PDA

View Full Version : According to AccuScore: Peyton not much better than Cassel



TopekaRoy
03-20-2012, 12:36 AM
I'll bet this thread title get's your attention!

I saw this in the news feed and thought I would post it here to get your reactions to it.

AccuScore: Peyton Manning’s addition projects to four more wins for Broncos (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ys-accuscore_peyton_manning_broncos_odds_niners_03191 2)

According to the 10,000 season simulations they did, the Broncos win 11 (10.9) games with (a healthy) Manning as QB compared to 6.7 games with Tebow.

Oddly enough, they say that the Chiefs win only 8.5 games with Manning vs. 6.8 games with Cassel. Manning only makes the Chiefs 1.7 wins better!

I can understand the larger effect on the Broncos because you are replacing a very bad QB with a very good one. The difference wouldn't be as great with the Chiefs because Cassel is a much better QB than Tebow. But only 1.7 wins better?

What is even worse is that they are only projecting us to win 6.8 games this year with Cassel at QB. We won 7 games last year. How can adding Charles, Moeoki, Berry, Siler, Hillis, Winston, a better (than Palko) backup QB in Quinn, and Boss put us at about the same number of wins as last year?

Thank God games are played on the field and not on paper, or Xbox.

Somebody help me out here. This doesn't make any sense to me.

jap1
03-20-2012, 01:13 AM
In the military, regarding computerized systems, we have a saying: "garbage in equals garbage out." in other words, a computer is only as good as the inputs. It all boils down to what ratings they give the players and the teams. So if they don't think too highly of us, no matter if they run the simulation once or 10 million times, it is going to have a bad result.

When you are a small market team, you won't get the recognition.

I've never thought accuscore was actually very good at predicting games in general.

AussieChiefsFan
03-20-2012, 01:45 AM
It'd be funny if that actually happens.

N TX Dave
03-20-2012, 01:51 AM
It'd be funny if that actually happens.

No it wouldn't!

Connie Jo
03-20-2012, 01:54 AM
No it wouldn't!


:lol:

TopekaRoy
03-20-2012, 01:58 AM
Before I read the WHOLE post i thought you had flipped your ever loving marbles Roy unless you do actually think Mannin is just a little bit better than cassel. But I do agree with the projection of games won this year. I think we will be 7-9/8-8. Yes, Cassel is holding us back that much imo

I didn't say mainng is just a little better than Cassel. AccuScore did. And if Casel is holding us back so much why are we only 1.7 games better with Manning when he improves Denver's wins by 4.2? In fact, according to them, Cassel is better than every QB on that list.


DENVER BRONCOS 4.2
ARIZONA CARDINALS 3.7
WASHINGTON REDSKINS 3.5
MIAMI DOLPHINS 3.1
TENNESSEE TITANS 3
CLEVELAND BROWNS 2.5
NEW YORK JETS 2.5
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 2.4
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS 1.9
KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 1.7

Manning is more of an upgrade for every team on that list than he is for the Chiefs.

Also, if we won 7 games last year, with Palko playing QB in 4 of them, and we are getting all of these great Players back, how can you think we won't be any better than we were last year.

If you think we will lose more games to Denver, we only beat them once last year so that is only one game. You honestly don't think we win any more games with Charles, Berry, Moeoki and Winston?

There is zero logic in your prediction.

AussieChiefsFan
03-20-2012, 02:01 AM
No it wouldn't!

By which I mean it'd be funny for them to pay almost 100 Million dollars for 4 wins

AussieChiefsFan
03-20-2012, 02:05 AM
This accuscore bs means absolutely nothing

I know

TopekaRoy
03-20-2012, 02:14 AM
Roy I cap baseball and the NFL, I usually break even and I have looked into accuscore, it is absolute garbage. But from past seasons we can try to predict what cassel will do, and it hasnt been good, not against a solid schedule

I know, I know. You think in 2010 we had the easiest schedule of any team ever in the history of the NFL. Who do we play next year that is so much better than Green Bay, Detroit, Chicago, New England, Pittsburgh and the Jets? (This should be good)

And you still haven't given me any logical explanation how a team can add better players and be not as good. Would you like me to look up the word "logic" for you?

okikcfan
03-20-2012, 02:30 AM
Before I read the WHOLE post i thought you had flipped your ever loving marbles Roy unless you do actually think Mannin is just a little bit better than cassel. But I do agree with the projection of games won this year. I think we will be 7-9/8-8. Yes, Cassel is holding us back that much imo

Should you not be changing your name to my man Quinn?:lol:

matthewschiefs
03-20-2012, 02:31 AM
I somehow knew just by the title of this thread that My man orton would be posting on this topic LOL

TopekaRoy
03-20-2012, 03:00 AM
But from past seasons we can try to predict what cassel will do, and it hasnt been good, not against a solid schedule

Using last season as a guide (as you suggest), I did your research for you, because it's like ... kind of complicated, ya know?

