Your arguments don't support your conclusions. In fact, your arguments directly contradict your conclusions. For starters, if Mahomes is 14-9 when leading by double digits, that means he's lost seven OTHER games (not just the two against the Bengals) from big winning positions. So clearly there is something to be examined in those seven games, no? Or did all seven of those opponents ALSO just "catch lightning in a bottle"?
And I didn't claim that ONLY Cincinnati has the secret ingredients for frustrating Mahomes. I just disagreed with your superficial suggestion that they "caught lightning in a bottle" in the Championship game, because it's laughable to suggest that and ignore the fact that the Chiefs lost twice in five weeks to the same opponent, in the same manner (giving up early leads), when it can be clearly demonstrated that the opponent in question made defensive adjustments between those two games to target weaknesses in the Kansas offense. Successfully. As evidenced by picking off the QB you claim to be "the best the NFL has ever seen" TWICE and apparently convincing him to just not pass to open receivers.
(EDIT: what ACTUALLY happened was that the Bengals mixed their coverages up a LOT - the interception right at the end, for instance, saw Hill left "open" by his corner, but only because he was being doubled by the two safeties who both lined up pre-snap as if they were in a two-deep zone. Mahomes ignored Kelce one-on-one against a LB in an underneath zone because he thought Hill had beaten the corner on a deep out. End result: Bell and Bates in bracket coverage get the interception, Bengals win.)
In reality, they were both close games and the Cincinnati D slightly edged Mahomes out both times. That's all. It doesn't make Mahomes terrible, nor does it mean Cincinnati has some kind of world-beating D. It just points to small factors in the overall matchup and one coaching staff making better adjustments than the other.
