Mellinger Minutes: Chiefs’ bad defense and worse idea, Royals and college football

By Sam Mellinger

Updated August 29, 2018 3:47 PM

The Chiefs are doing a bad thing. Well, at least, the Chiefs are doing something I believe to be bad.

Mark Donovan, the team’s president, told our Blair Kerkhoff that the team plans to phase in a policy of kicking fans out of the parking lot after kickoff.

Go to the game, or go home. You won’t be able to stay in the lot.

The Chiefs are framing this as a safety issue, which is a ridiculous thing to say. Five years ago, a fan was killed in the parking lot. A lawsuit filed by the fan’s wife included 60 incidents of violence, and alleged that the team “fosters an environment” that can lead to danger.

Donovan said this is a league-wide best practice recommendation, driven by more than the tragedy in the parking lot, which is good, because the new policy would not have prevented the death. That fan went into the game, and came back out, and if the team wants to address safety issues it should start with fights and semi-regular accusations of racial slurs in the stands.

But this is not about safety. The league and Chiefs know better. This is about ridding the premises of folks who are not available as immediate profit.

Because you can talk about safety, but let’s do a little thought experiment:

If those fans were drinking $10 domestics sold from team-licensed vendors instead of whatever they brought in their Yetis, do you think the team would be talking about safety?

Chiefs executives like to talk about Arrowhead Stadium as “iconic.” That’s the phrase they always use, the company-approved buzzword. Fans made it that way. Specifically, fans cooking and drinking and playing catch and laughing in the parking lot made it that way.

The Chiefs should be doing whatever they can to promote this, not discourage it, and toward that end should be applauded for a regular tailgating experience designed for fans who take ride-share to the game or otherwise don’t want to go to the hassle of setting up their own tailgate.

More of that, less of kicking fans out of their own party.

For years, complaining about the cost of parking has been this silly little trope around Kansas City, even as virtually every other team in the league charges the same or more for an inferior experience.

But if we’re being honest, parking has always been the best value the Chiefs offer. That’s where the party is. That’s where the fun is. Go inside, and you might have your day ruined. If anything, they should be slashing ticket prices, especially during the playoffs. Nobody deserves to spend money for that experience.

Those poor parking lot attendants, too. Can you imagine (presumably) being paid terribly to go up to a group of fans having fun together and telling them they have to leave the parking spot they paid to rent?

We can understand why the team wants fans inside. Right? Money is the obvious reason, but there’s also a perception problem when the TV cameras — networks love a full Arrowhead — are picking up so many empty seats. It’s a bad look for the Chiefs, and they’re missing out on profit.

But they need to think about the unintended consequences here, too. They’re coming across as big brother, as the nagging and self-appointed hall monitor telling adults who paid to be there that they cannot stay.

You think those people are going to be more likely or less likely to support the Chiefs in the future? More of less likely to think positively of a brand occupying an increasingly crowded space of entertainment?

More likely or less likely to pay too much for a hot dog, to fill one of those seats and make the TV broadcast look good?

This is a bad idea, and one that can only be enforced in a way that promotes ugly arguments and ultimately drives fans away.

The Chiefs have failed to live up to what they claim to be, and what their fans deserve. That’s not a crime. There are a lot of teams you could say the same about.

But if that’s what you are, if you constantly need to convince fans that this is finally the year they won’t be boot-stomped in the playoffs or sooner, how about not intentionally and unnecessarily making them feel unwanted?

This week’s eating recommendation is the glazed cake at Donut King, and the reading recommendation is Bryan Curtis on why ESPN chose Joe Tessitore to rebuild its relationship with the NFL.

Please give me a follow on Twitter and Facebook, and if you’re not already a subscriber, please consider The Star’s new sports-only subscription — $30 for a year of the best available coverage of Kansas City sports.

As always, thanks for your help and thanks for reading.

I accept the blame here, sir, but here’s what happened.

