Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 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. #151
    Member Since
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,529
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 42
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    yes the raiders are a bad football team who happened to beat us twice, so that does not say much about how good we are does it?? for me this loss is more of a gut shot than if we lose the playoff game.

  3. #152
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,123
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 27
    Given: 26

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by brdempsey69 View Post
    Sorry, but it has happened to 3 different regimes. Perhaps that will change with this current regime. Perhaps not. One other difference this time, though, is if they do beat the Raiders, they won't be 1st or 2nd seed like they were the previous 4 times they went unbeaten at home. We'll have to wait and see.



    Then that would make Hank Stram a fool in 1969 when he played it close to the vest in the season finale at Oakland when the Chiefs passed only 6 times and ran 48 times. Stram's primary concern was the playoffs and making sure that the Chiefs had a healthy Len Dawson going into the post season. The result? The only Super Bowl title that the Chiefs have to this day. Don't know about you, but I can hardly look at Stram's strategy as being "foolish".

    Stram held something back. But it was a 10-6 game, and he was trying to win.

    What he didn't hold back, was his starters.

    Excellent point. But Stram took a major gamble by holding back in that game.

    It paid off for him. But do you really want to compare the records of home teams, versus road teams, in The NFL Playoffs?




    Nobody said anything about wanting the Chiefs to lose to the Raiders. I said I'd rather that they didn't put all their stock in this game. My point is if they do lose, it's not a big deal and that being unbeaten at home throughout the regular season has NOT been an advantage to them once the post season has started afterward. Besides, they are guaranteed at least one home game in the upcoming post season, regardless of the outcome against the Raiders. Don't know where you are getting the idea to sit starters in the playoffs as there is nothing in any of posts that remotely suggests that.



    Not correct. It has nothing to do with superstition -- sorry, but that accusation is incorrect. Nobody said anything about wanting them to lose. They might pull all their starters against the Raiders after the 1st series against the Raiders and still win -- which would be the best case scenario. I'd love nothing more for them to achieve what the previous 4 Chiefs teams that went unbeaten at home by winning their opening playoff game after having an unbeaten regular season. But, as I said before, the primary concern should be the playoffs & having their key starters healthy, not putting all their stock into this game against the Raiders.

    And do take note, that I did not call those people who mentioned that no team that has ever had 4th seed has won the Super Bowl, "superstitious" -- because it has nothing to do with superstition, they were simply pointing out was has happened historically regarding the matter, even as I was pointing out what has happened to the Chiefs in the playoffs 4 previous times when they went unbeaten at home.

    You didn't just point out what has happened in the past. You specifically suggested avoiding that position, citing those ancient results.

    That is what makes it superstition.


    If you are getting the impression that if the Chiefs defeat Oakland on Sunday that I will not be rooting for them in playoffs, then you are incorrect. Personally, I don't care about the outcome of the game against the Raiders, they are in the playoffs either way, so there really isn't that much at stake. If they win, fine, and if they don't, no big deal.
    Well, they started everybody, and they got beat.

    I would rather they had pulled the starters.

  4. #153
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    27,984
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 240
    Given: 431

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Well, they started everybody, and they got beat.

    I would rather they had pulled the starters.


  5. #154
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura, Ca.
    Posts
    2,605
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6
    Given: 1

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Well, they started everybody, and they got beat.

    I would rather they had pulled the starters.
    Yeah, the starters decided to take the day off anyway, even though they were supposed to start. Pathetic!


    Are you man enough? Eric Berry? Apparently Not!

  6. #155
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    27,984
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 240
    Given: 431

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayvern View Post
    Yeah, the starters decided to take the day off anyway, even though they were supposed to start. Pathetic!

    Yeah, I kinda thought that O-line looked as if they just sort of just laid down.


  7. #156
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,599
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 381
    Given: 74

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayvern View Post
    Yeah, the starters decided to take the day off anyway, even though they were supposed to start. Pathetic!
    The starters on the defensive side of the ball at least thought about playing. But it's clear that the o line starters decided that they needed to rest.

  8. #157
    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 chief31 View Post
    Well, they started everybody, and they got beat.

    I would rather they had pulled the starters.

  9. #158
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Read the name dumbass!!
    Posts
    13,339
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 24
    Given: 27

    Default


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

  10. #159
    Member Since
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    889
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by figcrostic View Post
    You told us to keep our starters out but IMO I still think your wrong!

  11. #160
    Member Since
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,529
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 42
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    it doesn't matter anymore

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
  •