CHIEFS 4th Best Pass Defense in the League!

There is a reason why I don't listen to political ads on television. In fact, I rarely listen to what a politician has to say unless s/he is talking about what s/he wants to do or what s/he believes in. The reason is that you just can't possibly believe that you are getting the entire context of a situation about someone else when you are only hearing part of the story.

I'm going to boil this down for everyone here in the mid-west into terms that they can easily understand.

I heard on the radio today, "The CHIEFS have the 4th best passing defense in the league!" This is a true statement because they only give up an average of 153 yards per game through the air. That ranks behind Baltimore (92), Indy (141) and Tennessee (151).

Doesn't that just make you feel great... we have hope! Ummmmm, no.

Two of the top four teams that have the best defense in the league also have the worst run defense. KC gives up a WHOPPING 204 yards per game on the ground. The only team in the NFL that is worse is Detroit (208). Indy also stinks on the ground, giving up 199 per game. Passing is fraught with many more things that can go wrong, so if you can run on a team, then why pass?

The other two teams mentioned are actually good defenses for BAL only gives up 70 ypg on the ground and TEN 89 ypg.

To hammer the point home, KC has the 3rd fewest passing attempts against them at 64 (Indy is a close 4th). That's barely more than 20 pass attempts per game. The Chiefs have 111 rushing attempts against them (37 per game)! While most teams like to seek a balance in pass vs. rush, teams that are playing the CHIEFS are running almost twice as much as passing because we can't stop them.

Pathetic.

And this, mid-western kids, is why you need to get the whole story before you run off and believe anyone ever talking about something other than their own opinions, be it politics or statistics.

Obama out-fems HRC

I constantly wondered why Hillary never took advantage of the fact that she is a woman. She tried so hard to be like a man during her campaign that she ultimately lost because her opponent, Obama, was more feminine than she.

Seriously.

A friend, author (The Culture Code) and respected psychologist, Dr. Clotaire Rapaille, recently wrote:

"Hillary lost the nomination because she was not wearing a skirt; she missed the feminine trend. She did not lose because she is a woman, she lost because she is not
enough of a woman – she is not feminine enough.

Obama won because he was more feminine than Hillary. He is soft, integrative, is not exclusive and for unity. Men make definitions by exclusion. Woman are into inclusion, they make definitions by adding – “this is it, this is it too, and this is also it” and it never really ends. This is the Obama structure. He integrates different countries, different races, different classes and this is what is appealing
to the world.“we have to be on the Internet.”

How many times did I ask, "Why doesn't Hillary ever wear a skirt?" Too many! I'm not saying that I was a supporter or HRC during her campaign, but I was vocal about how she was trying so hard to avoid her gender that she was losing out on a real opportunity.

When we've been a divided country for this long, the natural tendency is to seek unity. Men are exclusive (the sword). Women are inclusive (the chalice). We want inclusion. We see the problems. We want to be part of the answer.

Too bad, HRC. BTW, did you pay off that campaign debt yet? If that's how you're going to run a campaign, I'd sure dislike how you woulda run the government anyhow.