Originally Posted by
brdempsey69
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.
King Karls helper
Should we sit our starters
censorship victim
The only reason a beer sweats around Canada is because he's decided it will be the next beer he drinks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks