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

[Banedon]

It might not be awful Rex, but any time your QB is 4/18 for 54 yards at one point in the second half, it's playing awful as a QB. If any other QB had those numbers, you wouldn't say he was simply "ineffective" Rex has really simply stretched the boundaries of what it means to be awful, as 2 or 3 of his performances this year are probably listed on the 20 or 30 worst games in football history (I know the Arizona game is with 6 TO's). Of course at the same time, he's been very effective in large stretches of the year as well-I'm not saying he's awful overall, but he was awful most of the game last Sunday.

 

I still disagree. This was the NFC Championship game. We're a defensive team. Rex needs to play cautious if the play isn't there. He's learning to do that. Rex is growing in these playoffs, and frankly I've been thrilled with how he's played. That first half was more about feeling out the Saints, and I think that's shown in the success he had in the second half.

 

Rex isn't Peyton Manning...he's not going to throw for big yards all the time. He's going to find the right time to make his moves.

 

Rex was not awful in any way in that game.

 

By the way, when he was 4/18 for 54 yards in the second half, we were winning.

[Banedon]

 

Well, to be fair, for most of the game, he was pretty awful, which is how his stats still don't look good even with the one great drive. He didn't throw any INT's, but he couldn't complete any passes for 2 1/2 quarters and basically wasted his defense's efforts until the one drive.

 

You weren't paying attention if that's what you think. There were a probably a handful of times in the first half where Grossman threw balls away intentionally in an attempt to be extra cautious. He certainly missed some throws (one in particular to Clark in the endzone) but I didn't think he was wildy erratic or anything. That's why I couldn't understand why Aikman and Buck were harping on his slow start, percentage-wise.

 

A QB has to not only not make mistakes-they have to make plays. Even if you take away 5 incompletions as throwaways (which every QB has, BTW) Grossman still started 4/13. 60 percent is considered average for a professional QB. Under 50 percent is considered as being pretty bad, and Grossman's 4/18 start, or 22.5 percent was simply awful. I'll bet there weren't 5 QB's this year all season besides Rex that ever started a game that poorly in completion percentage with so many attempts.

 

I bet you're way wrong here.

[Soul]

 

Well, to be fair, for most of the game, he was pretty awful, which is how his stats still don't look good even with the one great drive. He didn't throw any INT's, but he couldn't complete any passes for 2 1/2 quarters and basically wasted his defense's efforts until the one drive.

 

You weren't paying attention if that's what you think. There were a probably a handful of times in the first half where Grossman threw balls away intentionally in an attempt to be extra cautious. He certainly missed some throws (one in particular to Clark in the endzone) but I didn't think he was wildy erratic or anything. That's why I couldn't understand why Aikman and Buck were harping on his slow start, percentage-wise.

 

A QB has to not only not make mistakes-they have to make plays. Even if you take away 5 incompletions as throwaways (which every QB has, BTW) Grossman still started 4/13. 60 percent is considered average for a professional QB. Under 50 percent is considered as being pretty bad, and Grossman's 4/18 start, or 22.5 percent was simply awful. I'll bet there weren't 5 QB's this year all season besides Rex that ever started a game that poorly in completion percentage with so many attempts.

 

Yet his QB rating this postseason is better than Peyton's. And he's thrown way fewer INTs....

 

If he's so terrible how did he ever manage to do that? In huge, nationally televised games? Under the microscope of the entire planet who said he would implode against Seattle and the Saints?

[Banedon]

 

Well, to be fair, for most of the game, he was pretty awful, which is how his stats still don't look good even with the one great drive. He didn't throw any INT's, but he couldn't complete any passes for 2 1/2 quarters and basically wasted his defense's efforts until the one drive.

 

You weren't paying attention if that's what you think. There were a probably a handful of times in the first half where Grossman threw balls away intentionally in an attempt to be extra cautious. He certainly missed some throws (one in particular to Clark in the endzone) but I didn't think he was wildy erratic or anything. That's why I couldn't understand why Aikman and Buck were harping on his slow start, percentage-wise.

