Originally Posted by OctoberFart:
We beat your guys arse the year before with them when you were winless. BTW I personally think your team is better without Charles.
Yep - but you mean when YOU were winless. Also that game occurred in some pretty extreme circumstance. What happened this season? You got SMOKED TWICE. Right? :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
No. It means that both seasons, the Chiefs beat the eventual Super Bowl Champs. Also, this season one can argue that the Chiefs were actually better then the Super Bowl champs based on their two head to head matchups.
So what??
Jake the Snake was always a better technical wrestler than Hulk Hogan. [Reply]
Jake the Snake was always a better technical wrestler than Hulk Hogan.
So what is fine if that's your take... My take was in response to his "Raida speak" regarding if KC should be considered back to back SB champs because they smoked the Pats the year before. To which I clearly answered his question and explained my position on my opinion.
"So what" if you don't agree with it...I can still respect your opinion. But now you know the context of how and why I stated mine. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
No. It means that both seasons, the Chiefs beat the eventual Super Bowl Champs. Also, this season one can argue that the Chiefs were actually better then the Super Bowl champs based on their two head to head matchups.
How can you say a team is "better" than another while also claiming that the NFL is fixed?
By your logic, the NFL ensured the results for a more dramatic AFC West race...
Originally Posted by TEX:
No. It means that both seasons, the Chiefs beat the eventual Super Bowl Champs. Also, this season one can argue that the Chiefs were actually better then the Super Bowl champs based on their two head to head matchups.
For sure...on those days you were better. Scoreboard says so, but a Championship is more than 1 game. [Reply]