Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41011121314151617 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 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. #131
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,855
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 420
    Given: 78

    Default


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

  3. #132
    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 brdempsey69 View Post
    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.

  4. #133
    Member Since
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Falls Village, Ct
    Posts
    3,597
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 336
    Given: 348

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Can't argue with that!

  5. #134
    Member Since
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,322
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 607
    Given: 788

    Default


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

  6. #135
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,855
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 420
    Given: 78

    Default


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

  7. #136
    Member Since
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,322
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 607
    Given: 788

    Default


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

  8. #137
    Member Since
    Apr 2009
    Location
    El Paso,TX
    Posts
    545
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    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.

  9. #138
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,855
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 420
    Given: 78

    Default


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

  10. #139
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,127
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 28
    Given: 26

    Default


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


    Quote Originally Posted by brdempsey69 View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by brdempsey69 View Post
    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.

  11. #140
    Member Since
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    2,242
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1
    Given: 0

    Default


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

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
  •