So it’s really just the Steelers [or Bills] right?

[RunKC]

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 ****ing 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.

[Sassy Squatch]

Not bad

[ChiefBlueCFC]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Is that what you call a 31-point loss?

Browns down 31: "Now, we've got you right where we want you Pitts-- oh the games over? You just wait until next time then."

[diqlix]

Originally Posted by mililo4cpa

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.

For the record, I think the Chiefs are better too.

BUT, based on the logic you used above, the Raiders are better than the Chiefs because they beat them in 1 game.

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.

That's the problem with using 1 random game as a standard of measurement. Yet so many people in this thread want to use 1 game against the Bills half a season ago as some sort of measuring stick. Not to mention, the Bills were down 5 starters and the Chiefs were down 2 or 3 as well!

But when you watch how the Chiefs won that game against the Bills, it wasn't some type of fluke thing that happened. The Chiefs, who are probably an average to below average running team, pounded the ball all over the Bills. They didn't win by slinging it all over the yard or 75 yard bombs....they methodically dismantled the Bills in that game.

Just FYI, I don't know if you watched the after game press conferences, but both the Bills head coach and Andy Reid said that the Bills wanted KC to run. They were baiting them into it, in order to slow the game down.

They were willing to give them long, grind it out, running drives in order to shorten the game.

It kinda actually worked. The 26 points that KC put up that day were their 2nd lowest output in the last 16 games.

But it wasn't some monumental effort or great blocking that got KC 200+ rushing yards. The Bills put 8 DB's back and basically told the Chiefs to run.

Still didn't work to beat them though haha, so I'm not saying it was a good plan.

[Sassy Squatch]

I actually think the Browns are the most dangerous team for the Chiefs to face, the caveat being that they get most of their defensive starters back. They have the pass rush (especially if our OL isn't healthy) that gives Mahomes his toughest games and the offense that is both potentially explosive and that can choke the Chiefs chances out by running the ball, provided they can get a lead.

[Sassy Squatch]

If the Bills had a good run game I'd put them above the Browns, but as it stands they're a bottom third unit in that regard and I just don't trust Allen to not make potentially fatal mistakes in a shootout quite yet.

[diqlix]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

If the Bills had a good run game I'd put them above the Browns, but as it stands they're a bottom third unit in that regard and I just don't trust Allen to not make potentially fatal mistakes in a shootout quite yet.

If this was 1978, I'd agree with you.

Running just doesn't matter as much anymore.

There was an article released that last year that did a long study and used statistics to map out what teams were doing to winning, and running had almost no effect.

[Sassy Squatch]

Originally Posted by daquix

If this was 1978, I'd agree with you.

Running just doesn't matter as much anymore.

There was an article released that last year that did a long study and used statistics to map out what teams were doing to winning, and running had almost no effect.

I'm more talking about the fact that the Bills can't shorten the game if they do end up leading, which can spell disaster when the opposing QB is Mahomes.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by daquix

For the record, I think the Chiefs are better too.

BUT, based on the logic you used above, the Raiders are better than the Chiefs because they beat them in 1 game.

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.

That's the problem with using 1 random game as a standard of measurement. Yet so many people in this thread want to use 1 game against the Bills half a season ago as some sort of measuring stick. Not to mention, the Bills were down 5 starters and the Chiefs were down 2 or 3 as well!



Just FYI, I don't know if you watched the after game press conferences, but both the Bills head coach and Andy Reid said that the Bills wanted KC to run. They were baiting them into it, in order to slow the game down.

They were willing to give them long, grind it out, running drives in order to shorten the game.

It kinda actually worked. The 26 points that KC put up that day were their 2nd lowest output in the last 16 games.

But it wasn't some monumental effort or great blocking that got KC 200+ rushing yards. The Bills put 8 DB's back and basically told the Chiefs to run.

Still didn't work to beat them though haha, so I'm not saying it was a good plan.

And why would a team do that?! When it thinks is quite outmatched. We are the defending Super Bowl Champions. Our only measuring stick of your team is what we saw recently. If you want to believe something different that's your right but wouldn't that be something to take up on the Bills board?


And this is not about Buffalo. There is no team in the AFC we think is going to beat us this year if we are healthy.

[diqlix]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

And why would a team do that?! When it thinks is quite outmatched. We are the defending Super Bowl Champions. Our only measuring stick of your team is what we saw recently. If you want to believe something different that's your right but wouldn't that be something to take up on the Bills board?

I agree with you. The Bills KNEW they were outmatched, that's why they did that.

[Sassy Squatch]

Is John Brown expected to be fully healthy when he returns? I know he had an ankle injury but can't remember the severity.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by daquix

Exactly.

As with anything else in life, you have to use it in context.

Obviously in an extreme scenario where a 1-15 team beats a 15-1 team, yes the SOV will be skewed.

But that pretty much never happens.

When you are looking at teams with all 10+ wins, you KNOW that didn't happen, so the conversation about the stats potential faults is irrelevant.




The Bills have had more games against teams that are currently in a playoff spot, than any team in the NFL.

I'll repeat that - the Bills have played more playoff teams than ANY other team.

Of the Bills 13 games, 8 have been against teams that are either in a playoff spot RIGHT NOW, or within 1 game of a playoff spot ("in the hunt").

To put that into perspective, of the Chiefs 13 games, only 5 have been against teams that are in a playoff spot.

