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.

**matthewschiefs** · 12-30-2010, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

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, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

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, 06:17 PM

Can't argue with that!

**brdempsey69** · 12-30-2010, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by matthewschiefs

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, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

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, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by matthewschiefs

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, 08:03 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, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

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, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

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.

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.

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

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, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

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.