An addition to the Pioli resume

[OnTheWarpath15]

I was bored, thought I'd run some numbers - hadn't done any Chiefs-related homework in a while.

Anywho, discussion in another thread got me to thinking about the "talent level" on this team. People seem to be getting back in the habit of blaming specifically the QB and coaching, while claiming that this roster, and those before it are loaded with talent.

For a team that supposedly has talent, all they've done is beat up on the weak sisters of the poor over the last 4 years of the Pioli Nightmare.

23 wins in 4 years.

Those 23 wins came against teams with a collective 152-214 record and a .415 winning percentage. You can thank Green Bay dropping a metric ****ton of passes back in December of 2011 - take them out of the equation, and you're looking at a .375 winning percentage.

1 win in 4 years against a 10-win or better team.

3 wins in 4 years against a 9-win or better team.

20 wins against 8-8 teams or worse - 11 of those wins against teams with 6 wins or less.

So the "Executive of the Decade" was responsible for 5.75 wins per year, and we should consider ourselves lucky we "earned" that many.

In this era of parity in the NFL, a team with this much "talent" would be winning more than 5.75 games per year. Even without a QB. Even without a QB and HC.

Folks say that Mark Sanchez is a POS, and that we have more talent than the Jets. The same Jets that have won 34 games in the last 4 years. 11 more than the Chiefs.

Buffalo has shit for talent, plays in a brutal division, and has 2 fewer wins over the same time period.

Cleveland is hot garbage, and they've won 4 fewer games over the past 4 years. 1 game a year difference.

Jacksonville has 1 fewer win.

Miami has 4 MORE wins.

Oakland has 2 MORE wins.


The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that we have more "talent" than every one of the above teams.

The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that our QB play has been at least as good as the above teams, and in most cases, better.

The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that our coaching has been at least as good as the above teams, and in most cases, better.


The overwhelming majority of this board would be dead wrong on one of those three assessments. One of these things is not like the other.

Folks, it's time to wake up and realize that QB and HC are just part of the problem.

I see a lot of bad teams with bad QB's and bad HC's that have won as much or more than we have.

Sadly, the bottom line is that there isn't nearly as much "talent" on this roster that you think there is - and that we're a lot closer to the Cleveland's, Buffalo's and Jacksonville's of the NFL than you want to admit.

[bevischief]

Send in end the 400 pound men army to end this... JFC...

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by -King-

KC players suck! Other teams players are Gods!

This is never said around here.
Posted via Mobile Device

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by FAX

How should I know? I'm just a passerby in the football game of life.

But here's my best guess ...

When other franchise find themselves in the gloobering phase, they have the benefit of certain advantages the Chiefs simply do not possess. Namely, things like a more successful tradition or better coaching or stellar players at key positions (like say ... quarterback) or more recent experience in playing in and even winning playoff games.

As I see it, there are so many variables (schedule, fitting players into entirely new schemes or not, quality at key positions, or lack thereof, etc., etc.) that it's very difficult to isolate one particular gloober issue or (as the OP does) compare franchises in the way you wish to do, Mr. DeezNutz. We cannot magically snap our fingers and become the Redskins or the Seahawks or the Colts or anybody else.

I'll give you a couple of examples of what I mean ...

The Chiefs have been historically bad at things like developing players. Unless we draft a player who enters the league with franchise or near-franchise talent and a driving, personal desire to improve (say ... a Tony Gonzalez type) we rarely see them improve from "okay" to "great". We've had a few, but not many. Additionally, the Chiefs seem to suck at what some people call "complimentary football". We either have a good offense and a bad defense or vice versa. That means when we try and gloober (like those teams you mention) we are working from a fundamental, organizational, systemic disadvantage. It's the reason we are always the league's ugly bridesmaids. And until those fundamentals change, we'll always suck when it counts the most.

And perhaps most importantly, I'm not sure that other franchises (the good ones, I mean) maintain the inherent loser mentality that the Chiefs have cultivated for some 50 years. In social terms, those franchises have a "high bottom" whereas ours is apparently bottomless.

FAX

Good post. I appreciate Mrs. FAX taking the time to write it.

