PDA

View Full Version : Should we sit our starters



figcrostic
12-26-2010, 08:42 PM
So we can have our team well rested and injury free for the playoffs? I personally think we should treat next weeks game as a playoff game let Croyle come in and stink up the place for the first half then let guitterez play in the second, I also wanna jackie battle get some more reps.

stricken721
12-26-2010, 08:44 PM
No. I don't think we should rest them. Keep the starters ready for a game like pace.


Also, Guitierrez isn't on the team anymore.

Chiefster
12-26-2010, 08:44 PM
No. I don't think we should rest them. Keep the starters ready for a game like pace.


Also, Guitierrez isn't on the team anymore.


Eggsactly!

chief31
12-26-2010, 08:45 PM
There is still seeding order that we need to make sure we pay attention to.

If we lose, and the Colts win, will the get the better seed?

stricken721
12-26-2010, 08:46 PM
There is still seeding order that we need to make sure we pay attention to.

If we lose, and the Colts win, will the get the better seed?

I think we will still have the #3 seed.

chief31
12-26-2010, 08:49 PM
I think we will still have the #3 seed.

If this is the case, I would say that we limit the number of plays of our starters.

matthewschiefs
12-26-2010, 08:54 PM
It's simple NO we play just like anther game.

hometeam
12-26-2010, 09:02 PM
gotta keep your players sharp.. if the game gets out of hand in the 4th quarter, and we are dominating or being crushed, sit em then, but until then, let em play!

#58ChiefsFan
12-26-2010, 09:05 PM
gotta keep your players sharp.. if the game gets out of hand in the 4th quarter, and we are dominating or being crushed, sit em then, but until then, let em play!

This. :chiefs:

Ryfo18
12-26-2010, 09:07 PM
Absolutely, positively...Give Jamaal his 5-8 carries, cassel a first half. This next game really means nothing.

NJChiefs
12-26-2010, 09:08 PM
We still have conference seeding to play for. The colts would have the tie breaker based on head to head play. So if they were to get lucky and win two road playoff games and meet us in the conference final, it would be played in Indy. So it's not a meaningless at all. we have a remote chance of playing two playoff games at home.

#58ChiefsFan
12-26-2010, 09:09 PM
Our coaching staff has been in this position several times before. Now we get to enjoy it with them.

Hayvern
12-26-2010, 09:18 PM
We need to play them, we need to keep these guys sharp. Too many times I have seen teams take the last game off and lose the edge.

Bike
12-26-2010, 09:32 PM
Gotta keep practicin', gotta keep playin'.
Why did Haley pull Cassel at the beginning of the 4th quarter? This might tell you maybe what Haley has in mind for the faiders...

#58ChiefsFan
12-26-2010, 09:43 PM
Gotta keep practicin', gotta keep playin'.
Why did Haley pull Cassel at the beginning of the 4th quarter? This might tell you maybe what Haley has in mind for the faiders...

Haley said they had to get something strategically in line, and had Brodie converted that third down Cassel was coming back in.

I think the undefeated season at home means something to our coaching staff.

TöpChiefsFan
12-26-2010, 09:44 PM
Gotta keep practicin', gotta keep playin'.
Why did Haley pull Cassel at the beginning of the 4th quarter? This might tell you maybe what Haley has in mind for the faiders...

I think that showed him that he doesn't want Glass Jaw playing. One play = one interception. Keep gimpie on the sideline.

buffman316
12-26-2010, 09:46 PM
I think it should be treated like a pre season game, play em for a quarter and then sit em. The playoffs are the only thing that matters now!

TöpChiefsFan
12-26-2010, 09:53 PM
I'm biased though only because I have tickets to next weeks game.

JMDChiefs58
12-26-2010, 10:11 PM
We still have conference seeding to play for. The colts would have the tie breaker based on head to head play. .

This: If the Chiefs lose and the Colts win the Chiefs would be the #4 seed and the Colts would be #3. We need to play all out and beat the Raiders.

Ryla02
12-26-2010, 10:22 PM
We should play our starter until the second half. By that time the score would be 28-0 KC. Screw Jokeland Faiders...

Seek
12-26-2010, 10:29 PM
It's the raiders. Thugs and goons. Why risk getting a key player hit with a cheap shot what not. Rest a couple players like cassel and Charles.

captainamerica
12-26-2010, 10:52 PM
We should play to win so that we get the 3rd seed. If we get the 3rd seed than we'll most likely be playing against the Jets, that's a much better matchup in my opinion than Ravens/Steelers (runner up). Especially considering we would be playing the Jets in KC in January and So-Cal Sanchez can't play in cold weather. This is a divisional rival at home, I think we should play to win the game.

rook3207
12-26-2010, 11:54 PM
i agree with hometeam, play it as a nother game. Finish todd haley's "fourth quarter" with a winning record and have some momentum going into the playoffs. If the Chiefs are up big late in the game, yeah sit the starters.

tornadospotter
12-26-2010, 11:57 PM
It is still a important game. Play the starters, hopefully jump out in a early big lead, then protect our key players, give game time experience to backups. Most important, win to keep momentum, no injuries!

Bike
12-27-2010, 12:59 AM
I think the Chiefs must always play to win vs faders. ALWAYS.

ITS RAIDER WEEK!!

brdempsey69
12-27-2010, 01:49 AM
I think it should be treated like a pre season game, play em for a quarter and then sit em. The playoffs are the only thing that matters now!

THIS ^^^

Oh, BTW, for those wanting an undefeated home regular season record, I suggest you look at the Chiefs history and the 4 times previously that they went undefeated at home during the regular season in 1971, 1995, 1997, and 2003 and subsequently lost the opening playoff game ( at home ) all 4 times. Having an unbeaten record at home for the regular season has proved not to be worth a plug nickel once the post-season started.

By contrast, when the Chiefs won AFL Championships in 1962, 1966, and 1969, plus their appearance in the 1993 AFC Championship game, they did NOT have an unbeaten record at home during the regular season.

Like I said before, I'll gladly trade next weeks game against the Raiders for victories in the post season. And NO, it ain't superstition. I just know how this scenario has worked historically for the Chiefs.

The upcoming game against the Raiders is meaningless, the post-season is what matters now.

wilqb16
12-27-2010, 02:34 AM
No. I don't think we should rest them. Keep the starters ready for a game like pace.


Also, Guitierrez isn't on the team anymore.

....This!

I say we keep the momentum going into the playoffs...

wilqb16
12-27-2010, 02:36 AM
We should play to win so that we get the 3rd seed. If we get the 3rd seed than we'll most likely be playing against the Jets, that's a much better matchup in my opinion than Ravens/Steelers (runner up). Especially considering we would be playing the Jets in KC in January and So-Cal Sanchez can't play in cold weather. This is a divisional rival at home, I think we should play to win the game.

I agree - also, the seed matters in the unlikely event that we should meet one of the other lower seeds later in the play-offs.

I could care less about the 8-0 record at home but do think we should have momentum going into the playoffs.

Also, the Raiders are just the type of team we have struggled with this season (big and physical on offense), so I think it is good work for us to learn how to beat the crap out of them.

McLovin
12-27-2010, 04:53 AM
As I said in another post, if we get the 3rd seed we play Jets after we beat the Jets the 3rd seed gets us Pittsburg rather then the Pats.

The winner of the other wildcard game would then get the Pats instead of us. If they win and we beat Pittsburg (or the Ravens if they swap seeds next week) then the Championship game runs through Arrowhead having the number 1 and 2 teams losing prior to the Championship game.

GO CHIEFS

chiefnut
12-27-2010, 08:32 AM
ITS THE FREAKIN RADRZ!!!!

start everybody, crush'em, grind their bones to dust, stomp them into the ground, beat them every way we can!

then we can rest!!!

bbacker51
12-27-2010, 10:15 AM
Gotta play the starters......atleast until the game gets out of hand. then put Croyle in to hand off the ball.

OH yeah, Raiders suck

Crawdadr
12-27-2010, 10:39 AM
The seeding could be important, but for me the biggest issue is keeping the players eager and sharp. Winning becomes a habbit and I believe we should keep that going. No one wants to go into the playoffs with a loss.

Canada
12-27-2010, 11:29 AM
We have not lost to anyone in the new Arrowhead. I dont want the first team to win against us there be the Raitards. Keep your foot on the gas Todd!! Crush 'em all!!

4everchiefsfan25
12-27-2010, 12:11 PM
I still have that bad taste in my mouth from the last Raiders game. I say we sit our starters after we are up by 4 scores. I just want to crush the Raiders

ctchiefsfan
12-27-2010, 12:38 PM
I think we need momentum going into the playoffs, not rest. If we build a big lead its OK to pull some of the starters to avoid the risk of cheap shot injuries, but until the game is well in hand we need to go for a full out STOMPING of the faiders.

4everchiefsfan25
12-27-2010, 01:56 PM
I think we need momentum going into the playoffs, not rest. If we build a big lead its OK to pull some of the starters to avoid the risk of cheap shot injuries, but until the game is well in hand we need to go for a full out STOMPING of the faiders.
I agree plus I really want that 3rd seed in the playoffs so we can get the Jets

SIC J
12-27-2010, 05:38 PM
Highly doubt the starters don't play. Cassel didn't even wanna come out of the game against the Titans.

Chiefs need a win to clinch the 3rd seed. Plus you don't want that much rest. Most of the time that plan back fires.

Chazz
12-27-2010, 05:42 PM
i wouldnt take the foot off the gas peddle, treat game like a playoff game....

captainamerica
12-27-2010, 07:03 PM
We need this win to get an easier road in the playoffs. Clinching the 3rd seed would mean that we would almost certainly play the Jets in the wild card round. The Jets are a much better matchup for us in my opinion than the Steeler/Ravens runner up. Especially considering that we'd be at home in January and Sanchez can't play in cold weather. After that (if we beat the Jets) we'd face off against the Steelers/Ravens winner, a much better matchup than going up against the Pats at home (the team with the best record in the league). The 3rd seed is much, much better than the 4th seed.

With the 3rd seed we'd have a much easier schedule as far as matchups are concerned and we'd also have a higher possibility of clinching an extra home game in the playoffs. This is a very important game, for momentum going into the playoffs and for seeding purposes. Plus it's the Raiders, why would anyone ever want us to lose to the Raiders at home. No need to give them momentum going into next season (if they beat us they'll have swept everyone in the division). I say we take it to them and prove we're the best team in the west.

