Super Bowl XLI: Bears vs. Colts, Sun 2/4, 5:30 pm CT

[Andy]

I predict that after all the Rex talk, he has a distinctly average performance, nowhere close to spectacularly good or spectacularly bad.

[CubColtPacer]

Obviously the people in that poll disagree with you (considering Grossman is winning)-

 

All that proves is how many stupid people there are that follow football.

 

This is no national media bias-Grossman is growing and will be a very good QB one day, and has had many very good days-but when one looks at his stats compared to other QB's, he deserves to be on the list of the worst QB's to ever play in a Super Bowl.

 

Grossman did more good things this season than any of those QBs did throughout their careers.

 

I would completely disagree with that. The best numbers of all of the QB's on the list so far:

 

Eason: 61.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/8 INT, 3328 yards, 7.5 Y/A, 5 TD's rushing

Ferragamo: 59.4% completion percentage, 30 TD/19 INT, 3199 yards, 7.9 Y/A, 1 TD rushing

Woodley: I don't want to embarrass him by posting his numbers-let's just say he's the worst QB to ever make a Super Bowl

Dilfer: 56.2% completion percentage, 21 TD/11 INT, 2555 yards, 6.6 Y/A, 1 TD rushing

Grossman: 54.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/20 INT, 3193 yards, 6.7 Y/A, 0 TD rushing

 

To predict that Grossman will have a better career? Fine. To say that Grossman has done more this season than those QB's did in their entire careers? With the exception of Woodley, absolutely not. Eason and Ferragamo's seasons blow Grossman's out of the water, and Dilfer's is a little better as well.

 

Taking Grossman's season numbers as a whole is very convenient. It's also extremely misleading.

 

I'm not sure there's many QB's where you could take out their 3 worst games, and their numbers would go from this:

 

262 of 480 (54.6%) 3193 Yards 23 TD 20 INT 73.9 Rating

 

to this:

 

240 of 412 (58.3%) 2982 Yards 23 TD 10 INT 89.3 Rating

 

And that's not to say you can just throw out those games. It's meant to illustrate that his overall numbers don't really tell you very much in terms of his game to game performance. A few (3) REALLY bad games turned his stats from very good to just below average.

 

I would agree with that argument (I call that the Jason Marquis argument BTW, since the same thing was used in defense of him a month ago, and while most people didn't buy that argument then I will buy it now :D). On the flip side though would be strength of schedule. How many teams did Grossman play that were actually playing well on defense at the time? The Lions weren't-they gave up the exact same numbers they did to Grossman the two weeks after Grossman played them. The 49ers didn't get their act together till after Chicago had played them, in fact they gave up over 30 points to 5 of the first 7 teams that played them. Seattle gave up 28 or more points 5 games in a row, with the Bears game being in the middle of that stretch. The Giants lost 4 in a row starting with the Bears game, mostly because of their lack of defensive players.

 

Grossman did hit several teams at the right part of the season, which helped him out. He also had 3 frightening bad games, which makes his season look worse than it actually was. His numbers and the situations have been so scattered that it's really hard to tell what's going to happen next.

[Soul]

There are many who believe Dilfer, for example, would have had much better career numbers if he would have been placed in a passing offense. He was almost always expected to manage a run-first offense, and he did it reasonably well. Nobody ever took notice of the fact that Dilfer actually had one of the stronger arms in the NFL----because it was just plain seldom used.

 

Grossman can obviously sling the ball anywhere on the field, as could Dilfer. It's not the Bears style, nor should it be, and the fact that the Bears are capable of completing a 70 yard drive solely with the running game does not mean Grossman would not be capable of running a pass-first offense.

 

The QB rating itself is one of the most overrated statistics in the history of sports. It says nothing about team strategy, team philosophy, what happened in the key plays that decided the game. You can literally post a terrible QB rating and be the primary reason your team won the game. That makes the stat useless.

 

Case in point - the playoff game against the Seahawks...although his rating in that game was more below average than terrible.

 

Bears scored 3 TDs in that game, only one was a called TD pass. Another team, such as the Colts for example, call passes on those downs and it turns out to be 3 TDs passing and the QB rating goes way up. But the end result is the same.

 

Bears aren't going to call passes in alot of situations, because as a team we are likely to have more success running the ball. Our line is better at run blocking, or TEs are primarily fantastic run blockers as opposed to pass catchers----our receivers are not pro bowlers.

 

The QB passer rating should really be called the Team Passing Rating.

[CubColtPacer]

I predict that after all the Rex talk, he has a distinctly average performance, nowhere close to spectacularly good or spectacularly bad.

