Colin says "Do you think if the game had been in Kansas City, and the Rams had 5 turnovers, that the Chiefs would have only won by 3?"
This is rhetorical - he thinks they would have won by a lot more, and that, therefore, last night showed they were the better team.
A few things are left out of context by that question.
It wasn't a +5 turnover differential. The Rams had two and the Chiefs had 5. Difference of three.
Secondly, the last two turnovers were both interceptions by Mahomes in desperation time - one was followed by the Rams just trying to get a 1st down and run clock, the other ended the game, so naturally neither of those led to points.
But they led to a W.
That's qualitatively different than if Mahomes had thrown those two ints during the body of the game, when they might have tilted the score a lot further in the Rams favor.
Also, I didn't see any unforced turnovers by the Chiefs. Cowherd's question seems to presuppose that these turnovers fell on the Rams like manna from heaven. Au contraire,
every one that the Rams got, they CAUSED! So how does that make the Rams the lesser team?
Would the Rams have scored an extra TD if a Chief DB had fallen on his butt, and let Cooks roam open down the field with nobody covering him?
Would the Chiefs have scored one of their late TD's without a ridiculously backwards helmet to helmet call?
We could go on and on. Somebody else already posted above about the if's and maybe's.
The Rams won.
Ramily!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/2018 04:21PM by Saguaro.
