How does KC have 5 pro-bowl players?

[Pappy13]

And still suck as bad as they do?

[Landshark]

And still stuck as bad as they do?

Same reason the 2002 Dolphins had seven Pro Bowlers, a top five defense, the top running back in the league, and failed to make the playoffs.

[bsfins]

My take,Fans voting making up 1/3rd of the vote....Along with the perception that K.C. is a team with talent,with No QB,or good coaching...

[Spider-Dan]

Same reason the 2002 Dolphins had seven Pro Bowlers, a top five defense, the top running back in the league, and failed to make the playoffs.

The 2002 Dolphins missed the playoffs on tiebreakers after suffering an injury to their starting QB.  They didn't have the worst record in the league.

[Landshark]

The 2002 Dolphins missed the playoffs on tiebreakers after suffering an injury to their starting QB.  They didn't have the worst record in the league.

They didn't have the worst record because they had a boatload of talent.  They were Super Bowl contenders at the start of the year.  The answer to both questions is the same.  The coaching and quarterback play sucked.

[Dave Gray]

The Pro Bowl is at least partially a popularity contest.  Bigger names make the game, even in down years or when they are old.

[Spider-Dan]

They didn't have the worst record because they had a boatload of talent.  They were Super Bowl contenders at the start of the year.

So why are you comparing that team (the '02 Dolphins) to the 2012 Chiefs, again?

[Landshark]

So why are you comparing that team (the '02 Dolphins) to the 2012 Chiefs, again?

It's called underachieving.  I'm sure you've heard of it.  And I'm sure you know there are different levels of it.

[EKnight]

I get that the Chiefs have the worst record in the league, but who are you going to take out from their players? Charles? He's leading the AFC in rushing. Colquitt has the second most punts inside the 20 in NFL history for a single season. Berry is, IMO, a better player than anyone else I can think of at safety. You could make an argument for the other two, I guess, but I don't see two defensive players who are clear-cut more deserving. -EK

[Pappy13]

^^Well first off I wasn't really commenting on whether or not said players should be in the pro-bowl because I don't watch KC, but I was saying if they have 5 players having pro-bowl years how in the heck can they be 2-13? Miami has one player having a pro-bowl type year and they are 7-8. Something is wrong here. Either all 5 players aren't having pro-bowl type years (and are just getting voted in on their name or somesuch) or they should be doing much better in the standings. One or the other, not sure which it is.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[EKnight]

They only have 2 wins because they are dead last in the league in scoring. 3 of their Pro Bowlers are defensive players, and their defense isn't that horrible (middle of the pack at 17th). If their offense was equal to their D, they'd be closer to .500 I imagine. -EK

[Pappy13]

They only have 2 wins because they are dead last in the league in scoring. 3 of their Pro Bowlers are defensive players, and their defense isn't that horrible (middle of the pack at 17th). If their offense was equal to their D, they'd be closer to .500 I imagine. -EK

KC is only middle of the pack in yards allowed which is a poor indicator of defensive ability in my opinion, you used KC's offensive scoring numbers to indicate how bad the offense was, why not use KC's points allowed to indicate the defensive strength as well? In points allowed KC is near the bottom at 25th. Miami's defense is ranked MUCH higher than KC's in that regard and they only had 1 pro-bowl player from the defense and Miami's offense isn't exactly a scoring machine either. I have a tough time believing a defense that has played that poorly has 3 players having pro-bowl types of years when a much better defense in the same conference only has 1.

[EKnight]

I used the stats I did because while KC's offense is ranked 22nd in yards, they can't get in the end zone. THAT'S why they only have 2 wins. That's exactly my point- if they were 25th in the league in points scored (as they are in points given up), that's an 80 point swing. They'd be better than 2-13. I know that for whatever reason, a few people on this board love to rely on points per game allowed as the primary indicator of a great defense, but if that were the case, why was Miami 6th in that category two years running and 6-10, then 7-8 this year? Likewise, why do teams like Indy, Dallas, Washingtom, the Giants, and Pats finish in the bottom half of the league and have winning records? If you can't score points, you can still have a solid defense and a lousy record. -EK

[Pappy13]

I used the stats I did because while KC's offense is ranked 22nd in yards, they can't get in the end zone.

The same thing can be said of their defense. Although they don't give up a ton of yards, they can't keep anyone out of the endzone. THAT'S at least partially why they only have 2 wins. You don't have to rack up a ton of yards when you are already winning the game by 2 TD's. All you have to do at that point is run the ball and run out the clock.

[EKnight]

Sorry...which game has KC been up by 2 TDs in this year? They've only even scored 2 TDs in a game 4 times this year, I believe. If your offense can't do what you're proposing, your notion of running out the clock is moot.

Having said that, though, who would you replace? I don't see any other AFC players that are clearly better than the 5 guys they have, so I don't see the issue with the selections. -EK