The Chargers Lost!?!?

BE: I'm skeptical because: (1) I've seen no evidence that any picker is better than others when they have a line to bet against; and (2) why would Vegas abandon the sure profits of 50/50 betting pool to take a risk of loss by trying to accurately forecast the actual final point spread in games. You are not talking about picking who will win games, but picking the point spread. Your theory assumes there are some geniuses in Vegas who, for example, would take the Chiefs/Denver game, figure out the Chiefs were going to win by about four points, and set the line at 5, 6 or 7 points to move money the Chiefs way. I have a hard time seeing how that would be a practical way to make money, instead of the safe profits of a 50/50 betting pool.

or jim carrey wearing a chiefs helmet?

croyle?

Yeah I remarked on how hard that throw was at the time too. Seemed like he should've taken a little off it, especially given his target. This is nitpicking though. He got the touchdown. My take on the reluctance to kick field goal is that Haley just doesn't have a lot of faith in Succop. I couldn't believe the decision to punt from the 35. I would never do that.

It is logical to think that a possible explanation is that Haley has no faith in Succop, but there is no other evience of that. I think Haley is just inexperienced and weak analytically in making decisions about what to do on 4th down. He has never had to make those decisions prior to getting the job with the Chiefs. He better get smarter fast or he is going to cost the Chiefs a win.

You know, when you say it like that I can see your point. But its hard for me to watch what Richardson did and think he can just get away with it because the team doesn't want to acknowledge problems i.e. any hint that their authority isn't absolute. Instead we hear about how hard he's worked. "This guy obeys our every word most of the time, I swear to god..." I guess their punishment wouldn't have to be public. But something has to happen to this guy, right? A simple benching would suit me.

"their" authority....

Thanks for the help Raiderhays! Chiefs one two games yesterday thanks to your team. Gotta love it.

"won" instead of "one" duh.

You're a reasonable man, RaiderHays. A credit to your fan base. Always welcome around these parts. And I'm feeling particularly warm towards Oakland given what you did for us yesterday. That was such a pleasant surprise. Week 17 is going to be a good time.

That was a muffed punt it cannot be returned for a touch down or safety it goes were the punt returner first touched it or defence recover it

Yea we should've gotten more points, but I still would translate that to saying Cassel had a bad game. Kyle Orton, going 9/28, now THAT is a bad game.

wouldn't*

I think Matt's reasoning as usual is his own eyeball test. I wouldn't put too much into stats because if stats go against Matt's reasoning they are null and void ;). While I don't think it was Cassel's best game he wasn't bad in my opinion, but again it's just my opinion. I am a glass half full with koolaid optimist. Not trying to be an Cassel apologist but I think the wind had impact on both passing games. I am glad they won the game. I don't know if I could take another loss to the dreaded Donkeys. One thing that does worry me is they may get a good coach in Denver now. I was kind of looking forward to McDouche trading away their best player next year.

Oh and on the tattoo I recommend a tramp stamp.. maybe of a tap dancing long snapper

Hokie, Donkeyland is actually basically correct in his first assessment. I was using my own judgement. Cassel looked bad to me and the people I was watching the game with, as well as most of the people I discussed the game with afterwards. If the stats really disagreed with me of course I'd have to reconsider. They don't. The completion percentage, yards per attempt, total yards and points scored were all mediocre. When you rush for 180 yards and only score 10 points, it stands to reason the QB didn't play well. Your point is taken though. The REAL bad game was played by the other quarterback, not ours. I just think we should all slow our roll on the "Cassel is awesome" thing and take a more reasonable "Cassel is pretty good" approach.

What do you think about your boy Bowe's game Matt?

ooh, touche'

I was very disappointed in Bowe. Very. Although that pass interference call was bogus, so he should've had one catch. Even so..... I did say he was bound to have another bad game though. I recognize he can be inconsistent, and I can see why he drives some people crazy. I happen to really love him. I'll stand by that.

Don't be a hater, TIDL. A "...glass half full with koolaid optimist" would never point out any negative about our team.

Wasn't hating just asking a question. If Matt thought Cassel had a Bad game I was asking what he thought about Bowe. When did I say anything negative? I think Bowe is awesome and in the NFL players games vary from week to week. He had an off week. I think we have something special in Bowe and Cassel (and Charles even though I wanted him to split carries with Jones)

To TIDL below: As you said earlier, we really need a sarcasm font. I was just giving you a hard time. I was actually meaning to ask Matt the same question.

