Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 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. #121
    Member Since
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Falls Village, Ct
    Posts
    3,532
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 327
    Given: 326

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    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

  3. #122
    Member Since
    Mar 2009
    Location
    overland park ks
    Posts
    1,825
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


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

  4. #123
    Member Since
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    205
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by figcrostic View Post
    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

  5. #124
    Member Since
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,244
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 583
    Given: 773

    Default


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

  6. #125
    Member Since
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,244
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 583
    Given: 773

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by figcrostic View Post
    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).

  7. #126
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,713
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 396
    Given: 78

    Default


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

  8. #127
    Member Since
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,244
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 583
    Given: 773

    Default


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

  9. #128
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,713
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 396
    Given: 78

    Default


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

  10. #129
    Member Since
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Falls Village, Ct
    Posts
    3,532
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 327
    Given: 326

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Well....I don't know about anybody else, but I'm surely looking forward to our first home playoff win in many years!

    GO CHIEFS!!!

  11. #130
    Member Since
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,244
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 583
    Given: 773

    Default


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

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
  •