The whole family was supposed to come to Chicago with me. Wife, both boys, and we were going to light this city up. One of those architectural boat tours, top of the Sears Tower,* the aquarium, Michigan Avenue, so much food, I’m telling you. We were going to make this city our Curtis Harper.

* It’ll always be the Sears Tower, dammit.

Then, the 2-year-old got the hand, foot and mouth disease. We couldn’t do it. I changed my flight from Thursday to Friday night, but it was going to be like $200 to come back earlier on Sunday.

So here I am, feeling a little guilty, trying to clear out as much of my Monday as possible and so I figure why not get this done a day early.

Full disclosure, I wondered if I’d catch you guys off guard, if you’d be ready to roll on this or not.

You, um ... you were.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It’s preseason. Bears 2nd team we’re playing to make the roster and extend their career. Chiefs 1st team was playing not to get hurt.</p>— Anthony Arton (@anthonyarton) <a href="https://twitter.com/anthonyarton/status/1033742898922250240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

Well, that’s the optimist’s view.

It’s not one that I agree with.

I said this on our Facebook Live video, but the Chiefs are pretty apparent right now: The offense will be inconsistent but score a lot of points, Patrick Mahomes will be a star soon, the front seven is solid and the most glaring thing at the moment is a train wreck of a secondary.

If you want to be optimistic, you definitely can. I hope we’re all reasonable enough to understand the preseason means next to nothing, and that’s particularly true for teams coached by Andy Reid.

So, sure, we can be optimistic here. We can talk about how Eric Berry may be the team’s best and most important defender, and he hasn’t played. We can talk about how Steven Nelson is a good player, the Chiefs’ second-best corner, and he didn’t play in Chicago.

We can talk about how the front seven should be better than a year ago, because Derrick Nnadi is an instant impact on his bull rush, and the linebackers are clearly an upgrade even if we haven’t seen it in a preseason game yet because of injuries and rust.

We can talk about how the offensive might be the most dynamic in the NFL, a place where the league’s leading rusher from a year ago is no better than the third most dangerous weapon, where the combination of Patrick Mahomes’ arm strength and Tyreek Hill’s speed have quite literally never been matched together.

The worst this team has been in five years with Andy Reid is 9-7. Reid is the division’s daddy, and the Chiefs have been in the postseason four of the last five years.

If you’re freaking out about a preseason game, you might-could-maybe use a self-inventory.

All of that is true. You don’t need a lot of imagination to see another 10-6 or so.

That’s not my prediction, which we’ll get to soon. But a case for why the Chiefs will stink better include more than some preseason results.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Give me an argument as to why the Chiefs defense won’t be as bad as it looked yesterday. Please.</p>— Jake Estep (@Jestep18) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jestep18/status/1033708230176899072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

I wholly believe the Chiefs’ defense won’t be as bad as it looked on Saturday. Absolutely, 100 percent, I believe that.

But let’s keep some perspective here, because a defense that looks as bad as the Chiefs did against backups from a team that went 5-11 last year would be laughed out of the league.

If you’re asking for the case that the Chiefs’ defense will be at least average, sure, I’ll make that case as long as you all do me a favor and understand I don’t believe it.

Deal?

OK. The case begins with Eric Berry. If might be the best player on defense, and he is probably the most important. The only guy with an argument is Justin Houston. So, anything we see on defense must be processed with the understanding that if Berry is healthy he instantly makes them significantly better.

Next, I would point out that while Kendall Fuller is unlikely to make the spectacular play like Marcus Peters, he is also unlikely to make the penalties and freelance. Steven Nelson’s absence a year ago is probably an under appreciated reason for the defense’s struggles.

We can focus on the bad plays from David Amerson and Orlando Scandrick, or we can know that nobody has four great corners, and that Tremon Smith and Arrion Springs have intriguing upside.

Chris Jones is positioned for a star’s season. Even if I’m right, that Justin Houston is no longer in the force of nature portion of his career, he is still a dynamic all-downs threat who demands to be the focus of blocking schemes.