Plagiarism or any 'ism aside, all of what I've bolded, at least to me, ties directly back to the GM. Now, I'm not suggesting that our new GM will be able to snap his fingers and make everything magically better. But I do expect tangible progress, even in year one.

As to history and culture, are we really at a disadvantage with respect to these qualities in comparison to the Seahawks and Colts? The latter of which should have been known at the Mannings, with an enormous frontal lobe on the side of the helmets.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Capt Tasty Cheeks

I don't even know what OTWP is arguing anymore. Oh well.

That he is smarter than us and is always right.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

Dude do we have to go through all the players on other teams people suck off around here?

I don't have time for the list tonight clay
Posted via Mobile Device

Ryan Fitzpatrick

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by PGM

How many teams have an elite running game, number 1 reciever, 2 high end pass rushers, an All Pro MLB, a number one corner, and an emerging super star safety?

I'm still waiting for this to be answered...

This is what a guy like Geno and new Head Coach would be walking into. Plus a damn solid O-line to boot.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by PGM

I'm still waiting for this to be answered...

This is what a guy like Geno and new Head Coach would be walking into. Plus a damn solid O-line to boot.

I have no idea, but I think maybe the New York Giants might come close to having all that stuff.

FAX

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by PGM
How many teams have an elite running game, number 1 reciever, 2 high end pass rushers, an All Pro MLB, a number one corner, and an emerging super star safety?

Originally Posted by PGM

I'm still waiting for this to be answered...

This is what a guy like Geno and new Head Coach would be walking into. Plus a damn solid O-line to boot.

Pretty close to the same damn thing Pioli walked into 4 years ago.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Coogs

Pretty close to the same damn thing Pioli walked into 4 years ago.

Pioli ****ing sucks.
Posted via Mobile Device

[-King-]

Originally Posted by FAX

I have no idea, but I think maybe the New York Giants might come close to having all that stuff.

FAX

All they have is the pass rush and the receivers. They have no running game. Average LBs and TERRIBLE defensive backs.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by Coogs

Pretty close to the same damn thing Pioli walked into 4 years ago.

O-line much improved, Houston, and Berry. Shitty that's all, but that's not the point. I want to see all the teams in this league that supposedly have all these high level players at all these positions.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by PGM

O-line much improved, Houston, and Berry. Shitty that's all, but that's not the point. I want to see all the teams in this league that supposedly have all these high level players at all these positions.

You just think they are high level.
Posted via Mobile Device

[bricks]

There is too much emphasis on talent in pro sports.

A team doesn't have to be loaded with talent to win.

As the saying goes, "best teams on paper don't always win."

I firmly believe that sports are ALL psychological.

Despite all the talent on the Chiefs, this team has never been mentally "fit" to complete.
That is more frustrating than anything.

*We only judge things based on what we can clearly see and so we base things off talent. The psychological aspect of sports is really hard to evaluate and assess as a fan but one can get some sort of an idea of where its at.

With this team, its ****ing atrocious. This team can't focus, isn't strategically smart or creative, and just doesn't have the right mindset. THATS THE PROBLEM!

I see it in a lot of games. Players commit the same mistakes over and over again by either committing costly penalties or turnovers at crucial moments in ball games. Why is that reoccurring? That is where one has to look at the mental aspect of things and it really comes down to a lack of disclipline, focus. The question is, do you attribute that to the players? Or the coaches? Who do you hold accountable for those type of miscues?

Another thing that pisses me off is seeing how these guys joke around on the sidelines or act like things aren't a big deal after they are getting killed in games. That sh*t shouldn't be happening. That is where I believe the players have the wrong mindset.


When your team is pulling off sh*t like that, you have to look beyond talent.

*Sorry OTWP58. Hope you don't think I'm trying to piss on your thread or anything. Just offerring my perspective

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by PGM

O-line much improved, Houston, and Berry. Shitty that's all, but that's not the point. I want to see all the teams in this league that supposedly have all these high level players at all these positions.

Don't forget he lost a Carr. I know. I know. That's not your point.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Coogs

Don't forget he lost a Carr. I know. I know. That's not your point.

Ok Pioli ****ing sucks.
Posted via Mobile Device