hondo in seattle Posted December 8 Posted December 8 1 hour ago, Sweats said: Alright, you filthy animals, i need you to settle a raging debate we've got going on in my office right now....... If you could only have one, would you want the #1 seed or a fully healthy roster?.......you can only have one. Literally half the office is saying to make a solid push for the #1 seed no matter the outcome and the other half is saying that we're already in the playoffs, so getting our roster as healthy as possible for the postseason should be the number one priority. Your input and feedback are valuable in calming my office down presently. I mean, i like a good debate, however, this may get out of control shortly. Recency bias... - We lost last year at home. - We probably underperformed in the past two playoffs because of injuries to key players. I'd rather have a healthy roster. And if we get the #2 seed, we'll still play at home because KC will lose before they reach the AFC Championship Game against us. Quote
letsgoteam Posted December 8 Posted December 8 1 hour ago, boyst said: Detroit is gonna ***** us up if they get the chance. That roster is not a nice roster forfeit? 1 Quote
loveorhatembillsfan4life Posted December 8 Posted December 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, US Egg said: Again, where is this resting players with 5 games to go concept coming from? Not sure but the focus on here seems to get everyone healthy into the playoffs… I don’t know how you guarantee it yet at this point. But if the question is play for number seed my vote would be yes Edited December 8 by loveorhatembillsfan4life Quote
stinky finger Posted December 8 Posted December 8 The very premise of this question gives me bad vibes. Good health ALL DAY. We'll win anywhere when healthy. Quote
BigDingus Posted December 8 Posted December 8 1 seed. I mean, depends on how healthy we're talking. If we're saying the options are 1 seed vs our roster as it exists now + taking your chances at more injuries, I'd say 1 seed. Quote
zow2 Posted December 8 Posted December 8 Well, when you see Aidan O’Connell leaving the game with an air cast on his leg, you just want to enter the playoffs healthy Quote
RiotAct Posted December 8 Posted December 8 25 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said: Recency bias... - We lost last year at home. - We probably underperformed in the past two playoffs because of injuries to key players. I'd rather have a healthy roster. And if we get the #2 seed, we'll still play at home because KC will lose before they reach the AFC Championship Game against us. KC very likely gets the Ravens at home in the Divisional Round if they’re the 1 seed. I think they get it done against Baltimore in the friendly confines of Arrowhead but a lot of variables of course including injuries, players each team will be getting back, etc. Quote
Ethan in Cleveland Posted December 8 Posted December 8 Both #1 seed #2 seed and a Healthy roster Quote
Ya Digg? Posted December 8 Posted December 8 1 minute ago, zow2 said: Well, when you see Aidan O’Connell leaving the game with an air cast on his leg, you just want to enter the playoffs healthy I’m not completely sure which way you are thinking, but reading this makes the argument of getting the 1 seed even stronger Quote
zow2 Posted December 8 Posted December 8 Just now, Ya Digg? said: I’m not completely sure which way you are thinking, but reading this makes the argument of getting the 1 seed even stronger It really all depends on which guys are injured. and we have no way of knowing. Quote
Harold Jackson Posted December 8 Posted December 8 How many times have the two No. 1 seeds made it to the Super Bowl? Believe it or not, No. 1 vs. No. 1 has happened only 13 times in the previous 48 Super Bowls since the NFL implemented playoff seeding during the 1975 season. The first time it happened was in Super Bowl 11, which was played after the 1976 season. No. 1 vs. No. 1 was the Super Bowl matchup six times before the playoff field expanded to 12 teams (six from each conference) during the 1990 season: Quote
Sweats Posted December 8 Author Posted December 8 You see, even you guys can't decide or determine whether #1 seed or a healthy roster. It's not a simple question with a simple answer. Quote
Harold Jackson Posted December 8 Posted December 8 _____________________ How many No. 1 seeds have won the Super Bowl? Going back to 1975, 52 percent of No. 1 seeds (25 of 48) have won the Super Bowl. Of those 25 teams, 16 have represented the NFC and nine have represented the AFC. Quote
Sweats Posted December 8 Author Posted December 8 Just now, Harold Jackson said: _____________________ How many No. 1 seeds have won the Super Bowl? Going back to 1975, 52 percent of No. 1 seeds (25 of 48) have won the Super Bowl. Of those 25 teams, 16 have represented the NFC and nine have represented the AFC. So........#1 seed or a healthy roster? Quote
Harold Jackson Posted December 8 Posted December 8 Just now, Sweats said: You see, even you guys can't decide or determine whether #1 seed or a healthy roster. It's not a simple question with a simple answer. It's very simple.either both or just a healthy roster is fine. Number 1 seeds isn't that important or a promise of success statistically Quote
boyst Posted December 8 Posted December 8 26 minutes ago, letsgoteam said: forfeit? If KC loses tonight sure. If KC wins tonight then definitely. 1 Quote
ProcessTruster Posted December 9 Posted December 9 (edited) 6 hours ago, gonzo1105 said: Healthy Roster all day long. with 17, we can win on the f ing moon Edited December 9 by ProcessTruster Quote
Aussie Joe Posted December 9 Posted December 9 Pittsburgh on their ass for the 2 seed now which is not great . im trying to tell myself that they will at worst have the 2 seed wrapped up going into week 18 , so they can rest up that week … that’s what the Chiefs were able to to last year whilst we were fighting for a playoff berth in Miami Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.