Over/Under 9 Wins

[frozenchief]

Football Outsiders goes through the whole AFC West discussing whether they will exceed their projected Vegas lines for wins. FO is one of the more intelligent websites, using real data and not just gut instinct. Their take on KC is cautiously optimistic:

Bryan: Forget the win total; what's the over/under for when Patrick Mahomes replaces Alex Smith? It's an odd situation, where a playoff team with a perfectly cromulent starting quarterback goes out and uses a first-round pick to draft his successor rather than bolster something else for a playoff run.

Andrew: Surely they don't intend to actually replace Smith with Mahomes during the season? That's no way to get your team to a Super Bowl!

Bryan: Jay Cutler replaced Jake Plummer in 2006, which turned out to also not be a way to get your team to a Super Bowl. You're probably right that the Chiefs won't make a move unless something falls apart this season, but that's a big old ticking clock in the ear of Smith.

Andrew: The Plummer-Cutler thing really irritated me at the time (and not just me), so you just made me glad we're done writing about Denver. It's definitely ominous for Smith's future to have Mahomes not only there but apparently playing very exciting football during the preseason. The Chiefs were one of my favorite teams to watch last year, with quarterback the one damp spot on an otherwise fiery outfit.

Bryan: Yeah, so far, Mahomes doesn't appear to be the next Jim Druckenmiller or Todd Marinovich, which is good for Chiefs fans and bad for Alex. This would be the second time he has lost his job to a hot up-and-coming young draft pick, too. I've got a soft spot for the guy after watching him struggle for so long on some truly terrible 49ers teams. I remember the 49ers faithful chanting that they wanted David Carr -- David Carr!! -- to enter the game to improve the level of quarterback play. No one appreciates the subtle and dangerous art of the check down!

Andrew: To be fair to Smith, he has been exactly what he was signed to be for the Chiefs: a safe quarterback who can help his head coach stabilize the franchise, keep things around him on schedule, help the younger players develop, then hand over to his successor when he becomes the guy who's holding the offense back. Everything I wrote about Chase Daniel's play in FOA 2017 (still available!) applies to Smith, except Smith is a better version of that hyper-conservative, functional passer.

Bryan: And, of course, the best way to help your conservative, functional passer succeed for your team with Super Bowl aspirations is to cut his top receiver in the middle of the offseason for no adequately explained reason. So long, Jeremy Maclin!

Andrew: Hello Travis Kelce, who was the main beneficiary during Maclin's absence last season. Kelce, those running backs, and Tyreek Hill give a lot of quality, versatility, and unpredictability around Smith, but at some point he will probably need to pass to an actual wide receiver. Right now, that guy is Chris Conley. Or Albert Wilson. Or ... wait, that's it? They could hold their wide receiver meetings in a cupboard.

Bryan: I will say this, though: for as poor as their offense looks on paper, they haven't looked bad in preseason. Yes, it's just preseason, and there are not enough grains of salt in the world to take that with, but it looks … competent!

Andrew: I found the Chiefs great fun to watch last year. As long as you can forget that Tyreek Hill the football jersey is Tyreek Hill the person, he's electrifying. Kelce is one of the best receiving tight ends in the game, and one of the few tight ends who can line up in any position, run any route, and even take a wide receiver screen 80 yards for a touchdown. Andy Reid does a lot with formations and packages to confound a defense, which often results in beautiful mismatches like Albert Wilson against Telvin Smith in deep centerfield coverage. Their running game is likewise one of the most creative in the league, and they are one of the few teams with a legitimately decent offensive line.

Bryan: Their defense, similarly, is fun to watch, if lacking the oomph or long-term success of Denver. Eric Berry is an amazing player to watch, and grouped with Marcus Peters and Ron Parker, you have a very, very good secondary. There's no more Dontari Poe -- a victim of their tight salary cap situation -- but you have very useful players like Ramik Wilson and Chris Jones to shore up the middle. Oh, and then Tamba Hali and Justin Houston, which are great assets to have in a division with at least two below-average offensive lines. I mean, there's nothing there that matches up with the best in the league at any one position, but it's a group without weaknesses.
I do have a limb I want to go out on here. With an adequate, if not amazing offense, and a solid, if not spectacular, defense, we could see NFL history made. The record for field goals in a season is 44, set by the 2011 San Francisco 49ers. And you know who their quarterback was, right?

