So Bob Dole is drinking his coffee and surfing around to see if anything is new, and seemingly every mention of Indy is accompanied by "high powered offense."

Now don't get Bob Dole wrong--that 25 points they scored against us last year was certainly an impressive feat. Bob Dole didn't think the points would ever stop rolling up there on the board. Bob Dole thought for awhile it was Wilt the Stilt out there and it was 3/2/62 all over again.

So Bob Dole looks at the points put up last season by the "high powered offense" as compared to KC's "lackluster," "unimpressive," "ain't worth a shit RBbC crapola" and guess what? Indy scored a whopping 33 more points than KC during last year's regular season. That's a whopping 2.06 points per game.

Wow! Bob Dole sure is intimidated by that and just felt the need to share.

A high powered offense gives one the opportunity to score quickly and often if needed. It also affords one the the ability to play from behind and still not deviate from one's game plan.

If KC's offense scores an average of 17-20 pts per game and Indy scores 21 pts in the first half/quarter, KC's offense will have a difficult time overcoming this as they would then have to deviate from their offense.

Many times, if one can take the other team out of their gameplan, they have won the battle.

Bob:

Good post. Another example of perception becoming reality. Many thanks to the high falutin sports media that turns fiction into fact rather than saying, "Oops, maybe it isn't quite what I thought it was."

B^2

What is even sadder, is the millions of people that are satisfied with believing what Snitlock or Berman or (you put in the name) tell them as being gospel.

B^2

Bob Dole would not consider that a "high powered offense" but rather a "quick starting offense." While 1999's stats indicate Indy often jumped out to an early lead, their "dominance" ended after the first quarter.

<table border=1 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr><td>Team<td>Q1<td>Q2<td>Q3<td>Q4<td>Ot<td>Pts</tr><tr><td>Colts<td>112<td>114<td>88<td>109<td>0<td>423</tr><tr><td>Opponent<td>51<td>109<td>63<td>110<td>0<td>333</tr></table>


[This message has been edited by Robert_Dole (edited 09-01-2000).]

Excellent point. The Colts don't have a "high powered" offense like the Rams or Vikings did. They have a great trio of players and a very good TE. Unlike the Rams who use fast, multi-receiver sets, the Colts often utilize a 2 TE set. They keep a lot of players on the line to protect Manning so he can find a) James on a swing pass, b) Dilger in the middle or c) Harrison anywhere he wants to be. The Colts execute exceptionally well.

Perhaps the Chiefs are attempting to use the Colts as a model for their offense. A pocket passer (Grbac), two TE's, Richardson as the fast lone back and hopefully Morris as the big, speedy go to receiver.

Would be very interested in the RBBC scoring numbers. Something tells me that RBBC dominated in zero quarters.

I bet it's easier to play with a lead with an offense that can score quickly than an offense that is slow, plodding and takes much effort to score.

Actually, RBbC produced more points than the opposition 3/4 of the periods (Excluding that ugly OT loss, which can hardly be completely laid at the foot of the offense.)

<table border=1 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td><TD>Q1<TD>Q2<TD>Q3<TD>Q4<TD>Ot<TD>Pts</TR><TR><TD>Chiefs<TD>84<TD>105<TD>93<TD>108<TD>0<TD>390</TR><TR><TD>Opponent<TD>50<TD>133<TD>74<TD>62<TD>3<TD>322</ TR></TABLE>


[This message has been edited by Robert_Dole (edited 09-01-2000).]

Bob,

You forgot to mention that KC's Defense scored 11 tds.


So you can take 66 points away from the KC offense.


[This message has been edited by Cannibal (edited 09-01-2000).]

And SitCom gave us a great 9-7 record and no playoffs...

And SitCom gave us a great 9-7 record and no playoffs...