Look when they say a team wins XYZ% of the time it takes all the players etc into effect
Every time the Chiefs Play the Bungels over the last 3 meetings I get it, we didn't come out on top but it does not mean they are the better team, it just means they won that game.
Example, based on the Chiefs having a much better QB ( I get Burrow is ok but he has always had great WR, their number #3 is our number #1) and our Oline better, better defense, better TE, we are a far superior team.
Look I think we win 65% of the time on all of those last three meetings, but that means the other team wins 35% of the time, they rolled the dice and rolled a 1-35, it is what it is, their are upsets that happen all the time in football and underdogs winning when they had no business doing so.
The Ravens beat the Donkeys who are absolutely awful by 1 point 10 to 9. I mean this is like a loss losing to the Broncos by so little. These kind of things happen, I think the Bengals just miss the playoffs or barely sneak in and get bounced in the first round. But they are a quality team, we just got the 1-35 roll, it happens, its football, we are much better, we are going to be hosting the AFC championship game again, etc etc.
I wished we rolled the 36-100 on the dice but it didn't happen, its all good, in the remaining games we should be 90% or higher percentage winners, our odds of going all the way are really high. Proud of the guys today, Kelce does not fumble its over today, stuff just happens. [Reply]
Pound for pound, KC is a better team than the Bengals are. That's proven by what each team does/has done to the rest of the league.
Bengals, like the Bills have a QB that can compete with Mahomes, that's what makes them a bad matchup for the Chiefs. The reason why the Bengals have been able to beat KC more than the Bills is, not the talent of their defense but the in-game performance of it. Bengals D has been able to corral Mahomes...for the most part.
Browns have been a bad matchup for the Bengals because they have Garrett, who is a one man wrecking crew (similar to what Watt does to them) and the Bengals line has been really bad the last 3 years. On top of that, they run the ball very well, which has been a problem as well and the Browns have been able to get pic's against Burrow.
With the line playing so much better now, the results should be very different this Sunday.
As well, the Chiefs will go back to wrecking everyone else on their schedule for the rest of the regular season. The Bengals haven't provided any kind of "blue print" because other teams would need to be able to execute that blue print. [Reply]
Originally Posted by rfaulk34:
Pound for pound, KC is a better team than the Bengals are. That's proven by what each team does/has done to the rest of the league.
Bengals, like the Bills have a QB that can compete with Mahomes, that's what makes them a bad matchup for the Chiefs. The reason why the Bengals have been able to beat KC more than the Bills is, not the talent of their defense but the in-game performance of it. Bengals D has been able to corral Mahomes...for the most part.
Browns have been a bad matchup for the Bengals because they have Garrett, who is a one man wrecking crew (similar to what Watt does to them) and the Bengals line has been really bad the last 3 years. On top of that, they run the ball very well, which has been a problem as well and the Browns have been able to get pic's against Burrow.
With the line playing so much better now, the results should be very different this Sunday.
As well, the Chiefs will go back to wrecking everyone else on their schedule for the rest of the regular season. The Bengals haven't provided any kind of "blue print" because other teams would need to be able to execute that blue print.
It's beyond bizzarre why the Chiefs' pass rush makes the Bengals O-Line look like they have Anthony Munoz at each position. But yes, that's been a major difference. All the games have been close but in the 4th quarter, the Bengals rushed Mahomes, sacked him, hit him, etc. Burrow was untouched except for that stupid 2nd down playcall before the 3rd and 11. When you're playing against an elite offense, if you don't get pressure, you're toast. [Reply]
I am a :-) Chiefs fan but until we actually beat the Bengals they are the better team. It sucks to lose three games to them. We had our opportunities to beat them and blew it and they took advantage of that. I hate losing but they deserve the credit for the win. We have the playoffs to become the better team and that's what we need to focus on is the next game and learn from mistakes.
We can be the better team but we haven't proved it to the Bengals and they have bragging rights over us. [Reply]
Originally Posted by synthesis2:
Look when they say a team wins XYZ% of the time it takes all the players etc into effect
Every time the Chiefs Play the Bungels over the last 3 meetings I get it, we didn't come out on top but it does not mean they are the better team, it just means they won that game.