 

I would agree with that-my guess is that Grossman has a TD or two with a turnover or two as well, which will be fine for what he's asked to do. Then it comes down to the Colts offense vs the Bears defense, which should be a fascinating battle.

[soapy]

I think Manning is just as likely to drop a turd out there as Grossman is. Not that I expect either of them to do that, but Manning hasn't exactly been lighting the world on fire in the playoffs. He has a lower rating than Grossman, more INT's (6 to 1), and the same number of TDs.

 

Either could have a great game, or lay an egg.

[CubColtPacer]

I think Manning is just as likely to drop a turd out there as Grossman is. Not that I expect either of them to do that, but Manning has exactly been lighting the world on fire in the playoffs. He has a lower rating than Grossman, more INT's (6 to 1), and the same number of TDs.

 

Either could have a great game, or lay an egg.

 

Of course, they've been playing just a little bit different of defenses in the playoffs :D ..but then again, that will also be in the case in the Super Bowl.

 

Manning has had a tough test-the #1 scoring defense at their place, the #2 at his place, and now the #3 on a neutral field. Manning's statistics are pretty deceiving, as he's actually played pretty well throughout the playoffs (so has Grossman btw). It could come to QB's, but it certainly might not.

 

Ok-a different question-how do you think the Bears will try to guard the Colts receivers? Who do you double?

[goonys evil twin]

I would agree with that argument (I call that the Jason Marquis argument BTW, since the same thing was used in defense of him a month ago, and while most people didn't buy that argument then I will buy it now :D).

 

The big difference is that Rex did that in a 16 game season, his first full season, when you would expect some bad games. Marquis did it in a 33 game schedule, giving him much more of a chance to allow his better games to offset bad games. He also did that 6 games into a career that has had 2 other terrible seasons. Plus, a pitcher's numbers are a far greater indication of exactly what he did than a QB's numbers. QB's numbers depend heavily on what his players do. A pitcher's numbers depend on his defense to an extent, but it's much more of a 1 on 1 battle between pitcher and hitter. The QB is facing 11 opponents trying to stop him and needs the help of 10 teammates.

 

You already admitted it's clear somebody else is the worst on the list. When we already know the answer, the only point in asking the question again is because you want to stir controversy. The "bad Rex" story sells, and the media loves it. They don't want decent Rex. And the only people who would actually think Rex was the worst are people too stupid to understand the truth.

[David]

I think Manning is just as likely to drop a turd out there as Grossman is. Not that I expect either of them to do that, but Manning has exactly been lighting the world on fire in the playoffs. He has a lower rating than Grossman, more INT's (6 to 1), and the same number of TDs.

 

Either could have a great game, or lay an egg.

 

Of course, they've been playing just a little bit different of defenses in the playoffs :D ..but then again, that will also be in the case in the Super Bowl.

 

Manning has had a tough test-the #1 scoring defense at their place, the #2 at his place, and now the #3 on a neutral field. Manning's statistics are pretty deceiving, as he's actually played pretty well throughout the playoffs (so has Grossman btw). It could come to QB's, but it certainly might not.

 

Ok-a different question-how do you think the Bears will try to guard the Colts receivers? Who do you double?

 

Whether this is good or bad, the Bears don't often double cover anyone. They tend to try and just do what they do. It usually works out. We'll see, I suppose, how it works in this game. It didn't work against Steve Smith, but that's probably an extreme example of a receiver that can really take over a game on his own.

 

Another question...

 

How big of a factor is Devin Hester in this game? I think he might, in fact, be a big reason the Bears win the game, if the Bears win. The x-factor, to cite an overused cliche. Coupled with the Colts' lackluster coverage unit, Rex and the Bears should see short fields a lot in this game, and Hester may also run one back on his own.

[soapy]

I think Manning is just as likely to drop a turd out there as Grossman is. Not that I expect either of them to do that, but Manning has exactly been lighting the world on fire in the playoffs. He has a lower rating than Grossman, more INT's (6 to 1), and the same number of TDs.

 

Either could have a great game, or lay an egg.

 

Of course, they've been playing just a little bit different of defenses in the playoffs :D ..but then again, that will also be in the case in the Super Bowl.

 

Certainly. I was going to say that, but forgot.

[CubColtPacer]

I would agree with that argument (I call that the Jason Marquis argument BTW, since the same thing was used in defense of him a month ago, and while most people didn't buy that argument then I will buy it now :D).

