Poop Let's talk about "true fans" - Page 25

**DaFace** · 09:37 AM

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.

**Bearcat** · 08-06-2013, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

Their schedule is brutal.

Not only is it brutal but a lot of these games are "grudge match" games.

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.

KCUnited · 08-06-2013, 11:56 AM

Based on opponents 2012 W-L record, Denver has the easiets strength of schedule in the league.

Pablo · 08-06-2013, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCUnited

Based on opponents 2012 W-L record, Denver has the easiets strength of schedule in the league.

This is what I'm talking about.

**DaneMcCloud** · 08-06-2013, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

I don't think their defense is cause for concern. The fact that one of the greatest QB's of all time gets another year to mesh with his (injured) OL and WRs; while adding a pretty nice piece (to an already good WR corps) in Welker is what worries me. Montee Ball should be able to step in a be productive as a fourth/fith option. RB isn't too hard of a transition.

The Broncos intend on scoring a lot of points this season. And they will. And they play in one of the weakest divisions in the NFL. **** VonDoom; they're out to average 30 points a game.

I see it much differently. 10 wins is their floor, 14 could be the ceiling. I don't think it's crazy at all to think they're looking at 12-13 wins.

While our floor is probably 6 wins; and if Alex Smith turns out a career year and we get lucky with injuries, our absolute ceiling is 11 wins.

There is no way that Denver goes 6-0 in the division this year. They open against the Super Bowl winning Ravens, who have a MUCH improved defense over last year with the additions of Dumerville, Brown, etc.

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.

**DaneMcCloud** · 08-06-2013, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCUnited

Based on opponents 2012 W-L record, Denver has the easiets strength of schedule in the league.

Giants in NY, the Patriots in New England, the Texans in Texas and the Colts in Indy plus Baltimore at home to open the season.

**New World Order** · 08-06-2013, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

There is no way that Denver goes 6-0 in the division this year. They open against the Super Bowl winning Ravens, who have a MUCH improved defense over last year with the additions of Dumerville, Brown, etc.

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.

Why is the west so much more improved this season? Manning should have no problems with us and Oakland looks like a juco team.

**Bearcat** · 08-06-2013, 12:18 PM

Yeah, I think 14 wins is a stretch... hell, they could start 0-2.

~12 seems right.

**DaneMcCloud** · 08-06-2013, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by New World Order

Why is the west so much more improved this season? Manning should have no problems with us and Oakland looks like a juco team.

**DaneMcCloud** · 08-06-2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Yeah, I think 14 wins is a stretch... hell, they could start 0-2.

~12 seems right.

I think too many Chiefs fans are giving 37 year old Peyton Manning too much credit. He had an inflated record with the Colts due to the weakness of the AFC South (Texans, Jags and Titans), only to lose in the playoffs.

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.

MagicHef · 08-06-2013, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

They didn't really downgrade at corner as Tracy Porter sucks anyway, and McGahee was a broke dick. Those two losses are irrelevant.

I agree that Bailey will be a year older. That hurts. As does losing Dumervil completely and Miller for four games. However, Welker is a substantial improvement, and Knighton is a sneaky good DL pickup.

They are largely deck chairs, though. It all rests on neckbone, and I doubt that he can throw the ball with any authority. If he can, then they can win a lot of games b/c the AFC South is terribad and the NFC East is always overrated.

Tracy Porter was benched most of the season. Harris was the #2 and moved inside in the nickel. Unless DRC beats him out, we'll repeat that. Also, Miller has not been suspended yet.

Why do you doubt that Manning can throw with authority?

MagicHef · 08-06-2013, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

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.

We played the Patriots last year, too.

**Bearcat** · 08-06-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think too many Chiefs fans are giving 37 year old Peyton Manning too much credit. He had an inflated record with the Colts due to the weakness of the AFC South (Texans, Jags and Titans), only to lose in the playoffs.

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.

I'm not convinced by any means that they'll play for a championship this year, but it's kind of the nature of the game these days. You still have to be pretty damn good to play in the final two weekends, but an elite QB can cover up a lot of warts and get you ~12 wins and even a first round bye. It's not like they were overmatched when they got there last year though... when you lose to the eventual champs in two OTs, you're at least competing with the big boys.

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.

**DaFace** · 08-06-2013, 02:51 PM

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.

**DaneMcCloud** · 08-06-2013, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace

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.

IMO, "True Fan" defines anyone with 1,000 or more posts on a football forum.

**DaneMcCloud** · 08-06-2013, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I'm not convinced by any means that they'll play for a championship this year, but it's kind of the nature of the game these days. You still have to be pretty damn good to play in the final two weekends, but an elite QB can cover up a lot of warts and get you ~12 wins and even a first round bye. It's not like they were overmatched when they got there last year though... when you lose to the eventual champs in two OTs, you're at least competing with the big boys.

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.

Yeah, I think eleven wins is their ceiling. I think their secondary has not improved and they lost their second best pass rusher, which will likely affect their best pass rusher, who will miss four games.

They have the Ravens, Colts, Redskins, Cowboys and Giants in their first eight games. That's a tough first half, especially without Miller.

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

05-03-2013, 09:30 AM
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $2046899	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: 51,754

08-06-2013, 11:56 AM	#362
KCUnited Cheat Death Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Land of Drincoln Casino cash: $2308244	Based on opponents 2012 W-L record, Denver has the easiets strength of schedule in the league.
Posts: 33,903

08-06-2013, 12:18 PM	#367
Bearcat Would an idiot do that? Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Arizona Casino cash: $2834931	Yeah, I think 14 wins is a stretch... hell, they could start 0-2. ~12 seems right. __________________
Posts: 55,288

08-06-2013, 02:51 PM	#373
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $2046899	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: 51,754