That's not a knock on the Chiefs, it's just a fact.

So for you to say that they just beat the bad teams like the Jets and Chargers is not fair.

The .. Chiefs...packed...your....shit...in. You understand that right?

[O.city]

In Mahomes 9 regular season losses, the team that beats him has averaged 36 points.

This whole "grind it out slow the game down" shit doesn't work to beat them. You've gotta go blow for blow with them and get a few stops.

[Sassy Squatch]

Originally Posted by O.city

In Mahomes 9 regular season losses, the team that beats him has averaged 36 points.

This whole "grind it out slow the game down" shit doesn't work to beat them. You've gotta go blow for blow with them and get a few stops.

It's how we lost our only game this season. Oakland chewed up almost a whole quarters worth of time on 2 drives and forced KC off the field quickly while doing it.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

And in the playoffs it took what 37?

[mililo4cpa]

Originally Posted by daquix

For the record, I think the Chiefs are better too.

BUT, based on the logic you used above, the Raiders are better than the Chiefs because they beat them in 1 game.

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.

That's the problem with using 1 random game as a standard of measurement. Yet so many people in this thread want to use 1 game against the Bills half a season ago as some sort of measuring stick. Not to mention, the Bills were down 5 starters and the Chiefs were down 2 or 3 as well!



Just FYI, I don't know if you watched the after game press conferences, but both the Bills head coach and Andy Reid said that the Bills wanted KC to run. They were baiting them into it, in order to slow the game down.

They were willing to give them long, grind it out, running drives in order to shorten the game.

It kinda actually worked. The 26 points that KC put up that day were their 2nd lowest output in the last 16 games.

But it wasn't some monumental effort or great blocking that got KC 200+ rushing yards. The Bills put 8 DB's back and basically told the Chiefs to run.

Still didn't work to beat them though haha, so I'm not saying it was a good plan.

I guess you're going to ignore my specific, DIRECT reference to the Chiefs v. Raiders in my post regarding winning the first game, my comment regarding one game doesn't prove anything reference, and my reference to any given Sunday and run with that? It's like you completely ignored what I said. Since, you don't seem to read or comprehend very well, I'll say it again: The only thing one game proves is that winning team can and did beat losing team. Not one time did I ever say that because the Chiefs beat a team the first time, they would win every time. So please don't put words in my mouth that I never said, nor ignore on three different times in the post of mine that you quoted that I didn't imply the exact opposite.

Now, since that is out of the way, I asked what are the Bills going to do to counteract the Chiefs if they play a theoretical second time...I mean, I told you how the Chiefs won, and you're response was basically that that the Chiefs played the Bills game...."They were willing to give them long, grind it out, running drives in order to shorten the game." and "But it wasn't some monumental effort or great blocking that got KC 200+ rushing yards." and "The Bills put 8 DB's back and basically told the Chiefs to run." and finally, "still didn't work to beat them though haha, so I'm not saying it was a good plan"

The question I asked was what has changed since last meeting that will make the theoretical second meeting different. The Bills had to play off to respect the Chiefs speed....and that hasn't changed. They are either going to have to do the same plan again, and hope it works. or they are going to have to play up on the line, which I would say would allow the Chiefs to play more of their normal game. And for all the "slowing down" the Bills dictated, they still would have had to score 28 points to win.....If you've read even a fraction of my posts in this thread, I've clearly stated my position on the strategy of opponents slowing the game down....It's fallacy.

On Defense, I said that the Chiefs D matches up very well with the Bill's Offense. The strength of the Chiefs D is their pass D, and they didn't sack Allen, but they got pressure on him and frazzled him. Nothing since that last game has changed, that's how the Chiefs play Defense. The Chiefs are still pretty good on the back end, and can still be disruptive up front. The Bills don't run very well, and that matches up with what the Chiefs Defense doesn't do so well either.

I also note that the game the Chiefs played that game is totally sustainable: They didn't get a bunch of turnovers, or counted on kickoff returns, or sacked Allen 7 times (like Seattle) or any other statistical oddity....they took what was given to them and played sound defense, and took advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves. All of this, while (as you say) the Chiefs were playing the game the Bills wanted them to play. I mean, think about that: The Chiefs did what the Bills wanted them to do, and they still beat the tar out of them. And here's a newsflash: They didn't have to get very creative to do it. they just lined up and beat them.

So, I'll ask again: As a guy that doesn't give a rat's ass about any other game the Bills have played (and I've watched them all by the way, so I have a good idea of what the Bills can and cannot do), doesn't care about SoS, SoV or any other thing you've been pulling out here, in a theoretical second matchup, what are the Bills going to do, since they didn't get it done the first time.


Finally, you're the one that has come on this thread spouting off about SoV, and teams evolving and all sorts of hyperbole that should result in us being in awe of your Bills. It's very evident that you came looking for confirmation that we should note the greatness of the Bills, and called Chiefs fans arrogant when we didn't kiss the ring. I even said in my post that I respect the Bills, and again, they have a nice team this year, and good for the fans.....but to come here and throw out meaningless stats like they carry some type of weight to a rival board of a team that is the defending champs and has lost one game in the past 14 months, AND has already beaten your team already seems a little foolish. So, drop the stats and all the "would of, could of, should of", and talk football: what are your Bills going to do to beat the Chiefs, because (while I note that it is possible) I don't see it. They couldn't do it the first time, so tell us how it would happen a theoretical second time....