\n<\/strong>You know what? I don’t know which team is winning this game. I just don’t. I’ve spent a lot of time this week looking at it, and I’ve yet to come up with anything approaching a strong opinion. What I will say with confidence is that unless they suffer a couple of meaningful injuries en route to a win, whichever team comes out on top in this match is going to end up the AFC champion. I don’t care if that means beating Pittsburgh at home or traveling to take on Denver. These are the two best teams remaining in the AFC playoffs \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and I don’t think three and four are terribly close. But that’s just noise for the moment. And maybe a handy distraction from the confused rambling that follows.<\/p>\n
I don’t want to focus on schedules. Or not much, anyhow. I’ve heard a lot around New England this week about how the Chiefs during their 11-game winning streak “didn’t really beat anybody.” I’m not sure I know what that means. The Chiefs beat the each of the last 11 teams that were set before them. That included three postseason qualifiers, the Pittsburgh Steelers<\/a> (albeit with Landry Jones<\/a> behind center), the Denver Broncos <\/a>(who, yes, had some QB issues of their own in that game), and, of course, last week the Houston Texans<\/a>. So that’s not really nobody. And here’s the other thing: It’s not like the Patriots spent 2015 battling it out against the best the NFL<\/a> has to offer. In terms of quality of opposition, I think it’s really a wash between these two teams. The only other matter I’d note regarding schedule is that in games against postseason qualifiers, the Chiefs went 3-4 in the regular season, 4-4 including last week, while the Patriots are 3-1. Is that meaningful? I don’t think so.<\/p>\n So what about the big three predictive stats: scoring differential, passer rating differential, and takeaway\/giveaway differential? Generally speaking, I like a team that comes out ahead in all three areas no matter where the game is played. But we don’t have one of those here. (Note: I’m looking at Kansas City’s cumulative numbers here \u00e2\u20ac\u201d that is, factoring in the big win over Houston \u00e2\u20ac\u201d an approach that benefits the Chiefs, but doesn’t really swing anything their way.) Scoring: Patriots +0.3. Passer rating: Chiefs +3.8. Turnover: Chiefs +11. That last one looks huge. And by “looks huge,” I mean it is<\/em> huge. The Chiefs finished the regular season with a +14 (second best in the league), then added a +4 last week. The Patriots came out of the season with a +7. But here’s what makes considering that data kind of tricky: Kansas City logged the fourth most takeaways in the league during the regular season with 29. And of those 29 takeaways, 22 were interceptions. Then they intercepted Brian Hoyer<\/a> four times a week ago. The Patriots, meanwhile, committed a league-low 14 giveaways during the season, including seven interceptions by Tom Brady<\/a>, which is tied for the fewest in the NFL … with Alex Smith<\/a>. (I’m going to note here for the record that Brady’s seven picks came on 624 attempts while Smith’s came on 470. An interception percentage of 1.1 is better than an interception percentage of 1.5, even if not by terribly much.) Nothing’s impossible, of course, but Brady isn’t likely to throw four picks in this game. And while it only took two to help the Chiefs record a blowout win<\/a> against the Pats in Kansas City early last season, I think it’s fair to say this is a different New England team than the one we saw in that game. The more pressing point is that I’m not sure how to read the Chiefs’ big takeaway numbers in relation to this game. Can a team that appears to live by the takeaway succeed against New England? We’ll see. But I’m not going to predict that turnovers will prove the difference in this game.<\/p>\n This all brings us back to where we started. And it’s frustrating, isn’t it? So let’s end it. As much as I’d like to have found some definitive reason to pick this game one way or the other (no, New England’s return to health, particularly on offense isn’t it; not because it doesn’t matter \u00e2\u20ac\u201d it does \u00e2\u20ac\u201d but because Kansas City is good enough to overcome it under the right circumstances) I’m left to take the default position in a close match, which is to pick the home team (which also happens to be the team playing on two weeks rest \u00e2\u20ac\u201d always nice \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and the team not<\/em> playing its second straight road game ). So that’s what I’m doing. Patriots by a field goal.<\/p>\n Oh, here. With the Patriots off, I didn’t get to post this last week.<\/p>\n Green Bay<\/a> (+7) at Arizona<\/a><\/strong> Seattle<\/a><\/strong> (+2.5) at Carolina<\/a> Pittsburgh<\/a><\/strong> (+7) at Denver<\/a><\/strong>![\"BradysInflatedStatsGame16\"](\"http:\/\/www.thisfootballblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/BradysInflatedStatsGame16.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong>Remember last week when I couldn’t get my head around the fact that Washington was favored over Green Bay? Of course you don’t. I barely remember it myself. But I was. You can scroll down and see for yourself. It wasn’t because I think the Packers are awesome. It was because I knew the Racists were awful. I didn’t predict the decisive Packers victory<\/a> we ended up getting, but I called a Green Bay win, and I wasn’t exactly shocked by the actual result. This week, I foresee a decisive victory, but not by Green Bay. This is hardly an original thought, but I just don’t see that anything of any substance has changed since these teams last met<\/a> a scant three weeks ago. The Cardinals remain the stronger, more balanced team. And, no, I don’t see the Packers repeating the mistakes that turned that game into a rout. But where does that get Green Bay? Do they cut Arizona’s margin of victory in half? Let’s say they do. And let’s then round it down to the nearest typical football multiple. Cardinals by 14.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong>One expects this will be the most competitive game of the weekend, which means it probably won’t be. Still, as with the early game on Saturday, I’m having trouble finding any strong indicator of a likely outcome. And given the Seahawks’ weird habit of winning games they ought to lose, I can’t even feel safe just going with the home team. What I can come up with that feels substantive to me is this: Much as I like Cam Newton<\/a> (and I like him a lot) I think the Seahawks are stronger at QB<\/a>, the the most important position in the game. So I’m running with that. Seattle by two.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong>I’m just gonna get right to it. If they were healthy, the Steelers would win this game. But the Steelers are really, really<\/em> not healthy<\/a>. I don’t think the Broncos have enough offense to make this a blowout, even against the Steelers’ questionable D. But Denver has all the defense it needs to render offense a luxury. Denver, 13-3.<\/p>\n