No, the Kansas City Chiefs Aren't a 'Lucky' Undefeated Team

[CosmicPal]

From today's The Atlantic magazine of all places...

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...d-team/281532/

No, the Kansas City Chiefs Aren't a 'Lucky' Undefeated Team

Pundits attribute their 9-0 season to an easy schedule and their opponents' poor offense instead of recognizing what's actually become an impressively capable team.

The Kansas City Chiefs have almost certainly been the biggest surprise of the NFL season so far. After posting the league's worst record last year, KC has started the season 9-0, becoming the first team in history to do so.

Yet for all their success, the club gets little respect. As Forbes noted, fans believe the club is “not as good as their record.” Again and again, pundits call them overrated, flawed, or claim that their opponents have nothing to fear. According to a goofy new stat from Football Outsiders, the Chiefs are already the luckiest team in the league. Someone posted on the NFL Memes Facebook page that the Chiefs are “the worst undefeated team in NFL history,” and as of Thursday night, 267 people had agreed.


What a crock. There is no such thing as a “worst” undefeated team. At the very least, there's no such thing as a bad one—any more than a good team could go 0-9. Winning NFL games is hard on any given Sunday. On Monday, too. And even if we're entertaining the notion that there is such a thing as a “worst undefeated team,” KC isn't it: The Kansas City Star analyzed all 19 teams to have started at least 9-0 in the Super Bowl-era and found a three-way tie for the “worst” 9-0 team: the 2006 Colts, 2009 Colts and 2011 Packers. The Pack went 15–1, and took the NFC North. Both of the Colts teams went to the Super Bowl. Each scored about 26 points per game and allowed roughly 20 points. KC, with a dink-and-dunk offense, is scoring about the same, averaging 23.9 PPG, but KC is allowing opponents a mere 13.3 per contest.

So much for that theory.

The idea that there could be a “bad” undefeated team is based on a few assumptions—most of them ridiculous. First, and most obviously, is the “strength of schedule” fallacy. After going 2-14 last year, the Chiefs were given an “easy” schedule. So, as the argument goes, the team “hasn’t played anybody yet.”

Strength of schedule, though, is a deeply flawed statistic. Teams can dramatically change character from year to year, and Adam Schein at NFL.com illustrates the point nicely with his preseason Super Bowl picks—the Texans and Falcons. Last season, Houston finished 12-4 to win the AFC South. Atlanta had the same gaudy record while winning the NFC South, getting within four points of Super Bowl XLVIII. This year, however, both teams currently sit at an ugly 2-7, and are among the year's biggest disappointments. By the same logic, the “strength” of any given team's schedule can change from week to week, too, based on their performance.

When the Chiefs' defense stuffs a team four times inside the red zone to seal a victory, the opposing offense will usually get cited for failure, rather than the defense getting praise.
Here's the funny part. The Broncos, who host the Chiefs on Sunday night, have also played a chump-filled schedule. Denver has wins against the same Jaguars, Giants, Eagles and Cowboys teams that are supposedly padding KC's record. In fact, the Chiefs blog Arrowhead Addict broke down the stats and found that the Broncos actually play a weaker schedule than KC. It seems, then, that one of the things that makes a team “weak” is that the Chiefs have beaten them—which is the very definition of circular logic.

So why isn't Denver called the “worst” 8-1 team? One reason is because people overvalue offense while undervaluing defense. Offense, after all, is flashier and easier to quantify. If Peyton Manning throws a touchdown, he gets credit. If Manning throws an interception, he usually gets blamed—even if the interception results from a great defensive play. Similarly, when the Chiefs' defense stuffs a team four times inside the red zone to seal a victory, the opposing offense will usually get cited for failure, rather than the defense getting praise.

Sunday night, Manning will face the Chiefs in the marquee match-up of the season. As long as Peyton is under center, of course, Denver will be hard to beat. If KC manages to steal a victory, though, the nation's sports pundits will likely once more call KC lucky.

But good luck, as the philosopher Seneca said, is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. The Chiefs have prepared brilliantly. Coach Andy Reid's 13-1 record after a bye week suggests they'll do so again. They have seized the opportunity, and that’s been reflected in the only stat in the NFL that truly matters—wins and losses. KC has nine of the former, and none of the latter. Until that changes, they are the league's best team.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by tk13

He's absolutely right that fans generally value offense over defense. It's just how it is.

Great example was a couple years ago when the Packers were 15-1 and them and the Saints were re-writing the record books. Both offenses looked unstoppable. Almost everyone penciled in a Packers/Saints NFC title game. Neither team even made it that far... it was Giants/Niners. Defense won out.

