Chiefs are 3-0 and have played turrrible. Well not quite terrible, but not their best. Look out AFC.
Chefs vs Birds
- Thread starter QChawks
- Start date
-
- Tags
- qcpizzasucks
Pretend that DB doesn’t knife through and the RB still doesn’t make it. He had multiple defenders in front of him.
Defense always is and it always still works. They'll outlaw the tush push eventually because it's that effective. Until they do, you're a fool not to run it.
There is a good chance he still doesn't make it. KC had this one sniffed out.
And the call made absolutely no sense in the moment. Oh well, I'm happy they called it.
Doubt it.
If a rule favors the offense, it's shelf life is likely pretty lengthy.
They reviewed it already in the offseason. We will see. I do see your point, though.
Chiefs fan for 50+ years . . . should've been PI in end zone on the last drive.
But . . . shouldn't have been PI against Chiefs several plays earlier which gave the Falcons a 16-17 gain.
Also shouldn't have been roughing the passer in 1st half and, instead, hands to the face against ATL on their second TD drive. Would've been 4th and long and ATL would have punted.
If it was roughing the passer on Jones, then it should have been roughing the passer against ATL on Mahomes' pass intercepted in end zone on Chiefs' first drive. Same type of contact post throwing the pass. (I agree with no roughing on that play).
The "NFL and its refs want the Chiefs to win" conspiracy theories crack me up.
But . . . shouldn't have been PI against Chiefs several plays earlier which gave the Falcons a 16-17 gain.
Also shouldn't have been roughing the passer in 1st half and, instead, hands to the face against ATL on their second TD drive. Would've been 4th and long and ATL would have punted.
If it was roughing the passer on Jones, then it should have been roughing the passer against ATL on Mahomes' pass intercepted in end zone on Chiefs' first drive. Same type of contact post throwing the pass. (I agree with no roughing on that play).
The "NFL and its refs want the Chiefs to win" conspiracy theories crack me up.
For anyone who is a Falcons fan or didn't want to see KC win . . . tell me why it was a good idea for ATL to go for a TD on 4th and 2 during their second last drive.
Because I wanted KC to win, I loved the decision. The objective part of me thought it was insane.
Because I wanted KC to win, I loved the decision. The objective part of me thought it was insane.
I didn't watch, and I will continue to not watch when the Chiefs are in primetime.
Because you really need to assume that Mahomes will always score at the end of the game.
One missed call stood out. It would be interesting to hear the reasoning behind the decision. Seems impossible to miss that.
Setting aside whether that "assumption" is correct (I grant you that it frequently is ... although I had doubts as I sat in Arrowhead during the Bengals game) . . . even if the "assumption" is correct, there is very little advantage to passing over the 3 points. Get the game to 22-20. The only thing that would have "killed" the Falcons would be a subsequent TD. KC hasn't exactly lit it up this year (yet) in that department. Stop KC and you win with a FG. Hold KC to a FG and you can win with a TD.
If you really thought that KC would score another TD, KC would be up by at least 4 (assuming ATL scored a TD and a 2 pt. conversation) and it would need a TD to win anyway.
By forgoing the FG attempt on second last drive, ATL essentially forced itself into a "we'll need to score a TD to win" strategy and eliminated the chance to win with a FG.
Poor decision. Really poor.
