CP_414

you forgot to mention 3 things: 1. the patriots, for some mystifying reason, maybe they wanted to lose or something, ran the ball 5 times in the second half after dominating the line of scrimmage in the first half. why did big fat slobby want brady in the shotgun for the entire half? who knows? all i know is that both dillon and faulk averaged nearly 7 yards per carry in that game and the belichek, looking like he just fell out of bed, doesn't go with the ground game in the second half, unbelievable--this perception of belichek as some sort of genius has made him the ultimate arrogant poo-hole. 2. the ravens just kept turning the ball over, and that's a credit to the colts defense, no doubt. but it's not like jamal lewis was held down or anything. both lewis and mike anderson were over 4 yards per carry in the game--they just didn't have a chance to run the ball very much, what with the exalted steve mcnair throwing goal-line interceptions and such. 3. the chiefs just didn't have time to get johnson started. most of that can be attributed to the colts ball control offense holding the ball for twice as long as the chiefs. I'll just do the Patriots game for now-I can tell you why Belicheck stopped running the ball-it wasn't working! Dillon had the 35 yard run on 4th and 1 (when everyone knows if it breaks through, it can be a big play). Faulk went out of the game with an injury, but before that yes, he had 4 carries for 27 yards, all on draw plays on 2nd and 3rd and long (and the Patriots only picked up 1 first down on any of Faulk's carries, and one other of his draws set up the 4th and 1 that Dillon's long run came from). Other than those runs, the Patriots carried the ball 19 times for 31 yards. They simply could not run the ball effectively on 1st and 2nd down, which made them go to 3rd downs consistently when they tried to run. Also-it's 21-3 Patriots now in the second quarter. Look at their runs after this point (not counting the Brady kneel down): 1-10-Maroney for -3 2-5-Maroney for -1 2-10 Faulk for 8 (his last run before his injury, he was really the only back the Colts had trouble with all postseason) 1-10-Maroney for -1 1-6-Dillon for -1 2-6-Maroney for -2 3-10-Evans for 4 Your team's only running success has been running draws in passing situations with your 3rd down back, who is now hurt, and a 4th and 1 play where the other teams defense gambled that it would be a QB sneak and lost. Your other 2 runningbacks last 5 runs have all resulted in negative yardage, not even a single one got back to the line of scrimmage, and you have Tom Brady. Are you going to keep running the ball? This sounds exactly like what we heard about the Saints run defense. They give up 1 or 2 big plays, but other than that they shut teams down. They had the most stops on running plays for 1 yard or less in the league, or something like that. If I were the Patriots, yes I would have kept running. o start a half up 21-6, and only run the ball 5 times in that half is poor coaching, especially with #18 on the other side of the ball. Maybe they had 7 carries for 4 yards, but they also had quite a bit of success running before those 7 carries. If Brady had gone 1 of 7 for 4 yards on seven consecutive passes at some point in the game, do you stop passing? I don't think so. The problem was, they simply didn't. Dillon and Maroney struggled most of the game running on 1st and 2nd down. Faulk was out of the game, so the Patriots couldn't use him-he was the only runningback having any kind of consistent success whatsoever. Besides, they couldn't run the ball much more in the 2nd half. Every time they ran the ball, it put them into a passing situation that wouldn't allow them to get another carry (2nd or 3rd and long). When the Patriots passed, they had more success. The Colts scored 32 points in the second half, if the Patriots had done a better job of controlling the clock, there is no way the Colts would have been able to score 32 in a half. Dillon had 48 yards on 7 carries. Yes, 35 of them came on 1 play, but if he has 12 more carries, he may bust a few more for 35 as well. The Pats had more success in the first half when they balanced runs and passes than they did in the second half where they passed nearly every play. They scored 14 offensive points in the first half and won the time of possession, while they scored 13 offensive points in the second half and lost the time of possession. If they worked the clock better, and ran more they would have been able to protect their lead better. I also don't get how you can say they couldn't run the ball any more often in the second half. They had multiple drives in the second half where they did not call one rushing play. Maybe Dillon breaks another 35 yarder, but that is not nearly as likely since the conditions of the 4th and 1 play were not likely to happen again (the Colts sent everybody up the middle on that play, while normally they would be pursuing to the outside on even a down like 3rd and 1). Here are the Patriots 2nd half possessions-yes, they could have ran the ball more, but I don't think that much more: 1st possession 1-10-Inc Pass 2-10-Faulk for 8 3-10-Pass complete, no gain More runs? 1 probably-if they ran on 1st down, they wouldn't have run on 2nd down, but they could have ran it on 3rd and 2. 2nd possession- 1-10-Maroney for -1 2-11-Pass for 17 yards 1-goal from 5-Dillon for -1 2-goal from 6-pass inc 3-goal from 6-pass, TD extra runs-0, I don't see anywhere where they should have ran and didn't. 3rd possession- 1-10-Pass for 4 2-6-Maroney for -2 3-8-Pass for 6, punt extra runs-0, the pass on 1st down was as good as a run, they tried running the ball on 2nd down, and that forced them into a 3rd and long 4th possession- 1-10-pass for 16 1-10-pass for 14 1-10-penalty for 5 1-15 (from the Colts 18)-pass inc 2-15-pass for 8 3-7-pass inc extra runs-0-I'm not sure where the Patriots were supposed to run here. The first two passes worked great, and 1-15 from the 18 yard line is not a great place to run, as it's even hard to run a draw from there being so close to the goal line. 5th possession- 1-10-pass for 25 1-10-pass inc 2-10-pass inc 3-10-run for 4 extra runs-1, they could have easily run on 1st or 2nd down-although if they had run on one of those downs, they probably wouldn't have run on 3rd down (because the 3rd down run was just to set up the field goal)-so it's 1, but a shaky 1. 6th possession- 1-15 (12 men in the huddle penalty)-pass for 7 2-8-pass for 4 3-4-pass inc runs-1 maybe? The Colts were gearing up to stop the run, as they needed to get the ball back without giving up a single first down-the Patriots were going for the knockout punch, as they usually do-that penalty at the start ruined any chance they had at running for the first down really. last drive they were forced to pass, as I'm sure you agree. Well, there you have it. I think the Patriots could have ran the ball 3 more times in the half, but I don't think that would have made much of a difference. You are assuming none of those extra runs could lead to more first downs and longer drives. That is not an assumption I would agree with.

