All those fears that Chiefs fans have about another playoff flop ahead of Sunday’s Divisional playoff game against the Steelers (12:05 p.m. on NBC) were verbalized by a co-host of “Good Morning Football” on the NFL Network.
During Tuesday’s show, Kyle Brandt talked about the troubles the Chiefs have had at Arrowhead Stadium over the past two decades in playoff games. There are have been losses to the Ravens (2011), the Colts (2004 and 1996) and the Broncos (1998).
The Chiefs’ last home playoff victory was on Jan. 8 1994, when they beat the Steelers 27-24 in overtime.
That’s why Brandt says Arrowhead Stadium is not really an advantage for the Chiefs. He used the word “myth” three times in less than a minute.
“There is a myth that says you do not want to go to Arrowhead Stadium for a big game, you do not want to go Arrowhead Stadium for a playoff game. Here’s the thing: yes you do. They’ve lost four in a row. Four playoff games in a row at Arrowhead — 2-4 all-time.
“The last time they won a home playoff game, it was Joe Montana beating Neil O’Donnell. All right? … Great atmosphere there in Kansas City, great fans … great atmosphere, great volume, but it is not a great advantage.
“So if I am the Steelers I want to go and bust that myth. Say, ‘no, no, we’re not worried about this, Kansas City, Arrowhead, this is a fake thing.’ ”
Brandt also said that fans at Arrowhead on Sunday need to help make it a home-field advantage and not a “myth.”
“Now, if I’m Kansas City, you gotta get that back,” he said. “I know you have your little decibel wars with Seattle — ‘We’re the loudest stadium.’ But it’s time to go and get the groove back, because four in a row, you guys greatest fans, greatest atmosphere? You cannot lose five home playoff games in a row. Get that back. Use the phrase I heard somebody use once: be undeniable this weekend. Get that home-field advantage back because right now it looks like a myth to me.”
Here is the clip of Brandt talking about Arrowhead Stadium:
At least one Chiefs fans let Brandt know they thought of his analysis (with Brandt’s response):