Example, based on the Chiefs having a much better QB ( I get Burrow is ok but he has always had great WR, their number #3 is our number #1) and our Oline better, better defense, better TE, we are a far superior team.
Look I think we win 65% of the time on all of those last three meetings, but that means the other team wins 35% of the time, they rolled the dice and rolled a 1-35, it is what it is, their are upsets that happen all the time in football and underdogs winning when they had no business doing so.
The Ravens beat the Donkeys who are absolutely awful by 1 point 10 to 9. I mean this is like a loss losing to the Broncos by so little. These kind of things happen, I think the Bengals just miss the playoffs or barely sneak in and get bounced in the first round. But they are a quality team, we just got the 1-35 roll, it happens, its football, we are much better, we are going to be hosting the AFC championship game again, etc etc.
I wished we rolled the 36-100 on the dice but it didn't happen, its all good, in the remaining games we should be 90% or higher percentage winners, our odds of going all the way are really high. Proud of the guys today, Kelce does not fumble its over today, stuff just happens.
Bart Scott said before the season started that the Chiefs would not make the playoffs.
He might've been the only one to go that far, but many thought that KC wouldn't win the AFC. And many thought that KC wouldn't even win the AFC-W. Several said the KC might get into the playoffs as a wildcard.
Think about those ideas for a minute. Why would otherwise very respected football analysts and personalities say those things?
Here's the relatively short version:
Look at the depth chart and tell me, how many new players and rookies do you see?
Outside of the OL, Pat, Kelce, and Hardman, it's all new guys. And no true WR1. Not really a true WR2, for that matter.
On the DL, Frank, CJ, Nnadi. Everyone else is a 2 or below. In the secondary, it was Fenton, Sneed, and Thornhill. Everyone else is new or a rookie. Both defensive play-callers are new to the position. One is new to the team.
There are 9 new players on STs. The most that Toub has ever had in 22 years of coaching STs.
And then look back at that opening 7-week schedule without the benefit of hindsight. Without knowing what we now know, which is that LAC was not going to be that much better this year, that TB wasn't really as good as projected, that ARZ wasn't going to have improved since last season, that LVR wasn't going to light things up with D. Adams and Josh McD . . .
A lot of those guys had KC being no better than 3-4. Some thought 2-5. I mean, besides Bart Scott, who's been pretty bad at prognosticating the Chiefs' fortunes since 2018, other well-known football heads thought KC would only win two or three games in the first two months.
And through that lens, when you look at the remaining schedule, there were only two games that looked like definite Ws; SEA and HOU, for obvious reasons.
We aren't supposed to be here at 9-3, people.
Now it helped a ton that many of those teams turned out to be paper tigers (ARZ/LVR), or teams that we caught at just the right moment, like SF.
But when a team loses its WR1, a player that's arguably one of the top 2 or 3 WRs in the league and replaces him with a JJSS/MVS combo and then fills out the rest of the WR room with a 3rd-rd rookie and a journeyman WR/ST player, you aren't supposed to lead the league in passing yards, passing TDs, scoring, etc.
Not even with Pat Mahomes, and Kelce, and HOF HC Andy Reid.
That's just too tall a mountain in the NFL. And honestly, for probably 95% of the teams in the NFL, even if they had Mahomes, they'd likely be right.
Then on defense, it's a lot of the same story. Chris Jones and Frank Clark are really the only two starters back from last season. Nnadi was declining last season, and was basically being replaced by Saunders even early this season. Neither is really a true DT1 or DT2. But they've been serviceable so far in rotation.
The one position unit that has seen a definite upgrade this season has been at LB. no Hitchens, Neiman, etc. has turned the LBs from one of the weakest parts of the D to one of the strongest. Thank freaking God. But it's Bolton's first year as the signal-caller, and he's still growing into the role. Gay is also growing into his role, but a bit slower than Bolton.
And the secondary. New signal-caller in Reid, Thornhill and Sneed to stabilize what is otherwise a completely new secondary unit, mostly populated by rookies, including a 4th rdr and a 7th rdr that Spags starts in the nickel.
