Did I happen to catch the Buffalo
playoff game?
[Reply]

Sample size is small, but numbers show Mahomes is 4-1 in games w/o Reek on the field. In those 4 wins, offense averaged over 30 PPG and Mahomes averaged over 300 PYPG.

So it would seem Pat can perform w/o Reek and the team can win w/o Reek on the field . . . . . . at least in the regular season.

The question is can the Chiefs offense win playoff games w/o him? He’s come up huge in several playoff games for us over the last few years. Will another one of these receivers step up and do what he did for Pat when the ‘big play’ is needed?

Time will tell, I guess . . . . .
[Reply]

I don't. Because that means you are no maximizing his value. This year or next at the very latest should be the last year we get out of him before hes traded. TE production starts to dramatically decline at his age, now.
[Reply]

Chiefs should think about getting a TE to replace him eventually, what we have on our roster I'm not sold on quite frankly.
[Reply]

But take away Reek in some games and what is he?
No ReeK, no WASP and no SB win for example... Same with the left-handed pass play in Denver a few years back, and the throw to Reek against the Ravens a few years back, and of course, the playoff win over Buffalo this year. Without Reek we likely lose all those games...It works both ways...

I don't think we need time to tell.
[Reply]

I was being sarcastic. Hill is pretty damn good.
[Reply]

Deer Can we? Of course we can. Other teams win playoff games without Hill. Did we not lose several with him? Hell yes we did.
[Reply]

No, I get what you’re saying. But I was only focusing on the games that Pat started and Reek wasn’t playing in. He was 4-1 in those games. I’m not discounting the games Reek played in and certainly helped him (and the team) win. Was merely saying the offense, and more specifically, Mahomes, has shown he CAN win games and our offense CAN put up numbers w/o Reek out there. And I get it’s a small sample size, but 5 games is something, and I think we can take something from it. What I take from it is with the team we have NOW (including Andy, coaches, etc.), I think the Chiefs will still be strong on offense and will still win a majority of their games, at least in the regular season.

The only question I was asking is, without Tyreek, can we win playoff games? Will someone else on the team step up in the big moments, like Tyreek seemed to many times? Do we have THAT guy on the roster? The truth is I don’t know.

Of course, the other side of that argument is we had Reek in 2016 & 2017, when we lost our first playoff games to the Steelers and the Titans. Obviously, Reek had a bit of a different role in that offense at that time, especially considering Alex Smith was his QB. So Reek without Pat is something to consider there.

You could argue that we need both to win playoff games. Those two together have correlated to our playoff success. Reek with Alex as his QB did NOT win playoff games. So the scenario is can Pat w/o Reek win playoff games? I would be inclined to say yes, but we don’t know that until we see it.

Again, I’m not discounting the games we won in the playoffs where Reek was a vital part of those wins. In fact, I think he was essential to THOSE wins. But that is in the past, playoff history. The question is what can we win going forward without him.

And I think we very much need time to tell whether we can . . . . .
[Reply]

Well, two other teams have since won Super Bowls without Tyreek Hill, and one other team has beat us in the AFC Championship game. How'd they do that?

maybe fielding a better overall team might be an answer.
[Reply]

I would agree we probably can, as well. But we have no data to go off of yet.

Reek w/o Pat was 0-2 in the playoffs. With Pat, 8-3. We have no data for Pat w/o Reek at this point. But, overall, yes we can BOTH win AND lose games with Reek in the fold. He was 8-5 overall in his time with the Chiefs.

But if we’re just analyzing the two together, they were 8-3. I guess you can argue they lost several together, but I would argue they won a majority of their playoff games together.

The main question is was it because of Mahomes or the combination of Reek and Mahomes together?

Time and some more playoff appearances will answer that question.
[Reply]

Guys, the TEAM has to be better. It's been two years now of close but no cigar. Paying Hill wasn't going to help the TEAM get better, as in at multiple positions.

Getting better across the board will offset the loss of Hill. We have plenty of evidence that this is true-look at the last two years of NFL football. Other teams beat us and won SB's without Tyreek Hill.
[Reply]

We were one offsides penalty away from winning an AFC championship in a game where Tyreek had 1 catch.
[Reply]

Right.

You also look at a team like Packers w a HOF QB who also had a great connection w a Pro Bowl WR. The result - the Pack also haven't won shit either recently.

They simply are not worth the money they demand and they can be taken out of games by good defebses.
[Reply]

But that’s how that team was built. It was built keeping in mind that we have Tyreek Hill. So of course we needed Tyreek to win the SB.

We’re building a different team now. We might not be running Wasp, but we’ll run different plays and hopefully different guys make those plays.

Maybe a more balanced team doesn’t fall behind 10 points in the SB. Maybe they’re more efficient and don’t have to run a miracle 3rd down play.

We had time to spare when Damien Williams put us up 10 points. Maybe without wasp we just run a few more plays and still get there.
[Reply]

Exactly.
[Reply]