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

[dew1679666265]

 

How are you sacraficing the ability to score by running? They scored more in the first half (even without the INT return) than they did in the second half and they ran a lot more in the first half. Also it is an assumption that the Colts would have stuffed every running play, a huge assumption looking at the rushing stats for the game.

 

Rex Grossman was having a horrible passing game against the Saints, but with the Bears up 18-14 he led a touchdown drive of all passes to put the Bears in control of the game. Up until that point he had very little success passing the ball against the Saints. If Ron Turner had decided to take the ball out of Rex's hands and run all the time could we have assumed Rex was not capable of leading that TD drive the way he did because he had some failures earlier in the game?

 

They scored 14 in the first half (without the INT) and 13 in the second half, not that big a difference.

Also, the first scoring drive was a result of the 35 yard Dillon run on 4th and 1. As CubColtPacer explained, the Colt defense adjusted differently than they do on any other play. The rest of the drive they ran 7 times for 22 yards (3.1 yards per carry) and passed 1 time for 18 yards.

The second TD drive, they threw for 49 of the 72 yards they needed to score (the drive began on their 28). The plays were 4 passes for 49 and 6 runs for 23 (3.8 yards per carry).

Rushing for 3 yards per carry is decent, but against an offense that scores at will and you have one of the best QBs in the game, you can't rely on the running game when it's obvious you have to score many more points. And the passing game was seeing very good success because the Colts were playing run most of the game.

Plus, the rushes they had in the second half were less successful than the ones in the first half.

Also, the Bears were right to keep passing because the Saint pass defense is weak and has been consistently. The Colt run defense, especially in the playoffs, showed the ability to play well. They shut down the second best running back in the game (Larry Johnson) and the best O-line (Chiefs).

[CubsLadyinSTL]

Anyone else sad that the weather wont be a factor? Geez I wish we would be in Chicago. Say if they had to decide between these two teams, who would get home field advantage, based on wins in the opposite league, where would we be playing???

[CP_414]

 

The thing is, it's not an assumption that they wouldn't have gained more, it was shown throughout the game that they couldn't run the ball consistently. Sure, it's possible that any run could possibly be broken for a long run, but banking on all of a sudden breaking a long run after having next to no success all day is very poor strategy.

Plus, the Pats only had a 21-6 lead in the second half for one drive, a Colts touchdown drive. The first time the Patriots had the ball, they were up one score, 21-13.

At halftime, I said the Patriots would have to score more to hope to win because 21 points rarely beats the Colt offense. When you simply pound the ball and run clock, you're sacrificing the ability to score.

 

How are you sacraficing the ability to score by running? They scored more in the first half (even without the INT return) than they did in the second half and they ran a lot more in the first half. Also it is an assumption that the Colts would have stuffed every running play, a huge assumption looking at the rushing stats for the game.

 

Rex Grossman was having a horrible passing game against the Saints, but with the Bears up 18-14 he led a touchdown drive of all passes to put the Bears in control of the game. Up until that point he had very little success passing the ball against the Saints. If Ron Turner had decided to take the ball out of Rex's hands and run all the time could we have assumed Rex was not capable of leading that TD drive the way he did because he had some failures earlier in the game?

 

They scored 14 in the first half (without the INT) and 13 in the second half, not that big a difference.

Also, the first scoring drive was a result of the 35 yard Dillon run on 4th and 1. As CubColtPacer explained, the Colt defense adjusted differently than they do on any other play. The rest of the drive they ran 7 times for 22 yards (3.1 yards per carry) and passed 1 time for 18 yards.

The second TD drive, they threw for 49 of the 72 yards they needed to score (the drive began on their 28). The plays were 4 passes for 49 and 6 runs for 23 (3.8 yards per carry).

Rushing for 3 yards per carry is decent, but against an offense that scores at will and you have one of the best QBs in the game, you can't rely on the running game when it's obvious you have to score many more points. And the passing game was seeing very good success because the Colts were playing run most of the game.

Plus, the rushes they had in the second half were less successful than the ones in the first half.