If just one other pass rusher emerges as a star — Breeland Speaks, Tanoh Kpassagnon, and Dee Ford are the candidates — then the Chiefs have something they’ve missed for years.

The defense stunk last year, yes, but in the four years prior they were no worse than seventh in points allowed and averaged 16th in yards. Statistically, last year was the aberration, and the case can be made that they improved at every level:

Nnadi drafted for the defensive line.
Speaks drafted for the pass rush, Ford healthy, Kpassganon off his redshirt, and Houston claims to be stronger and healthier than a year ago.
Anthony Hitchens is a massive upgrade over what was left of Derrick Johnson last year.
Berry is back from his Achilles rupture.

One more time, just to be clear: I expect the defense to struggle.

But the case for it to be better than last year, and certainly better than what we saw in Chicago, is not hard to make.

Please believe this: firing a coordinator based on preseason results would be clinically insane. Generally speaking, players’ strengths or deficiencies are shown in the preseason. Once the regular season starts, it’s up to coaches to expand or hide them.

Bob Sutton didn’t get beat on a fairly simple double move by Kevin White.

Bob Sutton wasn’t beat so badly on a crossing route that he gave up the catch and lost the angle to make a tackle.

Bob Sutton wasn’t injured and unavailable to play a badass safety.

The problems on Saturday were about execution, not scheme. Nobody gameplans preseason games, and this one had its own challenges — Anthony Hitchens is very clearly working his way into form, David Amerson had a nightmare, Eric Murray inexplicably gave a D- effort on Chase Daniel’s long run, Justin Houston hardly played, and so on.

You guys know where I stand on Sutton’s employment, but I’ve seen enough of this that I figured we should talk about it here toward the top.

They should’ve fired him last year, and if they’re not better in 2018, they’ll almost certainly have to fire him in January. But let’s watch the games.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How much a difference does scheme and game-planning make to this team from an offensive and a defensive perspective?</p>— Robbie Couey (@BinaryPhalanx) <a href="https://twitter.com/BinaryPhalanx/status/1033729959049748480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

That’s the most important question, if you’re trying to use these last two preseason games as a hint for what’s coming next.

And I’d argue that specifically for the Chiefs, it matters a great deal.

The conversation about Andy Reid usually hits the familiar points. He’s innovative, he’s creative, he’s a terrific play caller. Well, I believe all of that to be true, and I think we’d all agree that he does none of that for preseason games.

Look, if Reid owned a gazillion damns, all of them impressive damns, glorious damns, very meaningful damns, and then was given a gazillion more damns that were so small they could only be seen by the world’s most powerful microscope, he STILL would not give even one of those tiny damns about the results of a preseason game.

He simply does not care. He is coaching for reps. He is making sure the basics of the offense are installed, and run enough that they come naturally. He is careful to put on film only what his team can learn from, and not the opponent.

There will be no trick plays, no picking on weaknesses, nothing gadgety, and these are all staples of the offense we’ll see once the results matter.

Defense, much of the same thing, and I say that as someone who’s been outspoken about the need for change there.

We’ve talked enough about the injuries, but I want to double down here on the point that Reggie Ragland and Anthony Hitchens will be better by week one. At least by my eye, those guys were slower and less aware than we know them to be. Those are signs of rust, of guys working back from injury. I wouldn’t worry about that unless we see the same thing against the Chargers.

The defense has concerns. Tackling might be the most obvious. That’s not a scheme thing. Communication needs to improve, and the penalties need to slow down. Blair has been making a smart point, that Bob Sutton’s defenses have always won turnover margin.

Well, they just traded away their best defensive playmaker, and with an offense that will almost certainly turn it over more than the historically stingy 2017 group, this is a major challenge for both sides.

But, guys. The Browns went 4-0 last preseason. The Eagles are 0-3 now. The Patriots went 1-3 last year.

