KC

[threelittleturds]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/816547246.gif?1382305094

Charles said he ran the wrong way... but this had to be Smith's smarts in design.

Another angle. The Chiefs are having one of those years where even when they screw up it turns out OK.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Charles said he ran the wrong way... but this had to be Smith's smarts in design.

I thought the fake hand off to the wrong side was Kaepernick's signature move. Seriously. Kaepernick used to do it 1 or 2 times a game last year.

I think Doobie is right......I read that this was a vintage Chris Ault play that they used to run at Nevada.

 

[threelittleturds]

I think Doobie is right......I read that this was a vintage Chris Ault play that they used to run at Nevada.

What is the point of it? Is the idea to cause hesitation in the minds of defenders because they are wondering why the hell the QB is handing off to nobody?

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

I saw it on a KC blog yesterday, via a tweet by some guy I'm not familiar with (I was able to link the tweet image once, but edited it then can't get it to work again!):

Marc Boerigter
‏@mboerigter
“@Jacobs71: @mboerigter Ault use to run it with Kaepernick at Nevada. Defense always flowed with cutback” Exactly

[MEDIA=twitter]392044099156455425[/MEDIA]

And we've seen Kap do it here in SF as well.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Another angle. The Chiefs are having one of those years where even when they screw up it turns out OK.

It was actually by design

 

[Flyingiguana]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/816547246.gif?1382305094

Charles said he ran the wrong way... but this had to be Smith's smarts in design.

dude turned on the nos

 

[imac_21]

Basically the same schedule so far as the Broncos, except Denver played the Ravens and will play the Patriots. Chiefs beat a good defense today and will play the Colts later. Within a division, the worst team in the previous year gets the easiest schedule the next, except division games, based upon previous year's records. Scary thing for Jacksonville is losing despite the easier schedule. Of course, they drew the AFC West who has Denver, a better than expected regardless of schedule Chiefs, an improving Chargers, and a determined not to be last in the NFL Raiders. Their division rivals also face the AFC West.

False. And I apologize for singling you out with this, but I'm so sick and tired of people talking lie the "last place schedule" bullshit matters.

We play a first place schedule this year. Arizona plays a last place schedule. SF and AZ have TWELVE common opponents. Two of the uncommon opponents come from games we play each other (we get to play the last place Cardinals, based on 2012, while they have to play the first place Niners). 14 of our 16 opponents for next year are already known. Same for AZ.

In some divisions having the first place schedule can make your schedule easier the next year.

One of Denver's two "first place" games this year is Baltimore. Kansas City, with their last place schedule, gets Cleveland (who looked better than Baltimore before the Hoyer injury)

If you won the AFC North last year, you get to place Houston. Pittsburgh, who finished 3rd gets to play Tennessee. Which looks like a tougher game?

Green Bay's first place schedule vs Chicago's 3rd place schedule gets GB dates with us and Atlanta, while Chicago gets New Orleans and St Louis. Other than playing each other, the other 12 games are common opponents. Except Chicago has to play GB and GB gets to play Chicago.

A quick look at strength of schedule for GB vs Detroit based on last year's standings sees (counting division games twice)

GB opponents: 136 wins
Det opponents: 138 wins

So the 4th place team in the NFC North has a HARDER schedule than the first place team simply because GB gets to play Detroit twice while Detroit has to play GB twice. The difference in wins between GB and Detroit (7, times 2 games) is 14. The difference in wins between SF/AZ and Atlanta/TB is 12.

The 4th place schedule is HARDER.

 

[imac_21]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/816547246.gif?1382305094

Charles said he ran the wrong way... but this had to be Smith's smarts in design.

Watching it, I think Smith turned the wrong way. It looks like the blocking is going to the side Charles runs, and that's the direction Smith heads when he still has the ball. If Charles went the way Smith held the ball, that play was going nowhere.

 

[MHSL82]

Watching it, I think Smith turned the wrong way. It looks like the blocking is going to the side Charles runs, and that's the direction Smith heads when he still has the ball. If Charles went the way Smith held the ball, that play was going nowhere.

