Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:
Agree with much of this, but not the bolded.
Care to explain how Dallas beat themselves? Their only turnover (Romo fumble) didn't generate any KC points. How bout Philly? Was Vick not harassed and throwing INTs to KC defenders? Shall we just forget that they have a job to do and did it? Could we say that KC wanted it more in both games and made the clutch plays when they needed to put the game away? I don't see why there is need here to try and diminish the Chiefs' success by stating the bolded.
Dallas had two turnovers, one of which led to KC's winning fg. Of course the Chiefs deserve some credit for creating those turnovers and not allowing any themselves, but overall Dallas looked like the slightly better team to me and very likely would've won without the turnovers. As for the Philly game, the -5 turnover differential was far more Philly's fault than anything else, imo, and KC did a very poor job of capitalizing on those turnovers.
KC's style certainly benefits their turnover margin, but there's still enough luck and unpredictability involved that this can't be relied upon every game. Right now I think they'd be in big trouble against any good team if they don't get a +2 or more turnover differential. I'm rooting for them, but also want to temper my expectations. Call me crazy, but I predict they'll lose to the Giants.