Andrew: Alex Smith, the last time he had a highly-drafted rookie quarterback on the bench behind him.

Bryan: So yeah. I'm picking the Chiefs to go 9-7 and win the division -- a tough division, but fair. Now, what's their over/under again … ah hell, another round number. So, I have to decide if this is more likely a 10-6 team or an 8-8 team. That's a huge gap! Down with integer lines! I know they went 12-4 last season, but they didn't have to play the NFC East. I'm going to say the odds that they sputter due to a lack of receiving weapons are greater than the odds that they repeat double-digit wins, so I'm taking the under. Nasty line, this one.

Andrew: This line screams "push" like an over-caffeinated midwife, but I'm taking the over. This is the most balanced team in the division, and good enough to take wins away from all of the other good teams around them. I think they're the best of the West, in the AFC at least.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/scr...est-overunders

[scho63]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Dontari Poe was not a "Cap Victim".

His play slipped from 2014 and he wasn't worth $8 million per.

Fact

[scho63]

9 or 10 wins IMHO. Our schedule is a lot tougher this year.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by scho63

9 or 10 wins IMHO. Our schedule is a lot tougher this year.

Every single year, people cling to this mantra.

This is the BEST Chiefs schedule I've seen, maybe, ever.

If they only win 9 games, it's because of a plane crash.

This is the deepest and most talented team the Chiefs have fielded since the late 60's.

Their only obstacle to the Super Bowl is Bill Belichick and Tom Brady.

And/or massive injuries, which they sustained last year and still won 12 games.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If they only win 9 games, it's because of a plane crash.

This is the deepest and most talented team the Chiefs have fielded since the late 60's.

Their only obstacle to the Super Bowl is Bill Belichick and Tom Brady.

And/or massive injuries, which they sustained last year and still won 12 games.

dane predictions 2017

prediction

ghetto tag

[DaneMcCloud]

The last time the Chiefs only won 9 games was 2014.

Jeff Allen, Mike DeVito and Derrick Johnson were all lost for the season in Week 1. All three were starters.

Jamaal Charles was playing hurt and had only 1,033 yards rushing. The Chiefs had no offensive line depth and started a 6th round rookie at right guard for 16 games. It was the first season that Eric Fisher started at left tackle and there was a merry go round of offensive lineman all season long.

Anthony Fasano was fat and out of shape, the secondary sucked (Marcus Cooper turned into a pumpkin, Jamell Fleming was awful), Eric Berry was diagnosed with cancer and no wide receivers, including $11 million dollar per season man, Dwayne Bowe, caught even a single touchdown.

But sure, yeah, the completely loaded 2017 Chiefs might win only 9 games.



Good ****ing god, people.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

But sure, yeah, the completely loaded 2017 Chiefs might win only 9 games.

This team isn't loaded.

There are no 1,000-yard receivers, no 1,000-yard running backs, no 4,000-yard QBs, no 20-TD QBs, no elite tackles on offense.

Defensively they have an elite corner and safety, and a mishmash of guys still trying to prove they are better than average NFL starters (Jones, Bailey, Logan, Parker, Wilson, Mitchell) or veterans trying to get back to form/on their last legs (Houston, Hali, DJ).

They are more than the sum of their parts thanks to very good coaching, but they are far from loaded.

They will need Tyreek Hill to be very, very special once again. Either that or a complete resurgence of an aging QB who certainly appeared ready to fall off a cliff last year.

Oh yeah, and the punter is old.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

But sure, yeah, the completely loaded 2017 Chiefs might win only 9 games.



Good ****ing god, people.

This...

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

This team isn't loaded.

There are no 1,000-yard receivers, no 1,000-yard running backs, no 4,000-yard QBs, no 20-TD QBs, no elite tackles on offense.

