarily in this forum, who are not rational on the subject of Matt Cassell.

I happen to agree that Cassell will never lead any team to the SB. that does not make him a bad fit here and now. Were I, for example, Cincinatti, I would much rather be starting Cassell than Dalton. Ditto Painter in Indianapolis. In our case, I would much rather he start than Stanzi, for this season, and possibly longer.

J

Cincinnati. It's really easy, cin x2, then nati (which one of the several nicknames for our city, Nati).

Also, I'll take Dalton over Cassel any day of the week so far. Dalton has been incredible and if it weren't for Newton's 4 billion pass attempts in the first 5 weeks, Dalton would be the most impressive rookie so far.

I'm a huge supporter of Cassel, I think he's a more than serviceable (dare I even say, franchise) quarterback. But in no way would I want to replace Dalton with Cassel.

bored of education · 10-16-2011, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bengalsrocket

Cincinnati. It's really easy, cin x2, then nati (which one of the several nicknames for our city, Nati).

Also, I'll take Dalton over Cassel any day of the week so far. Dalton has been incredible and if it weren't for Newton's 4 billion pass attempts in the first 5 weeks, Dalton would be the most impressive rookie so far.

I'm a huge supporter of Cassel, I think he's a more than serviceable (dare I even say, franchise) quarterback. But in no way would I want to replace Dalton with Cassel.

this cincinnatti bengles fan nos whats up

nepg · 10-17-2011, 03:54 AM

We're looking at an interesting stretch of games coming up. With Oakland having QB issues, they're taken down a peg against a team that has had 2 weeks to prepare for them, San Diego is very beatable and that game is at home on Monday night, then there's the Dolphins and Broncos. It's really time for people to quit complaining and get behind this team.

King Carls 5 Year Plan · 10-17-2011, 05:36 AM

who the **** are you to tell another fan what they should and shouldn't do?!? huh? how long you been a Chiefs fan? i've been one all my life. i've never known cheering for another team. i have earned the right to cheer for my team any way i would like without having to hear from new fans that i'm not doing it the way they like. get ****** and deal with it. if i want Luck, then i want Luck. if i want Cassel, then i want Cassel. either way it isn't your job to be the fan police

nepg · 10-17-2011, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Carls 5 Year Plan

who the **** are you to tell another fan what they should and shouldn't do?!? huh?

Someone who sees a bunch of turd burglars rooting against their team that started slow, but is still very much in the chase for their division.

Quote:

how long you been a Chiefs fan?

18 years, and pretty hardcore for 7.

Quote:

i have earned the right to cheer for my team any way i would like without having to hear from new fans that i'm not doing it the way they like.

"Earned"? No one "earned" crap in that regard. You can root however you want, but I'll sure as hell call you out if I deem it irrational or misguided.

I do the same with the Patriots fans. You can go read their ranting and raving about dumping Moss and picking up Branch last year. Who said "you guys are being silly and overreacting?"

Quote:

either way it isn't your job to be the fan police

Apparently, it is.

Splat · 10-17-2011, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Someone who sees a bunch of turd burglars rooting against their team that started slow, but is still very much in the chase for their division.

Pointing out flaws on the team is not rooting against the team.

vidae · 10-17-2011, 05:34 PM

nepg, I'm going to politely ask you to stick to the Patriots team forum from now on. You're clearly a Patriots fan first, so if you want to troll some team forums, have it be theirs.

nepg · 10-17-2011, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

nepg, I'm going to politely ask you to stick to the Patriots team forum from now on. You're clearly a Patriots fan first, so if you want to troll some team forums, have it be theirs.

I'm trolling now? Seriously? Because I don't think the Chiefs are nearly as bad as you guys are trying to act like they are? Because I'm focused on the current season and the players currently on the team rather than talking about finishing the season in the bottom third of the standings (which is unlikely anyway)?

vidae · 10-17-2011, 07:27 PM

No, because you're calling peoples fan-dom into question (for some stupid reason) and insulting other Chiefs posters. It's old now.

onejayhawk · 10-17-2011, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

nepg, I'm going to politely ask you to stick to the Patriots team forum from now on. You're clearly a Patriots fan first, so if you want to troll some team forums, have it be theirs.

Right back at ya, because you're calling peoples fan-dom into question (for some stupid reason) and insulting other Chiefs posters. It's old now.

J

nepg · 10-18-2011, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

No, because you're calling peoples fan-dom into question (for some stupid reason) and insulting other Chiefs posters. It's old now.

Sorry if the negativity under false premises has got me a tad bit annoyed. The team lost 2 games to start the season and people were calling to blow it all up and get a new coach et al. After 2 games into a season that was just going to be weird anyway due to the lack of a proper off-season!! Then the Chiefs string together 3 solid games, win 2 of them, and people are still being way negative about everything. Like they're mad the team is turning it around. That rubs me the wrong way, man.

vidae · 10-18-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

Right back at ya, because you're calling peoples fan-dom into question (for some stupid reason) and insulting other Chiefs posters. It's old now.

J

I'm sorry, what? He's clearly a Patriots fan first (which was evidenced by his old sig that said nepg - Patriots fan lol) and when have I ever insulted another Chiefs poster?

You're way off base here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nepg

After 2 games into a season that was just going to be weird anyway due to the lack of a proper off-season!!

The thing is, everyone had the same off-season, and the Chiefs were clearly the only team that wasn't ready to play after it. You're acting like people didn't have a reason to be upset here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nepg

Then the Chiefs string together 3 solid games, win 2 of them, and people are still being way negative about everything. Like they're mad the team is turning it around. That rubs me the wrong way, man.

You also have to look at who the Chiefs beat. They beat two winless teams. Are the Vikings better than their record would indicate? Maybe, but they're still not a GOOD team. Good teams don't give away massive leads at halftime in multiple games. And the Colts are just in shambles right now. It's great we were able to string together two solid games, but against bad opponents. We have a very tough stretch coming up here in a month or so, and it's very hard to be optimistic about their chances against the elite NFL teams.