Race for the one seed

[Hammock Parties]

DEAL WITH IT

[-King-]

We'll probably have some wtf loss at some point to make this all moot but it's extremely hard to look at the schedule and not think 17-0 is possible.

I'm trying not to think about it, but it's hard, especially when you think about if the offense figures itself out...

[Peter Gibbons]

Originally Posted by -King-

I'm trying not to think about it, but it's hard...

That’s what she said.

[RedinTexas]

Four teams with a 5-2 record tied for 2nd in the race for the #1 seed. We have either already played, or will play every one of them. Both of the Texans losses were in the NFC, so they are set up well to challenge us. If they can win that game against us, we have no room for error on the rest of our schedule. Furthermore, we may own the tie-break against the Ravens right now, but if there are multiple teams tied for the #1 seed, our tie-break against them might get nullified.

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by -King-

We'll probably have some wtf loss at some point to make this all moot but it's extremely hard to look at the schedule and not think 17-0 is possible.

I'm trying not to think about it, but it's hard, especially when you think about if the offense figures itself out...

It’s possible of course, but statistically it’s extremely unlikely.

If you give the Chiefs a 90% of winning each individual game, then that only comes out to about a 17% chance of winning 17 in a row.

Granted, 6 games have already happened so we don’t include those. If you give the Chiefs a 90% chance of winning each individual remaining game, that’s still only a 31% chance.

And obviously, the Chiefs don’t have a 90% chance in most of these games (maybe only Carolina).

A 60% chance of winning each would give the Chiefs a 0.4% of going undefeated.

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

It’s possible of course, but statistically it’s extremely unlikely.

If you give the Chiefs a 90% of winning each individual game, then that only comes out to about a 17% chance of winning 17 in a row.

Granted, 6 games have already happened so we don’t include those. If you give the Chiefs a 90% chance of winning each individual remaining game, that’s still only a 31% chance.

And obviously, the Chiefs don’t have a 90% chance in most of these games (maybe only Carolina).

A 60% chance of winning each would give the Chiefs a 0.4% of going undefeated.

You used, like, actual maths and stuff to make your point. That’s not allowed. You have to insult other CPers and grunt when you reply.

[PHOG]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

It’s possible of course, but statistically it’s extremely unlikely.

If you give the Chiefs a 90% of winning each individual game, then that only comes out to about a 17% chance of winning 17 in a row.

Granted, 6 games have already happened so we don’t include those. If you give the Chiefs a 90% chance of winning each individual remaining game, that’s still only a 31% chance.

And obviously, the Chiefs don’t have a 90% chance in most of these games (maybe only Carolina).

A 60% chance of winning each would give the Chiefs a 0.4% of going undefeated.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by -King-

We'll probably have some wtf loss at some point to make this all moot but it's extremely hard to look at the schedule and not think 17-0 is possible.

I'm trying not to think about it, but it's hard, especially when you think about if the offense figures itself out...

Agreed. Most likely foils will be the Bills and Steelers, IMO.

We’re at 6-0 now and, honestly, should be 9-0 when we play the Bills. If we can win that one I really don’t see why we shouldn’t hit 14-0 by the time we finish out the schedule with HOU, @PIT, and @DEN.

We’ll most likely lose focus and drop a random divisional game but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t thinking about an undefeated season.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Agreed. Most likely foils will be the Bills and Steelers, IMO.

We’re at 6-0 now and, honestly, should be 9-0 when we play the Bills. If we can win that one I really don’t see why we shouldn’t hit 14-0 by the time we finish out the schedule with HOU, @PIT, and @DEN.

We’ll most likely lose focus and drop a random divisional game but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t thinking about an undefeated season.

Also that HOU, PIT DEN is like all in 9 days or some shit.

So if you could be sitting at 14-0 going into Houston.....I think you push hard to win that one, then just play a JV game against Pitt on Wednesday and then play the Den game like it's the 2nd preseason game starter wise and head to the bye.

[smithandrew051]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

You used, like, actual maths and stuff to make your point. That’s not allowed. You have to insult other CPers and grunt when you reply.

Sorry, I meant to call -king- a bundle of sticks too.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by O.city

Also that HOU, PIT DEN is like all in 9 days or some shit.

So if you could be sitting at 14-0 going into Houston.....I think you push hard to win that one, then just play a JV game against Pitt on Wednesday and then play the Den game like it's the 2nd preseason game starter wise and head to the bye.

So you think if we go 15-0 we should/would rest starters? That ain't happening.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by O.city

Also that HOU, PIT DEN is like all in 9 days or some shit.

So if you could be sitting at 14-0 going into Houston.....I think you push hard to win that one, then just play a JV game against Pitt on Wednesday and then play the Den game like it's the 2nd preseason game starter wise and head to the bye.

Sure John Harbaugh.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by wazu

So you think if we go 15-0 we should/would rest starters? That ain't happening.

Well...yeah I would.

We play Sat-Wednesday-Sunday

I'd tread lightly on that.

[RedinTexas]

Originally Posted by wazu

So you think if we go 15-0 we should/would rest starters? That ain't happening.

If we go 15-0, we'll be chasing two goals, the undefeated season, and the three-peat. The undefeated season has been done before, but the threepeat has not. Andy would be far more motivated to just win the Super Bowl than to have the undefeated season too.

Given all of that, I think Andy would worry much less about going undefeated and try to rest starters/get healthy. I don't know how much he cares about the idea of the threepeat, but I know for certain that he wants to win the Super Bowl regardless of whether it is a threepeat or not.

[TheGuardian]

Originally Posted by RedinTexas

If we go 15-0, we'll be chasing two goals, the undefeated season, and the three-peat. The undefeated season has been done before, but the threepeat has not. Andy would be far more motivated to just win the Super Bowl than to have the undefeated season too.

Given all of that, I think Andy would worry much less about going undefeated and try to rest starters/get healthy. I don't know how much he cares about the idea of the threepeat, but I know for certain that he wants to win the Super Bowl regardless of whether it is a threepeat or not.

The undefeated season has been done before yes, however Brady didn't do it.

And I could be wrong here, but if we go undefeated then it means Pat did two things Brady could not.

The undefeated season and a threepeat

[philfree]

Originally Posted by O.city

Also that HOU, PIT DEN is like all in 9 days or some shit.

So if you could be sitting at 14-0 going into Houston.....I think you push hard to win that one, then just play a JV game against Pitt on Wednesday and then play the Den game like it's the 2nd preseason game starter wise and head to the bye.

That's some screwed up shit. Putting three conference games one which is a division matchup that close together at the end of the season was a terrible idea. At this point all three of those games could be super important with post season implications. We need to keep winning so when we reach that part of the schedule those games don't matter so much.