FWIW and this might be Charles being nice, Charles said he was supposed to go the other way and I guess the fullback was supposed to help?

 

[Pharcyde]

Watching it, I think Smith turned the wrong way. It looks like the blocking is going to the side Charles runs, and that's the direction Smith heads when he still has the ball. If Charles went the way Smith held the ball, that play was going nowhere.

Looks like if Charles had gone the way smith is facing then it would have been a direct block of the guy he eventually finds to block

 

[purguy12]

KC Looks good.

 

[deep9er]

Basically the same schedule so far as the Broncos, except Denver played the Ravens and will play the Patriots. Chiefs beat a good defense today and will play the Colts later. Within a division, the worst team in the previous year gets the easiest schedule the next, except division games, based upon previous year's records. Scary thing for Jacksonville is losing despite the easier schedule. Of course, they drew the AFC West who has Denver, a better than expected regardless of schedule Chiefs, an improving Chargers, and a determined not to be last in the NFL Raiders. Their division rivals also face the AFC West.

yes, when the NFL sets the schedule for the next (2013) season, they can only go by that year's (2012) records. so strength of teams is based on 2012 records. there is no way the NFL can judge who will be good in 2013 and then complete 'first place' and 'last place' schedules.

so if you NOW use 7 games of 2013 to judge who really has the stronger schedule, you're off base.

 

[imac_21]

Basically the same schedule so far as the Broncos, except Denver played the Ravens and will play the Patriots. Chiefs beat a good defense today and will play the Colts later. Within a division, the worst team in the previous year gets the easiest schedule the next, except division games, based upon previous year's records. Scary thing for Jacksonville is losing despite the easier schedule. Of course, they drew the AFC West who has Denver, a better than expected regardless of schedule Chiefs, an improving Chargers, and a determined not to be last in the NFL Raiders. Their division rivals also face the AFC West.

yes, when the NFL sets the schedule for the next (2013) season, they can only go by that year's (2012) records. so strength of teams is based on 2012 records. there is no way the NFL can judge who will be good in 2013 and then complete 'first place' and 'last place' schedules.

so if you NOW use 7 games of 2013 to judge who really has the stronger schedule, you're off base.

Except division rivals play nearly identical schedules, regardless of where they placed the previous year.

 

[MHSL82]

False. And I apologize for singling you out with this, but I'm so sick and tired of people talking lie the "last place schedule" bullshit matters.

We play a first place schedule this year. Arizona plays a last place schedule. SF and AZ have TWELVE common opponents. Two of the uncommon opponents come from games we play each other (we get to play the last place Cardinals, based on 2012, while they have to play the first place Niners). 14 of our 16 opponents for next year are already known. Same for AZ.

In some divisions having the first place schedule can make your schedule easier the next year.

One of Denver's two "first place" games this year is Baltimore. Kansas City, with their last place schedule, gets Cleveland (who looked better than Baltimore before the Hoyer injury)

If you won the AFC North last year, you get to place Houston. Pittsburgh, who finished 3rd gets to play Tennessee. Which looks like a tougher game?

Green Bay's first place schedule vs Chicago's 3rd place schedule gets GB dates with us and Atlanta, while Chicago gets New Orleans and St Louis. Other than playing each other, the other 12 games are common opponents. Except Chicago has to play GB and GB gets to play Chicago.

A quick look at strength of schedule for GB vs Detroit based on last year's standings sees (counting division games twice)

GB opponents: 136 wins
Det opponents: 138 wins

So the 4th place team in the NFC North has a HARDER schedule than the first place team simply because GB gets to play Detroit twice while Detroit has to play GB twice. The difference in wins between GB and Detroit (7, times 2 games) is 14. The difference in wins between SF/AZ and Atlanta/TB is 12.

The 4th place schedule is HARDER.

Except division rivals play nearly identical schedules, regardless of where they placed the previous year.

