KCSLC2008 606 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 https://twitter.com/super_g_chiefs/status/817456068804616192 And while that difficulty of schedule meant that Houston was a playoff team and Tennessee was close and Tampa Bay improved, we could've beaten the Patriots record with our difficult schedule. Some people will mention the off the uprights win, Atlanta last minute win, Peters take away against Carolina etc. as offsetting those losses and therefore it's OK, but I still think we earned those wins. But dammit, we also "earned" those losses. I would like our chances as a number one seed more, but if we get to the SB through Steelers and Foxborough, even better. I don't like the schedule argument very much because I would be a hypocrite to do so. When we were winning all those games in 2013, I knew we weren't ready for that next step, but I thought that we could not control our schedule so FU to those *'ing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kccrow 529 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 "May the Schwartz be with you." I've been gone for a bit, and I'm looking at your avatar Bil. Is that "THE Hat?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 https://twitter.com/super_g_chiefs/status/817456068804616192 I'm not understanding why 'the Packers had the toughest Strength of Schedule'. First, the SoS for both the Packers and the Chiefs was .508. Second, the Chiefs had a better record than the Packers, meaning that relative to the Packers the Chiefs' SoS is more depressed by their own wins. I wonder if my calculation is missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 https://twitter.com/super_g_chiefs/status/817456068804616192 I'm not understanding why 'the Packers had the toughest Strength of Schedule'. First, the SoS for both the Packers and the Chiefs was .508. Second, the Chiefs had a better record than the Packers, meaning that relative to the Packers the Chiefs' SoS is more depressed by their own wins. I wonder if my calculation is missing something. Never mind, I figured it out after poking around the pro-football-reference.com website: SoS ▼ -- Strength of ScheduleAverage quality of opponent as measured by SRS (Simple Rating System) SRS -- Simple Rating SystemTeam quality relative to average (0.0) as measured by SRS (Simple Rating System) SRS = MoV + SoS = OSRS + DSRS The difference in SRS can be considered a point spread (add about 2 pt for HFA) MoV -- Margin of Victory(Points Scored - Points Allowed)/ Games Played OSRS -- Offensive SRSTeam offense quality relative to average (0.0) as measured by SRS (Simple Rating System) DSRS -- Defensive SRSTeam defense quality relative to average (0.0) as measured by SRS (Simple Rating System) So they substituted the formula in the common-use term Strength of Schedule with an algorithm of their own design. That's not confusing at all. The Chiefs are behind only the Raiders, who logically had the more difficult "Strength of Schedule" seeing as they lost twice to the Chiefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Never mind, I figured it out after poking around the pro-football-reference.com website: SoS ▼ -- Strength of Schedule Average quality of opponent as measured by SRS (Simple Rating System) SRS -- Simple Rating System Team quality relative to average (0.0) as measured by SRS (Simple Rating System) SRS = MoV + SoS = OSRS + DSRS The difference in SRS can be considered a point spread (add about 2 pt for HFA) MoV -- Margin of Victory (Points Scored - Points Allowed)/ Games Played OSRS -- Offensive SRS Team offense quality relative to average (0.0) as measured by SRS (Simple Rating System) DSRS -- Defensive SRS Team defense quality relative to average (0.0) as measured by SRS (Simple Rating System) So they substituted the formula in the common-use term Strength of Schedule with an algorithm of their own design. That's not confusing at all. The Chiefs are behind only the Raiders, who logically had the more difficult "Strength of Schedule" seeing as they lost twice to the Chiefs. I think we can say that the Chiefs played the toughest schedule of 2016. And they learned a lot a long The way. If they go on to win it all, it can partially be attributed to the tests all along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefensiveMan 758 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I think we can say that the Chiefs played the toughest schedule of 2016. And they learned a lot a long The way. If they go on to win it all, it can partially be attributed to the tests all along the way. Question is where would NE have ended up if they had our schedule? Remember they played a Big Benless Pitt team earlier this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I don't know, but I knew we were in trouble when they went 3-1 without Brady or Gronk. I was hoping they be starting 1-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetlord 10,209 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I've been gone for a bit, and I'm looking at your avatar Bil. Is that "THE Hat?" Show a little more respect, please. It's "THE HAT" I suspect Bil's avatar is a cheap replica. No one has laid eyes on THE HAT and remained mentally stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.