Depressing stats/facts

[SkippyX]

50 minutes ago, RaidersAreOne said:

 

Playoff wins 2017 to present:

Foles 4

Bortles 2

Rodgers 2

Keenum 1

Dak 1

[Jakuvious]

20 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I always thought that was a very interesting one.  It looks really bad, but then you have to look at some of the QBs.  There was Joe ******* Montana, Alex Smith, Trent Green, and some not as good players.   But it wasn't like the Chiefs were some completely inept franchise during that time period.  There were plenty of division wins and playoff appearances.  Just one of those really interesting coincidences.  

The Packers went from 1992 until 2008 without a drafted QB getting a win as a starter too.  

Yeah, it was really just a weird franchise philosophy, more than it was outright failure or anything. We weren't like, the 2000s Browns or the turn of the century Bengals or the pre-Stafford Lions, where like, we kept drafting QBs and lived permanently in the cellar because they sucked and the team sucked and the coaches sucked. We didn't try and fail at drafting QBs, we just didn't engage in that process at all. Carl Peterson had no interest whatsoever in spending a high pick on a young QB, and old coaches like Marty and Vermeil were very content with that philosophy. It was like we got burned by Todd Blackledge and just said nah, we don't like doing that, and gave up. And we were competitive most of the time. There were some one off years like 2012, the end of Herm Edwards's tenure was pretty trash, with some one off years in the other direction like 2003, 1997, etc., but by and large, for like 25 years, we were a 7 to 11 win team that was kind of competitive. Had some good coaches and good roster builders, there was always too much talent to want to truly blow it up. But it left us in this limbo where we never sucked quite like the Browns or Raiders or Bengals of some of those periods, but man were we good at losing tragically in the first round of the playoffs. Good enough to get there, just bad enough to not really belong. We were a weird form of tragic. Some would tell you they would've rather sucked. I've always been a believer that if we're winning most of our games, I'm happy more weekends than not. But I'll never forget like 6 of those playoff losses.

I don't think there's another team that quite compares to that run we had, of always being kind of talented and just living on mercenary QBs that couldn't go all the way. But man if the Colts aren't trying to modernize that right now. The last 5 years or so of that team feel very familiar.

[ThatJerkDave]

21 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Yeah, it was really just a weird franchise philosophy, more than it was outright failure or anything. We weren't like, the 2000s Browns or the turn of the century Bengals or the pre-Stafford Lions, where like, we kept drafting QBs and lived permanently in the cellar because they sucked and the team sucked and the coaches sucked. We didn't try and fail at drafting QBs, we just didn't engage in that process at all. Carl Peterson had no interest whatsoever in spending a high pick on a young QB, and old coaches like Marty and Vermeil were very content with that philosophy. It was like we got burned by Todd Blackledge and just said nah, we don't like doing that, and gave up. And we were competitive most of the time. There were some one off years like 2012, the end of Herm Edwards's tenure was pretty trash, with some one off years in the other direction like 2003, 1997, etc., but by and large, for like 25 years, we were a 7 to 11 win team that was kind of competitive. Had some good coaches and good roster builders, there was always too much talent to want to truly blow it up. But it left us in this limbo where we never sucked quite like the Browns or Raiders or Bengals of some of those periods, but man were we good at losing tragically in the first round of the playoffs. Good enough to get there, just bad enough to not really belong. We were a weird form of tragic. Some would tell you they would've rather sucked. I've always been a believer that if we're winning most of our games, I'm happy more weekends than not. But I'll never forget like 6 of those playoff losses.

I don't think there's another team that quite compares to that run we had, of always being kind of talented and just living on mercenary QBs that couldn't go all the way. But man if the Colts aren't trying to modernize that right now. The last 5 years or so of that team feel very familiar.

That brings up the question, are you more into competitiveness or winning titles?  If you are championship or bust, the Redskins/Football Team/Commanders are just as successful as the Packers, in my lifetime.  Now, I have enjoyed the Packers being (mostly) good for 30 of my 40 years, I don't think that a Washington fan can say that, but they have the same number of rings.  There is some merit to blowing it all up and starting over.  But the rebuild has to be successful, or you are going to be like the Jets, who have seemed to be in perpetual rebuild for 50 some years.  I always look at it like if you are going to suck, really suck.  Going 4-12 was better than 6-10 because you are looking at 4 or 5 draft positions, and in both cases, your team was bad.

 

Let me ask you this, Do you feel like the Chiefs have any missing rings?  Or teams that could have won with a little bit better luck?  Like, I really believe that the Packers choked away 2011, 2014, 2020, and 2021.  It doesn't diminish the real champions because they got the job done, and we didn't.  I seem to recall either the 94 or 95 Chiefs being really good.

[Jakuvious]

10 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

That brings up the question, are you more into competitiveness or winning titles?  If you are championship or bust, the Redskins/Football Team/Commanders are just as successful as the Packers, in my lifetime.  Now, I have enjoyed the Packers being (mostly) good for 30 of my 40 years, I don't think that a Washington fan can say that, but they have the same number of rings.  There is some merit to blowing it all up and starting over.  But the rebuild has to be successful, or you are going to be like the Jets, who have seemed to be in perpetual rebuild for 50 some years.  I always look at it like if you are going to suck, really suck.  Going 4-12 was better than 6-10 because you are looking at 4 or 5 draft positions, and in both cases, your team was bad.