 

14 is greater than 13, so they were not sacraficing the ability to score in the 1st half when they ran. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think a one-dimensional offense will work, and that is what the Pats ran in the second half. I believe you can score while running half the time, and by doing this offense you use more clock and leave less time for your opponent to score. My Grossman example of failures early in the game not dictating success or failure later in the game also stands true. Bottom line is this the Patriots were a much much better team in the first half when they used the running game, than they were when they abandoned it. I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Ronnie Woo Woo

[jaydee]

didnt the colts give up like 34 points to the patriots?

[Banedon]

Dr Z has a position by position comparison. He gives the Bears a 14-9-4 edge, but picks the Colts by 10 with this note:

 

 

 

OVERALL TOTAL: Bears 14-9-4.

Dr. Z's Pick: Colts 34, Bears 24

(Sorry, all you numbers freaks out there. The consensus doesn't take into account the great difference in the most crucial of all positions ... quarterback ... nor in the importance of the Indy hurry-up, no huddle offense.)

 

It also doesn't take into account that a more accurate analysis would be Colts' O vs Bears' D and Bear's O vs Colts' D...

[CubsLadyinSTL]

Anyone else sad that the weather wont be a factor? Geez I wish we would be in Chicago. Say if they had to decide between these two teams, who would get home field advantage, based on wins in the opposite league, where would we be playing???

[CubColtPacer]

didnt the colts give up like 34 points to the patriots?

 

The Colts defense gave up 27-7 were to Asante Samuel. I'm actually proud of the Colts defense for that performance. The Patriots had unbelievable field position all night long, they converted 2 4th downs, had a TD scored by an offensive lineman, and of course are led by Tom Brady. Any defense is going to give up some points in that scenario.

[CP_414]

Anyone else sad that the weather wont be a factor? Geez I wish we would be in Chicago. Say if they had to decide between these two teams, who would get home field advantage, based on wins in the opposite league, where would we be playing???

 

It might rain.

[CP_414]

didnt the colts give up like 34 points to the patriots?

 

The Colts defense gave up 27-7 were to Asante Samuel. I'm actually proud of the Colts defense for that performance. The Patriots had unbelievable field position all night long, they converted 2 4th downs, had a TD scored by an offensive lineman, and of course are led by Tom Brady. Any defense is going to give up some points in that scenario.

 

The Colts gave up 34. The Colts defense gave up 27.

[CubColtPacer]

 

The thing is, it's not an assumption that they wouldn't have gained more, it was shown throughout the game that they couldn't run the ball consistently. Sure, it's possible that any run could possibly be broken for a long run, but banking on all of a sudden breaking a long run after having next to no success all day is very poor strategy.

Plus, the Pats only had a 21-6 lead in the second half for one drive, a Colts touchdown drive. The first time the Patriots had the ball, they were up one score, 21-13.

At halftime, I said the Patriots would have to score more to hope to win because 21 points rarely beats the Colt offense. When you simply pound the ball and run clock, you're sacrificing the ability to score.

 

How are you sacraficing the ability to score by running? They scored more in the first half (even without the INT return) than they did in the second half and they ran a lot more in the first half. Also it is an assumption that the Colts would have stuffed every running play, a huge assumption looking at the rushing stats for the game.

 

Rex Grossman was having a horrible passing game against the Saints, but with the Bears up 18-14 he led a touchdown drive of all passes to put the Bears in control of the game. Up until that point he had very little success passing the ball against the Saints. If Ron Turner had decided to take the ball out of Rex's hands and run all the time could we have assumed Rex was not capable of leading that TD drive the way he did because he had some failures earlier in the game?

 

They scored 14 in the first half (without the INT) and 13 in the second half, not that big a difference.

Also, the first scoring drive was a result of the 35 yard Dillon run on 4th and 1. As CubColtPacer explained, the Colt defense adjusted differently than they do on any other play. The rest of the drive they ran 7 times for 22 yards (3.1 yards per carry) and passed 1 time for 18 yards.

The second TD drive, they threw for 49 of the 72 yards they needed to score (the drive began on their 28). The plays were 4 passes for 49 and 6 runs for 23 (3.8 yards per carry).

