Non-offensive-touchdowns

[RippedmyFlesh]

People talk about this like it is luck and I disagree.
The chiefs have the right combo of players and coaches to be successful at this. When it happens this often it can't be random.



This year, the Chiefs have returned four interceptions for touchdowns, and also scored via a fumble return, kickoff return, and punt return. That’s seven non-offensive touchdowns for Kansas City, the most in the league. In addition, Kansas City hasn’t allowed a single non-offensive touchdown, so the Chiefs obviously lead the league in net non-offensive touchdowns.


That’s a remarkable number: in fact, over the course of NFL history, only a handful of teams have been at +8 for the season. One of those, though, was this Chiefs team three years ago.


The 2013 Chiefs scored 11 NO tds and gave up zero for a net of 11 the highest in history. I think giving up non-offensive touchdowns is just a knife in the gut. I think as chief fans we are spoiled by not remembering that.

http://www.footballperspective.com/n...ve-touchdowns/

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by BWillie

It is a skill. And, its also luck. It can be both

I agree with this you can create your own luck. Sometimes the ball bounces your way for a fumble recovery but other times it bounces other way and offense recovers it but the fact is you forced a fumble creating opportunity for a fumble recover. Something like that I suppose.


Although we have a knack for creating turnovers we still need our offense to do their part for when the time comes other teams aren't prone to make mistakes that our defense can pounce on. NE for one isn't about to just turn the ball over and say here you go Kansas City take it to the house.

Our offense has to find ways to reach the endzone and score touchdowns if we are going make any headway in the playoffs.

[OnTheWarpath15]

http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/201...are-turnovers/

So after a few hundred words of statistics, we arrive at a whopping conclusion that just over half of seasonal turnover differential is due to luck. That’s huge, especially when you consider that (from earlier) seasonal turnover differential explains over 40% of seasonal winning percentage.

At first glance, this does seem very high to me but evidence for this magnitude is the extraordinary year-to-year variability in turnover differential, which you would expect if luck was a mega factor as my analysis suggests. While starting quarterbacks absolutely play a role in turnover differential (Tom Brady throws fewer picks than Chad Henne) and tend to be fairly constant from year-to-year, nevertheless the correlation between turnover differential last year and this year is only 0.086 which is not significant at the 5% level.

Ultimately in a 16-game season, there’s just a whole lot of luck involved with winning football games and for all that commentators will talk about defensive schemes forcing turnovers this season, it’s just as important to be lucky as to be good.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

26 to 2 isn't luck dude. No ****ing way. This team is far and away better than every team they play at covering and returning kicks and ball security. ..ball hawks on D to boot. When you dominate turnover differential AND special teams for over FOUR years. .that isn't luck

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/201...are-turnovers/

Yeah. I'm sure people will really latch on to this wisdom.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Yeah. I'm sure people will really latch on to this wisdom.

They won't because, well, math.

Articles sharing this conclusion have been posted here for the 10 years I've been here, and they always get ignored.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

They won't because, well, math.

Articles sharing this conclusion have been posted here for the 10 years I've been here, and they always get ignored.

Facts not fiction.