Let me say that again: a 4th and a 7th-round pick are starting in our secondary.-rd pick and a
Look at this another way: pretend it's some other team. BUF or CIN or heck, DEN. Doesn't matter. What would we all be saying here on CP about that team, looking at that amount of turnover, the number of rookies starting, etc.?
We'd all be saying, "they're rebuilding. It'll be a couple seasons before they're back in contention" . . . blah blab blah.
On paper, half those teams on the schedule were supposed to be a lot better than us.
Including CIN that returned most of their starters. That defense has been together for multiple years, and it shows. Ditto the offense they have. CIN came into the season a better team that the Chiefs, and came into the game that way as well. They have a better WR room, a better RB room, and a much more cohesive defense by virtue of the fact that they've been together a lot longer.
And yet, here we are.
Sitting at 9-3, probably a better than 50% chance at stealing HFA for the AFCCG, again, and if we get to the SB, we're already favored to win the SB vs. nearly any NFC opponent.
We were supposed to be the underdogs this season, because we were REBUILDING, lol. Instead, this core of players, with the help of maybe the best coaching staff in the NFL, made all those supposedly smart football minds look like fools.
Again.
Man, we are a spoiled bunch. Just makes you laugh sometimes.
Almost forgot; with a W this weekend and i think a MIA win vs. LAC, the Kansas City Chiefs will win the AFC-W for the eleventy-ninth consecutive time.:-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rasputin:
I am a :-) Chiefs fan but until we actually beat the Bengals they are the better team. It sucks to lose three games to them. We had our opportunities to beat them and blew it and they took advantage of that. I hate losing but they deserve the credit for the win. We have the playoffs to become the better team and that's what we need to focus on is the next game and learn from mistakes.
We can be the better team but we haven't proved it to the Bengals and they have bragging rights over us.
Pretty much.
Not since Brady was with the Pats has anyone really had our number. We've been the favorite nearly every week since. We're not use to being had and we sure as hell don't wanna' go back to those days.
Not since Brady was with the Pats has anyone really had our number. We've been the favorite nearly every week since. We're not use to being had and we sure as hell don't wanna' go back to those days.
But for now it is what it is...
Again if the premise is they beat us the last three matchups then the browns beating the Bungels the last 4 times means they are better .
If your a browns fan no matter what Cincinnati fans say they can say they are the better team , but the bengals can say “but we have a better record in the league so we are better “ so you can’t have it both ways , either you agree the browns are better than Cincinnati or not but I’d you say they are not then the inverse is true for the chiefs , we only lost 3 vs 4 in a row but we will end up with a better record . Who is better ? Depends on your metric but one cannot be true without the other , if you disagree your simply cherry picking [Reply]
Originally Posted by synthesis2:
Again if the premise is they beat us the last three matchups then the browns beating the Bungels the last 4 times means they are better .
If your a browns fan no matter what Cincinnati fans say they can say they are the better team , but the bengals can say “but we have a better record in the league so we are better “ so you can’t have it both ways , either you agree the browns are better than Cincinnati or not but I’d you say they are not then the inverse is true for the chiefs , we only lost 3 vs 4 in a row but we will end up with a better record . Who is better ? Depends on your metric but one cannot be true without the other , if you disagree your simply cherry picking
this entire thread is based on your bullshit hypothesis that Chiefs beat Bengals 6.5 times out of ten.
With nothing to back that up, nothing in the real world whatsoever.
It's total bullshit, and you're trying to pivot to other match-ups to prove...what exactly? You think it means something, and yet after having it explained to you, you just ignore all of that and go back to your bullshit hypothesis.
It's stupid.
Their QB is elite. Their WR's are the best in football. Their defense is better than KC's. This idea that we are hands down better is stupid.
They have some weaknesses, as do all teams in the salary cap era.
There is no planet on which we are 'hands down better'.
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
this entire thread is based on your bullshit hypothesis that Chiefs beat Bengals 6.5 times out of ten.
With nothing to back that up, nothing in the real world whatsoever.
It's total bullshit, and you're trying to pivot to other match-ups to prove...what exactly? You think it means something, and yet after having it explained to you, you just ignore all of that and go back to your bullshit hypothesis.