 

The big difference is that Rex did that in a 16 game season, his first full season, when you would expect some bad games. Marquis did it in a 33 game schedule, giving him much more of a chance to allow his better games to offset bad games. He also did that 6 games into a career that has had 2 other terrible seasons. Plus, a pitcher's numbers are a far greater indication of exactly what he did than a QB's numbers. QB's numbers depend heavily on what his players do. A pitcher's numbers depend on his defense to an extent, but it's much more of a 1 on 1 battle between pitcher and hitter. The QB is facing 11 opponents trying to stop him and needs the help of 10 teammates.

 

You already admitted it's clear somebody else is the worst on the list. When we already know the answer, the only point in asking the question again is because you want to stir controversy. The "bad Rex" story sells, and the media loves it. They don't want decent Rex. And the only people who would actually think Rex was the worst are people too stupid to understand the truth.

 

No, I only posted some of my analysis because two people made the statements that he doesn't deserve to be on the list with those other QB's, and that this season is better than those other QB's better seasons in their career. I refuted both of those-but he is most definitely not the worst. He deserves to be on the list of the 5 or 10 worst ever, but he's not the worst-that is clear.

 

I would agree with you on the pitcher analogy, but only to say that a pitcher relies on a manager to limit the damage to his numbers like a QB relies on the other 10 people on the field. LaRussa did nothing to limit the damage to Marquis's numbers, and I'm not sure if the Bears did anything to try to limit the damage in his bad games or not.

[David]

Just an aside, I really wish we could successfuly branch a Bears site off of this one. Unfortunately, I don't think Tim is a Bears fan. It's too bad, though...

 

Probably, the best Bears discussion I find on the internet is in these threads.

 

We tried to get one set up last year. Uber did a bunch of the graphics. A few of us were mods. We just couldn't generate the necessary traffic to get discussion going. I'm probably about as much to blame as anyone for that.

[CubColtPacer]

I think Manning is just as likely to drop a turd out there as Grossman is. Not that I expect either of them to do that, but Manning has exactly been lighting the world on fire in the playoffs. He has a lower rating than Grossman, more INT's (6 to 1), and the same number of TDs.

 

Either could have a great game, or lay an egg.

 

Of course, they've been playing just a little bit different of defenses in the playoffs :D ..but then again, that will also be in the case in the Super Bowl.

 

Manning has had a tough test-the #1 scoring defense at their place, the #2 at his place, and now the #3 on a neutral field. Manning's statistics are pretty deceiving, as he's actually played pretty well throughout the playoffs (so has Grossman btw). It could come to QB's, but it certainly might not.

 

Ok-a different question-how do you think the Bears will try to guard the Colts receivers? Who do you double?

 

Whether this is good or bad, the Bears don't often double cover anyone. They tend to try and just do what they do. It usually works out. We'll see, I suppose, how it works in this game. It didn't work against Steve Smith, but that's probably an extreme example of a receiver that can really take over a game on his own.

 

Another question...

 

How big of a factor is Devin Hester in this game? I think he might, in fact, be a big reason the Bears win the game, if the Bears win. The x-factor, to cite an overused cliche. Coupled with the Colts' lackluster coverage unit, Rex and the Bears should see short fields a lot in this game, and Hester may also run one back on his own.

 

Devin Hester is huge in this game, especially on kickoffs. If the Colts kick deep to him every time, I see two kickoffs getting past the 50 (with one maybe going for a TD) and the rest in between the 25-35. If they squib kick it, I see it more constant that the Bears will start closer to the 40. I see the Colts as more likely here doing the former, because their kickoff coverage has been good about half the time, and the Colts are a team that love to hold on to any sign of optimism.

 

I see Hunter Smith trying to kick his punts out of bounds because he tends to outkick his coverage. Hunter loves to boot a 60 yard punt, and I don't want to see that with Hester standing back there.

 

As far as doubling receivers, I can see why the Bears statistics line up the way they do. Some Colts fans noticed that the Bears do very well in every statistic passing wise except against the #1 receiver-and against that receiver, the Bears are one of the worst in the league. The Colts have two legitimate #1's on the outside, but one of them is hurt without telling anyone (Harrison). So it should be an interesting battle like the Patriots did with their corners 1 on 1 with the WR's.

[CP_414]

I think Manning is just as likely to drop a turd out there as Grossman is. Not that I expect either of them to do that, but Manning has exactly been lighting the world on fire in the playoffs. He has a lower rating than Grossman, more INT's (6 to 1), and the same number of TDs.

 

Either could have a great game, or lay an egg.

 

Of course, they've been playing just a little bit different of defenses in the playoffs :D ..but then again, that will also be in the case in the Super Bowl.

