New England plays in the freezing cold a lot more than Kansas City.

 

Historically, sure. I'm not sure that carries much weight in any particular year, though.

Historically, sure. I'm not sure that carries much weight in any particular year, though.

 

I guess I look at it from the perspective of have guys like Patrick Mahomes, Tye Hill, played in this type of weather before, at this level?

 

The guys in New England have. It may not be a drastic advantage or end up mattering, but I think it's a definite edge to the Pats.

I guess I look at it from the perspective of have guys like Patrick Mahomes, Tye Hill, played in this type of weather before, at this level?

 

The guys in New England have. It may not be a drastic advantage or end up mattering, but I think it's a definite edge to the Pats.

 

I think the question of whether Mahomes and Co. played at this level at all is more relevant than the weather. The key players on the Patriots just have much more experience in these games in general, regardless of the weather. IMO, KC isn't any more likely to win if it's sunny and 70.

Teams constantly turn over, and 0 degrees is not a normal temperature anywhere you go. I would be willing to bet only a handful of players on this Patriots team have played in anywhere near this blistery of weather. However, the one person who matters most has many bad weather games under his belt.

 

And if we are comparing climates, my guess is Kansas City and Foxboro are similar temperature wise November - March. Foxboro probably averages more snowfall. But that upper-midwest area can get brutal.

Kansas City is more dependent on getting the ball down the field with their passing attack. New England dinks and dunks all over the field. Advantage: New England.

Just saw online that the ref who was on the deflategate game is calling the AFC title game Sunday.