I mean goddamn this conference seems wrapped up doesn’t it? Not trying to jinx us but it really seems like injuries are our biggest opponent at this point.
The Ravens are fucking frauds. They’re a warm up for us. We literally made these guys look like the JV squad the last 2 meetings.
And sure the Bills and Titans may make us work for the win, but in all honesty we have to play pretty goddamn shitty to lose to those guys.
In order to have any shot at beating us you need 3 things:
1. Elite pass rush
2. Top 10 QB capable of making critical plays
3. Overall talented roster
Steelers are the only team in the AFC that has those 3 things, and even them it’s not like they’re some serious threat like the Patriots a couple years back, but they seem like the best of the rest.
I think at this point it would be disappointing for this team to not get to the SB 3 straight times.
We’re just that good, and we keep drafting well and get better and better. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
It's how we lost our only game this season. Oakland chewed up almost a whole quarters worth of time on 2 drives and forced KC off the field quickly while doing it.
They scored 40 points.
You can chew up all the clock you want, you've gotta score TD's. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
It's how we lost our only game this season. Oakland chewed up almost a whole quarters worth of time on 2 drives and forced KC off the field quickly while doing it.
Originally Posted by O.city:
They scored 40 points.
You can chew up all the clock you want, you've gotta score TD's.
Yeah, they did both. Went blow for blow with us in a shootout AND shortened the game to the point where KC didn't have enough time to mount a comeback. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mililo4cpa:
I guess you're going to ignore my specific, DIRECT reference to the Chiefs v. Raiders in my post regarding winning the first game, my comment regarding one game doesn't prove anything reference, and my reference to any given Sunday and run with that? It's like you completely ignored what I said. Since, you don't seem to read or comprehend very well, I'll say it again: The only thing one game proves is that winning team can and did beat losing team. Not one time did I ever say that because the Chiefs beat a team the first time, they would win every time. So please don't put words in my mouth that I never said, nor ignore on three different times in the post of mine that you quoted that I didn't imply the exact opposite.
Now, since that is out of the way, I asked what are the Bills going to do to counteract the Chiefs if they play a theoretical second time...I mean, I told you how the Chiefs won, and you're response was basically that that the Chiefs played the Bills game...."They were willing to give them long, grind it out, running drives in order to shorten the game." and "But it wasn't some monumental effort or great blocking that got KC 200+ rushing yards." and "The Bills put 8 DB's back and basically told the Chiefs to run." and finally, "still didn't work to beat them though haha, so I'm not saying it was a good plan"
The question I asked was what has changed since last meeting that will make the theoretical second meeting different. The Bills had to play off to respect the Chiefs speed....and that hasn't changed. They are either going to have to do the same plan again, and hope it works. or they are going to have to play up on the line, which I would say would allow the Chiefs to play more of their normal game. And for all the "slowing down" the Bills dictated, they still would have had to score 28 points to win.....If you've read even a fraction of my posts in this thread, I've clearly stated my position on the strategy of opponents slowing the game down....It's fallacy.
On Defense, I said that the Chiefs D matches up very well with the Bill's Offense. The strength of the Chiefs D is their pass D, and they didn't sack Allen, but they got pressure on him and frazzled him. Nothing since that last game has changed, that's how the Chiefs play Defense. The Chiefs are still pretty good on the back end, and can still be disruptive up front. The Bills don't run very well, and that matches up with what the Chiefs Defense doesn't do so well either.
I also note that the game the Chiefs played that game is totally sustainable: They didn't get a bunch of turnovers, or counted on kickoff returns, or sacked Allen 7 times (like Seattle) or any other statistical oddity....they took what was given to them and played sound defense, and took advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves. All of this, while (as you say) the Chiefs were playing the game the Bills wanted them to play. I mean, think about that: The Chiefs did what the Bills wanted them to do, and they still beat the tar out of them. And here's a newsflash: They didn't have to get very creative to do it. they just lined up and beat them.
So, I'll ask again: As a guy that doesn't give a rat's ass about any other game the Bills have played (and I've watched them all by the way, so I have a good idea of what the Bills can and cannot do), doesn't care about SoS, SoV or any other thing you've been pulling out here, in a theoretical second matchup, what are the Bills going to do, since they didn't get it done the first time.
Sorry, both you and Megatron post these walls of text and I don't do great with reading walls of texts.
My mind wanders in long paragraphs.
To answer your question "I asked what are the Bills going to do to counteract the Chiefs if they play a theoretical second time", the truth is that I don't know.
I think the Chiefs would likely win again.
Originally Posted by :
t's very evident that you came looking for confirmation that we should note the greatness of the Bills
I've been here for nearly a decade.
The majority of which, the Bills were terrible.
So no, I certainly did not come here for confirmation of greatness. Were just talking football, try not to get so offended. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
Yeah, they did both. Went blow for blow with us in a shootout AND shortened the game to the point where KC didn't have enough time to mount a comeback.
I just don't agree.
The Raiders only ran 1 more play than the Chiefs in that loss. [Reply]
It's a true rite of passage around here to be treated like you just kicked a stranger's puppy. :-)
daquix, you should 'stick around' and post more (I know you've mentioned you've lurked for a long time).... we don't have a ton of rational fans of other teams (I wonder why... :-)), and I've personally enjoyed this thread this week. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
And took over 20 minutes of game time in the second half, leaving Mahomes with less time than needed to make the comeback.
