Mikie2times

They both play backyard styles at times but Allen has more turnovers and leverages his running more. Allen is more athletic and he uses it. While I want a mobile QB I find more value in a QB the less they generate production with running. It becomes more consistent to duplicate success when you don't depend on the run. I think that's part of what can make Allen inconsistent. Mahomes is the better passing QB and at QB I want the better passer. Changing teams or coaches wouldn't change this in my mind.

Mahomes is slightly better because of what he has accomplished and what he has accomplished can be attributed to McD to some extent in the games we have faced against him. If McD's defense offered even a mild speed bump of resistance to KC or the Bengals we have a Super Bowl. Your entire argument just ignores how bad this defense has been vs KC and the Bengals. So much worse than other teams who have faced them in the playoffs. You keep saying 15-1 as if just a baseline average performance wouldn't have been enough to disrupt the team you keep saying is unbeatable. Yet we can't even muster average.

Who is 15-1? The Chiefs have lost to the Patriots, Bengals, and Bucs. Not that it matters all that much but I figured if you're going to keep repeating something pointless it might as well be correct.

If I was a proponent of keeping McD I would be reminding people that we play a very specific style of defense and it will take more than one year to turn that around into a unit that can be effective in more traditional schemes. So to your point, I would be happy with that outcome. Anarumo can certainly scheme come playoff time in almost a Spags like way. But our roster is not close for what he wants to do and I imagine it would be awhile before it was.

We don't need to outcoach anybody. We need to produce an average level of performance vs the Chiefs and Bengals defensively. Average being defined as the average of every opponent they have faced in the playoffs during the time Allen has been here. If we did that we would have at least one Super Bowl. Maybe more. Can Sean do that?

I'm aware it took Chicago two years. I forgot the Colts only went to the Super Bowl. But ya, remember that pretty clearly now. Yes. It's what I truly believe. I wish I didn't. It's fairly depressing to be honest. By all means, prove me wrong McD! For me it cemented in just seeing how much worse we perform against KC than other teams vs KC in the playoffs. Then obviously how we have performed against the Bengals. I don't know how that doesn't role up to your defensive minded HC. But perhaps the final straw was the Burrow stat line. 14 of 14, 3 TD's, 181 yards I believe it is. Opening drives. You get time to really plan for an opening drive. If you get gashed a bit you can change things up the next time and the time after. This is the side of the ball that is the specialty of our HC. So to watch Burrow come in and do that to us three times in a row. Something is not right with Sean vs certain players or situations. Its possible it's schematic but it doesn't always go that way in the regular season so hard to tell. The level of performance against us is just not something that can be explained.

*They went to it

I guess the first part would be to ask why does it matter what the Colts, Chargers, Steelers, and Ravens did against the Patriots? This conversation is about Sean McDermott. You're trying to take this out to left field to just get some basis to argue from. You realize the Colts won the Super Bowl the first year after Tony Dungy left? Literally the first year. That is one of your examples? You have two other Super Bowl Champion teams as examples. New England won 6 Super Bowls over 17 years. 11 other years teams could have won a Super Bowl. This isn't going to come down to "can we beat KC". It will come down to can we beat a top 3 rated team in the playoffs. Then can we do it again, and likely again. Which given our excessive tanking defensively in such spots seems like a herculean effort. Impossible given the knowledge of what we have seen thus far and downright mindboggling that people like yourself think that it is possible. The Bulls couldn't beat the Pistons. They didn't say, well, the Pistons are really good. They're champions and nobody has been able to beat them so that's ok. They fired Doug Collins. Within two years they started a dynasty themselves. Why the hell are we willing to just hand it over to KC when we also have one of the best QB's in the league? Why can't you people see that we have just as much reason to believe we could be KC ourselves. Instead we hope to get one. At some point. Who knows when that is. It's no wonder we aren't KC. We cling to our division championships and wild card wins as if anybody cares about such things much past the year they occurred.

I hate saying this. But It was one of the biggest bets I have ever won. I will never do it again though. Felt all sots of conflicted. It's easy to say to yourself, well, if they lose at least I won my bet. But if it's for any amount of many that matters it's just better to stay away. Not like we get these games often in our life.

Can he beat the Bengals? That's the funny part. All of this talk is over the damn divisional round. We have never beat a #3 or better seed in a playoff game. We would have to likely to it in the divisional round and then two more times in a row to win the Super Bowl. Just seems like that ask is like climbing Everest.

