ESPN predict Chiefs will win AFC W, take 2nd in AFC

[Couch-Potato]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/insider/story...rojections-nfl


AFC West

1. Kansas City Chiefs: 12-4 (11.6 mean wins; SOS: 29)
2. San Diego Chargers: 8-8 (8.4 mean wins; SOS: 31)
3. Denver Broncos: 7-9 (7.1 mean wins; SOS: 13)
4. Oakland Raiders: 6-10 (6.4 mean wins; SOS: 14)

The AFC West has our most controversial projections for 2016, none more so than saying the defending champion Broncos are more likely to have a losing record than a winning record in 2016...
Replacing the Broncos as the likely AFC West standard bearers are the Chiefs. This is only a surprise if you don't realize just how good the Chiefs were last year when they finished the season with 10 straight wins. Even incorporating their 1-5 start, the Chiefs ended up with a higher overall DVOA (fifth) than the Broncos (eighth). One big question here will be the health of pass-rusher Justin Houston. We don't know if he'll be ready by September or miss the whole year; for this projection, we assumed he would miss half the season. But while the Chiefs are definitely not as strong on defense without Houston, they won the last five games in that 10-game streak with Houston stuck on the sidelines...

Full AFC projected playoff standings

Here's what the 2016 AFC playoff picture would look like according to our early projections.

1. Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4)
2. Kansas City Chiefs (12-4)
3. New England Patriots (10-6)
4. Houston Texans (8-8)
5. Cincinnati Bengals* (10-6)
6. Baltimore Ravens* (10-6)
7. Buffalo Bills (9-7)
8. San Diego Chargers (8-8)
9. Jacksonville Jaguars (7-9)
10. Denver Broncos (7-9)
11. Indianapolis Colts (7-9)
12. Tennessee Titans(7-9)
13. Oakland Raiders (6-10)
14. New York Jets (6-10)
15. Miami Dolphins (5-11)
16. Cleveland Browns (4-12)

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by Kman34

I think him being injured had something to do with the suck....

He was sucking it up before he got injured, IIRC.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by O.city

Raiders will be better than that, unless carr falls apart.

I think they'll win 10

That's the big question mark, isn't it?

Also, they've added some pieces on defense but I don't know that they've improved. Sean Smith is better than what they trotted out last year but Haden's a disappointment, Joseph's coming off an ACL, Aldon Smith is still suspended and Bruce Irvin has never impressed.

Until they prove that they're a good defense, they're not a good defense.

And Ken Norton got punked repeatedly last year by good teams.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I don't think they're taking the Raiders seriously enough. That Raiders D looks legit.

NTTIAWWT

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by ct

this is why they all got fired

I was going to ask if this was or wasn't without the insight of Ray Lewis and Cris Carter.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That's the big question mark, isn't it?

Also, they've added some pieces on defense but I don't know that they've improved. Sean Smith is better than what they trotted out last year but Haden's a disappointment, Joseph's coming off an ACL, Aldon Smith is still suspended and Bruce Irvin has never impressed.

Until they prove that they're a good defense, they're not a good defense.

And Ken Norton got punked repeatedly last year by good teams.

I don't think the acl injury guy will have problems returning but I'm not sure he'll be a difference maker early.

With another developmental year of mack, adding what they added, I'd imagine their defense takes a step forward.

[notorious]

The Raiders beat terrible teams and got assraped by good teams.


The experts should withhold from sucking their dicks.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by O.city

I don't think the acl injury guy will have problems returning but I'm not sure he'll be a difference maker early.

With another developmental year of mack, adding what they added, I'd imagine their defense takes a step forward.

Mack had 15 sacks last year. That's a **** ton, regardless of the player. If he can continue at that pace, he'll be the best pass rushing OLBer in the game very soon.

But as we've seen with Justin Houston, Von Miller and even JJ Watt, injuries can take their toll. If Mack were to lose any substantial time to injury, that defense is a mess.

As for Karl, I just don't get it. He's a 5'9 safety and while Earl Thomas is only slightly better built, Earl Thomas is the beneficiary of great cornerback and defensive line play, not to mention, very good ILB play.

[RunKC]

I expect Oakland to actually have a winning season for once. I'd temper expectations though. 9-7 to 10-6 sounds reasonable.