AkChief49
12-27-2010, 08:00 PM
We have not lost to anyone in the new Arrowhead. I dont want the first team to win against us there be the Raitards. Keep your foot on the gas Todd!! Crush 'em all!!
This!! We did not lose but rather gave that last game to the Faders. We need to show them that there was never any chance for them anyway. But first and foremost, it's the Faders and we want that perfect home win record for the season. It kind of sets the tone for those coming in for the playoffs. It gets in their heads a bit knowing we have not lost at home for the year!!!!

josh1971
12-27-2010, 08:29 PM
Sit our starters and risk not being 8-0 at home? And to the RAIDERS???

No- keep going into the post season with a winning streak.

ctchiefsfan
12-27-2010, 08:46 PM
Lets face it. This is Chiefs VS. Raiders. One of the oldest and meanest rivalries in the NFL.

We need to kick the living poop out of these filthy scumbags just to make it really clear who the real AFC WEST CHAMPIONS are!

No more talk about easy schedules or any of that crap.

Just say it loud and clear...We're the best in the west!!!!

figcrostic
12-27-2010, 09:27 PM
Sit our starters and risk not being 8-0 at home? And to the RAIDERS???

No- keep going into the post season with a winning streak.

The alternative is not sitting them and risking our best players getting hurt and not playing in the playoffs. Matt Cassel is still only a couple weeks out from his surgery.

brdempsey69
12-27-2010, 10:03 PM
The alternative is not sitting them and risking our best players getting hurt and not playing in the playoffs. Matt Cassel is still only a couple weeks out from his surgery.

Totally agree. I don't buy into the theory "we need to win to have momentum" and the other theory "we need to win to get 3rd seed so we can play the Jets & not the Ravens". In the post season you have to be ready to take on anyone & that means having all your best players healthy and ready to go.

And again, people are steadfastly ignoring history & that having a perfect home record during the regular season hasn't amounted to jack-sh!t once in the post seasons that followed ( 1971, 1995, 1997, and 2003 ) on four separate occasions -- COUNT 'EM -- 4 TIMES.

If the Chiefs needed to win against the Raiders to get into the playoffs, then that would be one thing. But they are already in, so it would be foolish to put all their stock into a meaningless game -- I don't give a damn who it's against -- and getting key players hurt and not having them ready in the postseason. It makes no sense at all. Marty Schottenheimer pulled this same suckhead play in 1997 in the season finale against NO & did the so called "momentum of winning the final game" help the Chiefs in the 1997 postseason? Did Marty learn from it that Grbac was not ready to come back just yet & that Gannon should have been the starter in the playoffs ( he pulled Grbac in the NO game in favor of Gannon to help spark the Offense -- why the hell didn't he do that in the playoff game against Denver )? No, he did not -- all that stock that Marty put into that meaningless season finale against NO in 1997 was for nothing.

I'll bet money if the Chiefs put all their stock into this meaningless game this Sunday, it'll wind up being for nothing.

ctchiefsfan
12-27-2010, 10:11 PM
Lots of good points here.

I'll trust Haley. He's gotten us waaaay farther than any of us expected.

:chiefs::chiefs::chiefs: GO CHIEFS!!!

tornadospotter
12-27-2010, 10:26 PM
Lots of good points, but there is still one big point to me.

It is raider week!
I hate the raiders! In our house we need to stomp them!!

:raisux::chiefs3:

brdempsey69
12-27-2010, 10:38 PM
Another point that I'll make is now that the Chiefs have made the playoffs, they need to take on the mindset that their objective now is to get to the Super Bowl & WIN IT !! This game against the Raiders this coming Sunday is not going to determine that. What happens in the post season does.

Think for a moment, and look at the players the Chiefs have that can make that objective come true. Cassel, Charles, Bowe, Derrick Johnson, Hali, Dorsey, etc. These guys could all really catch fire in the postseason ( especially Charles and we've seen that he can single-handedly take over a game against anyone, anywhere ) & I hardly think it's worth it to lose any key players to injury in a meaningless game.

Also, keep in mind, the Raiders pass rush is very good and if Cassel plays and throws the ball 25-30 times, he's bound to take some hard shots. Is it really worth the risk losing him & not having him in the post season, given what we saw happen in SD? NO WAY !!

ctchiefsfan
12-27-2010, 11:47 PM
Good point brdempsey69....

The very worst possible scenario is we play our top guns, lose the game and maybe lose some starters to injury.

That would really really SUCK!

That said, as tornadospotter said....


[quote="tornadospotter"] It is raider week!
I hate the raiders! In our house we need to stomp them!!

:raisux:A

As much as Haley has pished me off with some of his "go for it on 4th" calls when a field goal was almost a sure thing, I'm going to ride this one out with whatever Haley decides to do.

He got us here. It's his decision.

Chiefster
12-28-2010, 02:00 AM
Sit our starters and risk not being 8-0 at home? And to the RAIDERS???

No- keep going into the post season with a winning streak.


...Could not have said it better.

chiefnut
12-28-2010, 08:58 AM
Another point that I'll make is now that the Chiefs have made the playoffs, they need to take on the mindset that their objective now is to get to the Super Bowl & WIN IT !! This game against the Raiders this coming Sunday is not going to determine that. What happens in the post season does.

Think for a moment, and look at the players the Chiefs have that can make that objective come true. Cassel, Charles, Bowe, Derrick Johnson, Hali, Dorsey, etc. These guys could all really catch fire in the postseason ( especially Charles and we've seen that he can single-handedly take over a game against anyone, anywhere ) & I hardly think it's worth it to lose any key players to injury in a meaningless game.

Also, keep in mind, the Raiders pass rush is very good and if Cassel plays and throws the ball 25-30 times, he's bound to take some hard shots. Is it really worth the risk losing him & not having him in the post season, given what we saw happen in SD? NO WAY !!

YEAH BUT, think of momentum as a locomotive running at 3/4 throttle, to ramp it up to full throttle requires just a little track, but when you throttle back to 1/4 and then later throw it to full ahead it takes alot of track and energy.
not to mention if we can't beat the raderz at home we will NOT beat the jets. would you rather the jets look at the CHIEFS as the team that has not been beat in ARROWHEAD the toughest place to play in the nfl or huh the raderz beat 'em , their not so tuff at home??
I say crush the raderz, stomp them into the ground , send the message to the jets no one beats us in our house, not this year!!

okikcfan
12-28-2010, 09:11 AM
The Chiefs are AFC West champions. A win over the Raiders next week would clinch the No. 3 seed in the conference. A loss and a win by the Colts would push Kansas City down to No. 4. (And possibly stuck going to Foxborough in round two. Something to think about if the Chiefs consider resting folks.)

azchiefsfan
12-28-2010, 09:22 AM
No! It's the Traiders. And we have got to crush them for momentum next year.

Canada
12-28-2010, 10:40 AM
Totally agree. I don't buy into the theory "we need to win to have momentum" and the other theory "we need to win to get 3rd seed so we can play the Jets & not the Ravens". In the post season you have to be ready to take on anyone & that means having all your best players healthy and ready to go.

And again, people are steadfastly ignoring history & that having a perfect home record during the regular season hasn't amounted to jack-sh!t once in the post seasons that followed ( 1971, 1995, 1997, and 2003 ) on four separate occasions -- COUNT 'EM -- 4 TIMES.

How many SuperBowl winners have had undefeated home records?

If the Chiefs needed to win against the Raiders to get into the playoffs, then that would be one thing. But they are already in, so it would be foolish to put all their stock into a meaningless game -- I don't give a damn who it's against -- and getting key players hurt and not having them ready in the postseason. It makes no sense at all. Marty Schottenheimer pulled this same suckhead play in 1997 in the season finale against NO & did the so called "momentum of winning the final game" help the Chiefs in the 1997 postseason? Did Marty learn from it that Grbac was not ready to come back just yet & that Gannon should have been the starter in the playoffs ( he pulled Grbac in the NO game in favor of Gannon to help spark the Offense -- why the hell didn't he do that in the playoff game against Denver )? No, he did not -- all that stock that Marty put into that meaningless season finale against NO in 1997 was for nothing.

I'll bet money if the Chiefs put all their stock into this meaningless game this Sunday, it'll wind up being for nothing.

I hear you keep saying that it is a meaningless game, but its not. Forget the first round, but if we win in the 2nd round and somone beats the Pats...3rd seed is the difference between play ing the AFC championship game at home vs on the road.

I dont really care what another coach did 13 years ago before his playoff run. I dont care that 4 other times that we have been undefeated at home, we lost in the playoffs. Those things are all irrelevant to what is happening now. I agree that you rest players if everything is decided, but its not. IF you can look up at the score board and see that the Colts are gettinf killed, then sure, pull some players. Otherwise we need to secure the #3 spot.

chiefnut
12-28-2010, 11:06 AM
ITS THE FREAKIN RADERZ!!!!, just in case i was not entirely clear,
ITS THE FREAKIN RADERZ
kill 'em, stomp 'em, pulverize 'em beat 'em every way we can!!!!!
oh did i mention why we need to use our starters "ITS THE FREAKIN RADERZ"

figcrostic
12-28-2010, 11:36 AM
ITS THE FREAKIN RADERZ!!!!, just in case i was not entirely clear,
ITS THE FREAKIN RADERZ
kill 'em, stomp 'em, pulverize 'em beat 'em every way we can!!!!!
oh did i mention why we need to use our starters "ITS THE FREAKIN RADERZ"

It's the raiders in a completely meaningless game. And those dirty scumbags would love nothing more then to hurt one of our stars and ruin our chances in the playoffs. I would rather lose to the faiders and win a game in the playoffs any day. If we can beat the raiders and go to the superbowl awesome im all for it but I don't know if it's worth risking our star players safety.

Canada
12-28-2010, 11:46 AM
It's the raiders in a completely meaningless game. And those dirty scumbags would love nothing more then to hurt one of our stars and ruin our chances in the playoffs. I would rather lose to the faiders and win a game in the playoffs any day. If we can beat the raiders and go to the superbowl awesome im all for it but I don't know if it's worth risking our star players safety.

So the 3rd or 4th seed makes no difference to you?

So if we beat the Raiders then we lose the playoff game? I would rather beat the Raiders, then win a couple of playoff games and have the AFC Chapionship at Arrowhead instead of on the road.

