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]
No team should be taken for granted. Recent ugly wins against Denver & Atlanta are pretty good evidence of this. KC will need to bring their A game in the playoffs. [Reply]
I think a lot of coaching staffs are already in playoff mode and most everyone (including AR) is keeping their cards closer to the chest than normal because there isn’t a second bye week to fight for and everyone wants to save the good stuff for when it really matters. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
With the way it’s set up now, it feels like we’re going to see the Titans again in the divisional rd then the winner of Steelers/Bills in the championship rd.
Any given Sunday and all, but I think the Titans and Bills might be one of the better matchups for us given their lack of pass rush. I'd also feel pretty confident playing the Dolphins. Browns just don't seem like they've got the juice to beat us.
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
I don't actually think CLE is likely to win a playoff game, if they get in.
But they are going to beat PIT in week 17. Mark it down.
Though that's more a function of just how bad PIT really is, than it is about how CLE has improved.
But these aren't the "same old Browns," and I don't care about what their point differential, or what their schedule was this season. Yeah, they were terrible at the beginning of the season.
Look at their last three games, and how they finish the season. If I'm right, they'll win their last two games, and they'll look legit doing it.
That offense is finally starting to gel, and by week 10 next season, Baker's going to be rated/ranked higher than Tannehill. Chubb and Hunt will both be top 5 rushers. And most importantly, the Browns will own one of the most efficient scoring offenses in football.
Their problem is their defense. So yeah, they're going to lose plenty of games because of their defense.
That scenario sound familiar to anyone?
Can we all stop with the Cleveland Browns being a scary team in the playoffs?
Atlanta has a better point differential than Cleveland. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I don’t remember Reid’s early Chiefs teams losing to a 1-win team. Do you?
Raiders in 14 were winless at the time, Titans finished 2-14 in 14' 1 of their wins was against us. I believe we lost to an 0-8 Jets team in 2017 as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Best rushing attack in the league. Scary good. And it was the Jets.
If you want to use that excuse, go ahead.
The lost to the Jets and rushed for 2.5YPC in the process.
Come on, man.
It would be interesting to actually watch that game. I looked at the boxscore yesterday right after HT, and for some reason CLE didn't even run more than about 10 times in the first half. I mean they didn't even try before they were down three scores. Did Chubb/Hunt get hurt? Did their OL not play? Did Stefanski forget he had the 2nd best running attack in the NFL?
And, Baker hadn't thrown a bunch of INTs either, so you can't say that he sabotaged their gameplan by turning it over multiple times. I think going into HT he had zero INTs.
Basically CLE didn't play to their strengths at all yesterday. Would like to know why. [Reply]
So what was ATL's point differential over the last 3 games vs. CLE's PD over their last three before yesterday?
Bet CLE's was at least equal or better. So what exactly and how significant is PD really?
I didn't see the game so I don't know what really happened, but I did check the boxscore around HT yesterday, and noted that CLE didn't run the ball in the first half. They also didn't turn it over. So what happened? Did Chubb and Hunt get hurt? Did Stefanski turn the play-calling duties over to Freddie Kitchens? Again, I have no idea, but the boxscore says that CLE didn't play their game, at all. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Yeah, give me a team with no elite edge rushers for our first game.
Buffalo would be perfect to get our OL back and ready.
TEN would be better for us. No edge rushers and a QB that is shackled to PA with Henry in the backfield. BUF doesn't need a running game and their QB can actually make plays without PA. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
TEN would be better for us. No edge rushers and a QB that is shackled to PA with Henry in the backfield. BUF doesn't need a running game and their QB can actually make plays without PA.
Either would be fine. Not worried about Allen as Spags showed me he knows what to do.
So what was ATL's point differential over the last 3 games vs. CLE's PD over their last three before yesterday?
Bet CLE's was at least equal or better. So what exactly and how significant is PD really?
I didn't see the game so I don't know what really happened, but I did check the boxscore around HT yesterday, and noted that CLE didn't run the ball in the first half. They also didn't turn it over. So what happened? Did Chubb and Hunt get hurt? Did Stefanski turn the play-calling duties over to Freddie Kitchens? Again, I have no idea, but the boxscore says that CLE didn't play their game, at all.
IMO, it's not useless and it's part of a bigger picture.... it's like one lab result/measure of health.... it's not a number you would put all of your focus on, but it's at least part of the bigger picture.
The Chiefs, for example... I'd expect them to be around +200 and they're at +128. It's not necessarily a terrible thing.... could just mean they've played a lot of playoff teams, it could mean they didn't blow out a team or two that would have really helped their point differential (so what), etc.
For the Browns being 10-5, they should maybe be in the ~+100-125 range and they're -13. And the only other teams in the league with negative point differentials all have losing records. Their largest margin of victory is 14 (NYG & WFT)... beat the Jaguars by 2, Texans by 3, Bengals by 3, Cowboys by 11, Bengals by 5. They also didn't even bother showing up in Pittsburgh, got swept by the Ravens, and lost to the Jets and Raiders.
My conclusion would be they're closer to an 8-8 team that benefited by sweeping the NFCE. Good enough to sneak up on a team every once in a while (Colts, Titans), but also inconsistent (@Pitt, @Ravens, @NYJ).
There's a reason that division has three 10+ win teams, and that reason is the NFCE. [Reply]
