Mikie2times

On one hand you use injuries to absolve us under all sorts of hypotheticals but on the other you can't even acknowledge that if treated equally we would have lost in the Wild Card at home vs Miami. You can't possibly hold both views in a logical way. I understand what happened in the Miami game, but again, you apply what you want to fit your view. Our KC games were were largely dominated statistically by them, but yes, it was very close. Same with Miami but the other way. In the end the issue I have with this thought process is what you're displaying in your responses. It is very one sided and doesn't consider the implications of injuries vs us or in any other situations. It's simply a hypothetical "we would have won if" which then only gets applied to us and nobody else. Which is why I said the results have to mean something.

So we would have beat Miami with Tua starting when we won 34-31? How would of a home loss in the wild card to Miami changed your outlook?

Two years in a row we played competitive games in the Wild Card round vs Miami and Pittsburgh who didn't even have a starting QB. I hear the Bengals divisional game in this mix, meanwhile they had the entire OL out. Rice hasn't played for KC in either of the last two playoff games. I know people who discuss this are trying to point out the nuance of the situations, but eventually the results really do need to rule the day. Injuries go both ways and on top of it this regime has a propensity to invest in players with that type of history. A lot of the guys who are out now have been out more times than I can count.

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

They're a very pedestrian and flawed offense with a below average QB. Great defense sure, but not at Houston's level of physicality. Houston was ready to beat the breaks off them until Stroud got hurt. Tons of close wins, bad DVOA, lower than the year prior. Buffalo would be favored at Denver. In fact Buffalo would be favored or even money in every playoff game if this ends up being the field. So to say we should plow thru these teams is a mistake as we are vulnerable as well, but we also have the best QB in the playoffs and a decisive edge at that position vs any other team.

I don't disagree, but easier said than done. It will be a really good game if it happens.

In two games vs them Allen is 33 for 64, been sacked 9 times, has 19 bad throws, more INT's than TD's. It's the best defense in the NFL. They clearly give our offensive line problems. They shut down the screen game as well as anybody in football. They're good enough on offense to get to 20 vs us. Can we? It's a 50/50 game, but they're likely the most difficult playoff match up we would face at this point.

All true, but I would lean back on who really stands that clearly above us in the AFC? The worst we will get is a 50/50 game. This isn't close to the best iteration of this team. But the competitive landscape is just different this year.

The run defense the last 4 weeks ranks EPA 25th after being Top 3 most the year. Injuries have really hurt them there. This isn't the same team we faced earlier in the year.

Name the games against +QB’s where it did well? Baltimore in a wind storm. Past that I don’t have any.

Good idea from a fan perspective, but the game itself enjoys it's conference rivalry and most of all money. Controversy leads to exposure. They want to try and make it fair, but within a max profit structure and if some controversy comes along with it so be it.

Happy birthday James Wolfe Ripley, American Brevet Major General (Union Army), you would have been 231 today

No, I mean is, you can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a butcher's ass... No, wait. It's gotta be your bull

I'm going to start three more Burrow threads