Should we sit our starters

**figcrostic** · 12-26-2010, 07:42 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.

**wilqb16** · 12-30-2010, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by ctchiefsfan

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, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by Canada

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

Thanks Canada!

**brdempsey69** · 12-30-2010, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by pbatrucker

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, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

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, 11:21 AM

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, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Seek

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, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

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, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by chiefnut

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, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

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, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by chiefnut

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.