The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

And still suck 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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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

^^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.

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.

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

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.

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

I was talking about KC's defense. When your opponent is up by 2 TD's they don't have to gain a ton of yardage at that point all they have to do is run the ball, take time off the clock and keep it away from your offense. I am of course speaking hypothetically, I really don't know how often KC has been down by 2 TD's this year, but I think you should understand the point, it's scoring that means a heck of a lot more than yardage when it comes to judging both an offense and a defense.

This is the same reason that I have been critical of Miami's defense the last couple of years. To me it's easier to hold the opposition to fewer points when YOUR offense isn't scoring many. The objective of the game is score more points than your opponent, how many more doesn't really matter. Therefore if your offense sucks, then your defense isn't really being pressed that hard by your opponent to score points. KC's defense, if they really were playing decently, should have been able to keep opponents from scoring 25 points a game, because their opponents didn't really NEED to score 25 a game when KC's offense is only scoring 13. To me that says that KC's defense wasn't really doing their part to keep the games close so that KC's offense might have a chance to win the game either.

As far as who I would replace, I haven't really thought about it and it's not really the point. The point is that I don't believe that 3 players on a defense that has played as poorly as KC's has played this year should be playing in the pro-bowl. I'm sure that if I used a reputable source for ranking how players have performed this year I could find some more worthy than these 3, they probably just wouldn't have the name recognition. That's just a guess though.

The title of the thread is "How does KC have 5 pro-bowl players?" It couldn't be MORE to the point. Unless there are 5 guys who are clearly better players than KC's (and we're actually down to three on the defense for your argument), I don't have a problem with the picks. Anyone who thinks Berry, Charles or Colquitt don't deserve to be there are homers for their own teams. -EK

And the first LINE of the thread was "And still suck as bad as they do?" If I could have fit the whole thing in the title I would have.

How apropos. :)

Look, unless you can come up with guys who are clearly better than the five they got in, it's an say answer to your question- even in its "longer" form.
Q: How does KC have 5 Pro Bowl players and only 2 wins?
A: Because the individual performances of those players has been better than their peers on other teams in spite of a poor team performance.

It really is that simple. If you can come up with replacements for all of those positions that are clearly better, then your argument makes sense: "They're 2-13 because they suck at every position, and these 5 guys didn't deserve to make the Pro Bowl with "XXX" outplaying them this year." That's what I've been asking for this while time. -EK

Ok, I'll accept that, but that's NOT what you had said previously.

Now I don't know if I agree with that, but at least that's plausible. Your argument that their offense was completely to blame for a 2-13 season is weak. Berry seemed to have been selected primarly because of his play last year and the tail end of this year as he was coming off an injury, but his season as a whole has not been that impressive. Here's a couple of articles that seem to agree with me and there are others.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1459031-nfl-pro-bowl-selections-2013-best-and-worst-choices-for-both-conferences

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1458744-nfl-pro-bowl-roster-2013-teams-that-got-too-much-credit

I don't have a problem with Colquitt or Charles being selected, but the 3 on the defense in particular are a stretch. If you are going to insist that I pick some players, then I'll just go with the couple that have been mentioned above, Wesley Woodyard and Jairus Byrd. Yeah that works for me.

I'm ok with that. At least you finally said someone. It took two pages. That's my beef with the "how did so and so get in" stuff: unless you have a better alternative, it's a dumb argument. -EK