The 2010 team did what no other Chiefs team had done since 2003: win the AFC West. The last time the Chiefs had been to the playoffs was in 2006, when they earned a wild card berth on a miraculous Sunday of losses. Only one win separated these two teams records, and neither team had success once they made the playoffs. So, a question (that really has no effect on no one and nothing but oh well) arises: was the 2006 team better than the 2010 team?
Like I said earlier, the 2006 team did not win the AFC West, but they faced a lot more adversity during the season than last season's team.
In the first game of the 2006 season, two-time Pro Bowl quarterback Trent Green, was viciously knocked out of the game with a concussion. Trent Green was a premier quarterback, and the previously season he lead the team to 10-6 in Dick Vermeil's final season, but could not get into the playoffs.
Remember how nervous we were when Matt Cassel had his appendectomy this season and he missed one game. Try to relate that about how nervous you were when Green got knocked out in the first game of Herm Edward's first season as head coach in KC.
When Damon Huard ran onto that field against the Bengals after Green was taken off the field, I'm sure that I wasn't the only one that declared the season as over. And yet, as Huard as a starter, the Chiefs went 5-3. The Chiefs season was on the fence; it could go either way. When Green returned, many thought that would be what put us over the top.
But Green wasn't the same player that he was. The Chiefs went 4-3 after Green came back as the starter. During those seven games, Green never threw for over 300 yards and only through for over 200 once. In 2005, Green threw for over 300 yards four times, and over 200 yards 10 times (not including his 300+ yard games).
But, thanks to a couple of miracles on the final Sunday of the regular season, all the teams that were ahead of the Chiefs in consideration for the final wild card spot lost, and the Chiefs made it in.
Now, we all know how the game turned out (not well), but think about it now. How well would the Chiefs have done if we had lost Cassel for eight games? Would we have rallied behind Croyle and go on to still have a winning season?
No, we wouldn't have.
How was the 2006 team able to do this? They did with a back up what the 2010 Chiefs did with a Pro Bowl quarterback. They had to have all their players on offense and defense step up, they had to have a greater team effort.
But I'm not going to take away anything from the 2010 Chiefs. Last season's team was known for its rookies, for its youth, for its potential. The 2006 team was known for its veterans, for its experience. It's easier for a team to rally behind a backup quarterback when its players had been there before (like I said earlier, the previous season they won 10 games), and they were expected to be successful.
The 2010 Chiefs were following a four win season and not much hope from its fanbase before the start of the season. What they did surprised everyone, what they did was prove that the Chiefs were back.
So what do you think? Which team was better?
No comments:
Post a Comment