I know what you’re thinking. The Detroit Lions could have won the Super Bowl. They could have outscored the sloppy Kansas City Chiefs and won the whole dang thing on their first trip to the big game.

It’s tempting, isn’t it, to play the what-if game, especially when your team was so close?

Amon-Ra would’ve caught that pass!

Jahmyr would’ve gotten that first down!

LaPorta would’ve scored!

Goff would’ve made that pass!

Hutch would’ve sacked Mahomes!

As Detroit celebrated what could have been with Lions-themed cakes and pastries Sunday night, it was no doubt being washed down with copious amounts of Honolulu Blue Kool-Aid, perhaps mixed with some grain-based spirits.

'DETROIT'S HERE TO STAY': Lions built for a Super Bowl run next season, but no guarantees

Now that those 80-proof libations have worked their way out of our systems, it’s time for some sobering reality. The Lions would not have beaten the Kansas City Chiefs for the same fundamental reason they couldn’t beat the San Francisco 49ers in the NFC championship game: their defense.

In the first half, when the Chiefs were playing some uncharacteristically poor football, I’m sure plenty of Lions fans figured their team could have pulled off a repeat of the season-opening win in K.C. Of course, we can never forget that win against a Chiefs team that didn’t have four-time All Pro tight end Travis Kelce and two-time All-Pro defensive tackle Chris Jones.

Still, the defending champs looked a lot more like chumps in the first half en route to three measly points. Three fumbles, five penalties and a 157 yards of offense added up to a 10-3 halftime deficit.

Even if the Lions had managed to keep the Chiefs in check in the first half, the same thing would have happened that happened in the NFC title game. The defense wouldn’t be able to hold on to a sizable lead. The Lions haven’t been built to rely on their defense to close out games.

Only one of the four teams the Lions’ defense held to 17 points or fewer was any good (Tampa Bay). And the closest thing resembling a tight, defensive-minded game ended in a controversial loss at Dallas.

Holding the Cowboys’ top-scoring offense to 20 points at home was the most impressive performance from Aaron Glenn’s crew. But it still wasn’t enough, and Dak Prescott is not Patrick Mahomes.

And even though Dallas had a very good defense, it wasn’t as good as the Chiefs’ second-ranked unit, which stepped up in the second half on Sunday by holding to Niners to nine points and, as important as anything, held the Niners to a field goal in overtime when Jones single-handedly thwarted their final third-down scoring chance.

NOT BAD FOR STARTERS: Brian Branch: Rookie season a 'great stepping stone,' better things to come

Something else you have to remember about the Chiefs, and the 49ers as well, is that they had a lot of confidence in their kickers. Harrison Butker and Jake Moody combined on three field goals from at least 53 yards and accounted for 23 of the game’s 47 points.

The Lions played musical chairs the whole season with kickers Riley Patterson and Michael Badgley and never fully trusted either. When Brad Holmes said Patterson would “start us off” coming out of training camp, that’s not exactly the ringing endorsement anyone wants to hear when it comes to stability and confidence in a position that generates the most points.

Dan Campbell would never admit this, but I’m fairly certain the lack of confidence in his kicker played a significant part in two failed fourth-down conversions, after he passed up chances to let Badgley attempt 45- and 47-yard field goals outside and off the grass in San Francisco.

I’m not trying to rub salt in the wound. As I’ve said before, the Lions had an amazing season. But when it comes to winning the NFC title and definitely the Super Bowl, the margin for error is miniscule and that means a team needs to rely on every advantage it can, to say nothing about trying to overcome some glaring deficiencies.

JEFF SEIDEL: Brad Holmes is raising Lions' expectations, not diminishing them. It's refreshing.

It’s a testament to the Lions overall team play, coaching and let’s face it, offense, that they got as far as they did. The final four teams in the playoffs all had top-nine offenses. And they all had top-eight defenses — except for the Lions, who finished 19th in total defense.

This can be fixed, and it might not be that hard. Holmes hasn’t found stars and difference-makers on defense the way he has on offense, but he hasn’t saddled himself with long and lengthy contracts, either. The Lions have good salary cap space, but Holmes has to have the will to use it and would probably need to take a big swing at a premier free-agent defender.

Holmes doesn’t seem inclined to do that, if you go off what he said recently at his season-ending news conference. He favors depth that will be sustainable through the end of the season.

“There’s a balance when you want to add quality depth,” he said. “And sometimes you might have to add some guys that may not be as high-dollar players.”

I like Holmes’ overall approach to fiscal responsibility, especially since several of his bigger free-agent signings or extensions (Michael Brockers, Romeo Okwara, Tracy Walker and DJ Chark, for example) haven’t worked out.

But what’s that old saying? Scared money don’t make money.­­ ­I’m pretty sure that was uttered a few times Sunday night while the Chiefs were marching to victory in Las Vegas and Lions fans around Detroit were thinking about what could have been.

Contact Carlos Monarrez: cmonarrez@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @cmonarrez.

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: One reason why Detroit Lions wouldn't have beaten Chiefs in Super Bowl