It's stupid.
Their QB is elite. Their WR's are the best in football. Their defense is better than KC's. This idea that we are hands down better is stupid.
They have some weaknesses, as do all teams in the salary cap era.
There is no planet on which we are 'hands down better'.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Exactly. No evidence that KC beats Cincinnati 65% of the time. Plenty of evidence that Cincinnati beats KC 100% of the time until proven otherwise. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
this entire thread is based on your bullshit hypothesis that Chiefs beat Bengals 6.5 times out of ten.
With nothing to back that up, nothing in the real world whatsoever.
It's total bullshit, and you're trying to pivot to other match-ups to prove...what exactly? You think it means something, and yet after having it explained to you, you just ignore all of that and go back to your bullshit hypothesis.
It's stupid.
Their QB is elite. Their WR's are the best in football. Their defense is better than KC's. This idea that we are hands down better is stupid.
They have some weaknesses, as do all teams in the salary cap era.
There is no planet on which we are 'hands down better'.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Ok, here are the reasons I say what I say and I stand by what I said about the Browns because there is a valid argument to them being better than the Bungels because of the scoreboard, not matter what you say about matchups, division games, blah blah blah, if your a Cleveland fan you can just keep coming back to scoreboard and they have nothing. They can say, well this or that happened but if your a browns fan you simply say scoreboard and there is not denying that they are the better team.
But lets go back to the Bengals for a second and me saying we beat them 65 times out of 100, look I'm not saying I'm 100% right that its 65 or more, could be 60 or more but its definatly more than 50 times which is why I said what I said, we are better and you know it.
Here is why..
Coaching, you can't even compare coaching , we have a MUCH better coach, I don't even want to go into coaching stats to prove that I would assume we all agree we have the better coach.
WR- Yep I give that to the Bengals in spades
TE - Best in the history of the NFL
OL- Push for both teams
DL- About the same although in that game they looked a bit better
LB and DB's - We have a better back 7
RB- I think they get a slight edge but not by much
QB- This is where I see the huge difference, I don't think Burrow can even sniff Mahomes Jock Strap and I'll tell you why and where I rank the guy.
Burrow- Here are the QB I think are 100% better than Burrow, Mahomes, Hurts, Allen, Herbert, Lawrence, Watson, Murray, Prescott, Tongo.... then Burrow So he is the 10th best QB in the league right now.
Now I know you can go on and on about his stats etc but remember this, until his SENIOR year of college, his numbers STUNK in college, he didn't "elevate" anyone or do anything to make his team better, it wasn't until he senior year when he had
he had....
he had....
Justin Jefferson and Jamar Chase..... Let that sink in for a second... His ONLY year he was good as a college QB he had arguably the two BEST WR in the NFL right now... I mean has there EVER been a QB that had the two best WR in the NFL on his team at the same time..Look at his stats in him junior year, very average to poor, give him a combo of those two guys then of course he looks good. Throw in that he had CEH as a RB and back in college the guy was good, virtually anyone could run that offense.
Even in the Pro's he has an amazing skill group and you could argue that his WR/TE/RB combo is the BEST in the NFL. Burrow has no special ability, isn't fast , doesn't have a super strong arm, isn't elusive as he gets sacked a ton, he is accurate but with those weapons you only need to be average to win and look good.
If you put Burrow on the Chiefs with our patchwork of WR and our aging TE how many games does he wn? 7? 8? Mahomes is so clearly better its not even in the same universe. Burrow is a C+ QB, not quite a B- but slightly above average but has great..... not great.... unreal weapons to work with.
The end of the day why we are better is because we have a MUCH better QB and Coach ,period... [Reply]
Burrow- Here are the QB I think are 100% better than Burrow, Mahomes, Hurts, Allen, Herbert, Lawrence, Watson, Murray, Prescott, Tongo.... then Burrow So he is the 10th best QB in the league right now.
Oh, ok. This tells me everything I need to know about your assessment of anything regarding football.
This is the most mind-bogglingly bad football take I think I've ever seen, and there have been some real doozies.
You guys enjoy, I can't argue with Mongo here anymore. [Reply]