Ryfo18
12-28-2010, 11:47 AM
It's the raiders in a completely meaningless game. And those dirty scumbags would love nothing more then to hurt one of our stars and ruin our chances in the playoffs. I would rather lose to the faiders and win a game in the playoffs any day. If we can beat the raiders and go to the superbowl awesome im all for it but I don't know if it's worth risking our star players safety.

It's actually not meaningless. I think with a Colts win and a loss by us we go from the 4th seed to the 3rd seed. Basically it would put us on the Patriots side to get the AFC West championship and we'd likely play the Ravens instead of the Jets.

I saw today that Haley said they wouldn't rest the starters. We'll see how it plays out if the Chiefs get up big. I wouldn't put it past the Raiders to play dirty.

kcvet
12-28-2010, 11:48 AM
I would like to see them kick the Faiders a** just for GP's. and end the season on a winner.

Canada
12-28-2010, 11:49 AM
It's actually not meaningless. I think with a Colts win and a loss by us we go from the 4th seed to the 3rd seed. Basically it would put us on the Patriots side to get the AFC West championship and we'd likely play the Ravens instead of the Jets.

I saw today that Haley said they wouldn't rest the starters. We'll see how it plays out if the Chiefs get up big. I wouldn't put it past the Raiders to play dirty.

We are already the 3rd seed. We would drop to the fourth with a loss and a Colts win. :bananen_smilies046:

chiefnut
12-28-2010, 12:04 PM
at no time ever is the CHIEFS vs raiders a "meaningless" game. this is one of the most hated rivalries in all of sports. the "spearing" rule was created because of ben davidson spearing a defensless sliding Lenny Dawson and the ensuing penalty on Otis Taylor when he came to his defense cost us a third trip to the super bowl. the crushing hit on Nolan Smith, the dirty play or tatum head hunting, forearm shots...the list is endless. don't EVER call a raiders game "meaningless". just to utter that phrase could call ones status as a true CHIEFS fan into question. every CHIEFS vs raiders game means a great deal to the players and fans if not to the rest of he league or standings.

kcvet
12-28-2010, 12:07 PM
at no time ever is the CHIEFS vs raiders a "meaningless" game. this is one of the most hated rivalries in all of sports. the "spearing" rule was created because of ben davidson spearing a defensless sliding Lenny Dawson and the ensuing penalty on Otis Taylor when he came to his defense cost us a third trip to the super bowl. the crushing hit on Nolan Smith, the dirty play or tatum head hunting, forearm shots...the list is endless. don't EVER call a raiders game "meaningless". just to utter that phrase could call ones status as a true CHIEFS fan into question. every CHIEFS vs raiders game means a great deal to the players and fans if not to the rest of he league or standings.

the good ole days..............it was unfair to play fair HE

4everchiefsfan25
12-28-2010, 12:07 PM
I would much rather be the 3rd seed and have two teams have a chance to upset the Patriots before the Chiefs would have to play them if we won our first two games. If the Chiefs get the 3rd seed and the Patriots lose then we get the AFC Championship game at home and that benefits our YOUNG team a lot so dont sit our starters. It doesn't matter what we say on here because Haley already said that he wasnt going to sit our starters

chiefnut
12-28-2010, 12:15 PM
Hey We Play To Win The Game, Hello! We Play To Win The Game!..........h.e.

Canada
12-28-2010, 12:20 PM
Hey We Play To Win The Game, Hello! We Play To Win The Game!..........h.e.http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs048.snc3/13554_368381865006_588035006_9887807_5390170_n.jpg

4everchiefsfan25
12-28-2010, 12:21 PM
http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/
What did you do Kidnap Herm so you could get a pic with him? He looks like he is scared for his life :lol:

Canada
12-28-2010, 12:24 PM
We met him at the airport in Chicago and talked with him for about an hour. Then when we landed in KC, I asked if I could grab a quick pic and he said Sure!! He is a really nice guy. I can see why a lot of players liked him. Just maybe not a great coach!!

chiefnut
12-28-2010, 12:28 PM
i'll bet you've had that jacket cleaned after that

Canada
12-28-2010, 12:29 PM
i'll bet you've had that jacket cleaned after thatI sprayed it with Teflon.

Ryfo18
12-28-2010, 12:34 PM
We are already the 3rd seed. We would drop to the fourth with a loss and a Colts win. :bananen_smilies046:

Yes that's what I meant!

chiefnut
12-28-2010, 12:39 PM
I sprayed it with Teflon.


smart move:punk:

iratefan
12-28-2010, 01:01 PM
I say start everyone. "resting" is something ive always read as "icing" which is not conducive to your best showing going into the playoffs.

Lets look around the league - Atlanta locked a playoff berth, but playing the Saints at home last night, they came all out to play. theyre not worried about injuries, they have a seed to play for, not to mention their pride.

Are the pats pulling starters on week 17? Will the Eagles sit Vick vs their hated rivals the Cowboys? We all know teams like the Colts, the Giants and the Packers are going to come out running on all cylinders as they have no choice. Will Big Ben be sitting pretty on the sidelines against a meaningless game against the browns?

If we look around the league and find ourselves within a very select few company that is taking the safe approach going into the playoffs (or worse yet, being alone in that category) i think that makes a big statement about who you are as a football team. Perhaps if we have 1st round bye already clinched that might be a different scenario. but even if those teams come out with all starter personell on field but we take a siesta against a bitter rival at home where a seed slot is on the line then ill be sorely disappointed with our coaching staff.

Something tells me that they arent sissies judging by the way theyve been calling plays all year. Its one thing not to put an injured player at further harms way by playing them prematurely (those were smart calls not to bring DMC back so early and Haley could have sat Cassel for two weeks if Cassel himself didnt feel ready to play), its another thing to flee from the possibility of injury when there is still ground worth fighting for on the line.

I say we go out there and put the raiders on their back with all we've got. I for one am very curious as to how much we've grown since week 10 and i think that the raiders playing bitterly against us will be a good exercise as for what to expect during the playoffs.

chiefnut
12-28-2010, 03:11 PM
I say we go out there and put the raiders on their back with all we've got. I for one am very curious as to how much we've grown since week 10 and i think that the raiders playing bitterly against us will be a good exercise as for what to expect during the playoffs.[/quote]

i agree whole heartedly, resting your starters sends the message that you are "afraid" of playing this team and getting hurt like little sissy girlie men. go out build a lead and say "see we are gonna whoop yo butt" then take em out and you say " we can even whoop yo wit the back up boys"

wilqb16
12-28-2010, 03:38 PM
I say we go out there and put the raiders on their back with all we've got. I for one am very curious as to how much we've grown since week 10 and i think that the raiders playing bitterly against us will be a good exercise as for what to expect during the playoffs.

i agree whole heartedly, resting your starters sends the message that you are "afraid" of playing this team and getting hurt like little sissy girlie men. go out build a lead and say "see we are gonna whoop yo butt" then take em out and you say " we can even whoop yo wit the back up boys"[/quote]

I agree - particularly I want to see how we have grown...especially with not getting drawn into playing the Raiders game. On top of leading the NFL in penalties, the Raiders also have the most penalties called on their opponents.

I want to see that we can keep from getting sucked into that and play smart football. Also, I want to see how we do against a physical 4-3 defense. We have struggled to run the ball against these. Even this week - vs. the Titans - Jones had like 22 carries for 52 yards. Granted Charles had 77 yards on 13 carries but for our team to be consistent, Jones needs to average at least 3.5 yards a clip.

figcrostic
12-28-2010, 03:43 PM
It's actually not meaningless. I think with a Colts win and a loss by us we go from the 4th seed to the 3rd seed. Basically it would put us on the Patriots side to get the AFC West championship and we'd likely play the Ravens instead of the Jets.

I saw today that Haley said they wouldn't rest the starters. We'll see how it plays out if the Chiefs get up big. I wouldn't put it past the Raiders to play dirty.

Then I hope nobody gets hurt and we destroy the raiders.

wilqb16
12-28-2010, 03:52 PM
Then I hope nobody gets hurt and we destroy the raiders.

I kind of doubt that. I don't think the Raiders are even our number one rival anymore. Really, it hasn't been that way since the Marty era.

I think the Chargers and Broncos draw more distain than the Raiders and this goes both ways.

Even though the Raiders beat us earlier this year, as long as senile Al Davis is at the helm, dreaming of Darryl Lamonica, switching coaches every other year and still trying to build a tecmo bowl offense, I think the Raiders are kind of like watching a train wreck and you can't take them too seriously. Heck, they even had a fan take out a billboard asking Al to sell the team.

They lead the league in penalties every year and seem to have stopped even trying to stop. They draft like they are using a Quiji board. They'll go 5-1 in the AFC West but lose the thing.

The Raiders aren't mean anymore, they are kind of sad.

ctchiefsfan
12-28-2010, 04:03 PM
Yeah....But I still HATE them and have since the '60s

Chiefster
12-28-2010, 04:05 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...e=HP_headlines (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81d44b97/article/chiefs-plan-is-to-go-with-starters-sunday-vs-raiders?module=HP_headlines)

"We're going to do what we think gives us the best chance to win," Haley told the newspaper Monday.
There is plenty at stake for the Chiefs, who could avenge an earlier loss the rival Oakland Raiders (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/teams/oaklandraiders/profile?team=OAK) on Sunday. A victory also would secure the AFC's third seed for the Chiefs and allow them to avoid the top-seeded New England Patriots (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/teams/newenglandpatriots/profile?team=NE) until the AFC Championship Game.
However, if the Chiefs lose to the visiting Raiders and the Indianapolis Colts (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/teams/indianapoliscolts/profile?team=IND) defeat the Tennessee Titans (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/teams/tennesseetitans/profile?team=TEN), both teams would finish 10-6, but the Colts would get the conference's third seed because of their victory against the Chiefs in October.
Haley wants his team to go into the playoffs with some momentum.
"We're a transitioning team," Haley said. "Maybe some teams can look at games differently, but I know our group right now —- with where we are in our development -— we need to approach them the same way, which is get ready to win and put everything into figuring out how to get to three wins in this quarter (of the season)."

Fastphilly
12-28-2010, 04:15 PM
We need to play our starters and play to WIN!! I don't like the idea of getting swept by the Faiders..Our team is hot, sitting them next week might cool them off and I don't want that..We need to go into the playoffs with a full head of steam..BTW, on a lesser note. If we lose to Oakland we will be the #4 seed..Which will have us matched up with the Steelers/Ravens..I would much rather play the first round against the Jets...

chiefnut
12-28-2010, 04:19 PM
I kind of doubt that. I don't think the Raiders are even our number one rival anymore. Really, it hasn't been that way since the Marty era.