Let’s keep our heads, is all I’m saying.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">At some point don't we have to talk about Brett Veach looking at a team with the worst defense in the NFL and deciding his #1 off-season priority was Sammy Watkins? Phrased VERY generously that's a sub-optimal allocation of finite resources, no?</p>— Andrew Bare (@HalfwayToHobo) <a href="https://twitter.com/HalfwayToHobo/status/1033710576898211840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

I sense that the focus of many fans is beginning to turn to Brett Veach, which is more surprising to me than it probably should be. Andy Reid has always been the most important football decision maker, and he’s the coach with two historic playoff collapses on the books here.

Veach has been on the job for one full offseason, but hey. He’s a big boy. He’s fair game, too.

I would push against the notion that Veach’s No. 1 priority was Watkins. I understand he got the biggest contract, so if that’s as far as you want to take it, fine. But if you look at the offseason overall, it’s pretty clear the top priority was to overhaul the defense.

Now, again, I thought that overhaul needed to focus as much on the defensive coordinator as the players, but even so there were major changes.

The Chiefs got younger on defense, faster, and particularly in the front seven tougher. Their first five picks in the draft were on defense. So, there’s that.

Now, if your point is simply that if they were trading away Marcus Peters for peanuts — and please I’m in a good mood we don’t need to go over that again — they needed to do more than trade for Kendall Fuller and sign David Amerson, then we are in total agreement.

This, you might’ve suspected, is also something we’ve talked about. Good cornerbacks were available, in one form or another — Aqib Talib, Trumaine Johnson, Aaron Colvin, and Malcolm Butler, among others.

Fuller is terrific, a star, even if it’s in a more subtle way than Peters. But with all the other uncertainty, and the way the Chiefs like to defend, they really could’ve used one more.

The counter would be that you can’t do everything in one offseason, and that’s true, too.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How has the simple question not been asked or answered..<br><br>Why did you trade Marcus Peters for next to nothing? <br><br>I want a real answer. Even if it's as dumb as him protesting and that's against the owners wishes. Or maybe he asked to be traded?<br>I don't know!<br><br>I need closure Sam</p>— Kyle Fisher (@TheKyleFisher) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheKyleFisher/status/1033744029127589888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

Well, it has been asked.

Their answer is that the defense needed an overhaul, as much with “culture” as anything else, and Peters was the biggest part of that. The Chiefs saw him as disruptive and unreliable. His career was inching closer to the Chiefs needing to decide whether to give him a large extension — a training camp holdout was absolutely on the table — and they didn’t think it was worth it.

That’s the answer.

You don’t have to like it. I certainly don’t, and at the very least believe the Chiefs need to accept blame for it because they went into the relationship with eyes wide open. Leadership starts at the top, and so on.

But, nevertheless, that’s the answer.

If the Chiefs struggle again on defense, particularly with coverage and creating turnovers, the mistake will be amplified.

With Peters and Fuller, the Chiefs would’ve had one of the league’s greatest pair of cornerbacks, and the worries about the pass rush would be diminished.

With Peters gone, the questions about the secondary are extended.

But, it’s preseason. Can we do something just SORT of positive? Anything, guys?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How does this Chiefs offense compare to the Chiefs offense of 2003 and do the teams end in the same spot i.e. winning a lot of games behind the offense but doing nothing yet again in the playoffs?</p>— Brennen Wohlford (@BrennenWohlford) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrennenWohlford/status/1033801515096518659?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

OK! Here’s one! Sort of!

The biggest difference between the two is the offensive line. Whole-eee buns, that line in 2003 was incredible. One of the best in NFL history, really. Everything they did started with the line.

I happen to believe it’s impossible to have a line that dominant in today’s game, because of rules changes and so forth, but even relative to their time, that’s a huge gap.

After that, you’d have to say the 2018 Chiefs have better receivers, that tight ends are both dynamic but the edge goes to Tony Gonzalez, that the Priest Holmes is more accomplished than Kareem Hunt, and that Trent Green is steadier than Mahomes is likely to be but with a significantly lower ceiling.