 

A QB has to not only not make mistakes-they have to make plays. Even if you take away 5 incompletions as throwaways (which every QB has, BTW) Grossman still started 4/13. 60 percent is considered average for a professional QB. Under 50 percent is considered as being pretty bad, and Grossman's 4/18 start, or 22.5 percent was simply awful. I'll bet there weren't 5 QB's this year all season besides Rex that ever started a game that poorly in completion percentage with so many attempts.

 

Yet his QB rating this postseason is better than Peyton's. And he's thrown way fewer INTs....

 

If he's so terrible how did he ever manage to do that? In huge, nationally televised games? Under the microscope of the entire planet who said he would implode against Seattle and the Saints?

 

He isn't really arguing Rex is terrible overall...we're talking specifically about the Saints game.

[thedaymen]

An actual size Perry shirt?

 

I tried when I bought it to get one that was 5xl. The highest I could find was XXXL. It should be noted that I usually wear a regular XL and its those are loose on me.

[XZero771679666304]

 

By the way, when he was 4/18 for 54 yards in the second half, we were winning.

 

I am a Bears fan, but the whole "who cares about his stats, he wins" argument is the most [expletive] thing in the history of retardation. Having a great supporting cast that bails you out does not erase your mistakes.

 

Sure the bears have won 15 games this year, but what would their record be had Rex been consistently good? 17-1? 18-0? Possibly.

 

When the Bears have lost, Rex has been primarily responsible. This being so on a team with a great running game and great defense, making his poor performances look even worse. As a QB on the Bears, you have to be pretty abysmal to single handedly lose a game.

 

Listen, I think Rex is capable of coming out Sunday and being more than adequate, even throwing for 250+ and a couple TD's and no picks. I believe he just might do that. But let's call a spade a spade. Let's not use platitudes like "but we won" to excuse poor play. And 4-18 in a half, no matter how you want to dissect it, is poor.

 

Let's just hope Rex is better than that Sunday, or we're boned.

[Banedon]

 

By the way, when he was 4/18 for 54 yards in the second half, we were winning.

 

I am a Bears fan, but the whole "who cares about his stats, he wins" argument is the most [expletive] thing in the history of retardation. Having a great supporting cast that bails you out does not erase your mistakes.

 

Sure the bears have won 15 games this year, but what would their record be had Rex been consistently good? 17-1? 18-0? Possibly.

 

When the Bears have lost, Rex has been primarily responsible. This being so on a team with a great running game and great defense, making his poor performances look even worse. As a QB on the Bears, you have to be pretty abysmal to single handedly lose a game.

 

Listen, I think Rex is capable of coming out Sunday and being more than adequate, even throwing for 250+ and a couple TD's and no picks. I believe he just might do that. But let's call a spade a spade. Let's not use platitudes like "but we won" to excuse poor play. And 4-18 in a half, no matter how you want to dissect it, is poor.

 

Let's just hope Rex is better than that Sunday, or we're boned.

 

That wasn't really the point. Don't you think Rex would have played the game differently if we had been losing as opposed to winning? If we had been behind and needing to catchup and he had been 4-18, then that's a heck of a lot worse than 4-18 when you're playing it careful with a lead. That was my point.

[CubColtPacer]

 

By the way, when he was 4/18 for 54 yards in the second half, we were winning.

 

I am a Bears fan, but the whole "who cares about his stats, he wins" argument is the most [expletive] thing in the history of retardation. Having a great supporting cast that bails you out does not erase your mistakes.

 

Sure the bears have won 15 games this year, but what would their record be had Rex been consistently good? 17-1? 18-0? Possibly.

 

When the Bears have lost, Rex has been primarily responsible. This being so on a team with a great running game and great defense, making his poor performances look even worse. As a QB on the Bears, you have to be pretty abysmal to single handedly lose a game.