I think the Chargers and Broncos draw more distain than the Raiders and this goes both ways.

Even though the Raiders beat us earlier this year, as long as senile Al Davis is at the helm, dreaming of Darryl Lamonica, switching coaches every other year and still trying to build a tecmo bowl offense, I think the Raiders are kind of like watching a train wreck and you can't take them too seriously. Heck, they even had a fan take out a billboard asking Al to sell the team.

They lead the league in penalties every year and seem to have stopped even trying to stop. They draft like they are using a Quiji board. They'll go 5-1 in the AFC West but lose the thing.

The Raiders aren't mean anymore, they are kind of sad.


they still are our number 1 rival to the Hunt family, the CHIEFS management, all the veteran CHIEFS players and all of us old/long time CHIEFS fans.:chiefs:

4everchiefsfan25
12-28-2010, 04:32 PM
I think as a young team if we go undefeated at home we will have that swagger that they need to go into the playoffs. They will be walking with a swagger like nobody is going to be us at home nobody has. and for a young team that is what we need

figcrostic
12-28-2010, 10:42 PM
I think as a young team if we go undefeated at home we will have that swagger that they need to go into the playoffs. They will be walking with a swagger like nobody is going to be us at home nobody has. and for a young team that is what we need

I think your confusing swagger for confidence they are not the same swagger is an arrogant quality. The Chiefs are definetly not arrogant.

4everchiefsfan25
12-29-2010, 02:24 PM
I think your confusing swagger for confidence they are not the same swagger is an arrogant quality. The Chiefs are definetly not arrogant.
Swagger is a good thing for our football team.

wilqb16
12-29-2010, 07:57 PM
Swagger is a good thing for our football team.

I agree - this is why I think it is important that we blow the Raiders off the field this Sunday...

ctchiefsfan
12-29-2010, 08:11 PM
I really don't think we can afford to go into the playoffs on a down note and a loss to the Faiders (a sweep) would be a real down note.

Are the Faiders going to take some cheap shots? OF COURSE!!!! That is how they play football!

But we are a young team and we have a lot to prove. And part of what we need to prove is that we can take on a tough dirty team and beat their :mooning: right down into the dirt and come out of it unscathed!

Run the numbers up on the faiders and run 'em up big!

It will give our team the kind of confidence they need to make a serious run in the playoffs!

Ryfo18
12-29-2010, 08:42 PM
One other thing...Let's get Jamaal the damn rushing title!

chief31
12-29-2010, 09:51 PM
If the game were completely meaningless to our playoff positioning, I would prefer to have the starters sit out.

Raiders? It's Raider week?

I don't care right now. The Raiders are not in the playoffs. I care about the playoffs.

Only because we want the #3 seed, instead of the #4 seed, do I think we should play all of our starters.

ctchiefsfan
12-29-2010, 11:31 PM
One thing I will say.....

Last week we were lured into committing several penalties by the foul play of Tenn. Playing the Faiders this week will be a good exercise in discipline. We will go into the playoffs immune to making those kinds of mistakes.

pbatrucker
12-29-2010, 11:49 PM
Totally agree. I don't buy into the theory "we need to win to have momentum" and the other theory "we need to win to get 3rd seed so we can play the Jets & not the Ravens". In the post season you have to be ready to take on anyone & that means having all your best players healthy and ready to go.

And again, people are steadfastly ignoring history & that having a perfect home record during the regular season hasn't amounted to jack-sh!t once in the post seasons that followed ( 1971, 1995, 1997, and 2003 ) on four separate occasions -- COUNT 'EM -- 4 TIMES.

If the Chiefs needed to win against the Raiders to get into the playoffs, then that would be one thing. But they are already in, so it would be foolish to put all their stock into a meaningless game -- I don't give a damn who it's against -- and getting key players hurt and not having them ready in the postseason. It makes no sense at all. Marty Schottenheimer pulled this same suckhead play in 1997 in the season finale against NO & did the so called "momentum of winning the final game" help the Chiefs in the 1997 postseason? Did Marty learn from it that Grbac was not ready to come back just yet & that Gannon should have been the starter in the playoffs ( he pulled Grbac in the NO game in favor of Gannon to help spark the Offense -- why the hell didn't he do that in the playoff game against Denver )? No, he did not -- all that stock that Marty put into that meaningless season finale against NO in 1997 was for nothing.

I'll bet money if the Chiefs put all their stock into this meaningless game this Sunday, it'll wind up being for nothing.

You keep saying the same thing and you could be right, but I do know one thing.
Making sure we have the third seed is very important. Teams have won the Sb from the third seed. NO TEAM HAS EVER WON THE SB FROM THE FOUR SEED.

ctchiefsfan
12-29-2010, 11:56 PM
You keep saying the same thing and you could be right, but I do know one thing.
Making sure we have the third seed is very important. Teams have won the Sb from the third seed. NO TEAM HAS EVER WON THE SB FROM THE FOUR SEED.

Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't 2 teams won the Superbowl from a wildcard slot? Faiders in the early '80s comes to mind?

Canada
12-30-2010, 01:58 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't 2 teams won the Superbowl from a wildcard slot? Faiders in the early '80s comes to mind?

Yes, but those are the 5th and 6th seeds

wilqb16
12-30-2010, 03:52 AM
One thing I will say.....

Last week we were lured into committing several penalties by the foul play of Tenn. Playing the Faiders this week will be a good exercise in discipline. We will go into the playoffs immune to making those kinds of mistakes.

I agree. Plus I think the Raiders are the type of team that we have had some problems with in that they are big and play physical.

Also, in my perception (I haven't seen any stats) we have not run the ball as well against 4-3 fronts this season. I think it is important to work on that, too in case we see another along the way.

I think you can think of resting your starters if you are an established team and are at the apex of your development. However, that isn't the Chiefs. This team is still getting better every week.

Plus, I think it is good for our psyche to go into the playoffs on a win streak.

ctchiefsfan
12-30-2010, 05:36 AM
Yes, but those are the 5th and 6th seeds

Thanks Canada!

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 12:10 PM
You keep saying the same thing and you could be right, but I do know one thing.
Making sure we have the third seed is very important. Teams have won the Sb from the third seed. NO TEAM HAS EVER WON THE SB FROM THE FOUR SEED.

So what?. I'd rather take my chances being the 4th seed, as opposed to what's happened to the Chiefs the previous 4 times they've had unbeaten records at home, not to mention the sub-par seasons that followed.

4everchiefsfan25
12-30-2010, 12:13 PM
So what?. I'd rather take my chances being the 4th seed, as opposed to what's happened to the Chiefs the previous 4 times they've had unbeaten records at home, not to mention the sub-par seasons that followed.
Ya but I really dont think that Haley will relax on this team for the playoffs unlike Marty.

Seek
12-30-2010, 12:21 PM
I still say rest the players. The Raiders are a very physical team. The proof is in the amount of flags we got against them. Also, if you look at the record of the teams win lose the game following the Raiders, the record is 4-11.

The Raiders beat teams up. If we are not going to rest players, we have to out physical them.

figcrostic
12-30-2010, 12:37 PM
I still say rest the players. The Raiders are a very physical team. The proof is in the amount of flags we got against them. Also, if you look at the record of the teams win lose the game following the Raiders, the record is 4-11.

The Raiders beat teams up. If we are not going to rest players, we have to out physical them.

Well put that was kind of what I was going for. I don't like the Raiders and I think we can definetly beat them but we are going to get beat up they play rough and dirty. They would love to cheap shot Cassel or Charles and take either out of the playoffs.

chiefnut
12-30-2010, 12:44 PM
So what?. I'd rather take my chances being the 4th seed, as opposed to what's happened to the Chiefs the previous 4 times they've had unbeaten records at home, not to mention the sub-par seasons that followed.

We haven't won a playoff game in 16years regardless of our home record. let's just beat up on the radrz then take it to who ever shows up here in the first round!

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 12:54 PM
We haven't won a playoff game in 16years regardless of our home record. let's just beat up on the radrz then take it to who ever shows up here in the first round!

If history holds true, not going to happen, if they have the unbeaten home record. And were they not unbeaten at home 3 times in those 16 years?

chiefnut
12-30-2010, 01:11 PM
If history holds true, not going to happen, if they have the unbeaten home record. And were they not unbeaten at home 3 times in those 16 years?

so your point is what exactly, it did not matter wether we were undefeated at home or not, we still lost in the first round. our goal is to win football games, every game and hopefully that leads us thru the playoffs. i hope you don't really think that if we lose on purpose and ruin our home record that would mean we have a better chance to win a playoff game???cause i gotta tell ya, that sounds a little nuts to me.

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 01:25 PM
so your point is what exactly, it did not matter wether we were undefeated at home or not, we still lost in the first round. our goal is to win football games, every game and hopefully that leads us thru the playoffs. i hope you don't really think that if we lose on purpose and ruin our home record that would mean we have a better chance to win a playoff game???cause i gotta tell ya, that sounds a little nuts to me.

My point is, like I've said before, this game against the Raiders is meaningless & I've simply pointed out what's happened historically when the Chiefs have had an unbeaten home record. And I got to tell you, I don't care about your opinion of that -- or anyone else's for that matter.

Hey, if they beat the Raiders and then win the opening round playoff, then great, but I'm not going to ignore what's gone down in the past.

chiefnut
12-30-2010, 01:52 PM
My point is, like I've said before, this game against the Raiders is meaningless & I've simply pointed out what's happened historically when the Chiefs have had an unbeaten home record. And I got to tell you, I don't care about your opinion of that -- or anyone else's for that matter.

Hey, if they beat the Raiders and then win the opening round playoff, then great, but I'm not going to ignore what's gone down in the past.

We have "historically" speaking lost the last 5 play off games [all first round] 3 times w/an undefeated home record and 2 times w/o an undefeated home record. i would say this is evidence that regardless of how we played during the season when it came to playoff time martyball let us down. now its time to ride the haleytrain as far as it will take us. keep playing to win!!!!

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 02:20 PM
We have "historically" speaking lost the last 5 play off games [all first round] 3 times w/an undefeated home record and 2 times w/o an undefeated home record. i would say this is evidence that regardless of how we played during the season when it came to playoff time martyball let us down. now its time to ride the haleytrain as far as it will take us. keep playing to win!!!!

