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 O.city:
Basically, you have to play your best and hope to catch the Chiefs on a day they don't play as well and make some mistakes.
And against Buffalo I am convinced this Chiefs coaching staff is well-prepared. The only other recent game I can think of where we came locked and loaded like that was the Ravens where we had the answers on both sides of the ball.
Unlike the Steelers who kept doing dumb ass runs to the outside and short throws to the outside Mahomes mentioned most of the plays called for Buffalo were RPO's. Either hand the ball off and run inside zone or if their linebackers are too close throw it over their head.
On defense it's all about throwing off Allen's pre-snap reads and we showed pressure/man, then dropped into zone and stuff to mess up his game. Make Allen process post-snap.
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
Or you just have to hope that luck goes your way and you get the ball last.
Ultimately I think the team that beats KC has to get the one extra possession and do this. But its so hard to do when the Chiefs can move the field in a minute, and are hard to get off the field when they don't want to either. [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.
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
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.
Originally Posted by mililo4cpa:
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....
Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball:
You see I also have last year's sample size, this year's sample size, oh and a 21-1 record over 22 games. Check...mate bitch
Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball:
You see I also have last year's sample size, this year's sample size, oh and a 21-1 record over 22 games. Check...mate bitch
That doesn't make any sense, considering what I said... [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Lombardi is stuck in 1990. Keep wishing for dominant play everywhere I guess?
Yeah that's hard to do these days. It's QB play, and pass rush. And having at least one decent safety to protect the back end on defense helps too. But you have to have a QB playing well, but most teams at the end of the road have good QBs, or at least an average to above average QB playing well (like Tannehill), so you need a pass rush to disrupt the other guy.
Although I will say the Niners last year got pretty close, they had dominant players all over the field except for QB. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tk13:
Yeah that's hard to do these days. It's QB play, and pass rush. And having at least one decent safety to protect the back end on defense helps too. But you have to have a QB playing well, but most teams at the end of the road have good QBs, or at least an average to above average QB playing well (like Tannehill), so you need a pass rush to disrupt the other guy.
Although I will say the Niners last year got pretty close, they had dominant players all over the field except for QB.
If you have a QB on a rookie deal and hit on stuff around him, you could do it.
Originally Posted by daquix:
Thanks for sharing your opinion!
well...it's not opinion....you did, in fact, cut out my statement, and then proceeded to say exactly what my statement said...
But I digress, it's not worth arguing over.
What I'm trying to understand is why all this talk about SoV, SoS and other meaningless stats if not to tout your Bills, then when asked to actually defend your teams position with real football talk, you're like "I don't know...."
I mean, you seem like a good person, and not totally inept when it comes to football, certainly there is something rolling around in your noodle that leads you to think the Bills will beat the Chiefs if/when it comes down to it, and it's not because of SoV or SoS.....I personally would like to hear it from a Bills fan perspective.
I've stated why I think the Chiefs are a bad match up for the Bills, but I've yet to hear the other side of the argument...I'm more than willing to talk football, but so far, it's just been rhetoric... [Reply]
Originally Posted by mililo4cpa:
What I'm trying to understand is why all this talk about SoV, SoS and other meaningless stats if not to tout your Bills, then when asked to actually defend your teams position with real football talk, you're like "I don't know...."
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.
Originally Posted by :
I mean, you seem like a good person, and not totally inept when it comes to football, certainly there is something rolling around in your noodle that leads you to think the Bills will beat the Chiefs if/when it comes down to it
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by daquix:
BUT, based on the logic you used above, the Raiders are better than the Chiefs because they beat them in 1 game.
The Raiders abandoned tendencies almost completely. They surprised the Chiefs. As you saw in the 2nd game, that won't happen again.
Originally Posted by daquix:
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? No! It was just 1 game. KC then beat the tar out of them in the playoffs.
Or how about the Titans? Who, even with Mahomes putting up 400 yards against them, STILL beat KC last year.
Was Tennessee better? No! It was just 1 game. KC then beat them in the playoffs.
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. [Reply]
