Chiefs are better?

InvaderRam wrote:

it woulda been a different story if it was played in kansas city.

i don’t think kansas city is better.

but i also don’t think that the rams are definitively better than the chiefs either.

Why do you hate the Rams?

• This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Herzog.

I think most analysis is superficial, and tends towards cliche. And some analysis tries to stand out from the pack by saying something unconventional. Loudly, if possible. This argument that the Chiefs are better seems to be based mostly on the fact that the Chiefs had 5 TOs and that is a high water mark that ordinarily won’t happen, and therefore the Chiefs would have won without that anomaly occurring.

TOs are big. They are momentum changers, and often result in good field position. In this case, two of the TOs were directly converted to points by rEbuke’em.

But turnovers are not in and of themselves points. They are turnovers. Punts are turnovers, too. Missed FGs are turnovers, and failed 4th down plays are turnovers. Throw all these into a brand new category we can call “Stops.”

The Chiefs had the ball 8 times that they did not score if you add the 3 punts to the 5 TOs. The Rams had 4 punts and 2 TOs for a total of 6 Stops (not counting the kneeldowns at the half and end of game which shouldn’t count…they weren’t Stops).

So basically what I’m arguing is that a deflected pass on 3rd down, or a hurry that creates a bad throw, or a sack on 3rd down, are all almost as good as an INT or Fumble. It’s basically the same principle that had Donald rated very highly by PFF the first four weeks of the season even though he didn’t record a single sack. Turnovers are striking, and perhaps psychologically important, but…a Stop is a Stop.

I don’t think it makes any sense to conclude the Chiefs are better because of the 5 TO anomaly that will not happen if they meet again in the Super Bowl.

I don’t know how one concludes anything from that game other than that the two teams are evenly matched, and the outcome is pretty much a tossup.

The analysts are going to talk because that’s their job. And that means their job is to say things that are interesting, and it’s always more interesting to take an unconventional position than a conventional position. I mean…do they REALLY believe that the Chiefs proved they are the better team? I mean…REALLY?

I enjoyed this response.

I’ve also heard people trying to make concrete assessments of which team is better based on the outcome of this single game. Seems like a fool’s errand to me. I have another gripe that bothers me more than it should, and I’ve literally heard it after every one of the Rams’ close victories. And that is people saying that (Denver, Seattle, Green Bay, Kansas City) should have won against the Rams. I’ve read where Seattle “should have won twice, except . . .” I could argue that the Seattle games and the Green Bay game were just as close to being double digit Rams’ victories as they were Rams’ defeats.

Even moreso with the Chiefs game, because there were a ridiculous number of possessions by both teams, you can point to a dozen plays that could have turned the outcome of the game. How, then, can you make a conclusive determination of which team is better based on a game with so many tipping points? The better position is that they are both talented and well matched, and could easily beat each other on a neutral field or each other’s field. And if you don’t believe the Rams could beat KC in Kansas City, you just haven’t been paying attention IMO.