I'm too lazy to track down the exact stats, but the 2003 team was also in a category of, every other offense to that point in time that had put up "x" amount of stats at least made it to the Super Bowl.
Another reason I so dog on that 2003 defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorce
29.7 Avg for the 2003 team.
|
After the season, there was an article in the Kansas City paper. Again, I don't remember the exact stats, but it basically said that of the 8 or 10 offenses in the NFL that had ever put up similar numbers over a season, KC was the only one that didn't make the Super Bowl. I don't think the stat was just points per game.
29.7 ave may not sound like a lot now. Scoring has gone up and big pass plays means more teams can score quicker. But points per possession I think is a more useful stat. KC had a lot of long drives with the running game and the defense gave up a lot of long drives in that 2003 season.
The 2003 playoff loss to Indy was 38-31. For a game that featured no punts and only two field goal attempts (IIRC) and not many turnovers (I can only remember the one on Holmes), that is not a lot of total points. There were a lot of slow drives by both teams that resulted in touchdowns. KC had the one field goal attempt, the one turnover, and the clock ran out on them at the end of the half and the end of the game. Every other possession, I believe, resulted in a touchdown. That is efficient even if it only totaled 31 points.
Having a two minute offense can be really important at the end of the half/game, but I don't see why an offense that, for instance, averages 3 points per 3 minute average drive, and puts up more total points, is better than one that averages 4 points per 9 minute drive and gives the other team fewer total possessions.