But, really. The difference in the lines makes any comparison of the other positions difficult. Imagine Mahomes’ creativity and arm strength, paired with Tyreek Hill’s speed, behind a line that can block forever.

But, yes. This season will probably end without postseason success.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">With three preseason games in the books, what’s your prediction on the Chiefs’ record this year?</p>— Scott Newell (@TheTrueNew) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheTrueNew/status/1033741441321918464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

I don’t think the preseason has swayed me one way or the other, but at the moment I expect this to be a wildly entertaining 8-8 team.

Lots of points, lots of highlights, lots of blown leads, lots of points given up.

I’ll be very surprised if the Chiefs aren’t top half in points and bottom half in points against, and mildly surprised if they’re not top 10 in points and bottom 10 in points against.

Should be entertainment, which as you know, always makes for good #content, and who has two thumbs and appreciates good #content?

This guy.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Your frank opinion on Fisher, please. He seems like an adequate or average left tackle. It seems to me that we should expect more than that from a first overall pick! I'm disappointed. A first overall pick should really impact the franchise.</p>— Afiba Johnson (@afibaafrica) <a href="https://twitter.com/afibaafrica/status/1033721345832624128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

Average left tackle, sure, I can get on board with that. It’s a premium position, hard to fill, so even an average player holds some real value.

The problem with judging him is it’s always going to be in the shadow of being the first pick in the draft. Which, sure, this is big business and Fisher is a well-paid adult so he can handle it.

But he shouldn’t have been the first pick in a draft.

The Chiefs knew that at the time, by the way. It was one of the all-time Chiefsiest things possible, but the first time the Chiefs were bad enough to pick first in an NFL draft, it was the year nearly everyone in the NFL agreed there was no worth No. 1 overall pick.

They went with Fisher, betting on his meanness and athleticism and potential, and I’d argue they made the right decision. Luke Joeckel was the other candidate widely discussed, and the Jaguars let him walk before last season. He signed a one-year, $8 million contract with the Seahawks and is currently unemployed.

Lane Johnson went fourth overall, and he’s a starter and first-team All-Pro for the reigning Super Bowl champs, so you can hindsight that argument if you want but nobody had him in the discussion for the first pick.

Truly, it was just a very mediocre draft. Dion Jordan went third overall and he’s started one game. EJ Manuel was the first quarterback taken that year, and Geno Smith was the second. Picking first that year was like getting your choice of any sandwich at Subway.

Fisher is ... fine. That’s my frank opinion.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">There were good CBs on the board for each of the Chiefs first 2 picks. They clearly thought they had the answer on the roster already. When can we panic about their ability to evaluate talent at that position?</p>— Paul Foeller (@pfoeller) <a href="https://twitter.com/pfoeller/status/1033712470341431296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

I don’t believe they thought they had the answer on the roster already. I just don’t think it’s that simple.

They clearly prioritized a pass rusher over a cornerback, and we can argue about which was a bigger need, but I don’t think we’d argue that both weren’t needs.

Peters and Berry are the only defensive backs taken by the Chiefs in the first round this century. I believe that targeting Kendall Fuller in the Alex Smith trade will be shown to be smart.

It’s sometimes hard to parse who’s a Dorsey guy and who’s a Veach guy, but obviously KeiVarae Russell in the third round two years ago was a bad miss. Philip Gaines went in the third in 2014, but now we’re going back a ways. Veach hadn’t even been promoted to co-director of player personnel yet.

I feel like I’m defending the Chiefs more than I want here, so I want to be clear. They’ve made some mistakes, or at least done some things I disagree with. But this is still a franchise that’s made four postseasons in five years, and is about to fulfill (by far) the greatest wish of their fans by starting a young, homegrown quarterback.

They need to get better on defense, for sure.

