Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief:
I'm a Chicago Bears fan myself. You guys are so lucky to be Chiefs fans and to have found this board, where you can discuss the Chiefs and their various transactions and game results!
I think it's really brave and inspiring of you to come out as homosexual like this. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief:
I'm a Chicago Bears fan myself. You guys are so lucky to be Chiefs fans and to have found this board, where you can discuss the Chiefs and their various transactions, your wives' stinky vaginas, your bowel movements, whether or not that girl lived close to you, if you've signed those pieces of shit yet, and game results!
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
First off, I've said consistently and repeatedly that we don't need DHop. But that we do need a true veteran high football IQ WR to leaven all the young/inexperienced WRs we have. Once, after a couple Scotches, I said we need DHop, maybe a month ago. That's it.
In the last half dozen posts I've stayed out of the speculation business. I literally posted facts, statistics, measurable data. I also tried to skew the data in favor of the passing offense, by omitting the first 8-9 games, because we rebuilt the entire WR room, and I didn't think it was fair to include all the early games when the WRs struggled the most. They were still learning everything, so i unilaterally gave them a pass for the first half of the season.
The data pretty strongly suggest that the WRs underperformed significantly last season. That's been my point over the last half-dozen posts, period.
The responses I've read have been mostly speculation/conjecture.
Again, I didn't speculate that the Chiefs would lose a ton of games, or that they wouldn't make the playoffs, etc. In fact, I've said 100% of the time that I think the Chiefs will probably make the playoffs, and the AFCCG.
I simply laid out the data, and poked a couple holes in the idea that the title "best scoring offense/most yards/etc." meant that the offense was rolling along perfectly in 2022.
The data clearly doesn't support that. It shows that the WRs underperformed. That Travis performed at an extremely high level to hide some of the WRs inefficiencies. That McKinnon also overperformed and hid some of that inconsistency by the WR room.
The data even shows that in the latter half of the season, the defense played a bigger part in some of the Chiefs victories in 2022 than the WRs did. But this is a thread mostly about offense, so I left that out as well.
You're a pretty smart football guy. Always read your opinions with interest. Let me ask you objectively: of the three weapons groups, RBs, TEs, and WRs, is it satisfactory for the WRs to produce less than 30% of the total offense? Knowing that for every other playoff team over the last twenty years or so the WRs almost universally account for closer to 40% of the total offense? Is it sustainable if Travis isn't playing up to his OPOY standard?
Actually, forget 'sustainable.' Does it look like 'the plan' to have the WRs account for significantly less production (nearly 400 yds/19 fewer TDs) than the TEs/RBs? Does that even sound like an Andy Reid plan?
Here's where I speculate: it looks like Andy saw that the WRs were unable to consistently produce around Week 9, and put a band-aid on it by getting McKinnon/Pacheco more involved. Idk 100% that this is true, but based on the stats/data it certainly appears that way after Mecole went down around Week 9. JM caught just 19 balls through Week 8, and 37 between Weeks 9-17. Pacheco 3/12.
It seems pretty straight forward to me. If it doesn't to you, I'd love to read your statistically-backed, data-driven (non-speculative) retort.
What data did you lay out? Nothing that you spouted off shows that the offense wasn't good. You've just become full of shit. You're using data and everyone else is just speculating. You're a pretentious douche. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
What data did you lay out? Nothing that you spouted off shows that the offense wasn't good. You've just become full of shit. You're using data and everyone else is just speculating. You're a pretentious douche.
Lol, you’re hilariously simple minded. Look up the word ‘nuance’ someday.
Your problem, apparently, is that when you don’t like an argument, or statistical data, you let that trigger you emotionally, blinding you from reason/rational thought.
You should work on that.
Or put me on ignore if you’re going to constantly be triggered by my posts. I give you permission, if that’s what you need. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Lol, you’re hilariously simple minded. Look up the word ‘nuance’ someday.
Your problem, apparently, is that when you don’t like an argument, or statistical data, you let that trigger you emotionally, blinding you from reason/rational thought.
You should work on that.
Or put me on ignore if you’re going to constantly be triggered by my posts. I give you permission, if that’s what you need.
What data? Still waiting. I'm being extremely rational and it's pretty funny you're the one telling me I need to be rational. You think everyone in here is wrong besides you. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
What data? Still waiting. I'm being extremely rational and it's pretty funny you're the one telling me I need to be rational. You think everyone in here is wrong besides you.
TRUTH!
I told him that couple months back. He insisted that I had him confused with someone else. Um...I don't think so. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
Are we still talking about how the Chiefs under-performed their way to winning the Super Bowl because they didn't beat the Texans well enough?
even lost to the Colts, what a shit Superbowl winning team [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
Are we still talking about how the Chiefs under-performed their way to winning the Super Bowl because they didn't beat the Texans well enough?
Now you're being dishonest. It wasn't just that they didn't beat theTexans well enough, they had the wrong people scoring touchdowns too. That's proof that they are on the edge of being bad. [Reply]