Excuse me, but 2003 was not Martyball, nor was 1971. So, therefore, I can't regard it as evidence.

Canada
12-30-2010, 03:39 PM
Excuse me, but 2003 was not Martyball, nor was 1971. So, therefore, I can't regard it as evidence.Superstition is not evidence.

wilqb16
12-30-2010, 03:43 PM
so your point is what exactly, it did not matter wether we were undefeated at home or not, we still lost in the first round. our goal is to win football games, every game and hopefully that leads us thru the playoffs. i hope you don't really think that if we lose on purpose and ruin our home record that would mean we have a better chance to win a playoff game???cause i gotta tell ya, that sounds a little nuts to me.

Sounds nuts to me, too.

I hate to quote Herm Edwards but: "You play to win the game!".

Also, this team is a lot different that the last two of those teams. This team does not have home field throughout the play-offs only the first round.

To me it is not about momentum as much as it is about improving. This Raiders game is another opportunity for this young team to learn, grow and improve. This team is still a work in progress IMO. I think if we had beaten the snot out of the Raiders previously I might feel a little different, but we didn't. We need to learn how to beat teams like the Raiders in case we come up against something similar in the playoffs.

Canada
12-30-2010, 03:45 PM
Sounds nuts to me, too.

I hate to quote Herm Edwards but: "You play to win the game!".

Also, this team is a lot different that the last two of those teams. This team does not have home field throughout the play-offs only the first round.

To me it is not about momentum as much as it is about improving. This Raiders game is another opportunity for this young team to learn, grow and improve. This team is still a work in progress IMO. I think if we had beaten the snot out of the Raiders previously I might feel a little different, but we didn't. We need to learn how to beat teams like the Raiders in case we come up against something similar in the playoffs.

If we end up with the #3 seed and win our first two games and someone knocks off NE, we will have another home game. AFC Chamionship.

Another reason this game is not meaningless.

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 03:46 PM
Superstition is not evidence.

I think I've already mentioned that it's not superstition, it's simply knowing how this scenario has worked historically -- what part of that don't you get ?

wilqb16
12-30-2010, 03:49 PM
I think I've already mentioned that it's not superstition, it's simply knowing how this scenario has worked historically -- what part of that don't you get ?

OK - if I flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads 10 times in a row, what are the odds on the 11th flip? It is still 50/50 because the 11th flip is neither contingent upon or related to the previous 10 flips.

Likewise, this Chiefs team is not related to or contingent upon the outcome of teams from 7 years ago where at most one or two players remain and none of the coaches (or even front office)

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 03:54 PM
OK - if I flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads 10 times in a row, what are the odds on the 11th flip? It is still 50/50 because the 11th flip is neither contingent upon or related to the previous 10 flips.

Likewise, this Chiefs team is not related to or contingent upon the outcome of teams from 7 years ago where at most one or two players remain and none of the coaches (or even front office)

Coin flips don't matter, this isn't a coin flip scenario. The 1971, 1995, 1997, and 2003 squads weren't related or contingent either -- but the result was the same nonetheless.

The bottom line is that they should not put all their stock into this game against the Raiders and get ready for the post season.

Canada
12-30-2010, 03:58 PM
I think I've already mentioned that it's not superstition, it's simply knowing how this scenario has worked historically -- what part of that don't you get ?

The part where you think if you mention it, that its true. You think we shouldnt win this game because we have never won a playoff game with an undefeated home record. Regardless of weather or not you "mention it", its still superstition.

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 04:13 PM
The part where you think if you mention it, that its true. You think we shouldnt win this game because we have never won a playoff game with an undefeated home record. Regardless of weather or not you "mention it", its still superstition.

Not correct. There is a difference between superstition and simply knowing how something has worked historically. You are calling it superstition because it's not what you want to hear & somebody broke your bubble. Do you really think I like this historical scenario at all? I hate it more any of you combined, and would love nothing more than to see the Chiefs win the opening playoff game if they should beat Oakland on Sunday. Superstition? Bullsh!t !! It's simply knowing what has happened previously and hoping it doesn't happen for a 5th time.

I said they don't need to put all their stock into this game against the Raider and if they don't win, so what? I'd rather have a fully healthy Chiefs squad going into the post season than have key players get KO'd in a meaningless game.

wilqb16
12-30-2010, 04:18 PM
Coin flips don't matter, this isn't a coin flip scenario. The 1971, 1995, 1997, and 2003 squads weren't related or contingent either -- but the result was the same nonetheless.

The bottom line is that they should not put all their stock into this game against the Raiders and get ready for the post season.

OK - here is the problem I have with what you are saying.

What you are proposing is exactly what we have done before!

In 2003, the Chiefs last game of the year was against a 7-9 bears team. The Chiefs rested Trent Green for the entire 4th quarter and Priest Holmes for most of the 2nd half. However, the Chiefs won just because the Bears we're bad.

In 1997, the Chiefs had nothing to play for and really didn't take the game seriously. Marty was very conservative and didn't want to risk any injuries (just as he had done in '95). As such, the Chiefs beat a 6-10 Saints team while playing all three of their quarterbacks and resting many starters entirely.

In 1995, the Chiefs blew out a mediocre Seattle team at home, while resting Marcus Allen the entire 2nd half and pulling other starters as backup Greg Hill got a career high 21 carries.

Finally, lets take the 1971 team. They say almost all of their starters, including Len Dawson (starting backup Mike Livingston) but won over a hapless 1-13 Bills team 22-9.

Now, all four of these games were at home and all four were wins, but in none of them did the Chiefs play the game at full strength. The Chiefs still happened to win, which could very well happen on Sunday, too.

I am proposing we do something different by playing the game to win. This way our boys will be fresh and on edge and have the right competitive mindset going into the playoffs. Plus, this team still has work to do and improvement to be made.

Canada
12-30-2010, 04:20 PM
Not correct. There is a difference between superstition and simply knowing how something has worked historically. You are calling it superstition because it's not what you want to hear & somebody broke your bubble. Do you really think I like this historical scenario at all? I hate it more any of you combined, and would love nothing more than to see the Chiefs win the opening playoff game if they should beat Oakland on Sunday. Superstition? Bullsh!t !! It's simply knowing what has happened previously and hoping it doesn't happen for a 5th time.

I said they don't need to put all their stock into this game against the Raider and if they don't win, so what? I'd rather have a fully healthy Chiefs squad going into the post season than have key players get KO'd in a meaningless game.

So you have taken a tiny sampple of history from 1 team in the NFL. If this is fact as you seem to think it is, how many teams have gone undefeated at home and won the SuperBowl? If you are going to lecture everyone on how something works historically, how about presenting all the facts instead of some abscure reference about a team in 1971 that did not win a playoff game.

I really don'tcare if its something I don't want to hear and i didn't "burt my bubble" whatever that is supposed to mean.

The funniest part is that you keep saying its a meaningless game but "historically speaking" as someone pointed out. No team has ever won the SuperBowl from the 4th seed. I would think that would make Sundays game very important to someone as superstitous...sorry as attentive to history as you.

4everchiefsfan25
12-30-2010, 04:38 PM
So you have taken a tiny sampple of history from 1 team in the NFL. If this is fact as you seem to think it is, how many teams have gone undefeated at home and won the SuperBowl? If you are going to lecture everyone on how something works historically, how about presenting all the facts instead of some abscure reference about a team in 1971 that did not win a playoff game.

I really don'tcare if its something I don't want to hear and i didn't "burt my bubble" whatever that is supposed to mean.

The funniest part is that you keep saying its a meaningless game but "historically speaking" as someone pointed out. No team has ever won the SuperBowl from the 4th seed. I would think that would make Sundays game very important to someone as superstitous...sorry as attentive to history as you.
Correct and if we play cassel and he gets hurt but we get the 3rd seed then we dont win and if we dont start them and we get the 4th seed we lose to so whats the diff

wilqb16
12-30-2010, 04:40 PM
Correct and if we play cassel and he gets hurt but we get the 3rd seed then we dont win and if we dont start them and we get the 4th seed we lose to so whats the diff

You are assuming here that Cassel gets hurt. How do we know the week off doesn't make Cassel rusty and then we lost in the first round?

I just think it is a bad idea to go into to season late and not keep the winning mindset. If you look at my post above - that is just what we have done every time in the past.

When the Pats went 16-0 they didn't rest their starters in week 17. I just think it is about mindset.

matthewschiefs
12-30-2010, 04:43 PM
Not correct. There is a difference between superstition and simply knowing how something has worked historically. You are calling it superstition because it's not what you want to hear & somebody broke your bubble. Do you really think I like this historical scenario at all? I hate it more any of you combined, and would love nothing more than to see the Chiefs win the opening playoff game if they should beat Oakland on Sunday. Superstition? Bullsh!t !! It's simply knowing what has happened previously and hoping it doesn't happen for a 5th time.

I said they don't need to put all their stock into this game against the Raider and if they don't win, so what? I'd rather have a fully healthy Chiefs squad going into the post season than have key players get KO'd in a meaningless game.

I for one am a beliver that you don't change anything you do. I think that sitting our guys is not the best answer. Far more teams are playing there starters recently and it's worked out for them. The 08 Giants credit there not sitting there starters that last game as what helped them win the superbowl. And I would rather us go into the playoffs on a roll then loseing to the faiders for the 2nd time this season.

4everchiefsfan25
12-30-2010, 04:44 PM
You are assuming here that Cassel gets hurt. How do we know the week off doesn't make Cassel rusty and then we lost in the first round?

I just think it is a bad idea to go into to season late and not keep the winning mindset. If you look at my post above - that is just what we have done every time in the past.

When the Pats went 16-0 they didn't rest their starters in week 17. I just think it is about mindset.
I agree with you I was just saying that people are saying they dont want our starters to play because they might get hurt and Im saying well if we dont start them and we get the 4th seed IMO there really is no way we can physically keep up with the Ravens and if we do start Cassel and he gets hurt then we lose to so I would much rather play Cassel this weekend and take the risk of cassel getting hurt and beat the Raiders and then get our 3rd seed

wilqb16
12-30-2010, 04:55 PM
I agree with you I was just saying that people are saying they dont want our starters to play because they might get hurt and Im saying well if we dont start them and we get the 4th seed IMO there really is no way we can physically keep up with the Ravens and if we do start Cassel and he gets hurt then we lose to so I would much rather play Cassel this weekend and take the risk of cassel getting hurt and beat the Raiders and then get our 3rd seed

Oh I C - I agree with that. Also, it is possible - albeit unlikely - that we could wind up meeting the #4 seed later on in the playoffs and have gained potentially one more home game. This to me also makes it a no brainer.

