Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 162

Thread: Should we sit our starters

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Mar 2009
    Location
    overland park ks
    Posts
    1,825
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default Should we sit our starters


    0 Not allowed!
    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.

  2. #111
    Member Since
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    205
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by brdempsey69 View Post
    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.

  3. #112
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Read the name dumbass!!
    Posts
    13,330
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 23
    Given: 26

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by brdempsey69 View Post
    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.
    The only reason a beer sweats around Canada is because he's decided it will be the next beer he drinks.

  4. #113
    Member Since
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    889
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Canada View Post
    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

  5. #114
    Member Since
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    205
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by 4everchiefsfan25 View Post
    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.

  6. #115
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,373
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 332
    Given: 71

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by brdempsey69 View Post
    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.

  7. #116
    Member Since
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    889
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by wilqb16 View Post
    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

  8. #117
    Member Since
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    205
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by 4everchiefsfan25 View Post
    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.

  9. #118
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Read the name dumbass!!
    Posts
    13,330
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 23
    Given: 26

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    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!!
    The only reason a beer sweats around Canada is because he's decided it will be the next beer he drinks.

  10. #119
    Member Since
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,806
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 465
    Given: 680

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Canada View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilqb16 View Post
    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.

  11. #120
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Read the name dumbass!!
    Posts
    13,330
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 23
    Given: 26

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by brdempsey69 View Post
    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?
    The only reason a beer sweats around Canada is because he's decided it will be the next beer he drinks.

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. donkeys starters look like crap
    By slc chief in forum The Locker Room
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-31-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Thread starters......
    By jtandcrew in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-04-2009, 03:51 PM
  3. Projected Starters
    By royalswin100games in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-15-2008, 08:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •