I think it comes from the Chiefs winning a few of these games because of the opposing team’s offence having brain farts when in a position to win it. Whereas the Lions are winning these close games because of their own productivity at the end??
Chiefs close games.
v Falcons: Atlanta blew 4th and 1 on 13yd line with 56s and 2 timeouts remaining.
v Bucs: OT win, Bucs probably should have gone for 2pt.
v Broncos: Kicker placing ball on right side of field and kicking across to his left. If he puts it central, there would have been enough clearance to get through the block attempts. Plus the same Bronco got flattened/slipped for the 3rd time during a FG attempt.
v Raiders: Complete comedy show from the centre and O’Connell. Bad coaching there as well as they should have just kicked it.
I’m not trying to point score here, just looking at the circumstances and arguments following these games as to why the Chiefs could/should have lost those 4.
I mean the Chiefs threw B. Robinson for a 2 yard loss on 4th down vs. Atlanta, who had to go for it as they were down by 5, and blocked that field goal against the Broncos, I think that's their productivity.
the OT win vs the Bucs was won on the Chiefs productivity by driving for the winning TD in the only possession of that period. The 2 pointer would have been in wet and wild conditions, possibly a less than 50% chance of success.
So really, the only one I will accept as being a total fluke with nothing to do with the Chiefs is the Raiders game. And even there the kicker had missed some terrible field goals during the game so I am not 100% he would have made that FG anyway.
I havent looked at the detail of the 5 Lions games, but I did watch the Bears loss which was as bad game management as the Raiders, maybe worse, and cost Eberflus his job.
I will also remind you that it took a 4th down gamble which succeeded for the Bills to beat the Chiefs, so that win for you was a lot closer than it is currently being made out to be.