Remember when NE was undefeated heading into the SB against the NYG? Who won and why? Sure the NYG had a fluky luck play, but ultimately it was the NYG defense that shut down the mighty NE offense and led to that win.

[Lex Luthor]

I heard a great stat on Fesco's call-in show earlier this week: The Chiefs' opponents have had the ball on the Chiefs' one-yard line on eleven downs so far this year.

One those eleven plays, the Chiefs have outscored their opponents 6-0.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

I didn't say either team sucked, just that the article sucked. Any number of posters on here have expressed the SOS similarities between KC and Denver much more coherently than this guy did.

Seriously, does anyone disagree? It's a horribly-written article.

It's pretty bad. Not BleacherReport.com bad, but bad.

[Eleazar]

You don't get to be 9-0 in a league like the NFL where parity reigns, just by luck. Parity pulls everyone toward the mean. The Chiefs might not be leading the league in wins via a way that is typical, but the facts remain.

This team has not played mistake-free football.

This team does not have much talent on offense.

This team has not won games by sitting on the football and running clock.

Being first in the league in takeaways AND having the fewest giveaways is not an accident. That's not the mark of a team that lives off their luck. It's a team that gives themselves so many more chances to win a game than their opponents, that no one's been able to beat them yet.

It ought to scare the rest of the league that the Chiefs haven't played their best game yet. Not us. Not Chiefs fans.

Turnovers amount to discipline. This team is disciplined, well coached, and ready to play every week. That's what a good football team is.

Washington and Philadelphia and however many other teams have tried to just throw money on the field and sign free agents to win football games, but it doesn't usually work that way. Talent is a big part of the puzzle, but it's only the starting point. You don't win like that. You win like this.

In Denver, we're seeing another team that is genuinely a good football team. They are well coached, prepared, they have the leadership on the team that they need and they are playing above their overall talent level too. They're a lot like we are.

Both teams have issues, but they are both legitimate as contenders because you don't play games on paper, you play them between the chalk, where both these teams seem to play without a care for how good other people think they are.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

I didn't say either team sucked, just that the article sucked. Any number of posters on here have expressed the SOS similarities between KC and Denver much more coherently than this guy did.

Seriously, does anyone disagree? It's a horribly-written article.

Certainly not on par with stellar piece recently posted from the Donkey Times, or whatever the **** you call that POS newspaper of yours out there.

[Red Dawg]

Originally Posted by MagicHef

Wow, I expected a much better article coming from something like The Atlantic. This reads like it's from Bleacher Report. I especially like how an entire paragraph is devoted to SOS changing based on records from different seasons, when that has literally nothing to do with the point he's arguing against. Also moving was his inability to comprehend the meaning of the word "worst."

Originally Posted by Bugeater

It's pretty bad. Not BleacherReport.com bad, but bad.

Shut the **** up! You are the biggest douche on the internet.

[ciaomichael]

Only 2 of the 16 games scheduled for each team are based on strength of schedule. The remaining 14 games are the same for each team - 6 intra-divisional games, 4 inter-divisional games, and 4 inter-conference games.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

"You Warriors are good. REAL good".


"The best".

[Red Dawg]

Originally Posted by Cochise

You don't get to be 9-0 in a league like the NFL where parity reigns, just by luck. Parity pulls everyone toward the mean. The Chiefs might not be leading the league in wins via a way that is typical, but the facts remain.

This team has not played mistake-free football.

This team does not have much talent on offense.

This team has not won games by sitting on the football and running clock.

Being first in the league in takeaways AND having the fewest giveaways is not an accident. That's not the mark of a team that lives off their luck. It's a team that gives themselves so many more chances to win a game than their opponents, that no one's been able to beat them yet.

It ought to scare the rest of the league that the Chiefs haven't played their best game yet. Not us. Not Chiefs fans.

Turnovers amount to discipline. This team is disciplined, well coached, and ready to play every week. That's what a good football team is.

Washington and Philadelphia and however many other teams have tried to just throw money on the field and sign free agents to win football games, but it doesn't usually work that way. Talent is a big part of the puzzle, but it's only the starting point. You don't win like that. You win like this.

In Denver, we're seeing another team that is genuinely a good football team. They are well coached, prepared, they have the leadership on the team that they need and they are playing above their overall talent level too. They're a lot like we are.

Both teams have issues, but they are both legitimate as contenders because you don't play games on paper, you play them between the chalk, where both these teams seem to play without a care for how good other people think they are.

My goodness. Well said. You must be well educated. I like it baby!

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by Tuckdaddy

My goodness. Well said. You must be well educated. I like it baby!

Cochise can bring it

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Rearry.