you forgot to mention 3 things: 1. the patriots, for some mystifying reason, maybe they wanted to lose or something, ran the ball 5 times in the second half after dominating the line of scrimmage in the first half. why did big fat slobby want brady in the shotgun for the entire half? who knows? all i know is that both dillon and faulk averaged nearly 7 yards per carry in that game and the belichek, looking like he just fell out of bed, doesn't go with the ground game in the second half, unbelievable--this perception of belichek as some sort of genius has made him the ultimate arrogant poo-hole. 2. the ravens just kept turning the ball over, and that's a credit to the colts defense, no doubt. but it's not like jamal lewis was held down or anything. both lewis and mike anderson were over 4 yards per carry in the game--they just didn't have a chance to run the ball very much, what with the exalted steve mcnair throwing goal-line interceptions and such. 3. the chiefs just didn't have time to get johnson started. most of that can be attributed to the colts ball control offense holding the ball for twice as long as the chiefs. I'll just do the Patriots game for now-I can tell you why Belicheck stopped running the ball-it wasn't working! Dillon had the 35 yard run on 4th and 1 (when everyone knows if it breaks through, it can be a big play). Faulk went out of the game with an injury, but before that yes, he had 4 carries for 27 yards, all on draw plays on 2nd and 3rd and long (and the Patriots only picked up 1 first down on any of Faulk's carries, and one other of his draws set up the 4th and 1 that Dillon's long run came from). Other than those runs, the Patriots carried the ball 19 times for 31 yards. They simply could not run the ball effectively on 1st and 2nd down, which made them go to 3rd downs consistently when they tried to run. Also-it's 21-3 Patriots now in the second quarter. Look at their runs after this point (not counting the Brady kneel down): 1-10-Maroney for -3 2-5-Maroney for -1 2-10 Faulk for 8 (his last run before his injury, he was really the only back the Colts had trouble with all postseason) 1-10-Maroney for -1 1-6-Dillon for -1 2-6-Maroney for -2 3-10-Evans for 4 Your team's only running success has been running draws in passing situations with your 3rd down back, who is now hurt, and a 4th and 1 play where the other teams defense gambled that it would be a QB sneak and lost. Your other 2 runningbacks last 5 runs have all resulted in negative yardage, not even a single one got back to the line of scrimmage, and you have Tom Brady. Are you going to keep running the ball? This sounds exactly like what we heard about the Saints run defense. They give up 1 or 2 big plays, but other than that they shut teams down. They had the most stops on running plays for 1 yard or less in the league, or something like that. If I were the Patriots, yes I would have kept running. o start a half up 21-6, and only run the ball 5 times in that half is poor coaching, especially with #18 on the other side of the ball. Maybe they had 7 carries for 4 yards, but they also had quite a bit of success running before those 7 carries. If Brady had gone 1 of 7 for 4 yards on seven consecutive passes at some point in the game, do you stop passing? I don't think so. The problem was, they simply didn't. Dillon and Maroney struggled most of the game running on 1st and 2nd down. Faulk was out of the game, so the Patriots couldn't use him-he was the only runningback having any kind of consistent success whatsoever. Besides, they couldn't run the ball much more in the 2nd half. Every time they ran the ball, it put them into a passing situation that wouldn't allow them to get another carry (2nd or 3rd and long). When the Patriots passed, they had more success. The Colts scored 32 points in the second half, if the Patriots had done a better job of controlling the clock, there is no way the Colts would have been able to score 32 in a half. Dillon had 48 yards on 7 carries. Yes, 35 of them came on 1 play, but if he has 12 more carries, he may bust a few more for 35 as well. The Pats had more success in the first half when they balanced runs and passes than they did in the second half where they passed nearly every play. They scored 14 offensive points in the first half and won the time of possession, while they scored 13 offensive points in the second half and lost the time of possession. If they worked the clock better, and ran more they would have been able to protect their lead better. I also don't get how you can say they couldn't run the ball any more often in the second half. They had multiple drives in the second half where they did not call one rushing play.