Rushing for 3 yards per carry is decent, but against an offense that scores at will and you have one of the best QBs in the game, you can't rely on the running game when it's obvious you have to score many more points. And the passing game was seeing very good success because the Colts were playing run most of the game.

Plus, the rushes they had in the second half were less successful than the ones in the first half.

 

14 is greater than 13, so they were not sacraficing the ability to score in the 1st half when they ran. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think a one-dimensional offense will work, and that is what the Pats ran in the second half. I believe you can score while running half the time, and by doing this offense you use more clock and leave less time for your opponent to score. My Grossman example of failures early in the game not dictating success or failure later in the game also stands true. Bottom line is this the Patriots were a much much better team in the first half when they used the running game, than they were when they abandoned it. I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one.

 

I would argue that the Patriots were actually more effective on offense in the second half. Both of their first half TD drives were helped by a 4th down conversion that the Patriots gambled on, in situations where they might not have been able to gamble on in the 2nd half. One of the TD's was a lucky bounce to an offensive lineman which the Pats get 3 or 0 on if it's recovered where it bounced to originally. The Patriots really started moving the ball much better in the 2nd half-it's just that they got held to some field goals, and had some dropped passes by Caldwell that really cost them.

[Banedon]

Anyone else sad that the weather wont be a factor? Geez I wish we would be in Chicago. Say if they had to decide between these two teams, who would get home field advantage, based on wins in the opposite league, where would we be playing???

 

It might rain.

 

Yep. Isolated T-Storms.

[CubColtPacer]

Anyone else sad that the weather wont be a factor? Geez I wish we would be in Chicago. Say if they had to decide between these two teams, who would get home field advantage, based on wins in the opposite league, where would we be playing???

 

I'm a little confused by your question-the Bears had the better record overall, the Colts had the better record against the opposing conference, and the better record vs common opponents.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070131/capt.ddd249f97d214a6d960eeae749e69fc5.football_bet_dcsw107.jpg

 

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., center, tries some food from New Orleans brought to his Capitol Hill office in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2007, by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., left, and Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., as a payoff for the Super Bowl bound Chicago Bears beating the New Orleans Saints in the NFC playoff game.

[CubColtPacer]

Anyone else sad that the weather wont be a factor? Geez I wish we would be in Chicago. Say if they had to decide between these two teams, who would get home field advantage, based on wins in the opposite league, where would we be playing???

 

It might rain.

 

Yep. Isolated T-Storms.

 

From what I've heard from people in FL, weather forecasts down there aren't very reliable till like Saturday, and the most likely result is that it would rain a bit in the afternoon, but would be completely dry during the game, as it doesn't rain during this season in the evening very much at all.

[CubsLadyinSTL]

Anyone else sad that the weather wont be a factor? Geez I wish we would be in Chicago. Say if they had to decide between these two teams, who would get home field advantage, based on wins in the opposite league, where would we be playing???

 

I'm a little confused by your question-the Bears had the better record overall, the Colts had the better record against the opposing conference, and the better record vs common opponents.

 

Well confused or not you answered the question. Indianapolis.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Anyone else sad that the weather wont be a factor? Geez I wish we would be in Chicago. Say if they had to decide between these two teams, who would get home field advantage, based on wins in the opposite league, where would we be playing???

 

It might rain.

 

Yep. Isolated T-Storms.

 

From what I've heard from people in FL, weather forecasts down there aren't very reliable till like Saturday, and the most likely result is that it would rain a bit in the afternoon, but would be completely dry during the game, as it doesn't rain during this season in the evening very much at all.

 

Isolated t-storms is the way for the weather forecaster to cover their butt - there's a chance that it might rain most afternoons in Southern Florida.

[soccer10k]

I see a few more times - especially with the lead in the second half - where I AND Turner would have run more.

 

I was still on a high from the Bears winning and wasn't paying much attention to this game till the last few drives, but the Patriots need to be running much more in the second half with a lead - especially because it keeps Peyton Manning off the field.

 

True-but it wasn't long into the second half before the Patriots weren't trying to keep Manning off the field anymore, but were trying desperately to score points to somehow stay ahead of a Colts offense that was absolutely rolling.

