I posted this over at my site too (www.kcchiefsfootball.com) but thought it might be a good discussion point here.

I just thought I would make a nice little list on why the Chiefs should have won against the Patriots and why they didn't. I won't explain these very much, but I don't really feel like they need to be explained, they pretty much speak for themselves.

Why the Chiefs should have won against the Patriots:

• The Chiefs won the turnover battle 2 to 1.
• The Chiefs won the Time of Possession battle.
• Tom Brady was injured early in the game and the Pats had to rely on Matt Cassel.
• Matt Cassel is a backup at NE and was a backup in college at USC.

Why the Chiefs didn't win:

• Dwayne Bowe had way too many drops, at least 4, including the possible game tying TD catch
• Croyle was injured (although I am not totally convinced Croyle would have led us to a TD drive like Huard did). So this one is more based on the theory that our starting QB went out.
• Inability to convert TO's into points. When you force a team that only lost 6 fumbles all of last season into 2 early fumbles you need to convert them to points
• LJ had less than 100 yards rushing. I'm not sure exactly on the stat but I know that in games where LJ gets to the century mark the Chiefs tend to have a lot more success.

Do you agree with all of these? Do you have any that you would add or take away?