you forgot to mention 3 things: 1. the patriots, for some mystifying reason, maybe they wanted to lose or something, ran the ball 5 times in the second half after dominating the line of scrimmage in the first half. why did big fat slobby want brady in the shotgun for the entire half? who knows? all i know is that both dillon and faulk averaged nearly 7 yards per carry in that game and the belichek, looking like he just fell out of bed, doesn't go with the ground game in the second half, unbelievable--this perception of belichek as some sort of genius has made him the ultimate arrogant poo-hole. 2. the ravens just kept turning the ball over, and that's a credit to the colts defense, no doubt. but it's not like jamal lewis was held down or anything. both lewis and mike anderson were over 4 yards per carry in the game--they just didn't have a chance to run the ball very much, what with the exalted steve mcnair throwing goal-line interceptions and such. 3. the chiefs just didn't have time to get johnson started. most of that can be attributed to the colts ball control offense holding the ball for twice as long as the chiefs. I'll just do the Patriots game for now-I can tell you why Belicheck stopped running the ball-it wasn't working! Dillon had the 35 yard run on 4th and 1 (when everyone knows if it breaks through, it can be a big play). Faulk went out of the game with an injury, but before that yes, he had 4 carries for 27 yards, all on draw plays on 2nd and 3rd and long (and the Patriots only picked up 1 first down on any of Faulk's carries, and one other of his draws set up the 4th and 1 that Dillon's long run came from). Other than those runs, the Patriots carried the ball 19 times for 31 yards. They simply could not run the ball effectively on 1st and 2nd down, which made them go to 3rd downs consistently when they tried to run. Also-it's 21-3 Patriots now in the second quarter. Look at their runs after this point (not counting the Brady kneel down): 1-10-Maroney for -3 2-5-Maroney for -1 2-10 Faulk for 8 (his last run before his injury, he was really the only back the Colts had trouble with all postseason) 1-10-Maroney for -1 1-6-Dillon for -1 2-6-Maroney for -2 3-10-Evans for 4 Your team's only running success has been running draws in passing situations with your 3rd down back, who is now hurt, and a 4th and 1 play where the other teams defense gambled that it would be a QB sneak and lost. Your other 2 runningbacks last 5 runs have all resulted in negative yardage, not even a single one got back to the line of scrimmage, and you have Tom Brady. Are you going to keep running the ball? This sounds exactly like what we heard about the Saints run defense. They give up 1 or 2 big plays, but other than that they shut teams down. They had the most stops on running plays for 1 yard or less in the league, or something like that. If I were the Patriots, yes I would have kept running. o start a half up 21-6, and only run the ball 5 times in that half is poor coaching, especially with #18 on the other side of the ball. Maybe they had 7 carries for 4 yards, but they also had quite a bit of success running before those 7 carries. If Brady had gone 1 of 7 for 4 yards on seven consecutive passes at some point in the game, do you stop passing? I don't think so.

Sure beer pong is far better than Prince, but wouldn't you watch if it was a man racing a zebra? Or a Sumo wrestler against a hippo?

There is no "i" in Chicago?