 

I think the Bears running game will do the best any team has done in the playoffs against the Colts-a big key to their effectiveness could be though if Grossman can step up early and make some huge throws to loosen the defense up. I can see the Colts trying to play this game like the Chiefs game in the 1st quarter, and it will be interesting to see if the Bears can respond quickly to that or not.

 

True enough, but even when the Colts closed the gap, the Patriots should be involving the run game in the offense. This is the same thing the Saints did (whether it was because McAllister was hurt or whatever), just passing is going to get you in trouble (especially when you have the Colts' pass rush).

 

If Belichick continues to run the ball, the Colts continue to stop it, and the Colts come back to win, then Belichick gets criticized for not being aggressive and getting too complacent when he had the lead. Belichick knew he wasn't going to keep the Colts offense down and knew he needed to score some points in the second half. I don't know how anybody can criticize New England's choices offensively when they scored 34 freaking points. Do you know when the last time a team scored 34 points in a conference title game and lost the game was? It's never happened before. If you're going to blame the Patriots in any way, blame their defense because their offense certainly wasn't a problem.

[CubColtPacer]

Tony Corrente will be the referee on Sunday-have to say, I don't know much about him.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs06/news/story?id=2749604

[dew1679666265]

 

The thing is, it's not an assumption that they wouldn't have gained more, it was shown throughout the game that they couldn't run the ball consistently. Sure, it's possible that any run could possibly be broken for a long run, but banking on all of a sudden breaking a long run after having next to no success all day is very poor strategy.

Plus, the Pats only had a 21-6 lead in the second half for one drive, a Colts touchdown drive. The first time the Patriots had the ball, they were up one score, 21-13.

At halftime, I said the Patriots would have to score more to hope to win because 21 points rarely beats the Colt offense. When you simply pound the ball and run clock, you're sacrificing the ability to score.

 

How are you sacraficing the ability to score by running? They scored more in the first half (even without the INT return) than they did in the second half and they ran a lot more in the first half. Also it is an assumption that the Colts would have stuffed every running play, a huge assumption looking at the rushing stats for the game.

 

Rex Grossman was having a horrible passing game against the Saints, but with the Bears up 18-14 he led a touchdown drive of all passes to put the Bears in control of the game. Up until that point he had very little success passing the ball against the Saints. If Ron Turner had decided to take the ball out of Rex's hands and run all the time could we have assumed Rex was not capable of leading that TD drive the way he did because he had some failures earlier in the game?

 

They scored 14 in the first half (without the INT) and 13 in the second half, not that big a difference.

Also, the first scoring drive was a result of the 35 yard Dillon run on 4th and 1. As CubColtPacer explained, the Colt defense adjusted differently than they do on any other play. The rest of the drive they ran 7 times for 22 yards (3.1 yards per carry) and passed 1 time for 18 yards.

The second TD drive, they threw for 49 of the 72 yards they needed to score (the drive began on their 28). The plays were 4 passes for 49 and 6 runs for 23 (3.8 yards per carry).

Rushing for 3 yards per carry is decent, but against an offense that scores at will and you have one of the best QBs in the game, you can't rely on the running game when it's obvious you have to score many more points. And the passing game was seeing very good success because the Colts were playing run most of the game.

Plus, the rushes they had in the second half were less successful than the ones in the first half.

 

14 is greater than 13, so they were not sacraficing the ability to score in the 1st half when they ran. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think a one-dimensional offense will work, and that is what the Pats ran in the second half. I believe you can score while running half the time, and by doing this offense you use more clock and leave less time for your opponent to score. My Grossman example of failures early in the game not dictating success or failure later in the game also stands true. Bottom line is this the Patriots were a much much better team in the first half when they used the running game, than they were when they abandoned it. I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one.

 

Not trying to prolong the discussion too much, but I wanted to clear up one point that it doesn't seem like I made well enough.

I don't think running the ball hurts a team's ability to score. I think continuing to run the ball when it hasn't worked consistently all game and hoping for the unlikely chance that it randomly starts working is a bad idea. Especially when you have the second best QB in the game on your team and the best QB in the game on the other side.

The Pats were in numerous fourth downs in the first half because they continued to run the ball when it wasn't working. In the second half they have 14 more points if Reche Caldwell (former Florida WR) can catch absolutely wide open passes. Both game plans worked, the Colts simply executed better.