 

Manning has had a tough test-the #1 scoring defense at their place, the #2 at his place, and now the #3 on a neutral field. Manning's statistics are pretty deceiving, as he's actually played pretty well throughout the playoffs (so has Grossman btw). It could come to QB's, but it certainly might not.

 

Ok-a different question-how do you think the Bears will try to guard the Colts receivers? Who do you double?

 

 

Another question...

 

How big of a factor is Devin Hester in this game? I think he might, in fact, be a big reason the Bears win the game, if the Bears win. The x-factor, to cite an overused cliche. Coupled with the Colts' lackluster coverage unit, Rex and the Bears should see short fields a lot in this game, and Hester may also run one back on his own.

 

Hester will be huge in this game. The Colts kick coverage has been poor at best. Back in Miami, on the big stage, I think "anytime" has a great chance at a return score. I could also see the Colts punting out of bounds everytime because they fear Hester, and the Bears getting some nice field position out of that.

[BigSlick]

I'd like to say that Saints fans were nicer to our Qb than you meanie Colts fans.

 

What's mean about a discussion? If I was posting OML REX GROSSMAN WURST EVAR!*&!% maybe I'd see the point.

 

It was a little tongue-in-cheek buddy.

[YearofDaCubs]

I would agree with that argument (I call that the Jason Marquis argument BTW, since the same thing was used in defense of him a month ago, and while most people didn't buy that argument then I will buy it now :D).

 

The big difference is that Rex did that in a 16 game season, his first full season, when you would expect some bad games. Marquis did it in a 33 game schedule, giving him much more of a chance to allow his better games to offset bad games. He also did that 6 games into a career that has had 2 other terrible seasons. Plus, a pitcher's numbers are a far greater indication of exactly what he did than a QB's numbers. QB's numbers depend heavily on what his players do. A pitcher's numbers depend on his defense to an extent, but it's much more of a 1 on 1 battle between pitcher and hitter. The QB is facing 11 opponents trying to stop him and needs the help of 10 teammates.

 

You already admitted it's clear somebody else is the worst on the list. When we already know the answer, the only point in asking the question again is because you want to stir controversy. The "bad Rex" story sells, and the media loves it. They don't want decent Rex. And the only people who would actually think Rex was the worst are people too stupid to understand the truth.

 

No, I only posted some of my analysis because two people made the statements that he doesn't deserve to be on the list with those other QB's, and that this season is better than those other QB's better seasons in their career. I refuted both of those-but he is most definitely not the worst. He deserves to be on the list of the 5 or 10 worst ever, but he's not the worst-that is clear.

 

I would agree with you on the pitcher analogy, but only to say that a pitcher relies on a manager to limit the damage to his numbers like a QB relies on the other 10 people on the field. LaRussa did nothing to limit the damage to Marquis's numbers, and I'm not sure if the Bears did anything to try to limit the damage in his bad games or not.

The problem I have with adding Grossman of the list is his lack of experience. The guy is young and just completed his first full season, to me it just shows injustice to put him on the list.

[CubColtPacer]

I would agree with that argument (I call that the Jason Marquis argument BTW, since the same thing was used in defense of him a month ago, and while most people didn't buy that argument then I will buy it now :D).

 

The big difference is that Rex did that in a 16 game season, his first full season, when you would expect some bad games. Marquis did it in a 33 game schedule, giving him much more of a chance to allow his better games to offset bad games. He also did that 6 games into a career that has had 2 other terrible seasons. Plus, a pitcher's numbers are a far greater indication of exactly what he did than a QB's numbers. QB's numbers depend heavily on what his players do. A pitcher's numbers depend on his defense to an extent, but it's much more of a 1 on 1 battle between pitcher and hitter. The QB is facing 11 opponents trying to stop him and needs the help of 10 teammates.

 

You already admitted it's clear somebody else is the worst on the list. When we already know the answer, the only point in asking the question again is because you want to stir controversy. The "bad Rex" story sells, and the media loves it. They don't want decent Rex. And the only people who would actually think Rex was the worst are people too stupid to understand the truth.

 

No, I only posted some of my analysis because two people made the statements that he doesn't deserve to be on the list with those other QB's, and that this season is better than those other QB's better seasons in their career. I refuted both of those-but he is most definitely not the worst. He deserves to be on the list of the 5 or 10 worst ever, but he's not the worst-that is clear.

 

I would agree with you on the pitcher analogy, but only to say that a pitcher relies on a manager to limit the damage to his numbers like a QB relies on the other 10 people on the field. LaRussa did nothing to limit the damage to Marquis's numbers, and I'm not sure if the Bears did anything to try to limit the damage in his bad games or not.

