Raiders vs. Chiefs

[Adamixoye 604]

Just to further clarify, if we lose to the Raiders, I think our spot in the playoffs is in danger because they would have the upper hand on the division with an easier schedule to go, and then we'd be in a mess of teams for the wild card spots.  We can absorb a loss to NE much easier.  But by no means do I WANT to lose that game, for any reason.

[jetlord 10,207]

8 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

Honestly that Foxboro regular season game isn't going to matter a whole lot at this point.  We'll try to win, sure, and it would be great for our confidence.  But I think we've probably lost our shot at a bye and we have plenty of other games that we could win in order to win the division.  But assuming we pull off the division, at most that game will mean the difference between #3 and #4 for us.  So we'll have to go through Foxboro in January anyway unless someone knocks them off.

Again, the point is we won't "need" to beat them in NE twice.  Only the hypothetical playoff game is essential to our goal.

Don't understand your reasoning.  If the Chiefs beat the Raiders, they still have to win three more games to finish 11-5.  10-6 may not even make the playoffs at all.  The last three games are winnable, but the Chiefs don't want to be in a position where they're forced to win all three to get in   Winning in NE would be a big deal for the playoff standings. 

[Adamixoye 604]

12 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Don't understand your reasoning.  If the Chiefs beat the Raiders, they still have to win three more games to finish 11-5.  10-6 may not even make the playoffs at all.  The last three games are winnable, but the Chiefs don't want to be in a position where they're forced to win all three to get in   Winning in NE would be a big deal for the playoff standings. 

I'll walk it back just a bit.  Every game is going to matter, obviously.  But some games matter more than others.  The Raiders game is basically going to determine the division, because I don't think we go worse than 2-2 down the stretch, and I don't think the Raiders are going to win out.  Plus if we beat them and go 11-5 then it doesn't matter what they do.

The Patriots game has some importance, but not nearly as much.  Like I said, I think 10-6 takes the division pretty easily if we win 12/1.  So losing to NE could be one of those 1 or 2 losses.

It's honestly just math, plug it into any playoff simulator and it's really not debatable.  Every game matters some, but the Raiders game matters way more.

[jetlord 10,207]

13 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

I'll walk it back just a bit.  Every game is going to matter, obviously.  But some games matter more than others.  The Raiders game is basically going to determine the division, because I don't think we go worse than 2-2 down the stretch, and I don't think the Raiders are going to win out.  Plus if we beat them and go 11-5 then it doesn't matter what they do.

The Patriots game has some importance, but not nearly as much.  Like I said, I think 10-6 takes the division pretty easily if we win 12/1.  So losing to NE could be one of those 1 or 2 losses.

It's honestly just math, plug it into any playoff simulator and it's really not debatable.  Every game matters some, but the Raiders game matters way more.

Which game will the Raiders lose except in Arrowhead?  Maybe LAC but I hate to depend on that to make the playoffs.  The Chiefs have to beat the Raiders to make the playoffs or win out in the last four games.  The Chiefs probably will lose to NE.  Even if IND and HOU go 10-6, they hold the tie breaker over the Chiefs.  PIT also looks like a possible 10-6.  That's why I keep posting that the Chiefs can't lose two more games without some upsets among the other contenders. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

34 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Don't understand your reasoning.  If the Chiefs beat the Raiders, they still have to win three more games to finish 11-5.  10-6 may not even make the playoffs at all.  The last three games are winnable, but the Chiefs don't want to be in a position where they're forced to win all three to get in   Winning in NE would be a big deal for the playoff standings. 

It’s extremely unlikely that Raiders go undefeated other than our game. They are 1-3 on the road and have 4 road games left.  As long as we beat them and they drop any one game before or after that all we need is 10 wins to win the West. 

[jetlord 10,207]

1 hour ago, Mloe68 said:

It’s extremely unlikely that Raiders go undefeated other than our game. They are 1-3 on the road and have 4 road games left.  As long as we beat them and they drop any one game before or after that all we need is 10 wins to win the West. 

