Both these teams have played cupcake schedules to date. So now we get to see how good they really are. Maybe KC really does have the league's best defense despite facing a string of teams with losing records and backup QBs. Maybe they will hold Peyton to Alex Smith like numbers. But I doubt it.
Yep. KC was 2-14 last year so we knew they'd have one of the easier schedules. They haven't beaten anyone with better than a .500 record yet and the records of the teams they have played are a combined 30-55. Some of the QB's they've faced and their QB ratings? Gabbert 36, Fitzpatrick 83.4, Pryor 69, Keenum 105 but they got him in his 1st start and at home, Campbell 106 but they also got him in his 1st start and at home, Tuel 45 making his 1st start, Eli 68.5, Vick 86.5 and Romo 98.3 who put up 298/1/0 on them. That's 7 out of 9 QB's who are backups or have lost their starting jobs, 2 of which were making the 1st start of their careers and 1 his first start of the year, plus Eli who's been one of the worst QB's in the league this year.I'm not saying they're not a really good defense but we'll see how good shortly when they play Manning the Greater twice, Rivers twice, RGIII and Andrew Luck. Of course now they possibly luck out yet again and get a potentially hobbled Manning, but we'll soon see.
This is wrong. They play the exact same teams as the Broncos, Chargers, and Raiders except for 2 games.
Well as it turns out they all made out pretty good by drawing the AFC South, but look at the difference in the 2 teams. KC, by way of their 2-14 record, gets Cleveland who were 5-11 and Buffalo who were 6-10 and Denver gets the Super Bowl champ Ravens and the 13-3 Patriots! SD gets Cincy/Mia, and Oakland gets NYJ/Pit.Did KC get the easier schedule? Umm....yes.
EDIT: And not only did they get Cleveland and Buffalo, they get them with backup QB's, and you could possibly say 3rd string QB's.
Pure luck it isn't based on where you finished the year before.
There schedule has been great for them no doubt, but it has nothing to do with last year. Even if it did who cares since when can anyone predict the future. Who would have thought the Giants, Steelers, Redskins, and Falcons would be this bad. Who would have thought the Lions, Chiefs, Jets, and Panthers would be this good?
Dragon is actually correct. For anyone interested, the schedule does have a bit to do with the last year's performance:(via
via NFLCommunications.com):
Two intraconference games based on the prior years standings (2 games). These games match a first-place team against the first-place teams in the two same-conference divisions the team is not scheduled to play that season. The second-place, third-place, and fourth-place teams in a conference are matched in the same way each year
Ok so I didn't phrase it perfectly. I forget when it was changed but teams used to have last place schedules and the NFL changed it so all the teams in the same division would have the same schedule minus 2 games. Even then it doesn't matter who had last place schedules.
Since when can the NFL predict the future for the 2 different games. Last place teams last year that are on first right now Eagles, Lions, Chiefs, and I believe the Saints tied for last in their division. Playoff teams that stink this year Texans, Ravens, Vikings, Redskins, and Falcons.
I wasn't killing the guy that posted it. The Chiefs have had a soft schedule, and have gotten some luck with quarterbacks,
I just was correcting the myth some people still believe that their are last place soft schedules.
I believe my exact words were "KC was 2-14 last year so we knew they'd have
one of the easier schedules"
And nice backpedaling BTW. I believe your exact words were "
Pure luck it isn't based on where you finished the year before" So instead of saying 'whoops, sorry I guess I was wrong' you turn it around and try to imply you were actually
correcting me?! Hmmm.....
And if you don't think you can predict the future pretty well in the NFL, well let's say maybe there are some flukes but overall I think it's pretty safe in most cases.
Let's see, KC gets Cleveland and Buffalo who have gone 23-57 and 29-51, respectively, since 2008 with no playoff appearances. In fact, Cleveland hasn't finished better than 5-11 during that time and Buffalo has been sub-.500 during the same time period. Denver gets Baltimore who has gone 54-26 since 2008 and won at least 1 playoff game every one of those years (plus won a SB) and New England who has gone 70-26 since 2007, made the playoffs every year except one (when they missed it going 11-5 BTW) and been to 2 SB's. And now this year Cleveland and Buffalo are a combined 7-12 (surprise, surprise) and Baltimore/New England are a combined 11-7.
As for Cincy/Mia for San Diego and NYJ/Pit for Oakland, they fit somewhere in between the 2 extremes of the 1st place and last place finish but still pretty predictable.