I did say 1) within the division and 2) excluding the games against the division opponents. So that excludes the worst in the division playing the best and vice-versa. Most games are identical otherwise and KC would play the last place of one division while Denver plays the best and so on. So, under those conditions, KC has the easiest schedule when comparing the two. I didn't say league-wide because some division has to play the NFC West of their time and they could have been in last place. Or they could be in the NFC West, theoretically.

 

[imac_21]

I did say 1) within the division and 2) excluding the games against the division opponents. So that excludes the worst in the division playing the best and vice-versa. Most games are identical otherwise and KC would play the last place of one division while Denver plays the best and so on. So, under those conditions, KC has the easiest schedule when comparing the two. I didn't say league-wide because some division has to play the NFC West of their time and they could have been in last place. Or they could be in the NFC West, theoretically.

Yes, but you're saying "easiest" in reference to two games. And since Denver "gets" to play KC twice, and KC "has" to play Denver twice, is KC's schedule really easier based on 2012 records? And throwing out the games between each other is tossing out half of the uncommon opponents. That seems a little fishy. Now you're comparing strength of schedule based on 2 games, and as we have seen in the past, a bad team in Year n can be a good team in Year n+1. I imagine Buffalo thought playing KC would make there schedule easier this year, and NE thought drawing Houston would make their schedule more difficult. Oops.

They have 12 common opponents, so the record of common opponents is the same, and therefore irrelevant.

If we look at the uncommon opponents:

Denver plays
2-14 KC
2-14 KC
10-6 Baltimore
12-4 NE

So Denver's uncommon opponents last year posted a record of 26-38 (0.351).

KC plays
13-3 Denver
13-3 Denver
5-11 Cleveland
6-10 Buffalo

So KC's uncommon opponents last year posted a record of 37-27 (0.578).

Since we know the rest of their opponents are the same, and therefore have the same record, how does KC get the easier schedule when their 4 uncommon opponents finished 10 games over 0.500 and Denver's 4 uncommon opponents finished 12 games under 0.500? In baseball terms, Denver's opponents are 11 games back of KC's after just 64 games. That's a significant difference.

I've only looked at two divisions and only one season, but in both cases the team with the first place schedule has a weaker schedule than the team with the last place schedule due to having to play each other. I would imagine this is a fairly common thing. Particularly in situations like the 2012 AFC West where there is such a large discrepancy in wins between first and last place (11 game swing).

Taking a quick look at the NFC West:

SF opponents:
GB (11-5)
Was (10-6)
AZ (5-11)
AZ (5-11)

Total = 31-33

AZ opponents:
SF (11-4-1)
SF (11-4-1)
Det (4-12)
Philly (4-12)

Total = 30-32-2

So the NFCW's first place schedule has won more win than the last, but also one more loss due to the tie.

While I'm at it, I'll look at the rest of the league.

AFCE:
NE:
Buf (6-10)
Buf (6-10)
Hou (12-4)
Den (13-3)
Total: 36-28

Buf:
NE (12-4)
NE (12-4)
Jax (2-14)
KC (2-14)
Total: 28-36

The first example where the first place schedule is notably more difficult.

AFCS:
Hou:
NE (12-4)
Bal (10-6)
Jax (2-14)
Jax (2-14)

26-38

Jax:
Hou (12-4)
Hou (12-4)
Cle (5-11)
Buf (6-10)

35-29

Distinctly easier schedule for finishing in first place.

AFCN:
Bal:
Cle (5-11)
Cle (5-11)
Den (13-3)
Hou (12-4)

35-29

Cle:
Bal (10-6)
Bal (10-6)
Jax (2-14)
KC (2-14)

24-40

Cle has our weakest schedule yet, and part of it is because they play in a division in which the winner only won 10 games. They also "lucked out" with the rotation in drawing the two worst teams from last year (though KC is not a weak team this year).

NFCE:
Was:
SF (11-4-1)
Atl (13-3)
Philly (4-12)
Philly (4-12)

Total = 32-31-1

Philly:
Was (10-6)
Was (10-6)
TB (7-9)
AZ (5-11)

Total 32-32

The NFCE strength of the schedule for the first place vs the last place schedule this year is essentially identical.