Let’s just keep some perspective, is all I’m saying.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I'm thinking about quitting the Chiefs and football as a whole this year. The NFL sucks, the Chiefs will just break my heart again, and the games stopped being fun to watch. Is there anything you'd say to try and change my mind?</p>— Vikram (@sultan_of_snark) <a href="https://twitter.com/sultan_of_snark/status/1033731953890127875?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

If you’re serious, I hope you thought all of this before Saturday, because I’m not kidding you when I say making a major life change based off an NFL preseason game is one of the craziest things I’ve ever heard — and keep in mind I’ve made my living around the Chiefs and Royals for more than a decade now.

I think you’re kidding, but I’m including the question here because you touch on a few very interesting points.

First, the NFL. I agree with you. It does suck. It’s the worst. They are greedy, tone deaf, and generally take their fans for granted and too often treat them like dummies or cattle or both. They’ve treated their players even worse.

We can see this in their social media policy, their ticket prices, and their insistence on monetizing basically anything that’s not bolted down and most of what is. We can see this in how little they talk to fans, either through the media or directly, how they often won’t even talk about their sport in plain terms because of paranoia or a belief fans aren’t smart enough to understand.

But, they still have football, and football is awesome, and this is the purgatory a lot of us find ourselves in.

The league still has a lot going for it. The TV presentation is better than any other league, the games are enthralling, and it’s the only league that hasn’t oversaturated the product with too many games.

The Chiefs? Yes, they will almost certainly break your heart in the end, same way they’ve done every year since 1969. The franchise continues to carry itself like the Yankees in terms of historical importance, with a track record that’s closer to the Lions. There is little doubt about this.

You might’ve heard me say that nobody should ever tell you how to be a fan. It’s a point I believe in my heart and soul and mind. Nobody should make you feel guilty for not spending your time or money on a product unworthy of either, and nobody should make you feel weird for scheduling your life around grown men wearing your favorite brand of laundry.

If it makes you happy, do it. If it doesn’t, don’t.

But other than hoping this isn’t about a preseason game, I hope this also isn’t about the heartbreak. If it is, fine, I get it. Sports are rarely worth the time invested, if you judge on whether your team wins the last game.

It’s just that I think that misses the point. Sports never promise us a parade, and rarely deliver a happy ending. The whole thing is designed to break your heart, because there are 30 or more teams, only one trophy, and even the team that wins it soon has to start working for the next one — this time with raised expectations that make another title status quo and everything else a bummer.

But the point is the journey. The point is the memories, the friendships, the excitement, the moments. The wonder of what’s possible. That’s the whole deal, man. Same with life.

If you decide you don’t get that from sports anymore, cool, I get it. But I do hope you’re able to replace it with something else, whether it’s music or the opera or studying the Civil War or electronics or gardening or exercise or anything else.

Otherwise, you’re leaving so much on the table.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I’m not much of a bobble head guy or even a T-shirt Tuesday guy. But I’m pretty sure if you made the water line break from the right field fountains into either one of those I would definitely get in line to get one. Would you?</p>— Seth Brown (@panesanddrains) <a href="https://twitter.com/panesanddrains/status/1033711712246136832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

This would be amazing. I don’t know what it would look like, but I would pay American currency for this.

Can we talk a little about what’s going on, by the way? The All-Star catcher and top power hitting prospect have each been taken down with injuries related to luggage. The team has, repeatedly, lost games with the final out coming at home plate when it wasn’t even the tying run. They’ve had a game delayed because the fountains flooded.

They’ve led 6-0 and lost 7-6. They’ve lost three times while allowing one run and, in the best description of this team I can think of, became the first team in baseball history to go 14 consecutive games without an error and win just four times.

They will almost certainly smash the franchise record of 106 losses, and with the right breaks could make a late push at the 119-loss Tigers from 2003.

But, I look at them, and I truly don’t think they’re that bad. Their players are too good to be this bad. I don’t get it.

The worst part might not even be here yet, too. The worst part is they’re losing this often and they don’t even have their prospects up yet. The worst part isn’t that their losing — it’s that they’re losing and they’re not young.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Royals are 40-90. Would a Triple A team have a better record against the same schedule? Worse?</p>— William Hanna (@WilmHanna) <a href="https://twitter.com/WilmHanna/status/1033720243166892032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

Depends whose Class AAA team, I suppose.