Canada
12-30-2010, 05:08 PM
Go play Sunday, let the chips fall where they may. I dont care if we get Bal, Pit or NYJ in the first round. If you want to win the SB you ve to beat them all!! We have been winning and staying healthy (knock on wood) to this point and look where it got us. If it ain't broke don't fix it!!

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 05:14 PM
So you have taken a tiny sampple of history from 1 team in the NFL. If this is fact as you seem to think it is, how many teams have gone undefeated at home and won the SuperBowl? If you are going to lecture everyone on how something works historically, how about presenting all the facts instead of some abscure reference about a team in 1971 that did not win a playoff game.

I really don'tcare if its something I don't want to hear and i didn't "burt my bubble" whatever that is supposed to mean.

The funniest part is that you keep saying its a meaningless game but "historically speaking" as someone pointed out. No team has ever won the SuperBowl from the 4th seed. I would think that would make Sundays game very important to someone as superstitous...sorry as attentive to history as you.

That superstition accusation is pure BS and yet, in spite of what I've told you, you want to keep up with it so obviously you need a couple other examples -- here you go:

Peoples exhibit A:
Denver has never won in Miami regardless of how good or bad both teams were. I'm not a fan of either of those teams and could care less if Denver wins there or not. Please explain, how does my knowing this make me superstitious -- it doesn't, it just simply means I know what has happened historically. Nobody can really explain why it has happened that, but it has.

Peoples exhibit B:
Chris Berman pointed out for many years that Tampa Bay never won a game when the temperature was below 38F degrees. Does that make Berman superstitious? Not at all, he simply pointed what has happened to the Bucs historically -- he never said the Bucs were going to lose because they were playing in cold weather -- nor am I saying the Chiefs are going to lose in the 1st round of the playoffs if they beat the Raiders on Sunday. And it's worth noting that when TB won their SB in 2002, all the post season games they played were above 38F degrees and you can rest assured that neither Berman or anyone else has any explanation for the that. It just simply happened that way. No superstition involved at all.

Can't really say anything about the 4th seed, I'll have to give it further study.


OK - here is the problem I have with what you are saying.

What you are proposing is exactly what we have done before!

In 2003, the Chiefs last game of the year was against a 7-9 bears team. The Chiefs rested Trent Green for the entire 4th quarter and Priest Holmes for most of the 2nd half. However, the Chiefs won just because the Bears we're bad.

In 1997, the Chiefs had nothing to play for and really didn't take the game seriously. Marty was very conservative and didn't want to risk any injuries (just as he had done in '95). As such, the Chiefs beat a 6-10 Saints team while playing all three of their quarterbacks and resting many starters entirely.

In 1995, the Chiefs blew out a mediocre Seattle team at home, while resting Marcus Allen the entire 2nd half and pulling other starters as backup Greg Hill got a career high 21 carries.

Finally, lets take the 1971 team. They say almost all of their starters, including Len Dawson (starting backup Mike Livingston) but won over a hapless 1-13 Bills team 22-9.

Now, all four of these games were at home and all four were wins, but in none of them did the Chiefs play the game at full strength. The Chiefs still happened to win, which could very well happen on Sunday, too.

I am proposing we do something different by playing the game to win. This way our boys will be fresh and on edge and have the right competitive mindset going into the playoffs. Plus, this team still has work to do and improvement to be made.

This is not correct. In 1971, they played a lot of their starters in that game. The Chiefs only TD came on INT return by Bobby Bell and he was a starter.

In 1995, they played all their starters until built a substantial lead & then pulled out their starters. That game was over before half-time.

In 1997, Marty started Grbac, but pulled him in favor of Rich Gannon to try to spark the Offense because Grbac was struggling and it wasn't until the Chiefs got a sizable lead that most of the starters were pulled.

Same thing in 2003. Green threw 27 and priest Holmes carried 20 times and neither were pulled until the Chiefs got a substantial lead in the 2nd half.

They played at full strength in all those games ( except for 1971 when Dawson didn't play but most of the other starters did ) and they played to win. I'm not saying they should play to lose Sunday, but why not try it with a good number of backups throughout the majority of the game -- something they have not done the previous 4 times that are referencing.

So what would be different this Sunday if the Chiefs played their starters and built a big lead and pulled their starters? Not a thing. Same scenario as before.

Canada
12-30-2010, 05:21 PM
That superstition accusation is pure BS and yet, in spite of what I've told you, you want to keep up with it so obviously you need a couple other examples -- here you go:

Peoples exhibit A:
Denver has never won in Miami regardless of how good or bad both teams were. I'm not a fan of either of those teams and could care less if Denver wins there or not. Please explain, how does my knowing this make me superstitious -- it doesn't, it just simply means I know what has happened historically. Nobody can really explain why it has happened that, but it has.

Peoples exhibit B:
Chris Berman pointed out for many years that Tampa Bay never won a game when the temperature was below 38F degrees. Does that make Berman superstitious? Not at all, he simply pointed what has happened to the Bucs historically -- he never said the Bucs were going to lose because they were playing in cold weather -- nor am I saying the Chiefs are going to lose in the 1st round of the playoffs if they beat the Raiders on Sunday. And it's worth noting that when TB won their SB in 2002, all the post season games they played were above 38F degrees and you can rest assured that neither Berman or anyone else has any explanation for the that. It just simply happened that way. No superstition involved at all.

Stating those things is not superstitous...basing your strategy going into the playoffs around those things is superstitous.

Can't really say anything about the 4th seed, I'll have to give it further study.



This is not correct. In 1971, they played a lot of their starters in that game. The Chiefs only TD came on INT return by Bobby Bell and he was a starter.

In 1995, they played all their starters until built a substantial lead & then pulled out their starters. That game was over before half-time.

In 1997, Marty started Grbac, but pulled him in favor of Rich Gannon to try to spark the Offense because Grbac was struggling and it wasn't until the Chiefs got a sizable lead that most of the starters were pulled.

Same thing in 2003. Green threw 27 and priest Holmes carried 20 times and neither were pulled until the Chiefs got a substantial lead in the 2nd half.

They played at full strength in all those games ( except for 1971 when Dawson didn't play but most of the other starters did ) and they played to win. I'm not saying they should play to lose Sunday, but why not try it with a good number of backups throughout the majority of the game -- something they have not done the previous 4 times that are referencing.

So what would be different this Sunday if the Chiefs played their starters and built a big lead and pulled their starters? Not a thing. Same scenario as before.

Fact is, what happened in any of those games has absolutely no bearing on this weeked and the playoffs whatsoever. Correct me if I am wrong, but Tampa has now won in the cold have they not?

ctchiefsfan
12-30-2010, 05:41 PM
I'm not really sure this discussion has a purpose any more. I believe Haley has made it clear that he intends to go into Arrowhead with all guns blazing this week. Though I would expect that if we build a 21 or more point lead that he would pull some our bigger offensive names. JMHO

figcrostic
12-30-2010, 05:45 PM
I'm not really sure this discussion has a purpose any more. I believe Haley has made it clear that he intends to go into Arrowhead with all guns blazing this week. Though I would expect that if we build a 21 or more point lead that he would pull some our bigger offensive names. JMHO

This hence why I have not posted anymore in this thread. Plus this was supposed to be a friendly discussion some of you are getting a little carried away with yourself.

wilqb16
12-30-2010, 06:00 PM
This hence why I have not posted anymore in this thread. Plus this was supposed to be a friendly discussion some of you are getting a little carried away with yourself.

Would threatening a hunger strike until everyone agrees we shouldn't pull our starters be considered getting carried away? Cuz that is my next move :lol:

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 06:05 PM
Fact is, what happened in any of those games has absolutely no bearing on this weeked and the playoffs whatsoever. Correct me if I am wrong, but Tampa has now won in the cold have they not?




Not sure about the Bucs. Never said that anything that happened previously had any bearing on what happens this weekend. I've just simply stated what has happened historically to this point.

Want another bit trivia? Look at the QB position for the Chiefs. Look what's happened with the QB's that have drafted, with the latest example being Brodie Croyle ( not saying he was ever good to begin with ). The only QB that the Chiefs ever drafted that had any remote success was Mike Livingston. By contrast, the best QB's in Chiefs history have come via trade or FA, with the latest example -- Matt Cassel. There is no explanation, it just simply happened that way.



Stating those things is not superstitous...basing your strategy going into the playoffs around those things is superstitous.


This is not correct. It has nothing to do with superstition. Not wanting the Chiefs to put all their stock into a meaningless game and make sure that they have all their key players healthy going into the post season has nothing to do superstition. If they lose key players in Sundays game against the Raiders, then their chances of succeeding in the post season are reduced, drastically.

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 06:13 PM
This hence why I have not posted anymore in this thread. Plus this was supposed to be a friendly discussion some of you are getting a little carried away with yourself.

Sorry man, I believe I brought up something that has spooked some people regarding what I mentioned regarding the unbeaten home record. Maybe that'll change and the Chiefs will win the next two games (perhaps five).

matthewschiefs
12-30-2010, 06:17 PM
Not sure about the Bucs. Never said that anything that happened previously had any bearing on what happens this weekend. I've just simply stated what has happened historically to this point.

Want another bit trivia? Look at the QB position for the Chiefs. Look what's happened with the QB's that have drafted, with the latest example being Brodie Croyle ( not saying he was ever good to begin with ). The only QB that the Chiefs ever drafted that had any remote success was Mike Livingston. By contrast, the best QB's in Chiefs history have come via trade or FA, with the latest example -- Matt Cassel. There is no explanation, it just simply happened that way.



This is not correct. It has nothing to do with superstition. Not wanting the Chiefs to put all their stock into a meaningless game and make sure that they have all their key players healthy going into the post season has nothing to do superstition. If they lose key players in Sundays game against the Raiders, then their chances of succeeding in the post season are reduced, drastically.

Stuff that has happend Historicly has nothing to do with what we should do. Otherwise it doesn't matter if we start our starters or rest them becuse we historicly for the last 16 years don't win playoff games. So we might as well just give up?

