Please define "sustainable"

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by -King-

How is it a different story? When you're a top 3 team in takeaways 3 out of 4 years, doesn't that indicate a trend? You think it's just a coincidence?
Posted via Mobile Device

It sort of is, I think.

Think about that one year you mention. Why didn't we create so many turnovers in that particular season? You could say injury but did Devito, DJ and Berry account for that many turnovers in previous and subsequent seasons?

Teams seem to get hot and cold when it comes to forcing turnovers. The only team I can remember who really defied the odds and kept it up for more than a few seasons was Lovie's Bears in the mid-to-late 2000s.

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

It sort of is, I think.

Think about that one year you mention. Why didn't we create so many turnovers in that particular season? You could say injury but did Devito, DJ and Berry account for that many turnovers in previous and subsequent seasons?

Teams seem to get hot and cold when it comes to forcing turnovers. The only team I can remember who really defied the odds and kept it up for more than a few seasons was Lovie's Bears in the mid-to-late 2000s.

Marty's Chiefs were really good at it too. They led the league in turnover differential just about every year.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

Marty's Chiefs were really good at it too. They led the league in turnover differential just about every year.

Well, yeah. Run-oriented offenses with QBs who weren't asked to do much but execute a conservative game plan week in and week out. That explains a high turnover differential.

I'm talking solely about takeaways. They seem to be much more fickle.

If anyone has the time to dig up those 90s Chiefs takeaway numbers then feel free..

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Well, yeah. Run-oriented offenses with QBs who weren't asked to do much but execute a conservative game plan week in and week out. That explains a high turnover differential.

I'm talking solely about takeaways. They seem to be much more fickle.

If anyone has the time to dig up those 90s Chiefs takeaway numbers then feel free..

A league high 365 takeaways by the Chiefs in the 90's. I call that sustainable. I don't know if there was a year that they didn't lead the league in turnovers for the entire decade. It's nit luck. It's what they practice. No way a team has enough luck to lead in takeaways for a decade.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

A league high 365 takeaways by the Chiefs in the 90's. I call that sustainable. I don't know if there was a year that they didn't lead the league in turnovers for the entire decade. It's nit luck. It's what they practice. No way a team has enough luck to lead in takeaways for a decade.

Yes, but those teams could stop the run and/or the pass. Third and long was deadly. Those defenses were feared. Not just because of a big play, but every down. They didn't give up 300 yard games. They didn't line up anyone like we are lining up across from Peters. They didn't get gashed on the ground. Big difference in the way those teams played.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

A league high 365 takeaways by the Chiefs in the 90's. I call that sustainable. I don't know if there was a year that they didn't lead the league in turnovers for the entire decade.

And those teams went on to so much postseason success!

This formula was done better by Marty and it still didn't work.

This is the argument against all the Andy and Alex suckling.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by smasher

And those teams went on to so much postseason success!

This formula was done better by Marty and it still didn't work.

This is the argument against all the Andy and Alex suckling.

You started the Hermines

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

A league high 365 takeaways by the Chiefs in the 90's. I call that sustainable. I don't know if there was a year that they didn't lead the league in turnovers for the entire decade. It's nit luck. It's what they practice. No way a team has enough luck to lead in takeaways for a decade.

1 takeaway because of a tipped pass
1 loss


How's that for sustainable

[-King-]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

It sort of is, I think.

Think about that one year you mention. Why didn't we create so many turnovers in that particular season? You could say injury but did Devito, DJ and Berry account for that many turnovers in previous and subsequent seasons?

Teams seem to get hot and cold when it comes to forcing turnovers. The only team I can remember who really defied the odds and kept it up for more than a few seasons was Lovie's Bears in the mid-to-late 2000s.

Yes I do think the two defensive captains/leaders are a good reason we get so many turnovers. They put everyone where they need to be and by being the safety valves for the linebackers and secondary, they enable the rest of the players to be more aggressive.
Posted via Mobile Device

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by -King-

Yes I do think the two defensive captains/leaders are a good reason we get so many turnovers. They put everyone where they need to be and by being the safety valves for the linebackers and secondary, they enable the rest of the players to be more aggressive.

Posted via Mobile Device

Because Berry and DJ have just taken over the league in forced turnovers during their time here? Give me a break.

We had 36 takeaways in 2013, 29 in 2015 and already 25 so far in 2016. We had only 14 in 2014.

So Mike Devito and Derrick Johnson are worth 15 takeaways in your eyes.

EDIT: I see you edited to add some stuff. Still don't buy it.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Because Berry and DJ have just taken over the league in forced turnovers during their time here? Give me a break.

We had 36 takeaways in 2013, 29 in 2015 and already 25 so far in 2016. We had only 14 in 2014.

So Mike Devito and Derrick Johnson are worth 15 takeaways in your eyes.

EDIT: I see you edited to add some stuff. Still don't buy it.

No, but Berry and Johnson have done that since Sutton, a DC that lives on aggressive defenses have.

I mean, that would have to be the biggest coincidence ever. We get Sutton who is an aggressive DC and we just so happen to be a top 3 takeaway team 75% of the time. And the only year we're not great at it is the year our two all pro players are gone. Thats a HUGE coincidence.
Posted via Mobile Device

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by -King-

No, but Berry and Johnson have done that since Sutton, a DC that lives on aggressive defenses have.



I mean, that would have to be the biggest coincidence ever. We get Sutton who is an aggressive DC and we just so happen to be a top 3 takeaway team 75% of the time. And the only year we're not great at it is the year our two all pro players are gone. Thats a HUGE coincidence.
Posted via Mobile Device

We had Berry for like half of that season so essentially it boils down to Devito and DJ. If you want to go through the game-by-game statistics and can find a noticeable difference in the takeaways with and without Berry then maybe I could accept what you're saying.

But it's important to note we also had Houston for 16 games that year. Given the fact that he had a historic season you'd have to think that'd partially mitigate the loss of DJ.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by -King-

No, but Berry and Johnson have done that since Sutton, a DC that lives on aggressive defenses have.

I mean, that would have to be the biggest coincidence ever. We get Sutton who is an aggressive DC and we just so happen to be a top 3 takeaway team 75% of the time. And the only year we're not great at it is the year our two all pro players are gone. Thats a HUGE coincidence.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sutton isn't playing an aggressive style this year

He has gone full-on Romeo Crennal, bend-don't-break this year.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

Sutton isn't playing an aggressive style this year

He has gone full-on Romeo Crennal, bend-don't-break this year.

Other than the two very different schemes they employ, with Sutton playing almost Exclusively man to man, you're totally right. Great Sutton take as always Laz!
Posted via Mobile Device

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by -King-

Other than the two very different schemes they employ, with Sutton playing almost Exclusively man to man, you're totally right. Great Sutton take as always Laz!
Posted via Mobile Device

Playing man-to-man on the outside isn't necessarily aggressive if you have 4 safeties playing zone on the inside. It's just a coverage scheme.

More snark than substance as always King!!


Although it will be interesting to see if Sutton gets more aggressive as we get healthy. If he does get more aggressive will that result in more or less turnovers? Initially you would think that it will lead to more turnovers. Although it also involves more risk and less defensive plays than bend/don't break does.