Please define "sustainable"

[carlos3652]

I guess I don't know what sustainable means anymore because I read it and hear it all the time that what we do is not sustainable?

If we win 20 out of 24 games, how is the formula of mitigating mistakes, forcing turnovers and being super efficient in red zone defense not sustainable?

We are 3-0 against the Raiders and 3-0 vs the Chargers in that stretch. We are 2-0 vs the broncos with this formula...

our losses @ Patriots, @ Texans when they had JJ watt, @ Pitt, and at home vs the Bucs. All division leaders (or tied) and playoff teams. We are built to win the division and make a playoff push with this formula...

It works.

[Direckshun]

You're going to have a lot of people soon come in an argue that the Chiefs only won because breaks went their way.

Which conveniently ignores how everything went the Broncos way in the 2015 season, including Jamaal Charles shitting the bed in the last 30 seconds at Arrowhead.

They're also ignoring the breaks that go against us as well, that we have to overcome.

I agree with them in theory; the Chiefs won the game in Denver thanks in part to a post-safety punt return, the first the NFL has seen in 2009. They beat the Falcons thanks in part on a fake punt for a TD, the first since 2008.

But those things are occurring because the Chiefs are playing well. And while I agree these are rare things that we can't depend on in the future, it's indisputable this team has worked hard to give themselves the opportunities they're capitalizing on, and I suspect we'll see another bizarre win or two before the season is over.

[carlos3652]

This without our #1 RB and #1 Pass Rusher for most of this run...

[carlos3652]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You're going to have a lot of people soon come in an argue that the Chiefs only won because breaks went their way.

Which conveniently ignores how everything went the Broncos way in the 2015 season, including Jamaal Charles shitting the bed in the last 30 seconds at Arrowhead.

They're also ignoring the breaks that go against us as well, that we have to overcome.

I agree with them in theory; the Chiefs won the game in Denver thanks in part to a post-safety punt return, the first the NFL has seen in 2009. They beat the Falcons thanks in part on a fake punt for a TD, the first since 2008.

But those things are occurring because the Chiefs are playing well. And while I agree these are rare things that we can't depend on in the future, it's indisputable this team has worked hard to give themselves the opportunities they're capitalizing on, and I suspect we'll see another bizarre win or two before the season is over.

That loss @ arrowhead cost us the division as well... we failed on the mitigating mistakes part on that one .. ugh

[Direckshun]

Yeah the Chiefs have a HOF caliber running back that they've been winning without.

They've got a HOF caliber passrusher that they've only had for like a few of those 24 games.

They've also dealt with other injuries. We played nothing but backups along the DL for good chunks of a game we won against the defending Super Bowl champions in their house a week ago.

They are winning in rare ways that they shouldn't depend on in the future; no question. But they are a talented team that is capitalizing on opportunities that they aren't lucking into; they're putting themselves in these positions.

And that's proven to be very sustainable.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You're going to have a lot of people soon come in an argue that the Chiefs only won because breaks went their way.

Which conveniently ignores how everything went the Broncos way in the 2015 season, including Jamaal Charles shitting the bed in the last 30 seconds at Arrowhead.

They're also ignoring the breaks that go against us as well, that we have to overcome.

I agree with them in theory; the Chiefs won the game in Denver thanks in part to a post-safety punt return, the first the NFL has seen in 2009. They beat the Falcons thanks in part on a fake punt for a TD, the first since 2008.

But those things are occurring because the Chiefs are playing well. And while I agree these are rare things that we can't depend on in the future, it's indisputable this team has worked hard to give themselves the opportunities they're capitalizing on, and I suspect we'll see another bizarre win or two before the season is over.

Your last paragraph is the key. We're not talking about unforced errors here. It would be one thing if the team was just getting lucky with tip ball ints and flukey fumbles, but they're not. They're winning in unusual ways, but it's happening because guys are not giving up and are making plays in key, if not typical, situations.

[ThaVirus]

My only concern is that this style of play isn't likely to work against New England.

[Sannyasi]

Originally Posted by carlos3652

I guess I don't know what sustainable means anymore because I read it and hear it all the time that what we do is not sustainable?

If we win 20 out of 24 games, how is the formula of mitigating mistakes, forcing turnovers and being super efficient in red zone defense not sustainable?

We are 3-0 against the Raiders and 3-0 vs the Chargers in that stretch. We are 2-0 vs the broncos with this formula...

our losses @ Patriots, @ Texans when they had JJ watt, @ Pitt, and at home vs the Bucs. All division leaders (or tied) and playoff teams. We are built to win the division and make a playoff push with this formula...

