How good are the Chiefs? Inherently, better than last season

We often make the mistake of assuming that the statistics from last season give us an accurate view of how good a team will be on week one.  It sheds more insight than having no information at all, but it only shows so much. Conjecture regarding the Chiefs' 2010 success is better served by the following formula:

(as good as they were at the end of last season) + (improvements that have been made) - (deterioration/lack of retention).  More explanation later.

The Broncos game was the high point of last season, week 17 Chiefs win 44-24.  If that game were repeated 100 times, perhaps the Chiefs only win 50 of them, or less.  (I tend to believe this is not the case, and I also believe that the Broncos wouldn't start out 6-0 again in 100 tries). 

But at any rate, we can see that, even if the Chiefs played 'over their heads' in that game, that however good they were week 17 2009 is a better indicator of how good they will be in week one 2010 than however good they were on week one 2009 - as players and teams generally improve over time.  However, too often we look to the average of games 1-16 of last season as an indicator of this year's team.

To our benefit, the Chiefs are an example of a team that improved, I would say, more than the average over the course of the season.

(as good as they were at the end of last season) + (improvements that have been made) - (deterioration/lack of retention)

The formula, explained:

(as good as they were at the end of last season)

At the end of last season, I believe it can be almost universally agreed that:

- the offensive line was gelling to a greater degree than at the beginning of the season

- the running game was better than it was in the beginning

- the new front office, coaching staff, and players were 'on the same page' more at the end of the season than the beginning

Most areas on the team are similar.  The team made substantial improvements.  If there had been no changes whatsoever this offseason, the team still stands to have a better record this year than last, just based on improvement of existing players and staff.  Luckily, positive changes have been made, and there's even more room for improvement!

+ (the improvements that have been made)

Since the end of last season, I would say there has been one major position upgrade, and that is at RB (this assumption based on 2 running back positions - the backup position was upgraded substantially.)  The rest of the signings (I like all of them) were either player retention or players who may or may not make the team, may or may not be starters, may or may not add depth, contribute.  I believe we can assume, at minimum, that the sum of the 'non-Thomas Jones', 'non re-signing' contracts of this offseason will improve the team.

Now to coaching.  The Chiefs have signed Charlie Weis and Romeo Crennel.  Few can argue that these two signings will not improve the Chiefs, and therefore can be validly included here.  Additionally, I believe that Todd Haley will be a better coach.  Whether 'better' is 'good enough' is a different argument, but I think it can be assumed that the division of duties, focus, experience, etcetera will result in a legitimate 'improvement' at that position.

Now the draft.  The Chiefs have 3 picks in the top 50, and 8 in the top 150.  This is far better than league average.

As a rough estimate of the upside of this type of draft, that is, the maximum benefit the draft could bring to the team, if repeated 100 times, I offer the following:

2 potential ROY's and 2 potential quality starters, and 2 players that get quality playing time this year.

  That's of course extremely unlikely, but just an approximate maximum upside -- the best one could ever hope for in a draft as far as impact this season is concerned.

On the flipside, the absolute worst draft that could be considered possible for a team to have:

2 players with 3 games each (played in a backup role).  2 locker room cancers, 1 holdout, and a gaggle of releases/practice squad competition.

I think we can safely assume that Pioli will do something better than the worst possible in the draft.  I think we can further assume that the result of Pioli's draft will constitute an improvement.  If so, the draft is a legitimate addition here.

- (deterioration/lack of retention)

Players break down and get older.  Players forget stuff over the offseason.  Players have an off year.  Players are lost to free agency.  Bad blood can develop over a club incident in the offseason.  Weird shit happens.

The Chiefs are a young team, and figure to be fairly healthy starting the season.  Haley & Pioli have been focusing on 'the right 53', which, if it has any meaning at all, would mean the Chiefs are a bit less susceptible to attitude problems, bad blood, and off the field issues.  Additionally, the Chiefs have lost a relatively small amount of talent from last year to free agency.  I believe it can be safely assumed therefore, that in the 'deterioration/lack of retention' area, the Chiefs will suffer no more than the average NFL team - and I would say substantially less than other teams.

The main conclusion I draw from all of this is that, overall, we're not in as bad a shape as it looks.  An additional point I'd like to make is that the widespread assumption this post claims to debunk - that is, that the Chiefs must make changes to be better than last year - often leads to poor analysis of the team.  (On other websites I mean.  You guys, awesome.  Out there, morons)

Posters who say things like, '"We must draft a XX or we will only win 3 or 4 games again" are not correct.  There is no reason to believe a claim like that would be true, as we can see that the team would stand to improve without having made any changes at all.  But we have made changes - major ones.  Charlie Weis, Romeo Crennel, and Thomas Jones by themselves could be argued to be worth 2-3 games.  Add to that player improvement, chemistry improvement, and other free agent signings, and expecting 3-4 more wins (if repeated 100 times) is not absurd.  Now consider that drafting ANYONE AT ALL constitutes a chance to improve, does it not follow that a plan to fill X position 'no matter what' is a bit reactionary?

Posters who say things like, "If the Chiefs don't make the playoffs, I'm giving up on Pioli/Haley/whomever." are similarly going too far.  First, because the Chiefs may be 6-8 at the end of this season and miss the playoffs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't improved enough by the end of the season that, with no changes, they are a playoff quality team, despite having missed the playoffs.  Secondly, because a team with a new offensive and defensive coordinator can't be expected to reach maximum potential instantly.  It may be week 8 before we start seeing the team get on a roll.  What if they go 7-1 in the last half... but miss the playoffs?

So, in summary, it's a process.  Enjoy it :)