Any reason besides Dorsey drama to be down on the Chiefs?

[carcosa]

Back in February, the Chiefs were widely considered to have a roster strong enough to compete for the division again in 2017. Now, the first big media outlet to release season predictions (USA Today) has the Chiefs going 8-8, and the general sense I've gotten online and from non-Chiefs fans I've talked to seems to be that they're going to be mediocre this year.

Admittedly, this has been a really weird offseason. But has anything really happened that should have people thinking the Chiefs won't compete? I feel like people are keying into the easy storyline (unexpected firing of GM leads to chaos and disarray) and forgetting that this team has Travis Kelce, Tyreek Hill, Marcus Peters, Eric Berry, (a hopefully healthy) Justin Houston, (an apparently good) Dee Ford, and a lot of solid players and continuity across the board. Alex Smith is a perennial concern, but this team has always managed to win with him anyway.

The schedule looks tough, but not daunting. The Raiders will be good, but not unbeatable. If everything breaks our way, 12-4 and the division seems totally attainable. If everything doesn't, 9-7 or 10-6 and a wild card berth seems like the floor. As I see it, it would take something close to a disaster to go 8-8 or worse and miss out on the playoffs entirely.

Am I being an overly-optimistic homer??

[Red Dawg]

We still have Smith starting and the schedule is brutal. Until he proves otherwise that he can score with his arm we haven't gotten better.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I don't think there is any question that the Chiefs were the better team last year, and I also don't think there is any question the Raiders would have won the division if not for Carr breaking his leg.

Why would the better team not win the division last year?

Look at the Tampa and Tennessee games.

Agree 100%

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

Deflection.

You want to call him a coward? Fine.

But you were the biggest coward in this site's history last year.

Own up to it.

The Chiefs finished the season strong. If that's why I left, there were plenty of reasons to come back after the following 11 weeks.

I was gone because I was busy as **** after the Hurricane and losing some employees. Your conspiracy theory on why I left is ****ing reeruned.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I wasn't, I was just describing the Raiders.

My apologies if you felt my comments were directed towards you.

Fair enough, brother. I agree that we were the better TEAM last year.

Doesn't change my opinion that Oakland wins the division if they don't lose Carr for W17.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by raybec 4

Even with DJ the Chiefs had the 6th youngest roster at the end of last season. They aren't getting old by any stretch.

I was talking more about key contributors, every down, like Houston, Hali, DJ, Berry, etc., not the average age of a player on the roster.

If you're not getting better, you're just getting older. We saw Poe exit, Houston hasn't been effective in a couple of years, Hali will hang them up soon, and Berry is near 30. Jones may have a knee issue, Ford is a question mark. Looking 2 years down the road, most of our difference makers may be gone.

There are two schools here. One school seems to think this is an otherwise complete team with an inadequate quarterback, and the other sees an above average team with a Super Bowl window that probably closed last year, and which would do well to begin reloading while Mahomes ramps up because this team isn't a serious threat to win anything in 2017. Count me in the second group.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Fair enough, brother. I agree that we were the better TEAM last year.

Doesn't change my opinion that Oakland wins the division if they don't lose Carr for W17.

If you're going to play the "what if" game, you need to be consistent.

What if Houston were healthy all of 2016?

That's easily worth more than just one win.

[JakeF]

This offseason seems to be more about the future than this year. Players could develop faster than expected but even if they do our upside still seems limited this year. Switching GM's could, not will but could, hurt late free agency also. A lot of question marks surrounding this team.

[Best22]

No guarantee Derek Carr leads Oakland to win at Denver. Carr always struggled up there. The team they faced in the playoffs (Texans) already beat Carr and the Raiders in the regular season. The refs just decided to give the game to the Raiders. It was disgusting to watch and Oakland didn't deserve the division anyway with that GIFTED "win". shoulda been 11-5

Chiefs were better last year and were the deserved division winners. 2017 is another chapter. In the end all that matters between Chiefs and Raiders is who advances farther in the postseason, division winner or not. Last few years it has been KC.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I tend to agree, but we're going to need some guys to step up at WR, and in a hurry.