 

Let me ask you this, Do you feel like the Chiefs have any missing rings?  Or teams that could have won with a little bit better luck?  Like, I really believe that the Packers choked away 2011, 2014, 2020, and 2021.  It doesn't diminish the real champions because they got the job done, and we didn't.  I seem to recall either the 94 or 95 Chiefs being really good.

The team should be more into winning titles. Me, personally, this is a hobby I want to enjoy, so I just want to win more often than not.

There are a couple seasons where they had legit shots. 2018 was the big one, with the Dee Ford offsides that was literally the difference between winning and losing that conference championship game. It's not a given we would've beaten the Rams, they beat us already once that year, but they would've had a shot. 2003 would be the other main one from my time as a fan. Lost early in the post season, but that team absolutely could've beaten New England and Carolina. That one wasn't a clear choke so much, but there's a player literally no one but early/mid 2000s Chiefs fans would need to know the name of, our old MLB Mike Maslowski. Went down in week 11 that year, career ending injury. Not the greatest player by any means, but very much a heart and soul of the defense type. Prior to his injury, we were 9-1 and allowed 17 points per game. After he got hurt, we ended 4-3 allowing over 28 points per game. That was a monumental injury I don't think anyone really knows about.

The 90s Chiefs are tougher. There were a few teams in contention, but I don't think they ever quite had everything together all at once. The best overall teams wind up being paired with Bono or GrBac rather than Montana. I know some like to think that had Gannon continued to start instead of them putting GrBac back in in 1997 that we could've made it, but neither really were all that great that year, and GrBac wasn't even terrible or anything in that playoff game. Could argue he played better than Elway that day. But...Terrell Davis was a thing. A few of those early 90s years, just as the Bills weren't getting past the NFC, we weren't getting past the Bills. Both Montana teams lost pretty convincingly. The '90 Chiefs lost by a field goal, but they weren't going all the way. The 1995 team is the other one that some Chiefs fans will point to. Lost a 3 point game where Lin Elliott missed 3 field goals. And that was up there in competition with any other Chiefs playoff loss of my lifetime. And we were the #1 seed and could definitely have beaten Pittsburgh to go to the superbowl. But....no one is convincing me a Steve Bono led team beats the 90s Cowboys in the superbowl. Ultimately, the 90s Chiefs teams were really good, but if they weren't outclassed by the Bills, they were probably going to be outclassed by the NFC teams that were destroying the Bills anyways. 97 may have been the best shot.

So, tl;dr, I would say the 95 and 97 Chiefs had a slim chance. The 03 Chiefs had a decent shot. The 18 Chiefs might have been a coin flip. Though it's probably all offset by the half dozen convenient things that had to happen for the 19 Chiefs to win it all anyway.

Far more of our playoff losses were like 2017, when we lost to Marcus Mariota throwing a pass straight at one of our defenders, who deflected it back to Mariota who caught it for a touchdown. Or 1990, where we blew a 16-3 lead in the 4th quarter, still found a chance at a game winning field goal down 16-17, and it came up short. Tragic endings for teams that weren't built to go all the way anyway. Maybe we win those games and then just get blown out by a better team the next week anyway. I dunno.

[ThatJerkDave]

6 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Could argue he played better than Elway that day. But...Terrell Davis was a thing.

Terrell Davis is a real son of a *****, isn't he?  Hate that guy.  🤣

 

Your thoughts on the 90s Chiefs are similar to my thoughts on some of the Packers teams.  Were they good enough to win if everything went their way? Probably.  Like were the 07 Packers better than the Giants? Maybe, probably.  If they beat them are we looking at an undefeated Patriots season?  Most likely.  

[43M]

In 2002, the Steelers outgained the Houston Texans in a game 422-47 in total yards, yet lost 24-6.

It was shockingly depressing back then, but now its downright hilarious.    Not sure there has ever been a more lopsided game of that fashion.

[AkronsWitness]

On 8/18/2022 at 10:11 AM, RaidersAreOne said:

 

This just makes me wonder why the Jags actually had a good team for the first time in forever and then decided it was necessary to trade it all away and rebuild, then somehow get rewarded with Trevor Lawrence.

[french t0ast]

The Vikings are in the top 10 most winningest franchises.. But are the only one without a Super Bowl win. 🙃

[BayRaider]

15 hours ago, french t0ast said:

The Vikings are in the top 10 most winningest franchises.. But are the only one without a Super Bowl win. 🙃

I feel like some of the best teams in NFL History are always the Vikings losing in the Conference Championship.

[RaidersAreOne]

 

[Soko]

On 8/19/2022 at 9:47 AM, ThatJerkDave said:

If they beat them are we looking at an undefeated Patriots season?  Most likely.  

[Nabbs4u]

5 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said:

 

I'd ask where's the Dak Prescott debate but we all know he couldn't play both sides. 😎

[RaidersAreOne]

This true?

 

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

On 8/19/2022 at 7:58 AM, AkronsWitness said:

This just makes me wonder why the Jags actually had a good team for the first time in forever and then decided it was necessary to trade it all away and rebuild, then somehow get rewarded with Trevor Lawrence.

They had a talented roster at the time but a talented roster can’t overcome bad management. Coughlin was so unbearable to play for by that point that the players left en masse to go somewhere they were respected 

[MikeT14]