There's no argument that the Chiefs beating the Raiders is paramount to the Chief's playoff chances and a fourth division title in a row. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

3 hours ago, jetlord said:

There's no argument that the Chiefs beating the Raiders is paramount to the Chief's playoff chances and a fourth division title in a row. 

I haven’t even looked at a scenario if we lose that game who would have tie breaker. But that could set up nightmare scenario of winning 10 games and getting knocked out. 

[Adamixoye 604]

7 hours ago, jetlord said:

Which game will the Raiders lose except in Arrowhead?  Maybe LAC but I hate to depend on that to make the playoffs.  The Chiefs have to beat the Raiders to make the playoffs or win out in the last four games.  The Chiefs probably will lose to NE.  Even if IND and HOU go 10-6, they hold the tie breaker over the Chiefs.  PIT also looks like a possible 10-6.  That's why I keep posting that the Chiefs can't lose two more games without some upsets among the other contenders. 

The Raiders' wins are by 8, 7, 3, 7, 2, and 7.  Their losses are by 18, 20, 18, and 3.  They've mostly beaten some bad teams (best is Indy) and got killed by us, the Packers, and the Vikings.  That's the sign of a team that's a little lucky so far; with that point differential they should be 5-5 or 4-6.  I don't trust any of those teams to absolutely beat them, but if I were a Raiders fan I wouldn't feel confident at all about winning out like so many here seem to be.  After barely beating the Bengals in Oakland I can see them losing any of their remaining games, really.  Especially the three division games that are on the road (including us).

On the other hand, I like us to keep dominating the division at Arrowhead and beat a Bears team that will have continued to crumble.  So I do think we go 4-1 (beating Oakland) and it doesn't matter what Oakland does, but I still think we can absorb going 3-2 as long as we beat them.

I also don't particularly think more than one of those three other teams you mentioned will go 10-6.  Houston might, I don't think the other two get to 10 wins.

[Adamixoye 604]

Here's another breakdown:  the Chiefs and Raiders have three common games left, including the game against each other; they're both cycling through the division.  But for the Chiefs those games are all at home while for the Raiders they're all on the road.  In total the Chiefs have 3 home and 2 road games left, while the Raiders have 2 home and 4 road games left.

We have @ NE (9-1) and @ CHI (4-6) vs. the Raiders' schedule of @ NYJ (3-7), TEN (5-5), and (JAX 4-6).  Throw out the NE game and they really don't have an easier schedule than we do.

If we win on 12/1 then losing the division would either be a total collapse by us, or absolute props to them for winning out plus at least a minor collapse by us.  If they win on 12/1 then all bets are off and they have the upper hand.

I'm just not as scared of these guys as some of you are until they actually do it.  Again, I'm not saying they 100% can't, it's just not likely and I'll be shocked and upset if it does happen.

[Thegoatee 1,780]

Think this comes down to our LBs vs Raider RB + TE. The winner of that wins the game. At least we come off a bye.

[Okiechief1 425]

4 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

The Raiders' wins are by 8, 7, 3, 7, 2, and 7.  Their losses are by 18, 20, 18, and 3.  They've mostly beaten some bad teams (best is Indy) and got killed by us, the Packers, and the Vikings.  That's the sign of a team that's a little lucky so far; with that point differential they should be 5-5 or 4-6.  I don't trust any of those teams to absolutely beat them, but if I were a Raiders fan I wouldn't feel confident at all about winning out like so many here seem to be.  After barely beating the Bengals in Oakland I can see them losing any of their remaining games, really.  Especially the three division games that are on the road (including us).

On the other hand, I like us to keep dominating the division at Arrowhead and beat a Bears team that will have continued to crumble.  So I do think we go 4-1 (beating Oakland) and it doesn't matter what Oakland does, but I still think we can absorb going 3-2 as long as we beat them.

I also don't particularly think more than one of those three other teams you mentioned will go 10-6.  Houston might, I don't think the other two get to 10 wins.