And pretty sure people historicly said the Saints would never win a superbowl guess that didn't happen either.

Just becuse something has historicly happend does not mean that it always will.

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 06:30 PM
Stuff that has happend Historicly has nothing to do with what we should do. Otherwise it doesn't matter if we start our starters or rest them becuse we historicly for the last 16 years don't win playoff games. So we might as well just give up?

And pretty sure people historicly said the Saints would never win a superbowl guess that didn't happen either.

Just becuse something has historicly happend does not mean that it always will.

That wasn't what I was saying at all. How many times do I need to point out that I hoped history would change? My point is the same as figcrostics and buffmans316 -- that this game against the Raiders isn't as meaningful, as the postseason and if certain Chiefs players get hurt against the Raiders and can't play in the postseason, I hardly think it's worth it.

matthewschiefs
12-30-2010, 06:43 PM
That wasn't what I was saying at all. How many times do I need to point out that I hoped history would change? My point is the same as figcrostics and buffmans316 -- that this game against the Raiders isn't as meaningful, as the postseason and if certain Chiefs players get hurt against the Raiders and can't play in the postseason, I hardly think it's worth it.

This game is NOT completly meaningless in fact a Win in the raider game COULD be huge. If we get the number 3 seed that means if both the teams that get a bye go down in the divisonal round with us winning against one and whoever wins the other wildcard game wins we get a 2nd HOME GAME. Is it likely no but It COULD happen. If we lose and get the 4th seed it's even harder to get a 2nd home game. There IS meaning into this game.

ctchiefsfan
12-30-2010, 06:50 PM
Well....I don't know about anybody else, but I'm surely looking forward to our first home playoff win in many years!

:chiefs::chiefs::chiefs: GO CHIEFS!!!

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 06:54 PM
This game is NOT completly meaningless in fact a Win in the raider game COULD be huge. If we get the number 3 seed that means if both the teams that get a bye go down in the divisonal round with us winning against one and whoever wins the other wildcard game wins we get a 2nd HOME GAME. Is it likely no but It COULD happen. If we lose and get the 4th seed it's even harder to get a 2nd home game. There IS meaning into this game.


Don't agree with any of that at all. They should be ready take on anyone, anywhere as far as the post-season is concerned - -and if they aren't -- then where they are seeded doesn't matter and the game against the Raiders is all that much more meaningless. Much rather have all key starters healthy in the post season, than worry about where the Chiefs are seeded.

matthewschiefs
12-30-2010, 07:04 PM
Don't agree with any of that at all. They should be ready take on anyone, anywhere as far as the post-season is concerned - -and if they aren't -- then where they are seeded doesn't matter and the game against the Raiders is all that much more meaningless. Much rather have all key starters healthy in the post season, than worry about where the Chiefs are seeded.

I would agree with that statement but

Have you SEEN this team with there KEY starters healty on the road. The fact is we are a MUCH better team at home. Theres a reason it's called HOME FIELD advantage.

Home winning % 100%
Road winnign% 37.5%

That hardly says that this team getting a 2nd home game would be meaningless. We should fight like hell to get as many home playoff games possible.

figcrostic
12-30-2010, 07:12 PM
Sorry man, I believe I brought up something that has spooked some people regarding what I mentioned regarding the unbeaten home record. Maybe that'll change and the Chiefs will win the next two games (perhaps five).

It's all good, I think we can all agree on the following points: we want to win a SB. Some people on here think beating the raiders will help with that I think it's an unnecessary risk but it doesn't matter because Todd Haley is playing them whole hog hopefully we can beat their *** and remain a healthy team.

ctchiefsfan
12-30-2010, 07:17 PM
Can't argue with that!

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 07:18 PM
I would agree with that statement but

Have you SEEN this team with there KEY starters healty on the road. The fact is we are a MUCH better team at home. Theres a reason it's called HOME FIELD advantage.

Home winning % 100%
Road winnign% 37.5%

That hardly says that this team getting a 2nd home game would be meaningless. We should fight like hell to get as many home playoff games possible.

Seattle? St. Louis? Notice how the team has played since the Seattle game which was the turning point for Cassell and have won every game he's started since then? All you are telling me is that you are conceding defeat if they have to play on the road in the post-season. Sorry, but I refuse to buy into that.

matthewschiefs
12-30-2010, 07:51 PM
Seattle? St. Louis? Notice how the team has played since the Seattle game which was the turning point for Cassell and have won every game he's started since then? All you are telling me is that you are conceding defeat if they have to play on the road in the post-season. Sorry, but I refuse to buy into that.


San Diego Denver? Did you see how we played there. Sure we didn't have Cassel in the charger game but is Cassel worth 31 points? I don't think any one is.

Not conceding defeat at all in fact we WOULD HAVE to win one game on the road to get a 2nd home game and then we might even get one. I am just saying that we should do all we can to get as many home games as we can. Theres a reason why teams fight like mad to get that number 1 seed. Home field can be huge for you so we should try to get as many home playoff games as we possiby can and that means trying to beat oakland.

brdempsey69
12-30-2010, 08:31 PM
San Diego Denver? Did you see how we played there. Sure we didn't have Cassel in the charger game but is Cassel worth 31 points? I don't think any one is.

Not conceding defeat at all in fact we WOULD HAVE to win one game on the road to get a 2nd home game and then we might even get one. I am just saying that we should do all we can to get as many home games as we can. Theres a reason why teams fight like mad to get that number 1 seed. Home field can be huge for you so we should try to get as many home playoff games as we possiby can and that means trying to beat oakland.

SD doesn't count as the whole team just flat out quit in that game because of Cassels abscence. Who knows what might have happened if he had been able to play. And I said from the Seattle game forward -- the Denver game was before that. So far throughout their history, homefield advantage throughout the playoffs hasn't meant anything to the Chiefs as they've lost all 4 times they have had it & they aren't going to have it throughout regardless of what the outcome is against the Raiders. BTW, the year the Chiefs did win the Super Bowl, they didn't play any playoff games at home. So, keeping key players healthy and ready to play needs to be their number one priority, not beating the Raiders.

Boxermm187
12-30-2010, 09:03 PM
they are on a hot streak. so play the starters for the first half, and see what happens. they cant take their foot off the gas right now. we need them rolling into the playoffs with confidence and as much playing time as possible. they are not a team that can afford to take a game off. they are still a young team that are getting chemistry. the raiders game will be a great test and game for the chiefs have before going into the playoffs. if they were playing a team that would not help the chiefs get better, than yeah, sit the starters. the game with the raiders only makes the chiefs better.

matthewschiefs
12-30-2010, 09:10 PM
SD doesn't count as the whole team just flat out quit in that game because of Cassels abscence. Who knows what might have happened if he had been able to play. And I said from the Seattle game forward -- the Denver game was before that. So far throughout their history, homefield advantage throughout the playoffs hasn't meant anything to the Chiefs as they've lost all 4 times they have had it & they aren't going to have it throughout regardless of what the outcome is against the Raiders. BTW, the year the Chiefs did win the Super Bowl, they didn't play any playoff games at home. So, keeping key players healthy and ready to play needs to be their number one priority, not beating the Raiders.

So ignore the games we didn't play well in the road in? Or just make an excuse. Yes we didn't have Cassel but that's no excuse for loseing 31-0 we also gave games away on the road to Houston and Oakland. We just don't play our best on the road. Most teams don't. We have a chance to give ourselfs a chance to maybe possibly earn a 2nd home playoff game. Now I don't think we will get a 2nd home game but anything can happen. And btw that other home game would happen to be the AFC title game.
Yes we beat Seattle and St louis they are BAD football teams in a BAD divison. That's not saying alot. Those won't be the teams we face in the playoffs.
And once again what does the past have to do with THIS TEAM. So what the teams in the past have not won with home field. That means NOTHING to this team.

chief31
12-31-2010, 01:05 AM
Don't agree with any of that at all. They should be ready take on anyone, anywhere as far as the post-season is concerned - -and if they aren't -- then where they are seeded doesn't matter and the game against the Raiders is all that much more meaningless. Much rather have all key starters healthy in the post season, than worry about where the Chiefs are seeded.

It's called 'homefield advantage' for a reason. it is an advantage to play in your own stadium.

Anyone who is willing to give up their advantages in the playoffs is a fool.

Is this the only advantage that you are wanting to remove, or do you want to sit starters in playoff games too?

If you can have the advantage of playing at home, then you do it.


So what?. I'd rather take my chances being the 4th seed, as opposed to what's happened to the Chiefs the previous 4 times they've had unbeaten records at home, not to mention the sub-par seasons that followed.




I think I've already mentioned that it's not superstition, it's simply knowing how this scenario has worked historically -- what part of that don't you get ?

This is exactly superstition.

Not the "knowing" part. But the part about wanting to lose a game so you go into the playoffs with a worse record, expecting that to be some advantage, based on something that happened to some other Chiefs teams.

Not that I think superstition is a bad thing, for fans.

Just that it isn't exactly logical.

pbatrucker
12-31-2010, 05:17 PM
I think I've already mentioned that it's not superstition, it's simply knowing how this scenario has worked historically -- what part of that don't you get ?

This is a New Era for The Chiefs. New Arrowhead, new GM, new Coaches, New Players. Yes, we may lose that first play off game. But I know one thing from watching these coaches and this team. They would learn from that loose and when they were in that situation again they would win. These are not the Chiefs of the past, but the New and improved Chiefs. The Chiefs we have dreamed of having in playoff and SB contenders for years to come.
The 2010 Chiefs are the beginning of a dynasty.

4everchiefsfan25
12-31-2010, 05:21 PM
This is a New Era for The Chiefs. New Arrowhead, new GM, new Coaches, New Players. Yes, we may lose that first play off game. But I know one thing from watching these coaches and this team. They would learn from that loose and when they were in that situation again they would win. These are not the Chiefs of the past, but the New and improved Chiefs. The Chiefs we have dreamed of having in playoff and SB contenders for years to come.
The 2010 Chiefs are the beginning of a dynasty.
Hell ya!!! I second that!:bananen_smilies046:

brdempsey69
01-02-2011, 12:58 PM
This is a New Era for The Chiefs. New Arrowhead, new GM, new Coaches, New Players. Yes, we may lose that first play off game. But I know one thing from watching these coaches and this team. They would learn from that loose and when they were in that situation again they would win. These are not the Chiefs of the past, but the New and improved Chiefs. The Chiefs we have dreamed of having in playoff and SB contenders for years to come.
The 2010 Chiefs are the beginning of a dynasty.

