Non-offensive-touchdowns

[TigeRRUppeRRcut]

I don't know man... Their offense dvoa rank is pretty high. I know you like fantasy football but Reid is playing chess while most of us are playing checkers on our phones.

[RippedmyFlesh]

I remember during some of marty's years thinking the d has a better chance of scoring than the o. I'll bet those teams were good at this also.

[Red Dawg]

This article is just a round about way of saying we should just punt on first down so we can score more points.

[Rasputin]

If our quarterback would play decent more than one quarter a game then I think our offense could help out with adding points on the score board.


Kudos to our special teams and defense making this team a playoff team. I hope we go far but I hope our offense can get into another gear too. Maybe we can get Jamaal Charles back for some explosive plays on offense?

[KranzDictum]

I can see forcing a TO as an outcome from a plan to pressure and cover the receivers tight on the back end but when a player gets a TD off it weaving back and forth across the field for 50 or more yards luck becomes a big factor.

The Chiefs have not only been lucky — they've been the luckiest team in the NFL this season.

And Kansas City, if it plans on being a contender in the AFC playoffs, needs to find that lucky again ahead of the postseason.

Sometimes it is absolutely better to be lucky than good, but consider some of the Chiefs' skin-of-their-teeth wins this year:
more here:http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery...ition_12232016

[RippedmyFlesh]

Originally Posted by KranzDictum

I can see forcing a TO as an outcome from a plan to pressure and cover the receivers tight on the back end but when a player gets a TD off it weaving back and forth across the field for 50 or more yards luck becomes a big factor.

The Chiefs have not only been lucky — they've been the luckiest team in the NFL this season.

And Kansas City, if it plans on being a contender in the AFC playoffs, needs to find that lucky again ahead of the postseason.

Sometimes it is absolutely better to be lucky than good, but consider some of the Chiefs' skin-of-their-teeth wins this year:
more here:http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery...ition_12232016

No luckier than the broncos last year.

[KranzDictum]

Originally Posted by RippedmyFlesh

No luckier than the broncos last year.

Defense wins championships. Broncos had the #1 D in the NFL and one of the best all time.

Where is kc rated?

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by KranzDictum

Defense wins championships. Broncos had the #1 D in the NFL and one of the best all time.

Where is kc rated?

Bottom 1/3

[Sandy Vagina]

Originally Posted by KranzDictum

Defense wins championships. Broncos had the #1 D in the NFL and one of the best all time.

Where is kc rated?

Glad you asked. Answer depends on your perspective of what stats most matter.

Yards? 3rd down %? stats like these say KC defense sucks.

Consider philosophy and PPG allowed? Chiefs still somehow have a top 10 defense.


Funny how scheme and philosophy has had very, very similar an impact on both offense and defense. Both sides suck if you are a yardage geek... both are not, if PPG and dvoa is your thing...

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by KranzDictum

Defense wins championships. Broncos had the #1 D in the NFL and one of the best all time.

Where is kc rated?

8th in points allowed.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by RunKC

8th in points allowed.

Just looked this up:

Chiefs defensive penalties for 2016: 38/2.7 per game.

Broncos: 51/3.6 per game.

Broncos are third overall in leading the league, being "outdone" only by Jacksonville/56, and Miami/63 ( )

Chiefs D is creating turnovers and playing with more maturity than Denver this season.

The total of 38( KC )is league average, right in the middle of the spectrum with TEN, AZ, and NYJ.

The least penalties have been committed by New England and Carolina with a count of 28 each.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by 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/

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

[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.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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

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