I'll use your quote..."a careful reading of the thread would help".

I said, "stats per game are meaningless." I was using stats of 20+ yards, yards per attempt, total TD's, etc.

I really can't believe I'm having this conversation... :shake: :shake:

1. Chiefs run defense is among the worst in the NFL, more than half a yard worse than the Patriots.

2. Pats have allowed 2 runs this year of over 20 yards. Chiefs have allowed 7.

3. Chiefs have allowed twice as many rushing TDs as the Pats (10 to 5).

4. Pats have forced 8 fumbles this year. Chiefs have forced 1.

Right, they run less. Okay, good. So you agree that a defense does NOT focus on stopping the run when they are ahead.

Now then, we also agreed (you stated, and I agree) that the Patriots have played with a lead most of the time this year. In point of fact, which I doubt you knew, the Patriots have scored first in the last 17 games they have played. But anyway...

Next question -- the Patriots are allowing 4.1 yards per rush attempt to their opponents. The Chiefs are allowing 4.8. Because the Patriots are ahead most of the time, they are NOT focusing on stopping the run, but despite this fact they are allowing more than half a yard less per rush than the Chiefs.

Please account for this in your assessment that the Chiefs run defense is better than the Patriots and explain...

Logic escapes many a Chief fan.

You can dress a turd up all you want (with worthless per-game stats) but, in the end, it's still a turd.

I don't disagree that the above MAY be true. I think you will find, however, that the Patriots are very good at stopping whatever ONE thing they want to stop. I think the Pats will focus on stopping your running game, and keep Tony Gonzalez from going wild, and let your WRs try to beat us.

BUT I note this is not your original argument. You originally said

The above statement is completely ridiculous.

Well, up until last weekend, it was true.

Well, y'know, if we can both take mulligans, I'll take out the Steelers game and I'm sure the Pats would be looking better too...

But anyway, just to humor you, removing last week's rushing stats for both teams moves the Pats from 4.1 per rush to 4.2 per rush, and drops the Chiefs from 4.8 per rush to 4.65 per rush.

So instead of being over half a yard per rush, it's "only" almost half a yard per rush that the Pats are better than the Chiefs...

:shake:

You can look at YPRush, I look at yards per game-- a stat that would be more beneficial to you using your theory that teams that are behind run the ball more.

Bottom line is I think KC can beat NE because NE hasnt faced an offense like KC's except for week one and they squeaked out of that one--I want to use the word luck--and my initial response to the pats homer that said KC was facing the 'real deal' and KC hadnt faced a defense like NE before.

I will agree with this.

I don't argue that KC mgiht be able to run on NE. You have one of the best, if not THE best, rushing offenses in the NFL. Suffices to say that you MIGHT be able to run on us, but I'm POSITIVE you run offense could run wild on your run defense.

Yards per game is a completely meaningless statistic in every sense of the word, especially if you're trying to determine who has a best defense in a certain category. It doesn't pay attention to any number of factors that might influence it considerably, such as the score of the game, for example. Seriously, it's just not a good metric to derive conclusions from.

For the love of God -- I do NOT have a theory that teams that are behind run more. They run less. I've said so like 3 times, but you keep ignoring it, or else you're just trying to be intentionally annoying.

"Give Mr. Dufrane another month in the hole to think about. Are you catching my drift? or am I still being OBTUSE?!?!?"

Are you sure Dante Scarnecchia is someone's name or is it some sort of flaming hot pasta special?


---->

There's no doubt in my mind that KC will beat NE. I've never been more sure of anything in my life.

I'm completely confident about this game. Meanwhile I knew that the Saints would beat us last week.

This team is infuriating.

:banghead:

You know, in 2002, John Tait had the largest YPRush average of all KC Chiefs...does that mean he's better than Holmes? All stats have to be looked at in a certain context. Let's just say that NE's run defense hasnt been tested against a team like KC--and the CONVERSE cannot be said which is what prompted me to say before, that KC has faced good rushing defenses and has won, Baltimore being a good example and Alanta being another. NE is nothing special in the rush defense category and that was my point--albeit in a rather crude way.

You said that teams have more success running the ball when they are behind, that means nothing in context of being behind on the scoreboard.

new england needs to win something before they can run their mouth