Sorry, but it has happened to 3 different regimes. Perhaps that will change with this current regime. Perhaps not. One other difference this time, though, is if they do beat the Raiders, they won't be 1st or 2nd seed like they were the previous 4 times they went unbeaten at home. We'll have to wait and see.


It's called 'homefield advantage' for a reason. it is an advantage to play in your own stadium.

Anyone who is willing to give up their advantages in the playoffs is a fool.

Is this the only advantage that you are wanting to remove, or do you want to sit starters in playoff games too?

If you can have the advantage of playing at home, then you do it.



Then that would make Hank Stram a fool in 1969 when he played it close to the vest in the season finale at Oakland when the Chiefs passed only 6 times and ran 48 times. Stram's primary concern was the playoffs and making sure that the Chiefs had a healthy Len Dawson going into the post season. The result? The only Super Bowl title that the Chiefs have to this day. Don't know about you, but I can hardly look at Stram's strategy as being "foolish".

Nobody said anything about wanting the Chiefs to lose to the Raiders. I said I'd rather that they didn't put all their stock in this game. My point is if they do lose, it's not a big deal and that being unbeaten at home throughout the regular season has NOT been an advantage to them once the post season has started afterward. Besides, they are guaranteed at least one home game in the upcoming post season, regardless of the outcome against the Raiders. Don't know where you are getting the idea to sit starters in the playoffs as there is nothing in any of posts that remotely suggests that.




This is exactly superstition.

Not the "knowing" part. But the part about wanting to lose a game so you go into the playoffs with a worse record, expecting that to be some advantage, based on something that happened to some other Chiefs teams.

Not that I think superstition is a bad thing, for fans.

Just that it isn't exactly logical.

Not correct. It has nothing to do with superstition -- sorry, but that accusation is incorrect. Nobody said anything about wanting them to lose. They might pull all their starters against the Raiders after the 1st series against the Raiders and still win -- which would be the best case scenario. I'd love nothing more for them to achieve what the previous 4 Chiefs teams that went unbeaten at home by winning their opening playoff game after having an unbeaten regular season. But, as I said before, the primary concern should be the playoffs & having their key starters healthy, not putting all their stock into this game against the Raiders.

And do take note, that I did not call those people who mentioned that no team that has ever had 4th seed has won the Super Bowl, "superstitious" -- because it has nothing to do with superstition, they were simply pointing out was has happened historically regarding the matter, even as I was pointing out what has happened to the Chiefs in the playoffs 4 previous times when they went unbeaten at home.

If you are getting the impression that if the Chiefs defeat Oakland on Sunday that I will not be rooting for them in playoffs, then you are incorrect. Personally, I don't care about the outcome of the game against the Raiders, they are in the playoffs either way, so there really isn't that much at stake. If they win, fine, and if they don't, no big deal.

chiefnut
01-02-2011, 06:47 PM
do you still think this was a meaningless game??? we showed the world that the raderz are byh far the best team in the afc west and we do not deserve to win the division or be in the playoffs. we made cambell look like tom brady and cassell look like croyle.

Boxermm187
01-02-2011, 06:52 PM
do you still think this was a meaningless game??? we showed the world that the raderz are byh far the best team in the afc west and we do not deserve to win the division or be in the playoffs. we made cambell look like tom brady and cassell look like croyle.
YUP!

Ryfo18
01-02-2011, 07:03 PM
do you still think this was a meaningless game??? we showed the world that the raderz are byh far the best team in the afc west and we do not deserve to win the division or be in the playoffs. we made cambell look like tom brady and cassell look like croyle.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe we should just let them have the AFC West title too...Forfeit it.

brdempsey69
01-02-2011, 07:20 PM
do you still think this was a meaningless game??? we showed the world that the raderz are byh far the best team in the afc west and we do not deserve to win the division or be in the playoffs. we made cambell look like tom brady and cassell look like croyle.

Yes, I still believe that it was a meaningless game. They got out of it healthy & will still get to host a playoff game next week. The game was within reach until the 4th QTR. The Raiders got the breaks they needed to put it away in the 4th QTR. No way does what happened today show that they don't deserve to be in the playoffs. The Raiders couldn't win outside the division & the Chiefs did and the Chiefs are going to be playing teams outside the AFC West in the postseason.

How is it that you say the Chiefs don't deserve the division title when they had already clinched it prior to today's game? That's like saying the Chiefs didn't deserve to be Super Bowl Champs in '69 because they lost twice to the Raiders during the regular season ( and yet, they beat the Raiders in the postseason -- WHEN IT REALLY COUNTED ). This game today doesn't count as far as the postseason is concerned.

honda522
01-02-2011, 07:28 PM
do you still think this was a meaningless game??? we showed the world that the raderz are byh far the best team in the afc west and we do not deserve to win the division or be in the playoffs. we made cambell look like tom brady and cassell look like croyle.

What you said is a bunch of $h!t. They went 6 -0 in division and 2-8 against other teams..thats still bad. 10-6 > 8-8 It don't matter how you win the SB, all that matters is if you win. Just cause you can't beat your divisional opponent doesn't really mean squat.

Sick Dog
01-02-2011, 08:55 PM
Okay now I wish they rested everyone and most people would not be at the edge looking over:lol:

figcrostic
01-02-2011, 09:05 PM
Okay now I wish they rested everyone and most people would not be at the edge looking over:lol:

Yup and we would at least have had a reason for the loss.

matthewschiefs
01-02-2011, 10:16 PM
do you still think this was a meaningless game??? we showed the world that the raderz are byh far the best team in the afc west and we do not deserve to win the division or be in the playoffs. we made cambell look like tom brady and cassell look like croyle.

The faiders are still a bad football team. They commit the peanties that get you beat. We play uninspired football today.

ANd that "best team in the afc west" could only manage going .500 against the WORST DIVISON in the history of the NFL while we went 4-0.

chiefnut
01-02-2011, 11:24 PM
yes the raiders are a bad football team who happened to beat us twice, so that does not say much about how good we are does it?? for me this loss is more of a gut shot than if we lose the playoff game.

chief31
01-03-2011, 08:15 PM
Sorry, but it has happened to 3 different regimes. Perhaps that will change with this current regime. Perhaps not. One other difference this time, though, is if they do beat the Raiders, they won't be 1st or 2nd seed like they were the previous 4 times they went unbeaten at home. We'll have to wait and see.



Then that would make Hank Stram a fool in 1969 when he played it close to the vest in the season finale at Oakland when the Chiefs passed only 6 times and ran 48 times. Stram's primary concern was the playoffs and making sure that the Chiefs had a healthy Len Dawson going into the post season. The result? The only Super Bowl title that the Chiefs have to this day. Don't know about you, but I can hardly look at Stram's strategy as being "foolish".

Stram held something back. But it was a 10-6 game, and he was trying to win.

What he didn't hold back, was his starters.

Excellent point. But Stram took a major gamble by holding back in that game.

It paid off for him. But do you really want to compare the records of home teams, versus road teams, in The NFL Playoffs?




Nobody said anything about wanting the Chiefs to lose to the Raiders. I said I'd rather that they didn't put all their stock in this game. My point is if they do lose, it's not a big deal and that being unbeaten at home throughout the regular season has NOT been an advantage to them once the post season has started afterward. Besides, they are guaranteed at least one home game in the upcoming post season, regardless of the outcome against the Raiders. Don't know where you are getting the idea to sit starters in the playoffs as there is nothing in any of posts that remotely suggests that.



Not correct. It has nothing to do with superstition -- sorry, but that accusation is incorrect. Nobody said anything about wanting them to lose. They might pull all their starters against the Raiders after the 1st series against the Raiders and still win -- which would be the best case scenario. I'd love nothing more for them to achieve what the previous 4 Chiefs teams that went unbeaten at home by winning their opening playoff game after having an unbeaten regular season. But, as I said before, the primary concern should be the playoffs & having their key starters healthy, not putting all their stock into this game against the Raiders.

And do take note, that I did not call those people who mentioned that no team that has ever had 4th seed has won the Super Bowl, "superstitious" -- because it has nothing to do with superstition, they were simply pointing out was has happened historically regarding the matter, even as I was pointing out what has happened to the Chiefs in the playoffs 4 previous times when they went unbeaten at home.

You didn't just point out what has happened in the past. You specifically suggested avoiding that position, citing those ancient results.

That is what makes it superstition.

If you are getting the impression that if the Chiefs defeat Oakland on Sunday that I will not be rooting for them in playoffs, then you are incorrect. Personally, I don't care about the outcome of the game against the Raiders, they are in the playoffs either way, so there really isn't that much at stake. If they win, fine, and if they don't, no big deal.

Well, they started everybody, and they got beat.

I would rather they had pulled the starters. :lol:

Chiefster
01-03-2011, 08:20 PM
Well, they started everybody, and they got beat.

I would rather they had pulled the starters. :lol:

:lol::lol:

Hayvern
01-04-2011, 04:31 PM
Well, they started everybody, and they got beat.

I would rather they had pulled the starters. :lol:

Yeah, the starters decided to take the day off anyway, even though they were supposed to start. Pathetic!

Chiefster
01-04-2011, 05:06 PM
Yeah, the starters decided to take the day off anyway, even though they were supposed to start. Pathetic!


Yeah, I kinda thought that O-line looked as if they just sort of just laid down.

matthewschiefs
01-04-2011, 06:33 PM
Yeah, the starters decided to take the day off anyway, even though they were supposed to start. Pathetic!

The starters on the defensive side of the ball at least thought about playing. But it's clear that the o line starters decided that they needed to rest.

figcrostic
01-05-2011, 01:13 PM
Well, they started everybody, and they got beat.

I would rather they had pulled the starters. :lol:

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2011/01/4.jpg

Canada
01-05-2011, 01:35 PM
http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2011/01/4.jpg

What did you tell?

4everchiefsfan25
01-05-2011, 01:44 PM
http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2011/01/4.jpg
You told us to keep our starters out but IMO I still think your wrong!

chiefnut
01-06-2011, 10:45 AM
it doesn't matter anymore

4everchiefsfan25
01-06-2011, 12:17 PM
it doesn't matter anymore
agreed :bananen_smilies046:

matthewschiefs
01-06-2011, 03:31 PM
it doesn't matter anymore

Nope. Now all that matters is the playoff game Sunday.