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]
The problem with your analysis of the first Chiefs-Bills matchup is that the Bills basically said "we're not going to let Mahomes beat us" and LOST.
Their options this time are to repeat what they did last time, knowing that they already lost once because of it, or to adjust, which allows Mahomes back into the equation.
The Bills are stuck.
The Raiders weren't because when they changed everything up to beat the Chiefs, they actually BEAT the Chiefs.
The Bills now are forced to choose between a strategy that resulted directly in a loss for them, or an adjusted strategy that has allowed the Chiefs to beat everybody else. [Reply]
Originally Posted by daquix:
Conversations evolve.
If you jump in mid-way, then you are not going to understand how it got to that point.
There is a reason why all those points came up, but I don't think it's a wise use of time to re-hash the entire evolution of the conversation.
I don't think the Bills will beat the Chiefs if/when it comes down to it.
I think i've been fairly consistent with saying that I think the Chiefs would win that matchup again.
However, while I wouldn't bet any money on it, I would not be shocked at all if the Bills beat the Chiefs.
I realize that there are some - not all, but some - fans on here that think the Chiefs are invincible, but they're not.
What happened in the 1st matchup between the Chiefs & Bills, in my opinion, is irrelevant.
The Bills team I see on the week right now is VERY different than the Bills team that played the Chiefs.
The Bills team playing right not would beat the Week Five Bills by 2 scores.
There are many reasons for this, but it starts with injuries:
The Bills were without their starting TE, LG, RG, DE, DT, OLB and CB2.
6 Starters and 1 depth person was out.
Then John Brown, WR2, that started the game, got hurt mid-game and left.
Now were down 7 starters and 1 depth person.
That's a really big, bad, hard hole to climb out of, all while trying to defeat the best team in the NFL, not to mention defending Super Bowl champions.
Right now, ALL of those players, except for the depth guy, is back.
So when you say that the Chiefs already beat the Bills, I'm not sure I agree. The Chiefs already beat the Bills with 7 backups playing. But the starting Bills? Not so much.
With the starters back in, we have won 6 of our last 7 (it would have been 7 straight if not for the fluke Hail Mary in Arizona).
The other reason I would not be surprised if the Bills beat KC is that they are battle tested.
The Bills have played more playoff teams than any other team in the NFL.
8 of their 13 games have been against teams that are right now, at this very moment, either in a playoff spot, or within 1 game ("in the hunt").
I truly believe that teams that play difficult competition all year, are more prepared for the playoffs.
The conversation only evolved in the direction that you took it....you're the one that started bringing up SoS, SoV, etc....and it's very clear why you brought it up
And for all of that "wall of text" you put up, you still only have rhetoric
Let me ask you this: Do you think the Bills are the only team that deals with injuries....Do you think that the Chiefs didn't have any injuries to deal with that game either?
Do you think the NFL teams sit around the locker room and say "well gee....if only Roger Rottencrotch wasn't hurt, we probably would have won the game"...
If that's all you got, then that's pretty weak.... [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
The problem with your analysis of the first Chiefs-Bills matchup is that the Bills basically said "we're not going to let Mahomes beat us" and LOST.
Their options this time are to repeat what they did last time, knowing that they already lost once because of it, or to adjust, which allows Mahomes back into the equation.
The Bills are stuck.
The Raiders weren't because when they changed everything up to beat the Chiefs, they actually BEAT the Chiefs.
The Bills now are forced to choose between a strategy that resulted directly in a loss for them, or an adjusted strategy that has allowed the Chiefs to beat everybody else.
You're right.
Which is part of the reason why I said I wouldn't bet against the Chiefs beating the Bills again.
The Chiefs did exactly what we wanted - run, run, run and take the game out of Mahomes hands.
Originally Posted by mililo4cpa:
Do you think the Bills are the only team that deals with injuries....Do you think that the Chiefs didn't have any injuries to deal with that game either?
Of course not.
But 7 (SEVEN) starters being OUT in 1 game is extremely abnormal and not within the scope of what most teams have to deal with in any 1 game.
I think you know that and are just being argumentative.
Originally Posted by :
The conversation only evolved in the direction that you took it....you're the one that started bringing up SoS, SoV, etc....and it's very clear why you brought it up
And for all of that "wall of text" you put up, you still only have rhetoric
It feels like you only want to argue and be condescending, and that's not really my style.
It was nice talking with you and I hope you have an awesome day, but I won't be responding to you any further. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Mahomes had plenty of time. The problem was the offense’s first 3 possessions of the 2nd half were punts. That’s where we lost ultimately.
Then the possession after that was the INT.
And let's also not forget that was right around the time where everyone was trying to put a bunch of players in zones and giving up the run and short passes. The Chiefs and Mahomes were struggling with that a bit. They have since ironed out their play style against that type of defensive strategy and therefore it is no longer likely to have much success. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball:
"Starters" can mean alot of things. Mahomes, Hill, or Kelce or Allen, Diggs etc would equal 7 of your scrubs. Injuries didn't matter.
Lots of their guys he calls starters also have a history of injury.
John Brown, Milano, etc.
The idea that the game doesn't count is cute though. Notice how he didn't mention who we were missing... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lzen:
And let's also not forget that was right around the time where everyone was trying to put a bunch of players in zones and giving up the run and short passes. The Chiefs and Mahomes were struggling with that a bit. They have since ironed out their play style against that type of defensive strategy and therefore it is no longer likely to have much success.
What game did this happen the most? I'd be interested in watching that. [Reply]
[QUOTE=daquix;15404043]It feels like you only want to argue and be condescending, and that's not really my style.
Really? you sure didn't have a hard time arguing and condescending others in this very thread, so what changed now? OH....I get it....not fun when somebody actually doesn't buy into your B.S.
I don't blame you, I'd probably stop too if I were you
P.S. enjoy all the awesome football talk about injuries and SoV....very riveting stuff! [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
The Raiders abandoned tendencies almost completely. They surprised the Chiefs. As you saw in the 2nd game, that won't happen again.
Mahomes suffered an ankle injury in the first game last year and then a knee injury against the Broncos. He wasn't fully healthy and playing with abandon again until about week 10. Those teams took advantage of a depleted team.
dude, its a moot point....he made an argument off of something that was never even said....in fact, I clearly said the exact opposite of what he's arguing
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Yeah, you were saying you were missing so much talent that we can't count the game or evaluate it.
I literally never said that.
A poster asked me why I think the Bills would have a shot and I told them why. I never said it doesn't count. In fact, I said the Bills would probably lose again. You seem to have made that (the idea of me saying it doesn't count) up in your head.
Originally Posted by :
This is a Covid Year, most games people have guys out. Chiefs oline was a jumble of guys who had never played together before.
Have the Chiefs played a game this year with 7 starters out? (not depth guys, but true starters out) I thought I saw a stat that only a few teams had done that. Bills, 49ers and Broncos(?) maybe.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
The Raiders abandoned tendencies almost completely. They surprised the Chiefs. As you saw in the 2nd game, that won't happen again.
Mahomes suffered an ankle injury in the first game last year and then a knee injury against the Broncos. He wasn't fully healthy and playing with abandon again until about week 10. Those teams took advantage of a depleted team.
He put up 400 yards against the Titans. I think he was just fine. They still lost.
I realize that we can make excuses until the cows come home about teams changing things up, or Mahomes not playing with reckless abandon, etc, but the point remains the same. A team winning one matchup, doesn't mean they'll win the rematch. [Reply]