Their defense should be better with Irvin and Calhoun rotating opposite Mack and Smith/Nelson/Joseph in the secondary.

They don't have chemistry and their coaching is not as good as it looks. Andy and Bob did laps around De Rio last year and we got pressure on Carr without Houston both times to the tune of 10 sacks.
10 sacks without Houston ether game.

I think it's very likely that we sweep them due to the schedule. We get our bye week before we go to Oakland and then they play a tough Buffalo team in the late game, then fly to KC on a short week for TNF.

They'll be better though. They'll be in competition for the division.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That's the big question mark, isn't it?

Also, they've added some pieces on defense but I don't know that they've improved. Sean Smith is better than what they trotted out last year but Haden's a disappointment, Joseph's coming off an ACL, Aldon Smith is still suspended and Bruce Irvin has never impressed.

Until they prove that they're a good defense, they're not a good defense.

And Ken Norton got punked repeatedly last year by good teams.

Hayden is horrible, and unlikely to make it through training camp. We did sign Nelson who is a pretty good safety, and who knows what we'll get out of Joseph. His play was pretty impressive prior to the injury, but plenty of players never regain form. Opposite Sean Smith we'll be starting the surprising Amerson, who may be the key to the Raider secondary. If he plays like he did for us down the stretch last year, our secondary will be pretty darn good. If he returns to his Redskins form, not so much.

http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/no...ain-vs-packers

Raiders DL will be good at the starting spots, but depth is still a concern to me as is whether Edwards returns from injury the same player he was when he got hurt.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider

Hayden is horrible, and unlikely to make it through training camp. We did sign Nelson who is a pretty good safety, and who knows what we'll get out of Joseph. His play was pretty impressive prior to the injury, but plenty of players never regain form. Opposite Sean Smith we'll be starting the surprising Amerson, who may be the key to the Raider secondary. If he plays like he did for us down the stretch last year, our secondary will be pretty darn good. If he returns to his Redskins form, not so much.

http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/no...ain-vs-packers

Raiders DL will be good at the starting spots, but depth is still a concern to me as is whether Edwards returns from injury the same player he was when he got hurt.

Plus, making that jump from 7-9 to 9-7 or 10-6 is one of the toughest jumps to make in the NFL. I'm not stating that they can't do it but more things will need to go right than wrong.

I think they're probably another year off but it's the NFL and anything can happen.

[Sully]

They did sign some guys.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Plus, making that jump from 7-9 to 9-7 or 10-6 is one of the toughest jumps to make in the NFL. I'm not stating that they can't do it but more things will need to go right than wrong.

I think they're probably another year off but it's the NFL and anything can happen.

That's my gut feel as well, that the Raiders are a year away from being a real contender. We lost 3-4 games last year we shouldn't have, including our game in Oakland against KC. That's to be expected from a youngish team still gelling. Many more parts to incorporate this year so we'll see. At the very least the Raiders are no longer a push over.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider

That's my gut feel as well, that the Raiders are a year away from being a real contender. We lost 3-4 games last year we shouldn't have, including our game in Oakland against KC. That's to be expected from a youngish team still gelling. Many more parts to incorporate this year so we'll see. At the very least the Raiders are no longer a push over.

The division is always more fun when the Raiders and Chiefs have good teams.

[NWTF]

I think the Raiders can break the .500 mark with their current rebuild. I dont think they challenge for the division, maybe one of the wild card spots. I could see that. They may plateau around .500 or 9-7 and never really get further than that, but 6-10 is selling them short and basically has them regressing already back down to the bottom. Id put them at 8-8 possibly 9-7.

Chargers? Thats the 6-10 team or worse.

Chiefs and Broncos should fight for the division. I wouldnt write off Denver yet.
Either way the Chiefs are in great shape this year to win the division barring injuries, etc.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I said 11-5 last year and they were 11-5. As we all know, they lost opportunities to be at least 13-3 (Denver & Chicago) and maybe even 14-2 (Minnesota showing).

This is a damn good team that fought through a ton of injuries as well as a constant shuffling of its offensive line.

If they have any luck this year with either, this team could be 14-2.

I remember we argued our ass off that they'd win 11 and morons called us homers. Whoops...