Illinois's remaining schedule vs. Minnesota at Northwestern at Indiana vs. Northwestern vs. Michigan at Penn St. at Iowa I'm not saying it's impossible for Illinois to lose 3 of those games(I assume you meant finish 9-7 when saying win 6 of their next 8), but it doesn't look very likely to me. Bruce Weber stated they need to win 6 of their last eight (including tonight's game) to get an invite to the dance. I think they need to go 6-1 in their last seven. Even if they finish 9-7 in the conference, they will likely lose their first round Big Ten conference tourney game and I think they wouldn't get invited if that happens. I'm an IU fan, I don't like U of I, if you want to disregard my opinion because of that, feel free to do so. Unless U of I starts putting it together I think they lose at NU, and IU, and at Iowa. Unless you are UW or OSU road wins are still really tough in this conference. I don't disregard a fan's opinion just because they root for another team than my favorite team. Based on what you wrote, you were agreeing with my feelings toward Illinois right now. Although I wouldn't rule out a loss at PSU as well. This will be the first time in many, many, many years that I won't be sad to see the seniors leaving on senior night. I really don't like this team much. I didn't mean you personally by "you", I just have been in enough arguments in this thread to know what was coming if I didn't include that first sentence. Who are the U of I seniors? Carter, McBride, and Marcus Arnold(Praise Jesus) are the seniors. You Illini fans would know about these guys better than me, but Carter always struck me as a guy who never lived up to what he could have been, but has been a very solid player anyway. McBride probably hurts the Illini as much as he helps, and Arnold is a non factor, so it seems like Carter is the only real loss.

What should the Super Bowl Halftime Show be? I've been hoping for a non-musical act for years. I endorse the return of Man vs. Beast.

Didn't the Jets get into some kind of trouble this season because they ran the no-huddle without allowing the defense to sub. I think every time the offense subs someone in they have to allow time for the D to do the same. I imagine the Bears will be in the nickle a lot with Manning, Jr. on the field. Yes, every time the offense subs in they have to allow time for the defense to sub, and yes, the Jets almost got in trouble this year because they didn't allow the Colts time (in fact, the Colts demanded to know if what the Jets did was legal-because if it was, they promised to wreak havoc on the league using that particular rule :D). Like I said though, the Colts don't usually sub, so the Bears won't be able to either. With Stokely gone, most of the the time the Colts will be 2 tight ends, 2 wide receivers, 1 RB. Even when they go to 3 WR's, probably 3/4 of the time they shift one of the tight ends (Clark) out there, so no subbing there. So they really only sub when they either are putting their goal line package in, changing running backs (which they don't do more than once a drive usually at most), or occasionally using Moorehead as the 3rd reciever and putting Wayne into the slot, which they won't do much of if Utecht is healthy. Which way the Bears choose will probably influence the Colts game plan. If the Bears go to nickel most of the time, the Colts will bring Dallas Clark back to the line, and they'll run a large amount of the time. If the Bears play base defense, the Colts will try to exploit the passing game a little bit more, and will have an easier time picking up 3rd downs then if the Bears were constantly in nickel. The Eagles ran nickel all game, and the Colts ran it down their throats, but obviously the Bears have a much better run defense-so it should be an interesting situation to watch. I suspect the Bears will do everything they can to force Manning to hand the ball off as much as possible. You don't want Michael Jordan to be the guy to beat you, you want to force BJ Armstrong to beat you if you can.

Didn't the Jets get into some kind of trouble this season because they ran the no-huddle without allowing the defense to sub. I think every time the offense subs someone in they have to allow time for the D to do the same. I imagine the Bears will be in the nickle a lot with Manning, Jr. on the field.

Illinois's remaining schedule vs. Minnesota at Northwestern at Indiana vs. Northwestern vs. Michigan at Penn St. at Iowa I'm not saying it's impossible for Illinois to lose 3 of those games(I assume you meant finish 9-7 when saying win 6 of their next 8), but it doesn't look very likely to me. Bruce Weber stated they need to win 6 of their last eight (including tonight's game) to get an invite to the dance. I think they need to go 6-1 in their last seven. Even if they finish 9-7 in the conference, they will likely lose their first round Big Ten conference tourney game and I think they wouldn't get invited if that happens. I'm an IU fan, I don't like U of I, if you want to disregard my opinion because of that, feel free to do so. Unless U of I starts putting it together I think they lose at NU, and IU, and at Iowa. Unless you are UW or OSU road wins are still really tough in this conference. I don't disregard a fan's opinion just because they root for another team than my favorite team. Based on what you wrote, you were agreeing with my feelings toward Illinois right now. Although I wouldn't rule out a loss at PSU as well. This will be the first time in many, many, many years that I won't be sad to see the seniors leaving on senior night. I really don't like this team much. I didn't mean you personally by "you", I just have been in enough arguments in this thread to know what was coming if I didn't include that first sentence. Who are the U of I seniors?