Cool, I can certainly respect giving someone a little bit of a hard time. Don't want to be a hypocrite

You seem to be using stats to discredit the Chiefs chances. Why not look at our record at home vs teams with around a 500 record? Hell, who cares about the record, we are undefeated at home with Raiders and Titans as our last two home games. We should win both of those. Our chances at playoffs are much better than 50%. I believe Vegas has us at a 76%. If we beat SD next week they have us at 100% (I'm not sure how that's possible when there is always a chance to lose). Our chances drop to 65% if we lose to SD. All gambling websites are blocked at work so I can't provide a link right now.

Blockeater: You said two wins at home; I said that we realistically could hope/expect 10 and 6. So it seems we are on the same page. Intersting stuff on the Vegas odds. I am assuming we lose to SD with my about 50% number, which is not a great deal differnt than the Vegas 65% number. Remember, and this applies to point spreads also, Vegas odds are designd to get the approximately same amount of money bet on both sides, not to really assess the probability that a win. loss or playoff spot will occur. Buy yeah, Vegas is more optimistic about the Chiefs than me.

KCO: "I hate to say it, but it would not even be a shock for the Chiefs to lose their last four games. The cumulative record of the next four teams is 23 and 25. Three of the four are 6 and 6 and one is 5 and 7. The Chiefs record again teams that are at least 5 and 7 is only 4 and 3. If I did the math correctly, the record of the teams that the Chiefs have beat so far is 33 and 51." This is the paragraph I was referring to when I said "You seem to be using stats to discredit the Chiefs chances." For the record, I think we beat the Rams too. I think we finish either 11-5 or win out and finish 12-4(less likely but more likely than 10-6 IMO). "Remember, and this applies to point spreads also, Vegas odds are designed to get the approximately same amount of money bet on both sides, not to really assess the probability that a win. loss or playoff spot will occur." This is often said but very misleading. Yes, ideally they would like 50/50 action on either side of the bet but that very rarely happens. Almost every line set by a Vegas sports book is on one side of the line (meaning they error on having the majority of bets on the side they think is less likely to hit) and they are better at picking the right side than the general betting public. Sure, they may move a line if betting is too lopsided, but you don't usually see lines more all that much. Vegas lines (especially % chances of future outcomes) are usually pretty accurate. Definitely the most accurate predictor there is currently.

I'm no expert on Vegas, but if we stay on point spreads, I don't see how their objective can anything other than trying to get equal bets on each side. I don't understand how your theory would work, because if they set the line in a manner that favors the side they think more likely to hit, then that side will get more action and they will lose. You are correct that they move the line to get more equal money on each side. Essentially, they are neutral about who will win; they just want equal money on each side so they win every time.

My fears exactly. Though I believe the Chiefs continue to improve. I think it is imperative, (and also very possible), that the Chiefs beat the Chargers this week. Otherwise both Oakland and SD have a shot at knocking us out. This is where we learn if our Chiefs really are contenders. Still, I have to say that they have gone beyond my expectations for the year. So no matter what happens the future looks bright for the Chiefs.

I generally agree the future looks bright for the Chiefs with two qualifications: (1) I heard Petro on the radio the other day citing pretty compelling statistics that suggest a "fall back" year before a team becomes consistently good - he had figures that seeemd to show whenever a team made a big jump like the Chiefs from 4 wins to 9 to 11 wins, the team tends to fall back to about 6 wins the next year (impacted somewhat by the tougher schedule) and the,if the team is really good, the team goes back up after the fall back year; and (2) I still have doubts about Haley - he made some bonehead decisions yesterday that could have cost the game and he has done it a couple earlier games as well - he has 8 wins and you have to give him credit, but I still don't think he is a upper tier coach.

The Chiefs are definitely still at risk, but before this week they were betting underdogs in the playoff race to a team they were ahead of. There seemed to be this sense of inevitability to San Diego passing us. I was worried we'd go there and lose, and then that would be that. Now even if we lose we still have the lead. Things look good for us. I still think our odds of sneaking out of SD with a win are 50/50 at best, but I have us as a likely 11-5 finish. Our chances of making the playoffs are definitely better than 50/50.

11 and 5 means the Chiefs are a good enough team to make a stretch run of winning 6 of 7. I doubt it. But heck, I think that I said 6 or 7 wins prior to the season, so I'm wrong already. I think they lose at SD and then things will get very interesting, with each game being a must win. Uh oh.

Carr was awesome. They tried to pick on him all day. He is the weak link. HELLO DENVER. LOL. They took there shots and he took them back. Tamba had a day also.

I too noticed Berry in outright coverage more this week. I guess that must've been intentional, part of the strategy going in. The way he broke up that pass was definitely the best play in coverage I've seen him make. He does need to work on that aspect. If we can only shut down one part of an offense, I'll take the passing game every time.

One thing is for sure, if the Chiefs beat the Chargers, San Diego is done for.