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.

[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.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Fish

The Chiefs defense is

#24 in Points/game
#24 in Total Points
#29 in Yds/game

Not exactly keeping the opposing team from scoring.

KC is #9 in scoring defense. No idea where you came up with your numbers.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/t...sition/defense

[-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

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

KC is #9 in scoring defense. No idea where you came up with your numbers.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/t...sition/defense

And the Pittsburgh game really skews their overall number.

They gave up 43 points at Pittsburgh yet no other team has been able to score more than 28 against them.

Throw out the Steelers game and they're sitting at #5 in points allowed.

[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.

[jspchief]

How many people have heard of the "toxic differential"? It's an interesting metric that combines turnover differential with big play differential. It's actually been a fairly accurate predictor of success in the NFL, although like any metric their are outliers.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by jspchief

How many people have heard of the "toxic differential"? It's an interesting metric that combines turnover differential with big play differential. It's actually been a fairly accurate predictor of success in the NFL, although like any metric their are outliers.

That's Brian billicks thing correct?

I like it. Seems pretty predictive.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

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.

How would you propose the be more aggressive? It's not like they're dropping 7 and playing cover 2 everydown

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by jspchief

How many people have heard of the "toxic differential"? It's an interesting metric that combines turnover differential with big play differential. It's actually been a fairly accurate predictor of success in the NFL, although like any metric their are outliers.

I've seen it. Last I looked, we were in the middle of the pack overall and dead last in the division - mostly due to big play differential.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by O.city

That's Brian billicks thing correct?

I like it. Seems pretty predictive.

It is. His mantra is something along the lines of, "it's not good enough to just protect the ball, you need to generate big plays on offense too."

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by O.city

That's Brian billicks thing correct?

I like it. Seems pretty predictive.

Yes. It does seem to align pretty well with teams that have success.

[jjchieffan]

The question was asked earlier about takeaways in the 90's. Here is what I found on Kcchiefs.com

In 1999, Under Cunningham, Kansas City led the NFL with a +21 turnover ratio and won the NFL's turnover triple crown in the '90s with a remarkable +128 turnover ratio, a league-high 365 takeaways and an NFL-low 237 giveaways. The Chiefs also recorded 11 return TDs on the season, including a franchise-best nine on defense.