[dew1679666265]

Tony Corrente will be the referee on Sunday-have to say, I don't know much about him.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs06/news/story?id=2749604

 

Really wish Ed Hochuli was the ref. He's a very good ref and could probably beat up half the guys on the field. :D

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I know it hasn't worked well most all game, but you have to at least sprinkle in the runs a bit more to help the passing attack. I mean, it wasn't like the Patriots were down 2 scores + and had to abandon the run completely. Even if you're not going to get more than 2 YPC, I think they should have done it more.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

God, Bill Plaschke is such a stain on sports journalism:

 

Best question of Media Day comes from the Los Angeles Times' Bill Plaschke, who grills Tank Johnson, asking him if he's gone out to nightclubs since he's been in Miami and if he's sorry for what happened.

 

"Sorry to who?" asks Tank.

 

"Sorry to society," says Plaschke.

 

Johnson then turns his back to Plaschke while the reporter says "no seriously" a couple times.

 

The silence and tension last for 30 seconds, as none of the 30 or so reporters around Johnson asks another question, waiting for Johnson to say something.

 

Sorry to society? What? Did Tank kill someone or something? How did the charges against him adversely affect society?

 

Tankful of Excuses

 

You saw it coming...what a hypocritical hack.

 

ETA: I thought the judge who let him come here was a Packer fan, not a "judge in Bears clothing."

[dew1679666265]

I know it hasn't worked well most all game, but you have to at least sprinkle in the runs a bit more to help the passing attack. I mean, it wasn't like the Patriots were down 2 scores + and had to abandon the run completely. Even if you're not going to get more than 2 YPC, I think they should have done it more.

 

I could see running a little more but to argue they should have had a balanced offense is hoping for something that is highly unlikely to happen.

A perfect example of this is the Tennessee v Florida game earlier this year.

The Vols were up 10 (I think) at halftime and had no success in the running game at all in the first half. In the second half, they continued to run the ball, trying to run out the clock because they had the lead.

Because we kept running the ball into three and outs and giving the ball right back to Florida, they had the opportunity to come back and win 21-20.

Had we abandoned an obviously pathetic run game that day, we likely beat Florida and the whole season is completely different.

Running the ball when ahead is an excellent strategy, if you can move the ball when running. The Patriots couldn't move it and thus had the correct strategy to focus on passing the ball.

[sherwood921]

God, Bill Plaschke is such a stain on sports journalism:

 

Best question of Media Day comes from the Los Angeles Times' Bill Plaschke, who grills Tank Johnson, asking him if he's gone out to nightclubs since he's been in Miami and if he's sorry for what happened.

 

"Sorry to who?" asks Tank.

 

"Sorry to society," says Plaschke.

 

Johnson then turns his back to Plaschke while the reporter says "no seriously" a couple times.

 

The silence and tension last for 30 seconds, as none of the 30 or so reporters around Johnson asks another question, waiting for Johnson to say something.

 

Sorry to society? What? Did Tank kill someone or something? How did the charges against him adversely affect society?

 

Tankful of Excuses

 

You saw it coming...what a hypocritical hack.

 

ETA: I thought the judge who let him come here was a Packer fan, not a "judge in Bears clothing."

 

While I agree with you...Johnson did say some pretty stupid things there.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Sunday: A 40 percent chance of rain. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 77. West wind 6 to 15 mph becoming north. Winds could gust as high as 20 mph.

 

Sunday Night: A 50 percent chance of rain. Mostly cloudy and breezy, with a low around 66.

 

A VIGOROUS UPPER ATMOSPHERE SHORT WAVE OVER THE SOUTHEASTERN STATES IS THEN EXPECTED TO PUSH THE FRONT BACK SOUTH SUNDAY BUT SLOWLY WITH ISENTROPIC LIFT RESULTING IN RAIN DEVELOPING ALONG AND BEHIND THE FRONT SUNDAY INTO SUNDAY NIGHT ALONG WITH A BLUSTERLY NORTH TO NORTHEAST WIND FLOW.

 

Looks like rain and wind might be an issue.