NFCS:
Atl:
SF (11-4-1)
Was (10-6)
TB (7-9)
TB (7-9)

Total: 35-28-1

TB:
Atl (13-3)
Atl (13-3)
AZ (5-11)
Philly (4-12)

Total: 35-29

Again, nearly identical.

So can we stop acting as if there is a significant schedule advantage for the last place team vs the first pace team in the same division? I think the quick study of divisions this year shows that's false as only 25% of first place teams have a notably more difficult schedule than the last place team from their division, 25% of first place teams have a notably easier schedule, and 50% of first and last place teams have essentially identical schedule when measured by strength of schedule the previous year.

It's time to put this to bed.

 

[MHSL82]

Yes, but you're saying "easiest" in reference to two games. And since Denver "gets" to play KC twice, and KC "has" to play Denver twice, is KC's schedule really easier based on 2012 records? And throwing out the games between each other is tossing out half of the uncommon opponents. That seems a little fishy. Now you're comparing strength of schedule based on 2 games, and as we have seen in the past, a bad team in Year n can be a good team in Year n+1. I imagine Buffalo thought playing KC would make there schedule easier this year, and NE thought drawing Houston would make their schedule more difficult. Oops.

They have 12 common opponents, so the record of common opponents is the same, and therefore irrelevant.

If we look at the uncommon opponents:

Denver plays
2-14 KC
2-14 KC
10-6 Baltimore
12-4 NE

So Denver's uncommon opponents last year posted a record of 26-38 (0.351).

KC plays
13-3 Denver
13-3 Denver
5-11 Cleveland
6-10 Buffalo

So KC's uncommon opponents last year posted a record of 37-27 (0.578).

Since we know the rest of their opponents are the same, and therefore have the same record, how does KC get the easier schedule when their 4 uncommon opponents finished 10 games over 0.500 and Denver's 4 uncommon opponents finished 12 games under 0.500? In baseball terms, Denver's opponents are 11 games back of KC's after just 64 games. That's a significant difference.

I've only looked at two divisions and only one season, but in both cases the team with the first place schedule has a weaker schedule than the team with the last place schedule due to having to play each other. I would imagine this is a fairly common thing. Particularly in situations like the 2012 AFC West where there is such a large discrepancy in wins between first and last place (11 game swing).

Taking a quick look at the NFC West:

SF opponents:
GB (11-5)
Was (10-6)
AZ (5-11)
AZ (5-11)

Total = 31-33

AZ opponents:
SF (11-4-1)
SF (11-4-1)
Det (4-12)
Philly (4-12)

Total = 30-32-2

So the NFCW's first place schedule has won more win than the last, but also one more loss due to the tie.

While I'm at it, I'll look at the rest of the league.

AFCE:
NE:
Buf (6-10)
Buf (6-10)
Hou (12-4)
Den (13-3)
Total: 36-28

Buf:
NE (12-4)
NE (12-4)
Jax (2-14)
KC (2-14)
Total: 28-36

The first example where the first place schedule is notably more difficult.

AFCS:
Hou:
NE (12-4)
Bal (10-6)
Jax (2-14)
Jax (2-14)

26-38

Jax:
Hou (12-4)
Hou (12-4)
Cle (5-11)
Buf (6-10)

35-29

Distinctly easier schedule for finishing in first place.

AFCN:
Bal:
Cle (5-11)
Cle (5-11)
Den (13-3)
Hou (12-4)

35-29

Cle:
Bal (10-6)
Bal (10-6)
Jax (2-14)
KC (2-14)

24-40

Cle has our weakest schedule yet, and part of it is because they play in a division in which the winner only won 10 games. They also "lucked out" with the rotation in drawing the two worst teams from last year (though KC is not a weak team this year).

NFCE:
Was:
SF (11-4-1)
Atl (13-3)
Philly (4-12)
Philly (4-12)

Total = 32-31-1

Philly:
Was (10-6)
Was (10-6)
TB (7-9)
AZ (5-11)

Total 32-32

The NFCE strength of the schedule for the first place vs the last place schedule this year is essentially identical.