The Raiders remind me of a couple years of the Alex Smith era.  Good enough to beat the bad teams but not quite good enough when they step up in competition.  

First time under Reid KC will have a home game coming off a bye. 

Get up early n stop their running game and get into their heads that they can’t beat us.    Carr is a solid QB but he won’t beat KC by just passing.  

[DieHard 2,061]

I don’t think the Raiders beat the Jets. 

[dhitter 1,424]

I'll be watching that Raiders-Jets game. If I'm not mistaken the Jets have the #1 run defense in the league. The Raiders feed off their run game. If you put the game all on Carr he does not do so well. This is a game the Raiders could easily lose. Quintessential trap game.

Then the Raiders come to KC. Carr is 0-5 at Arrowhead and has looked pretty bad doing it. We all know Andy's record after a bye. Combine that with his total dominance of the AFC West and the Raiders could easily be looking at 6-6. They would have to win out to have any shot at the playoffs. Pretty unlikely.

[artsy 1,137]

1 hour ago, DieHard said:

I don’t think the Raiders beat the Jets. 

I don't either. 

[wilkie 1,518]

I will say it in unequivocal terms that everyone here understands...... FUCK THE RAIDERS

[TomahawkChop 255]

7 hours ago, wilkie said:

I will say it in unequivocal terms that everyone here understands...... FUCK THE RAIDERS

That’s a bit ambiguous. I think I understand your general mindset, but I’m not sure if I understand your position. Are you saying you dislike the Raider franchise? 

[DieHard 2,061]

On 11/22/2019 at 4:40 PM, wilkie said:

I will say it in unequivocal terms that everyone here understands...... FUCK THE RAIDERS

OK, but I’m wear’n a rubber.

[wilkie 1,518]

Truthfully my cardiologist told me Wilkie do not watch Chiefs Raiders game live.    Life is so much better when you watch these games after you know the final score.    Better for my underwear too.

Wonder what Tiltraider is up to?

[jetlord 10,207]

2 hours ago, wilkie said:

Truthfully my cardiologist told me Wilkie do not watch Chiefs Raiders game live.    Life is so much better when you watch these games after you know the final score.    Better for my underwear too.

Wonder what Tiltraider is up to?

Tiltraider is probably thinking about how much better it is to visit Las Vegas than Oakland.  

[dhitter 1,424]

Did anyone watch the Raiders-Bengals game and walk away impressed by the Raiders? I sure didn't. If Cincy had a better QB they win that game. They got into Raider territory all day. Just couldn't finish drives. Chiefs would have hung 35 easy on that team.

[jetlord 10,207]

22 minutes ago, dhitter said:

Did anyone watch the Raiders-Bengals game and walk away impressed by the Raiders? I sure didn't. If Cincy had a better QB they win that game. They got into Raider territory all day. Just couldn't finish drives. Chiefs would have hung 35 easy on that team.

Of course, to be fair, anyone watching the Chiefs/LAC game wouldn't have gone away too impressed by the Chiefs. 

[dhitter 1,424]

15 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Of course, to be fair, anyone watching the Chiefs/LAC game wouldn't have gone away too impressed by the Chiefs. 

Fair enough although I would point out Raiders were at home playing a winless team with a no name quarterback.

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

Hate the bye week. It brings out all the gloom doom posters. This has nothing to do with reality it has everything to do with the fact that the grass is always greener elsewhere. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

1 hour ago, jetlord said:

Of course, to be fair, anyone watching the Chiefs/LAC game wouldn't have gone away too impressed by the Chiefs. 

We perhaps peaked early last year and are timing it right to get hot this year. Or we just don’t have it this year and most every game will be a struggle including the Raiders. Any guess which it is?  

[Adamixoye 604]

1 hour ago, jetlord said:

Of course, to be fair, anyone watching the Chiefs/LAC game wouldn't have gone away too impressed by the Chiefs. 

Most of the national pundits spoke pretty positively of us after that game.  Said it was good for us to win a game on defense, and that the bad field and altitude really hurt us.