#3! Absurd.

Illinois's remaining schedule vs. Minnesota at Northwestern at Indiana vs. Northwestern vs. Michigan at Penn St. at Iowa I'm not saying it's impossible for Illinois to lose 3 of those games(I assume you meant finish 9-7 when saying win 6 of their next 8), but it doesn't look very likely to me. Bruce Weber stated they need to win 6 of their last eight (including tonight's game) to get an invite to the dance. I think they need to go 6-1 in their last seven. Even if they finish 9-7 in the conference, they will likely lose their first round Big Ten conference tourney game and I think they wouldn't get invited if that happens. I'm an IU fan, I don't like U of I, if you want to disregard my opinion because of that, feel free to do so. Unless U of I starts putting it together I think they lose at NU, and IU, and at Iowa. Unless you are UW or OSU road wins are still really tough in this conference.

Thats not funny. Don't tempt the Gods.

Zambrano is younger than Hill. I know what you mean though.

Moose with the 16 yard TD catch ending a 71 yard opening drive.

Benson's talking is the only thing about him that bothers me.

For Bears fans -on these down and distances, do you run the ball somewhat consistently? Or is it going to require more consistent gains on 1st down? 2nd and 6 2nd and 8 2nd and 10-12 3rd and 4 3rd and 5-7 It depends on how things are going and the defense, but I would pass more than throw in those bottom two situations, and run more than pass in the top 3.

I don't think it is realistic to expect Grossman to throw less than 20 times. I think we need to run more than pass, but there has to be some type of balance, and the Bears will be forced to throw over 20 times. If we have 65 offensive plays, 37 runs and 28 passes, that is a solid balance for this game, but it depends on the defense. If they put 8 in the box, Turner has to let Rex try to win the game.

Is this your first superbowl? Um, no. We showed up 1 day earlier than the Colts. 1 day wasted, IMO. The Colts didn't practice. Dungy gave them the weekend off to spend time with their families. The Bears practiced in Miami on Monday. No time wasted. Yeah, both the Bears and the Colts practiced on Monday-so they are really on the exact same schedule, other than the Bears having had off time in Miami while the Colts did in Indy. Yeah, this whole when they arrived issue is the biggest non-story in a long time.

Is this your first superbowl? Um, no. We showed up 1 day earlier than the Colts. 1 day wasted, IMO. The Colts didn't practice. Dungy gave them the weekend off to spend time with their families. The Bears practiced in Miami on Monday. No time wasted.

This article just proves that Scoop is a terrible writer. It's heavily biased towards the Bears obviously, and the entire article is garbage. I'm also fairly certain Rex never said "When it's all said and done, I will have multiple Super Bowl rings." I'm pretty sure what he said was "If I have multiple Super bowl rings, I will be satisfied with my career," or something to that effect. No, he actually said it. Good. I like the confidence. Let's get #1 on Sunday, Rex. Its that same confidence that had him hucking it downfield against Arizona and New England even though he clearly didn't have it those days. It's the same confidence that made him the player he is today, starting in the Super Bowl. I would much rather have a confident, hell I would rather have an arrogant QB, than one too timid to make that statement.

This article just proves that Scoop is a terrible writer. It's heavily biased towards the Bears obviously, and the entire article is garbage. I'm also fairly certain Rex never said "When it's all said and done, I will have multiple Super Bowl rings." I'm pretty sure what he said was "If I have multiple Super bowl rings, I will be satisfied with my career," or something to that effect. No, he actually said it. Good. I like the confidence. Let's get #1 on Sunday, Rex.

I just watched Dungy's press conference. It's amazing how much Dungy and Lovie are alike. All class, despite some dumb questions, and a lot of answers that were identical to Lovie's answers from earlier today. The Patriots would have been a lot easier to hate going into this game.

Why though? What does he provide on offense that the regular offensive players can't? Would it just be as a gimmick when you're already up big? Cuz I don't see us being up that big honestly. Line up #54 as an extra tight end on 3rd and goal from the 3. Seemed like Vrabel had a lot of success doing it against the Colts.

Sportscenter talking about Urlacher seing time on offense in the Super Bowl. I remember that TD catch he had on the fake FG in Washington years ago. It might be worth a shot once, it's the freaking Super Bowl.