 

Listen, I think Rex is capable of coming out Sunday and being more than adequate, even throwing for 250+ and a couple TD's and no picks. I believe he just might do that. But let's call a spade a spade. Let's not use platitudes like "but we won" to excuse poor play. And 4-18 in a half, no matter how you want to dissect it, is poor.

 

Let's just hope Rex is better than that Sunday, or we're boned.

 

That wasn't really the point. Don't you think Rex would have played the game differently if we had been losing as opposed to winning? If we had been behind and needing to catchup and he had been 4-18, then that's a heck of a lot worse than 4-18 when you're playing it careful with a lead. That was my point.

 

The problem is, if they had been behind, Rex would have had more of an excuse, because the rushers would have been coming constantly. Instead, he had all the advantages on Sunday-the defense was forcing TO's, the runners were running wild, and yet the game was close because Grossman couldn't move the ball whatsoever against a defense that was trying to stop the run, and so the Bears had to keep settling for FG's. With the way the defense and running game was working, the Bears should have been up by 3 TD's at that point in the 3rd quarter, rather than nursing a 2 point lead. If your QB is being so careful that he's not completing much of anything (and 22.5 percent is not much, especially when 2 of the 4 passes completed were for a 4 yard gain and a 3 yard gain respectively), it's better that you just hand it off every time.

[UMFan83]

Anyone want to go through the games and pick out which ones Grossman made a huge difference in winning?

[CubColtPacer]

Anyone want to go through the games and pick out which ones Grossman made a huge difference in winning?

 

I'm not saying he's awful overall and should be benched! I'm saying that for most of the Saints game, Grossman was awful-that's it. Although I do think that if you did that, the only games where Grossman really needed to play well and did were the Detroit, Seattle, Giants, Rams, and Tampa Bay.

[Banedon]

Anyone want to go through the games and pick out which ones Grossman made a huge difference in winning?

 

I'm not saying he's awful overall and should be benched! I'm saying that for most of the Saints game, Grossman was awful-that's it. Although I do think that if you did that, the only games where Grossman really needed to play well and did were the Detroit, Seattle, Giants, Rams, and Tampa Bay.

 

Why leave out Buffalo and SF?

[CubColtPacer]

Anyone want to go through the games and pick out which ones Grossman made a huge difference in winning?

 

I'm not saying he's awful overall and should be benched! I'm saying that for most of the Saints game, Grossman was awful-that's it. Although I do think that if you did that, the only games where Grossman really needed to play well and did were the Detroit, Seattle, Giants, Rams, and Tampa Bay.

 

Why leave out Buffalo and SF?

 

Well, the SF game, they gave the Bears the ball on the SF 15, the SF 41, and the SF 13, and the SF 24-and that was just barely to the first part of the second quarter. I don't think any quarterback could have lost that game with the way the Chicago defense and special teams were playing.

 

The Buffalo game wasn't quite as bad, but the Bears still started at the 50 or better 4 times in the first half. That, combined with the Bears shutting Buffalo out till a late meaningless TD, meant that it was the defense who won the game, not really anything the offense did.

[Banedon]

Anyone want to go through the games and pick out which ones Grossman made a huge difference in winning?

 

I'm not saying he's awful overall and should be benched! I'm saying that for most of the Saints game, Grossman was awful-that's it. Although I do think that if you did that, the only games where Grossman really needed to play well and did were the Detroit, Seattle, Giants, Rams, and Tampa Bay.

 

Why leave out Buffalo and SF?

 

Well, the SF game, they gave the Bears the ball on the SF 15, the SF 41, and the SF 13, and the SF 24-and that was just barely to the first part of the second quarter. I don't think any quarterback could have lost that game with the way the Chicago defense and special teams were playing.

 

The Buffalo game wasn't quite as bad, but the Bears still started at the 50 or better 4 times in the first half. That, combined with the Bears shutting Buffalo out till a late meaningless TD, meant that it was the defense who won the game, not really anything the offense did.