Instead of playing GB (15-1), Det (10-6), Chi (8-8) and Min (3-13) (Total 36-28)
We play NO (13-3), Atl (10-6), Car (6-10), and TB (4-12) (Total 33-31)

Instead of playing NE (13-3), NYJ (8-8), MIA (6-10) and Buf (6-10) (Total 33-31)
We play Bal (12-4), Pit (12-4), Cin (9-7), Cle (4-12) (total 36-28)

That looks worse but remember we played Pit last year, too, so that cancels itself out, and the record for the 2 divisions combined is identical to last year (69-59).

Our equalizer (or parity) games for the two 4th place AFC teams that are not in the North division:

Instead of playing Pit (12-4) and Ind (2-14) (Total 14-18)
We play Buf (6-10) and (Ind 2-14) (total 8-24)

So you can see, if anything, our schedule is easier than last year. Last year we played 6 teams outside of our division that were .500 or better; this year we only play 5. And none of those teams went 15-1 like the Packers did.

So, now, explain to me again, how we would have the same record as last year with better players and an easier schedule.

TopekaRoy
03-20-2012, 04:22 AM
The logical explanation is this. When Cassel plays against good teams he plays bad. When he plays bad KC USUALLY loses. What from the past is supposed to change my mind Roy? You usually cant win when your qb has ratings in the 60's against good teams.

Cassel didnt play against the harder half of the schedule last year and judging from the step up in the competition in the second half vs the first, we can only assume his numbers would most likely be worse, thus a worse record than the first half of the season

I was just about to reply to your post and I noticed in the "quote" that you edited it and added that last paragraph. Nice!

my only response would be that our defense was a lot better in the 2nd half of last year, except for the 2nd half of the NE game and the Jets game. I think Cassel would have played much better than Palko did. (You have to give me THAT one!). But we don't know because it never happened. You can only go on what you saw two years ago, and I think he will do better with an improved offense around him. You don't. I'll just agree to disagree.

Jrudi
03-20-2012, 12:26 PM
I didn't say mainng is just a little better than Cassel. AccuScore did. And if Casel is holding us back so much why are we only 1.7 games better with Manning when he improves Denver's wins by 4.2? In fact, according to them, Cassel is better than every QB on that list.



Manning is more of an upgrade for every team on that list than he is for the Chiefs.

Also, if we won 7 games last year, with Palko playing QB in 4 of them, and we are getting all of these great Players back, how can you think we won't be any better than we were last year.

If you think we will lose more games to Denver, we only beat them once last year so that is only one game. You honestly don't think we win any more games with Charles, Berry, Moeoki and Winston?

There is zero logic in your prediction.

If Cassel would have been our QB in the games against New England, and Pittsburgh I honestly see those games having a different end result... so there are two wins right there, and that would have put us back in the playoffs.

You have to think we will have a last place schedule this year, and Denver has a 1st place schedule, we should benefit from what some could say easier opponents....

70 chiefsfan70
03-20-2012, 01:29 PM
KEY word "HEALTHY"

Seek
03-20-2012, 03:21 PM
I think the bigger issue here, is that Accuscore is stating that the Chiefs are a lesser team in general than the Donkies, and even Peyton won't help this team enough, while Tebow was holding the Donkies back.

TopekaRoy
03-20-2012, 07:40 PM
I think the bigger issue here, is that Accuscore is stating that the Chiefs are a lesser team in general than the Donkies, and even Peyton won't help this team enough, while Tebow was holding the Donkies back.

Actually, Accuscore had us winning 6.8 games with Cassel (which is ridiculous) and Denver winning 6.7 games with Tebow, so they gave us a tiny edge without factoring Manning in.

I have to think that they completely ignored the effect Charles, Berry and Moeoki will on the team since we don't know how good they will be, for sure, when they come back. You take those guys out and 7 wins doesn't sound so unreasonable, I guess. But besides them, we still have the rest of FA and the draft to make our team better. Naturally, that hasn't been factored in either.

chief31
03-21-2012, 01:38 AM
Oki, orton gave us our biggest win in 20 years, we should all hail him until we get our next biggest win, a playoff win. Then I will ask the admin to change my name

How is some regular season win, for a team that missed the playoffs, the biggest win in The Chiefs' last 20 years?

Cassel got this team into the playoffs just last season.

Playoffs trumps staying home every time.