The problem I have with adding Grossman of the list is his lack of experience. The guy is young and just completed his first full season, to me it just shows injustice to put him on the list.

 

True, but I don't think it really implies career, but simply right now. If Grossman goes on to have a successful career though, history will forget it was that way though, and will simply remember it as a good quarterback at the beginning of his career. Remember, a couple of those QB's when they played the SB as well were young, promising QB's also-they just happened not to pan out.

I hope for Bears fans sake that Grossman does pan out, but I hope they also remember that Grossman's valient effort in the Super Bowl just fell a little short. :D

[CP_414]

I would agree with that argument (I call that the Jason Marquis argument BTW, since the same thing was used in defense of him a month ago, and while most people didn't buy that argument then I will buy it now :D).

 

The big difference is that Rex did that in a 16 game season, his first full season, when you would expect some bad games. Marquis did it in a 33 game schedule, giving him much more of a chance to allow his better games to offset bad games. He also did that 6 games into a career that has had 2 other terrible seasons. Plus, a pitcher's numbers are a far greater indication of exactly what he did than a QB's numbers. QB's numbers depend heavily on what his players do. A pitcher's numbers depend on his defense to an extent, but it's much more of a 1 on 1 battle between pitcher and hitter. The QB is facing 11 opponents trying to stop him and needs the help of 10 teammates.

 

You already admitted it's clear somebody else is the worst on the list. When we already know the answer, the only point in asking the question again is because you want to stir controversy. The "bad Rex" story sells, and the media loves it. They don't want decent Rex. And the only people who would actually think Rex was the worst are people too stupid to understand the truth.

 

No, I only posted some of my analysis because two people made the statements that he doesn't deserve to be on the list with those other QB's, and that this season is better than those other QB's better seasons in their career. I refuted both of those-but he is most definitely not the worst. He deserves to be on the list of the 5 or 10 worst ever, but he's not the worst-that is clear.

 

I would agree with you on the pitcher analogy, but only to say that a pitcher relies on a manager to limit the damage to his numbers like a QB relies on the other 10 people on the field. LaRussa did nothing to limit the damage to Marquis's numbers, and I'm not sure if the Bears did anything to try to limit the damage in his bad games or not.

The problem I have with adding Grossman of the list is his lack of experience. The guy is young and just completed his first full season, to me it just shows injustice to put him on the list.

 

I remember reading that through his first 17 or 18 starts Grossman was better stastically than Favre or Manning were through the same number of starts. To be fair, Manning was an an awful team and was a rookie, but the point remains. Rex Grossman is going to be a damn fine QB in this league for a long time. He has shown that he is capable of greatness, and very few quarterbacks are capable of that. With more experience he will be able to turn his "horrible" games into "bad" games, and by doing that he will become a Pro Bowl QB. I also find it humerous that people picked Seattle over us because Hasselbeck is better than Rex, then the Saints over us because Brees is better than Rex, and now the Colts because Manning is better than Rex. It's a team game. It is the Bears against the Colts, not Manning against Grossman.

[David]

Forgot to mention, haven't seen if anyone has already posted it, but Ruben Brown will be going to the Pro Bowl.

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=2978

[Soul]

Forgot to mention, haven't seen if anyone has already posted it, but Ruben Brown will be going to the Pro Bowl.

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=2978

 

He's so solid, despite his age. You can trace the turnaround of the Bears back to when Angelo acquired Tait, Brown, and Freddy Miller. Before that we had trouble blocking anyone.

[YearofDaCubs]

Forgot to mention, haven't seen if anyone has already posted it, but Ruben Brown will be going to the Pro Bowl.

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=2978

 

He's so solid, despite his age. You can trace the turnaround of the Bears back to when Angelo acquired Tait, Brown, and Freddy Miller. Before that we had trouble blocking anyone.

There's no doubt having a good line is one of the most important aspects of having a good offense. It just means so much to the QB and RB.

[CP_414]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270082990184#ebayphotohosting

 

This girl really wants to go to the Super Bowl.

[Omar]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270082990184#ebayphotohosting

 

This girl really wants to go to the Super Bowl.

 

Wow. It started at $1 and now its at $99,999,999.

[Andy]

She's plenty cute, but I highly doubt someone is seriously bidding $100 million on her.

[ctcf]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270082990184#ebayphotohosting

 

This girl really wants to go to the Super Bowl.

 

Now thats a Bears fan

[Chocolate Milk]

She's plenty cute, but I highly doubt someone is seriously bidding $100 million on her.

 

I think the 100million is LEGIT!

 

Also, that chick is crazy hot. I'd be in love if she wasn't a prostitute.