 

Maybe he couldn't have lost it, but he could have had the same kind of game that he did with the Saints where you've told us all that he was "awful" in the first half. If he could be awful there, I don't think you can discount when he plays well in a similar game. (Admittedly, it wasn't the NFC championship, but the early turnover scenario was similar.)

 

Any game where a QB has almost 80% completion, it's hard to discount IMO.

 

The Buffalo game I'd be much more willing to agree with.

[CubColtPacer]

Anyone want to go through the games and pick out which ones Grossman made a huge difference in winning?

 

I'm not saying he's awful overall and should be benched! I'm saying that for most of the Saints game, Grossman was awful-that's it. Although I do think that if you did that, the only games where Grossman really needed to play well and did were the Detroit, Seattle, Giants, Rams, and Tampa Bay.

 

Why leave out Buffalo and SF?

 

Well, the SF game, they gave the Bears the ball on the SF 15, the SF 41, and the SF 13, and the SF 24-and that was just barely to the first part of the second quarter. I don't think any quarterback could have lost that game with the way the Chicago defense and special teams were playing.

 

The Buffalo game wasn't quite as bad, but the Bears still started at the 50 or better 4 times in the first half. That, combined with the Bears shutting Buffalo out till a late meaningless TD, meant that it was the defense who won the game, not really anything the offense did.

 

Maybe he couldn't have lost it, but he could have had the same kind of game that he did with the Saints where you've told us all that he was "awful" in the first half. If he could be awful there, I don't think you can discount when he plays well in a similar game. (Admittedly, it wasn't the NFC championship, but the early turnover scenario was similar.)

 

Well, the question wasn't which games he played well in, but rather the ones he made a "huge difference in winning". Grossman certainly played well in both of those games, that is for certain. Sorry for the confusion.

[Banedon]

Well, the question wasn't which games he played well in, but rather the ones he made a "huge difference in winning". Grossman certainly played well in both of those games, that is for certain. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I realize that. But how did he make more of a difference in the SF game than the Detroit game? The stats are very similar (including the score).

 

Unless you're talking about the second Detroit game...

[CubColtPacer]

Well, the question wasn't which games he played well in, but rather the ones he made a "huge difference in winning". Grossman certainly played well in both of those games, that is for certain. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I realize that. But how did he make more of a difference in the SF game than the Detroit game? The stats are very similar (including the score).

 

Unless you're talking about the second Detroit game...

 

I was talking about the first one-that game is right on the border. The only reason I gave it to him is that 17 of the 24 points in the first half came on drives that started on the Chicago 30 or worse. The TO's helped Detroit not score, but it didn't put the offense right in position to score, and Grossman led them down the field 3 times in the first half to help make the game a blowout.

[Soul]

Well, the question wasn't which games he played well in, but rather the ones he made a "huge difference in winning". Grossman certainly played well in both of those games, that is for certain. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I realize that. But how did he make more of a difference in the SF game than the Detroit game? The stats are very similar (including the score).

 

Unless you're talking about the second Detroit game...

 

I was talking about the first one-that game is right on the border. The only reason I gave it to him is that 17 of the 24 points in the first half came on drives that started on the Chicago 30 or worse. The TO's helped Detroit not score, but it didn't put the offense right in position to score, and Grossman led them down the field 3 times in the first half to help make the game a blowout.

 

I'm not sure how you even measure the stat "made a huge difference"

 

Pretty speculative. He's the QB, he had some really good games, and the Bears won by some big margins. That's about as far as I think anyone can go.

[BigSlick]

BTW, the more I hear about it, the more I think Harper will not play. It is a high ankle sprain, and he just doesn't sound ready to go. That is a big loss for the Colts, especially because their nickel corner now is very inexperienced.

 

John Clayton's article today pretty much says Harper won't play. He said that he's only been able to get about 10 min of running in this week, and that he's wearing a boot.