It works.

There's an argument out there that you can get these kinds of turnovers against bad teams but when we play the Patriots and Brady he isn't going to be throwing picks all over the field like some of the shitty QB's have. Turnovers are inherently dependent on what the other team is doing, you can't just enforce your will on a turnover. If Ryan doesn't make a couple of poor decisions, Berry can't get those picks no matter how athletic he is.

Not to mention that there is an element of "randomness" when it comes to turnovers, and even if we think our team is in a better position to create turnovers compared to other teams, there is still the strong possibility that in at least one playoff game out of 4 the dice might roll the other way and we end up not getting any turnovers, which would put a lot of pressure on our offense. That should be a scary thought for a lot of Chiefs fans, what we would have to hope is that the offense is able to step up in that kind of scenario.

[Eleazar]

No one disputes that Andy is good at running a system that will work in the regular season, when you play all qualities of teams.

Sustainable means we could expect to win the super bowl with this formula.

The teams we will see in the postseason aren't going to turn the ball over at the rate we are seeing.

Those teams aren't going to throw red zone picks or pick-twos, or hand the ball off the Marcus Peters.

Those teams aren't going to fold up on defense in crunch time like the broncos did.

This is the Marty formula... play games close to the vest and pray your opponent makes the last mistake.

It's not sustainable to win 3 or 4 playoff games with a bottom third offense and a borderline bottom third defense in yards allowed, even if so far they have gotten enough stops in the red zone. Teams with great defenses don't give up yards by the ream and then pray for a red zone stop. This isn't a 2000 ravens or 85 bears type of unit.

What we are doing will work about 2/3 of the time on the average but we are not going to be able to sustain this through the postseason, that is what is meant

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Sannyasi

There's an argument out there that you can get these kinds of turnovers against bad teams but when we play the Patriots and Brady he isn't going to be throwing picks all over the field like some of the shitty QB's have. Turnovers are inherently dependent on what the other team is doing, you can't just enforce your will on a turnover. If Ryan doesn't make a couple of poor decisions, Berry can't get those picks no matter how athletic he is.

Not to mention that there is an element of "randomness" when it comes to turnovers, and even if we think our team is in a better position to create turnovers compared to other teams, there is still the strong possibility that in at least one playoff game out of 4 the dice might roll the other way and we end up not getting any turnovers, which would put a lot of pressure on our offense. That should be a scary thought for a lot of Chiefs fans, what we would have to hope is that the offense is able to step up in that kind of scenario.

even though we had Good Andy and Good Alex on Sunday, we lose if Ryan doesn't throw those two pick-scores.

The defense had just coughed up the likely game winning TD when berry got the pick-two.

We escaped with a win, which is great. But even playing a much better game on offense, we just did escape with that game.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by smasher

No one disputes that Andy is good at running a system that will work in the regular season, when you play all qualities of teams.

Sustainable means we could expect to win the super bowl with this formula.

Ugh.

We literally beat both Super Bowl teams. In their houses.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by smasher

even though we had Good Andy and Good Alex on Sunday, we lose if Ryan doesn't throw those two pick-scores.

No shit?

We don't lose if we don't force a legit MVP candidate running the NFL's best offense into two costly mistakes?

[Direckshun]

I hear your guys' complaints about the Chiefs. I really do.

But you guys are doing somersaults, here, to make excuses against their wins. Let's let it die.

[carlos3652]

All teams have a weekness though... there is no perfect team that wins the Super Bowl every year. All teams are capable of shitting the bed in the playoffs if their weakness is exploited and their strength decides not to show up...

And great QB's make mistakes all the time... also in the playoffs...I guess to me, we are playing every game and we have a chance to win regardless who we are playing against with this formula.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

My only concern is that this style of play isn't likely to work against New England.

You're wrong in the sense that the Patriots win like half their games by keeping the pressure on (by being mistake free) and letting the other guy implode. I can't tell you how many teams the Patriots play just self-destruct, and Belichick with his evil hoodie just laughs as he collects their souls and the wins.

TEAMS THAT DO NOT KILL THEMSELVES HAVE A MUCH BETTER CHANCE OF BEING THE PATRIOTS. It's one of the main reasons the Ravens always give the Pats so much trouble. They rare/never implode, so it's just always a grind-it-out kind of game.

Pats/Ravens play this week. Always certain to be a nail biter.