NFCS:
Atl:
SF (11-4-1)
Was (10-6)
TB (7-9)
TB (7-9)

Total: 35-28-1

TB:
Atl (13-3)
Atl (13-3)
AZ (5-11)
Philly (4-12)

Total: 35-29

Again, nearly identical.

So can we stop acting as if there is a significant schedule advantage for the last place team vs the first pace team in the same division? I think the quick study of divisions this year shows that's false as only 25% of first place teams have a notably more difficult schedule than the last place team from their division, 25% of first place teams have a notably easier schedule, and 50% of first and last place teams have essentially identical schedule when measured by strength of schedule the previous year.

It's time to put this to bed.

Again, I wasn't saying the whole schedule. That's why I had those conditions in my original post. I wasn't making a claim that overall the schedule was easier - that's why I said "or they could play in a [difficult division]." I was saying the games where they (the league) making determinations based on last year records, the design was to give them easier games. The league wants parity to some extent so they can maximize teams support. They didn't have a choice otherwise without changing it drastically or randomizing the uncommon out of division opponents.

I wasn't arguing with you or making some claim. Just stating what they did outside of common opponents out of division. I understand that is two games only, I didn't mean to make it seem that significant.

 

[MHSL82]

And throwing out the games between each other is tossing out half of the uncommon opponents. That seems a little fishy. Now you're comparing strength of schedule based on 2 games, and as we have seen in the past, a bad team in Year n can be a good team in Year n+1. I imagine Buffalo thought playing KC would make there schedule easier this year, and NE thought drawing Houston would make their schedule more difficult. Oops.

It's only fishy if you took what I was saying to mean more than I meant to say. My fault.

 

[imac_21]

Again, I wasn't saying the whole schedule. That's why I had those conditions in my original post. I wasn't making a claim that overall the schedule was easier - that's why I said "or they could play in a [difficult division]." I was saying the games where they (the league) making determinations based on last year records, the design was to give them easier games. The league wants parity to some extent so they can maximize teams support. They didn't have a choice otherwise without changing it drastically or randomizing the uncommon out of division opponents.

I wasn't arguing with you or making some claim. Just stating what they did outside of common opponents out of division. I understand that is two games only, I didn't mean to make it seem that significant.

And I'm saying that arguing that a last place schedule is easier than a first place schedule is false.

Essentially the last place team gets to play two games against a last place team and two games against a first place team, but the first place team also plays two games against a last place teams and two games first place teams.

Also, this schedule process is not new. They were doing essentially the same thing prior to re-allignment with the 3 divisions per conferences.

And as I said in my first sentence in my first reply to your post about it, I wasn't meaning to single you out. Way too many people act like there is a significant difference in strength of schedule for a first place team compared to a last place team.

 

[MHSL82]

NFL Forbids Chiefs From Creating Their Own Schedule Again Next Season

NEW YORK—Assuring reporters that the team will soon be “back on a level playing field,” NFL commissioner Roger Goodell announced Tuesday that the currently undefeated Kansas City Chiefs will not be permitted to create their own schedule again next season. “Though we allowed them to make these decisions this time around, the Kansas City Chiefs will not be able to handpick which NFC and AFC divisions they’re matched up against next year,” said Goodell, adding that in order to maintain parity across both conferences, the Chiefs will not be authorized to once again dictate which games they play at home or the timing of their bye week. “We felt it wasn’t in the best interests of the league to invite Kansas City’s upper management back to the NFL front office next April to choose their opponents, the order in which they play those opponents, each week’s kickoff time, and the location of every game. Letting the Chiefs select the absolute easiest schedule possible ultimately reflects poorly on the NFL as a whole, and was clearly an abuse of the privilege.” Goodell also noted that the league may allow the Jacksonville Jaguars to choose their schedule next season, but admitted to reporters “it probably won’t make a difference anyway.”

 

[MHSL82]

BTW, that's from the Onion - a satire publication.