That, or Andy is going to have to actually commit to the run for once.

Tyreek Hill Wr problem solved


Andy Reid is as stuborn as they come to commiting to the run game and why he likes Mahomes so much. He has a boner for the pass game. I think he overestimated what Alex Smith could do for him but he still keeps wanting Alex to let lose and fling it it's just not in him. If you mean commit to the screen play yes they will do that.

[DaneMcCloud]

The Chiefs aren't built around Alex Smith, plain and simple.

Had Hali, Houston and Maclin been healthy in NE, along with West & Ware, the Chiefs would have had a much better chance to beat the Patriots. Sadly, they did not.

Had Hali, Houston, Maclin, Ware, West and DJ been healthy against the Steelers, the Chiefs would have had a much better chance of beating the Steelers at home. Sadly, they did not.

This team isn't going to win in the playoffs due to an "improved" or "better" Alex Smith.

It's going to win in the playoffs because they don't have injuries to their highest paid players and key positions, such as running back, wide receiver and pass rusher.

[Best22]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I was talking more about key contributors, every down, like Houston, Hali, DJ, Berry, etc., not the average age of a player on the roster.

If you're not getting better, you're just getting older. We saw Poe exit, Houston hasn't been effective in a couple of years, Hali will hang them up soon, and Berry is near 30. Jones may have a knee issue, Ford is a question mark. Looking 2 years down the road, most of our difference makers may be gone.

There are two schools here. One school seems to think this is an otherwise complete team with an inadequate quarterback, and the other sees an above average team with a Super Bowl window that probably closed last year, and which would do well to begin reloading while Mahomes ramps up because this team isn't a serious threat to win anything in 2017. Count me in the second group.

Since when has Hali been an every down "contributor"? Ravens won a Super Bowl with a 100 year old safety. Berry should be good for the rest of his contract

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by staylor26

If you're going to play the "what if" game, you need to be consistent.

What if Houston were healthy all of 2016?

That's easily worth more than just one win.

You have to be a all-time ****ing dolt to compare an OLB to a franchise QB.



Jesus, even Tiger Uppercut isn't this stupid.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm with you here, and I think you know that. I'll be curious to see how he's perceived in a few years with better QB play.

If he ever does get back to the Super Bowl, then I'll cheerfully eat every predictive word I've posted about the Andy Reid era being an upmarket version of the Marty era. But I don't think I am wrong.

As far as QB play goes, that's Reid's responsibility now. Of course, it already was, because he hand-picked Alex Smith and then couldn't get more out of him than he was before. But now he's spent a high draft pick on another QB, and it's up to Reid to develop him.

If Mahomes doesn't work out, it doesn't save Reid's legacy vis-a-vis "he never had good QB play in KC". It will be "Why did the QB whisperer miss on both his QBs".

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm going to assume you're arguing for arguing's sake, because the Dane I know KNOWS that there is a HUGE difference between losing Alex Smith and Nick Foles replacing him - and losing Derek Carr and having Matt McGloin replace him.

Just because the Raiders would have won the division at 13-3 doesn't make the Chiefs a bad team. But losing a franchise QB with one game left in the season and losing Alex Smith for a game couldn't be more different.

Am I in the minority here thinking that the Raiders would have lost in the finale in Denver even if Carr was healthy? Denver sending Kubiak off to retirement, revenge for the embarrassment in Oakland,etc.
No way to know for sure, but it seems very realistic.

I think that in the end we have a top 5 caliber coach (regular season coach if you must) that has coached circles around the division as we've won 11 in a row.

I think we've got a huge advantage over 2 brand new coaches and Del Rio, who has been subsequently embarrassed every time he's faced Andy as Oakland's HC.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

You have to be a all-time ****ing dolt to compare an OLB to a franchise QB.



Jesus, even Tiger Uppercut isn't this stupid.

I'm not comparing the two.

You're just missing the point.

They lost Carr for one game. That's it.

We lost Houston for several and he was never fully healthy when he did play. I'd say that about even things out.