 

While that bodes well for us, I hope that Grossman just doesn't key on whoever is replacing Harper and go after him...I want Rex to go through his reads as he normally would.

 

Clayton's article also says Rex has been bad more than good this season. Which is plain wrong any way you try and look at it.

 

It also says what Clayton harps on every time he rights about the Bears: "Fans wanted him replaced by Brian Griese."

 

Nice generalization John. Fans always want the starting QB replaced unless their name is Manning.

 

I had completely missed the "More times, he's been cold" comment. It also says he was terrible in the NFC Championship game. Another lie.

 

Well, to be fair, for most of the game, he was pretty awful, which is how his stats still don't look good even with the one great drive. He didn't throw any INT's, but he couldn't complete any passes for 2 1/2 quarters and basically wasted his defense's efforts until the one drive.

 

Sorry, but I've seen awful Rex. That wasn't awful Rex. Saying he was ineffective for the first half might be more accurate. But awful is just overstating it.

 

It might not be awful Rex, but any time your QB is 4/18 for 54 yards at one point in the second half, it's playing awful as a QB. If any other QB had those numbers, you wouldn't say he was simply "ineffective"

Rex has really simply stretched the boundaries of what it means to be awful, as 2 or 3 of his performances this year are probably listed on the 20 or 30 worst games in football history (I know the Arizona game is with 6 TO's). Of course at the same time, he's been very effective in large stretches of the year as well-I'm not saying he's awful overall, but he was awful most of the game last Sunday.

 

The passing game is more than just the quarterback. I saw more than a few drops in his first 18 passes, and many near misses. He had one awful awful miss in the endzone with a wide open Desmond Clark, but he ddn't play awful at the beginning.

 

Go run the tape if you have to.

[Banedon]

Every CNNsi.com writer picked the Colts.

 

4 of 6 CBS Sportsline writers have the Colts.

 

Only 1 of the ESPN guys picked the Bears.

 

Accuscore has the Colts winning 62% of the time.

[CubColtPacer]

Every CNNsi.com writer picked the Colts.

 

4 of 6 CBS Sportsline writers have the Colts.

 

Only 1 of the ESPN guys picked the Bears.

 

Accuscore has the Colts winning 62% of the time.

 

Don't worry though-3 of 4 people on Cold Pizza picked you, you're fine :D

[cubweiser03]

Every CNNsi.com writer picked the Colts.

 

4 of 6 CBS Sportsline writers have the Colts.

 

Only 1 of the ESPN guys picked the Bears.

 

Accuscore has the Colts winning 62% of the time.

 

Don't worry though-3 of 4 people on Cold Pizza picked you, you're fine :D

 

Yeah whats up with Bayless picking the Bears. Didnt see that one coming.

[Banedon]

Whoa....Peter Pasquerelliand...wait for it...Gene Wojciechowski!!!both picked the Bears! Ok, so Gene says his head says Colts, but his heart says Bears...I'm still impressed any of him says Bears.

 

John Clayton picked the Colts.

 

EDIT: I might have jumped the gun on the Pasquerelli and Clayton picks...looks like they were just assigned to each write a positive article about one of the teams. Although Clayton does say that he believes this is the Colts year, Pasquerelli makes no such statements about the Bears.

[Soul]

Every CNNsi.com writer picked the Colts.

 

4 of 6 CBS Sportsline writers have the Colts.

 

Only 1 of the ESPN guys picked the Bears.

 

Accuscore has the Colts winning 62% of the time.

 

Bears vs. The World, once again.

 

Apparently we shouldn't even bother showing up Sunday.

[CP_414]

Brett Favre is coming back for 2007. We have to deal with another fairwell tour.

 

BEAR DOWN, CHICAGO BEARS!

[BigSlick]

The only thing that worries me is Accuscore because its actually a fairly good determiner of the outcome of a game.

 

No doubt about it, fellow Bears fans, this is gonna be a tough one.