You forget the bogus penalties taking points off the board allowing that to happen [Reply]
Originally Posted by daquix:
Based on tthat logic, the Raiders are better than the Chiefs because they beat them in 1 game.
Right?
Or how about last year, when Houston cleaned KC's clock. Mahomes looked pretty bad (54% passing), the defense gave up long drives, etc.
Was Houston better?
Or how about the Titans? Who, even with Mahomes putting up 400 yards against them, STILL beat KC last year.
Was Tennessee better?
That's the problem with using 1 random game as a standard of measurement.
Those losses were all back and forth games at the end, all of which at some point the Chiefs had big leads in. None of those teams came remotely close to doing anything more than winning a coin flip type game. In the Chiefs Bills game, the Chiefs dominated from beginning to end. How the games go absolutely matter for measuring who is better and by what margin.
And as for running, all those games have one thing in common which is the opposing offense ran and passed it well. Teams that become dimensional offenses, whether running or passing as their offense, do not beat the Chiefs. That’s why the Bills are not that big of a threat. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
When great Cajun chefs begin to prepare a meal, they have their “holy trinity” of vegetables — onions, bell peppers and celery — that is their foundation. (It’s their variation of Mirepoix, which is onions, carrots and celery). In football, there is also a “holy trinity.” A winning football team’s foundation will always lie with dominating play from both offensive and defensive lines and stellar play from the quarterback. Those three are the holy trinity regardless of era and style of play. They were staples in the 1950s and remain today. When those three areas are elite, teams will dominate regardless of their talent level at the other positions. Teams that love to pick wide receivers and running backs, even corners, might get a great player, but winning games will still be hard unless the other three are in sync. The Lions might have gotten a great corner in Jeff Okudah, but their offensive and defensive lines are far from elite and now they will look at another regime change.
Can one part of the holy trinity be enough for Washington, or any NFL team? Or perhaps a better question: Does any 2020 team have the holy trinity? The Chiefs are the perfect example of one part being enough, especially if the one part is a quarterback as they get beyond elite level play from Patrick Mahomes. The Packers get that as well from Aaron Rodgers. The Packers’ trifecta is similar to the Chiefs, good, not great. Rodgers’s talent offsets deficiencies in other parts of his team. The Saints have the best holy trinity when Drew Brees is under center, yet, there are times when their offensive and defensive lines don’t play at an elite level, like last week in Philadelphia. The Colts have another solid holy trinity, yet, quarterback Philip Rivers is iffy. The Colts can run the ball, dominate with their offensive line, and when DeForest Buckner is in playing, they are good. They are one blue-chip defensive lineman away from having the type of defensive line capable of giving the Chiefs problems. The Steelers had the makings of a perfect holy trinity team, yet injuries have caused their defensive line and defense not to be as good, and they appear like the 2019 New England Patriots — playing well early and running out of gas late. With Aaron Donald, the Rams are a tough team, but does anyone believe Jared Goff will handle pressure and cold weather if he has to travel back to Green Bay for a playoff game? The Rams lost Andrew Whitworth, which has hurt their offensive line and made them another team without the perfect holy trinity.
When examining all the playoff contenders, which team has the holy trinity? No one (I like the Saints as the closest to be in perfect, holy trinity harmony). So since no one excels in those areas, it will come down to quarterback play, not defense. And as good as Washington has played, and even if it wins the NFC East, Washington will not become a Super Bowl team if it has to beat Rodgers in a playoff game. The same holds in the AFC. Which team can outduel Mahomes and the Chiefs? No one.
I love Washington’s approach — no one loves great defensive line play more than me or believes stronger in the holy trinity.
And since no one has the best, I believe after 13 games that Rodgers and Mahomes might face off in Tampa.
Originally Posted by daquix:
Sorry, both you and Megatron post these walls of text and I don't do great with reading walls of texts.
My mind wanders in long paragraphs.
To answer your question "I asked what are the Bills going to do to counteract the Chiefs if they play a theoretical second time", the truth is that I don't know.
I think the Chiefs would likely win again.
I've been here for nearly a decade.
The majority of which, the Bills were terrible.
So no, I certainly did not come here for confirmation of greatness. Were just talking football, try not to get so offended.
Well that's bullcrap, because here was my quote that you used, except you completely cut off the whole second part of the statement:
"First, we have direct evidence that suggests we match up very well, seeing that we've already beat them once this year. Obviously, that is one game, but its evidence that we can beat them, without resorting to silly meaningless stats to do so. It doesn't mean the Chiefs would win a second matchup (See Chiefs v. Raiders this year), but if I were a fan of that losing team, I'd probably slow my roll a little bit."
you cut out that second half and then proceeded to tell me "by my logic...." using the same words I said
So yeah, that's not talking football dude, that's spinning your narrative....If you'd like to talk football, then explain what the Bills would do differently in a second matchup (like I've asked two times now).
But your answer is that you think the Chiefs would win again, so all of this crap about stats and arrogance and Bills are awesome means nothing. It reeks of Jeff.fisher and SteelerDane, who were very quick to find the exit when their team wasn't the flavor of the week anymore.... [Reply]
