|
|
View Poll Results: How would you classify yourself? | |||
1 - Homer | 7 | 2.44% | |
2 - Optimist | 85 | 29.62% | |
3 - Balanced | 116 | 40.42% | |
4 - Pessimist | 67 | 23.34% | |
5 - Naysayer | 8 | 2.79% | |
Generic Alternate Zresponse | 4 | 1.39% | |
Voters: 287. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-03-2013, 09:30 AM | |
Kind of a mod
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Donkey Land
Casino cash: $506899
|
Let's talk about "true fans"
Marcellus's thread was clearly a lot of attention whoring, but when it comes down to it, he has a point. The word "true fan" has become a catch-all for anyone who doesn't agree with a person on here about XXX player or XXX move that the Chiefs have made.
The issue I have with it is that it's increasingly become a straw man insult that doesn't even make sense. Discussion around here lately reminds me of discussions in D.C. where every issue has to be black and white and anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. The reality is that there are opinions all over the spectrum and that nothing is ever black and white. I'd think there are at least five different categories of Chiefs fans these days: 1 - True "homers" who will cheer for the team and applaud every move they make unconditionally. These types almost don't even exist on ChiefsPlanet (though people like to act like they do). These are only a small portion of the Chiefs fanbase, and they look like this. 2 - Optimists who will always cheer for the Chiefs, but have a sense of realism about it. They probably cheered Cassel for the first few years, but reluctantly joined the SOC bandwagon last year when it was clear that there was just no hope in saving the team under Cassel. 3 - Fans who try to keep a balanced approach. They don't get too excited about drafting a RT at #1 or trading for Alex Smith, but they believe that it's likely the team will at least be improved this year if not dramatically so. Their approach is a "wait and see" reaction, though they'll be quick to criticize if things don't work out. 4 - Pessimists who are skeptical that the Chiefs are going to be competitive any time soon, but who do try and give the team some benefit of the doubt under the new leadership. They're probably not happy about Alex Smith being our QB, but are grudgingly willing to see what he can do. 5 - Total naysayers who have had it with the team for the past 40 years and will refuse to be optimistic until the Chiefs find some real success (playoff wins at a minimum, and Super Bowl contention ideally). They believe that the front office should be constantly scrutinized given that their predecessors were given a long leash and screwed it all up. Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to see where people would put themselves on the spectrum. It seems like most threads these days are battles between 5's and 1's, but I'd bet that those types are actually pretty rare around here. My dream would be that we can one day have discussions that are dominated by 2's, 3's, and 4's, but who knows if that can ever happen until the Chiefs start showing success. Discus. Last edited by DaFace; 05-03-2013 at 09:37 AM.. |
Posts: 52,335
|
08-06-2013, 11:54 AM | #361 |
Would an idiot do that?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Arizona
Casino cash: $1314931
|
Denver had a relatively tough schedule last year, too.... Ravens last year, Ravens this year... Falcons and Saints last year, Giants and Redskins this year... the biggest difference is they have the Patriots this year. Besides that, meh... it's just as mediocre as any other team's schedule.
__________________
|
Posts: 56,569
|
08-06-2013, 11:56 AM | #362 |
Cheat Death
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Land of Drincoln
Casino cash: $768244
|
Based on opponents 2012 W-L record, Denver has the easiets strength of schedule in the league.
|
Posts: 35,082
|
08-06-2013, 11:57 AM | #363 |
Ultrabanned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northland
Casino cash: $499356
|
|
Posts: 42,041
|
08-06-2013, 12:02 PM | #364 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
They face the Giants in NY, the Patriots in New England, the Texans in Texas and the Colts in Indy. They have a very tough schedule. To win 13 games or more, a team has to be incredibly good or incredibly lucky. Denver last year was incredibly lucky because they faced a very poor AFC West division in which they swept. They're a good team but nowhere near a 14 game winner. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
08-06-2013, 12:03 PM | #365 |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
|
Posts: 88,960
|
08-06-2013, 12:15 PM | #366 | |
Choco Favre
Join Date: Jul 2012
Casino cash: $1154765
|
Quote:
Why is the west so much more improved this season? Manning should have no problems with us and Oakland looks like a juco team. |
|
Posts: 30,243
|
08-06-2013, 12:18 PM | #367 |
Would an idiot do that?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Arizona
Casino cash: $1314931
|
Yeah, I think 14 wins is a stretch... hell, they could start 0-2.
~12 seems right.
__________________
|
Posts: 56,569
|
08-06-2013, 12:18 PM | #368 |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
|
Posts: 88,960
|
08-06-2013, 12:22 PM | #369 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
The Broncos had an inflated record in the AFC West because the Chiefs were historically bad, the Raiders were awful and the Chargers didn't live up to expectations, with the same result: Loss in the playoffs. They'll be a good team but I'll be shocked if they're a great team. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
08-06-2013, 01:05 PM | #370 | |
The Seated Villain
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle
Casino cash: $1370247
|
Quote:
Why do you doubt that Manning can throw with authority? |
|
Posts: 10,686
|
08-06-2013, 01:07 PM | #371 | |
The Seated Villain
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle
Casino cash: $1370247
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 10,686
|
08-06-2013, 02:24 PM | #372 | |
Would an idiot do that?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Arizona
Casino cash: $1314931
|
Quote:
And even though he's a year older, everyone figured he'd take a big step back last year before he ended up with close to career highs in several categories, and now he has a full season with his new team under his belt and no more rust from taking a year off.... so, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't at least be average by his own standards... and an average Peyton Manning should still win 10 or 11 games.
__________________
|
|
Posts: 56,569
|
08-06-2013, 02:51 PM | #373 |
Kind of a mod
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Donkey Land
Casino cash: $506899
|
I have to say - it's a little odd to have a thread that I started 3 months ago get bumped for a stupid reason, then become a popular thread for days on topics only peripherally related to the OP.
I keep checking the thread since it's technically one I started, then realize that I don't really have much to do with the conversation. |
Posts: 52,335
|
08-06-2013, 03:12 PM | #374 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 88,960
|
08-06-2013, 03:18 PM | #375 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
They have the Ravens, Colts, Redskins, Cowboys and Giants in their first eight games. That's a tough first half, especially without Miller. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
|
|