Originally Posted by SHOWTIME (Post 17482538)

for some reason i thought he tore is ACL. my bad.

Originally Posted by Pasta Little Brioni (Post 17482549)

Their roster gets worse every year. They missed their windows choking against Stat Padford

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 17482597)

I don't see why this is controversial or why people are taking offense at it. The Colts were built to beat the Patriots. They didn't do it terribly often but that's how they were built. So were the Steelers. So were the Chiefs after Andy got here.

Why? Because at the time, the Patriots were the top team in the AFC and the NFL. If your goal is to win it all, you build your team to take out the top. Now, the Chiefs are the top.

The Bengals have had various degrees of success. In the regular season they tend to do better than in the playoffs, although they've been successful one year. But I have no doubt that when the Bengals' front office looks at their draft needs, a major consideration is which players will put them in a better position to beat KC. If they're deciding between 2 players and they are otherwise equal, I expect the Bengals to pick the player that they think will better help them beat the Chiefs. Why? Because the Chiefs are the top and are going to be the most likely obstacle between the Bengals, or any other team, and a Lombardi trophy.

Originally Posted by In58men (Post 17482584)

Bro, you’re being way too sensitive about this shit.

“IF WE HAD TO PICK ONE TEAM”

Nobody is saying they’re beating us. We’re speaking hypothetically here.

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin (Post 17482621)

I'm guess I'm not understanding why everyone is getting their panties in a wad over this?

I mean, if you are in the AFC, and your goal is to get to the Super Bowl, you're going to have to get through KC every ****ing year. This have been proven out in the playoffs every year Mahomes has been the starter.

So if you're an AFC team and you're NOT trying to build your team to 'beat KC' then I would seriously question the intelligence of your front office and your coaching staff.

The Chiefs ARE the standard and EVERY team should be trying to figure out a way to get by that, regardless of whether you're a 'contender' like the Bengals or some poor schlep like the Broncos, for instance.

I'm just not really seeing the harm in his comment. :shrug:

Originally Posted by RealSNR (Post 17482682)

Because it’s a stupid word choice.

The Bengals aren’t actually building their team to intentionally match up with us. And if they are, they’re constructed to beat the Chiefs with Tyreek, not this iteration that has done nothing but win rings each year.

Maybe they should also focus on being built to beat the ****ing Rams. That would help get them a SB

Originally Posted by staylor26 (Post 17482709)

Exactly.

It's their way of saying "Yea, the Chiefs are on top, but we have their number!".

In other words, still clinging to a few regular season wins and that one AFCCG, when we've beat them in another and won 2 SBs since.

Originally Posted by staylor26 (Post 17482709)

In other words, still clinging to a few regular season wins and that one AFCCG, when we've beat them in another and won 2 SBs since.

Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief (Post 17482712)

That one doesn't even count, they needed refball the entire game to win. That KR for a TD right before the half still blows my mind. Game was over at that point and the refs knew it.

Originally Posted by crispystl (Post 17482631)

Yeah at this point the only thing they're "built" for is to cling on as long as possible.
Ask the Bills how that worked out?