Defensively they have an elite corner and safety, and a mishmash of guys still trying to prove they are better than average NFL starters (Jones, Bailey, Logan, Parker, Wilson, Mitchell) or veterans trying to get back to form/on their last legs (Houston, Hali, DJ).

They are more than the sum of their parts thanks to very good coaching, but they are far from loaded.

They will need Tyreek Hill to be very, very special once again. Either that or a complete resurgence of an aging QB who certainly appeared ready to fall off a cliff last year.

Oh yeah, and the punter is old.

This is so ****ing stupid and argumentative that it's not even worth addressing.

Either you're trolling (as usual) or you're seriously one of the dumbest ****ing football posters, if not THE dumbest, on Chiefsplanet.

I'm not sure how it's possible that you can have DOUBLE the amount of posts of the next highest posting member and STILL not have a clue about the NFL or the Chiefs but it's somehow your reality.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

This is so ****ing stupid and argumentative that it's not even worth addressing.

Either you're trolling (as usual) or you're seriously one of the dumbest ****ing football posters, if not THE dumbest, on Chiefsplanet.

It's a rational argument. Your choice to be a dick about it.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

It's a rational argument. Your choice to be a dick about it.

Keep trolling.

It'll be nice, once again, to have a season in which you're banned.

[Hammock Parties]

What did the Chiefs do really, really well last year? Pass? Run? Stop the run? Rush the passer?

The answer is this team wasn't demonstrably above average in any of those areas, and especially when it mattered most in the postseason.

So how did they make moves in the offseason to get better in those areas? Bennie Logan? Cutting Jeremy Maclin? Praying that DJ's legs hold up at age 40 and Justin Houston's knee will miraculously be 100% again?

If that's your answer, I'm not impressed, sorry.

[Shaid]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

Oh yeah, and the punter is old.

Crap, forgot about that! Full on death spiral is imminent!

Truth is, we've got some dynamic playmakers but the big reason this team is good is exactly what was mentioned, the sum of it's parts. We don't have huge weaknesses. We're pretty much solid in most spots with basically average players being the weak spot. That can win a lot of games. Toss in the playmaking ability of Peters, Berry, Hill, and Kelce, suddenly this becomes a pretty fun team to watch and a team that has the potential to win pretty much any game.

[Ming the Merciless]

its not like 9 wins is terrible

if the O/U as at 9, and I havent even looked at the official , latest o/u....but assuming that is true than all it really means is that statistically, the highest probability is that the chiefs will finish with EXACTLY 9 wins but it could be like still that the other possibilities add up to more:

8 or less wins36ishish %
9 wins: 28ish%
10+ wins 36ish %%


I'm just making these numbers up but this is kind of how it works...in theory (if the o/u is accurate, which by the 1st game it SHOULD BE) the odds of them winning a game more than the O/U should be about the same as winning 1 game less....its just the O/U _should_ be the most probable result.

All that being said, i think the chiefs will beat the o/u if it stays at 9 ....but I wouldn't bet on it because I think 9 is about right for the o/u.

I think its hypocritical to say that thinkign the o/u is correct at 9 is somehow 'trolling' while suggesting theres no way we win less than 12 games is being realistic. The o/u doesnt just get pulled out of thin air...

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by O.city

The chiefs have the best coaching staff in the division. Top to bottom. If they don't get blasted with injuries, they'll be good

Are they gonna win playoff games this time? I wouldn't say they are 'good' if they don't.

The team's biggest obstacles are Andy and Alex, and both are still in place.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

What did the Chiefs do really, really well last year? Pass? Run? Stop the run? Rush the passer?

The answer is this team wasn't demonstrably above average in any of those areas, and especially when it mattered most in the postseason.

So how did they make moves in the offseason to get better in those areas? Bennie Logan? Cutting Jeremy Maclin? Praying that DJ's legs hold up at age 40 and Justin Houston's knee will miraculously be 100% again?

If that's your answer, I'm not impressed, sorry.

Jesus Christ you are one dumb trolling mother****er