The Royals, no.

The Yankees?

I don’t know. Don’t ever say it can’t get worse, like the man said.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">College football is here. If you had to compare each local school’s potential season to a KC dining establishment, what would each one be?</p>— Greg Moore (@MooreGregarious) <a href="https://twitter.com/MooreGregarious/status/1033713412885409797?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

K-State is Johnny’s, and if you’ll forgive me for comparing K-State to a place that started in Lawrence, my point here is that Johnny’s isn’t flashy, isn’t going to serve you seared scallops or pork belly or anything like that. Johnny’s is a place for regulars. It’s a place that leads with pizza and beer, but still takes time to do the important stuff right — service, tater tots, cold beer. Johnny’s would absolutely wear the same uniform for 25 straight years, is what I’m saying.

Mizzou is Gates, because you might go there and eat some Heisman winning burnt ends or beef on bun, but you might also walk out of there full of regret. There really is not a lot in between.

KU is lunch from the vending machine at your office. You only do it if you’re desperate, failed to plan, made a lot of bad decisions and now you’re out of money.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">O/U 59.5 points for Sporting Kansas City at season's end? Over would likely get them 1 or 2 seed right?</p>— Josh Howard (@jdnotjosh) <a href="https://twitter.com/jdnotjosh/status/1033784176884047878?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

Going over would mean 15 points from nine matches — four at home, five on the road. Five are against clubs currently in the playoffs, four are against the others.

I’ll take the over. If they can win three against the non-playoff clubs — only one is at home, so, you know — that would leave at most six points needed from the other five games.

This all depends on how much you believe in the current run of form. This club has a history of late season slides, and there are circumstances you can point to for each of the recent wins — tired opponents, fluky red cards, etc.

But four shutout wins in a row is never a fluke, or a coincidence, and it certainly isn’t a fluke or coincidence when a talented and consistently successful club is finally (close to) healthy again.

That can change quickly, of course. Felipe Gutierrez gets hurt again. Tim Melia. Whatever.

But the team as currently constructed is more than capable of 15 points from nine games, and they better get close to it, because they need those playoff games at home.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">You now have the power to go back in time. (Congrats). Who is one player from any sport you would go back to see play in their prime? Derrick Thomas or Bo Jackson for me.</p>— Andrew Corrao (@penguinxcrossin) <a href="https://twitter.com/penguinxcrossin/status/1033712093357322240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2018</a></blockquote>

This is great! Back in time! Can I give myself relationship advice, or do I have to just watch athletes? Because I had a rough run there in the 2000s, you guys.

My answer to most questions is usually Bo Jackson, but you didn’t say in your question that I had the power to heal his hip. I saw him play in his prime, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that changed my life — made me love sports in a deeper and different way, and here I am with a weird job in which I get to love sports in a deeper and different way for a living.

I truly believe this: the three most important people in me growing to love sports are my grandma, my father, and Bo Jackson.

But none of this is what you’re asking about.

I wish I could see Wilt Chamberlain, because I believe him to be the most physically-ahead-of-his-time athlete in American history. I wish I could see Jim Brown, because he might be second.

I wish I could see Josh Gibson and Oscar Charleston and Buck Leonard and everyone else I’ve heard about from Buck O’Neil and Bob Kendrick at the Negro Leagues Museum.

But you’re only giving me one, so I’m going to say Mickey Mantle, because that was my dad’s guy, and I want to see what he saw.

This week, I’m particularly grateful for a life in which I can go to Chicago for a work trip, and be genuinely bummed my family can’t come with.

This story was originally published August 28, 2018 at 12:19 PM.

Related Stories from Kansas City Star

‘Chiefs are clueless.’ Fans rip team over new tailgating rule at Arrowhead Stadium

An abandoned grill has become symbol of Chiefs playoff failure

Sports Pass is your ticket to Kansas City sports

#ReadLocal