So your argument contains the logic of intentionally ignoring how we have performed against KC. Then outright ignoring that the Bengals even exist. Sounds good.

All you do is side step the Bengals domination of us and how much better KC has performed against Buffalo than other teams they have played more than once. The information is right in front of you. If you want to ignore it that's your choice.

Rivers and Brees both played under Marty. Marty wasn't a lifetime coach for those players. Rogers played under LaFleur. He wasn't a lifetime coach for Rogers either. Was it not humorous that your examples overlap with some of the most notorious regular season champions of all time? What is the point you're trying to make here? That other QB's in NFL history have been very good and just won one Super Bowl because what? Other teams are also very good? It's not just KC. Burrow is 14 of 14 on opening drives, 3 TD's, almost 200 yards passing. They have outscored us 58-21 in two games. The Colts dropping over 450 yards in the playoffs, 25+ first downs, and coming back from a 14 point deficit to nearly win. The next year under Carson Wentz dismantling us 41-15 in Buffalo. Who else have we played with with any semblance of an offense in the postseason? Baltimore in a wind storm and two teams without NFL level QB's? So if we have faced an offense that is actually competent we haven't mustered enough o be a speed bump. This, after holding Top 10 ranking in the regular season. Speaking of KC. It's not just that KC is good. They're even better against us. You know that, everybody on here knows that. 3 of the 6 top QBR's Mahomes has posted are against us. Just look at the performance he has against us vs other teams he has faced multiple times in the playoffs.

It's just Kansas City. Keep telling yourself that. By the way look up Mannings stats in the playoffs. Just how atrocious they were. One of the worst all time. Rivers and Brees played mostly under Marty. Rodgers LaFleur. These examples are too funny. As I said, 3 coaches in NFL history above .600 and no Super Bowl apperances. You hit all three in your response.

You know you're right. The 3 point victory at home over Skyler Thompson wasn't something to focus on. I was more concerned with Joe Burrow going 14 for 14 for 181 yards and 3 TD's across 3 separate opening drives. Houston scoring 22 unanswered points in the 2nd half. Indianapolis nearly coming back from down 24-10 in the 4th quarter dropping 472 yards and 27 first downs on us. KC's Tommy Townsend punting 4 total times in the playoffs vs Buffalo. A total that was tied or beaten in one game in half the playoff games in the Mahomes era. Three coaches in the Super Bowl era have a .600 winning% and no Super Bowl appearances. Marty Schottenheimer is one of them. Yet you think this will go the way of Andy Reid? You know what Reids playoff record is without Mahomes? 11-13 and with Mahomes it's 15-3. So who is going to be McDermott's Mahomes? Isn't that supposed to be Allen?

We were better than Houston. We should have lost to the Colts. The Dolphins played us to a 3 point game with a 3rd string QB. We have been a lot closer to a devastating first round loss than a Super Bowl.

I believe it was the most yards allowed in NFL playoff history in a Victory

KC did whatever they wanted in that game. They completely dominated us. The only thing that prevented 40 was our offense being on the field all game only allowing KC 47 plays. They scored on every drive except the end zone fumble and running out the clock. It's fine if you don't want to -1 for McD this game (and the failed fake punt) but he sure as heck isn't a +1.

3 coaches in the Super Bowl Era have a winning % over .600 in the regular season and have never been to a Super Bowl. Marty Schottenheimer, Matt LaFleur, and Sean McDermott.

About the best way I've heard him described. He shrinks the floor and ceiling at the same time. I think that's what has made him so polarizing.

Yup, a lot reasons we could start slow.

Bengals if Burrow stays healthy. It's nice to be forgotten about. The opposite of forgotten about is Houston. As much as we want to apply logical progression to them the league rarely operate in logical ways.

I'm much more bullish on Claypool than most. We don't sign him unless he has a lot of good answers for why things went the way they did. His career is over if this doesn't work out. He likely needs the money. It's not a stretch to me that he might have just realized what he was about to lose. Easy to say he's already had those chances but those experiences might have been enabling if anything. It was probably a bit of a wake up to see nobody wanted him.

Do teams want a corner isolated on Claypool or Coleman while Allen goes madden mode? I don't think we need to run past them to threaten them downfield. Both these guys are a mismatch one on one downfield especially with the threat of Allen extending plays.

I would go Moulds but something intriguing about Lee Evans