rchap24

ditto 2-5...Boise had it the whole game come on pull through I lost 7 on that

Why would the first guy knock it back in to down it? It was going out of bounds at the 2? It was pretty obvious that both thought it was a live ball and were trying to score with it. I personally think the ruling should be, if not a live ball, the ball is downed at the exact spot the first defensive player touches it. It's stupid that it counts as a touchback when the team honestly thought it was a live ball and was attempting to score. It's stupid that you think that. Who cares what they honestly thought? The ball isn't downed when you touch it, you have to stop the ball. It counts as a touchback because they took the ball into the end zone, and it should count that way. Down the ball at the 1, it's either Bears ball at the 1 or Packers ball at the 1. The stupid thing is assuming it touched the playerl when nobody on the field made any sort of motion indicating that it did touch the player. I understand what you are saying here, Goony. But, we can't hear what the players are saying on the field. I'm guessing that the closest Bear to the Green Bay receiver was probably yelling "it touched him, it touched him", which could have inspired Jones to take the ball in. I agree that the best case scenario would have been to take possession and down it at the one, but Jones' momentum would have made that pretty difficult to do. If it had touched him and the ball went out of bounds, the ball would have been placed at the 2 and it would have been Green Bay's ball. If that happened and the ball really did touch him, we'd be pissed that someone didn't take it into the endzone. The absolute perfect scenario would be to take possession and down it at the 1, but that's asking an awful lot. Obviously it's the smart play, but like I said 99% of players wouldn't have known if it was a live ball or not and would have gone for the touchdown over putting them down on the 1

I'm not acting like anything, it was dumb. You don't make plays based on what you thought might have happened. You make the right play. Down it at the 1 and it's either Bears ball on 1 or Packers ball on 1. There was no indication it was a live ball, no ref called the fumble (something they will do and players will notice) and there was no good reason to run that into the end zone. You've obviously not played football then...because when people think there's a live ball they go for the ball. In that situation about 99% of players would have gone for the touchdown and not tried to score on it. When your sprinting down the field and there is a possible live ball your not going to look over to the ref and then back to the ball to make sure it's live

Why would the first guy knock it back in to down it? It was going out of bounds at the 2? It was pretty obvious that both thought it was a live ball and were trying to score with it. I personally think the ruling should be, if not a live ball, the ball is downed at the exact spot the first defensive player touches it. It's stupid that it counts as a touchback when the team honestly thought it was a live ball and was attempting to score. It's stupid that you think that. Who cares what they honestly thought? The ball isn't downed when you touch it, you have to stop the ball. It counts as a touchback because they took the ball into the end zone, and it should count that way. Down the ball at the 1, it's either Bears ball at the 1 or Packers ball at the 1. The stupid thing is assuming it touched the playerl when nobody on the field made any sort of motion indicating that it did touch the player. When your running down the field and see it bounce awkwardly and think it might have hit the guy and it was flying toward the end zone....I think...no I know you would have thought it hit him to and have been a live ball...Don't act like it was dumb of the gunners to try to sweep the ball up for a score

I don't think so. If the ball was obviously going to go out at about the 2-yard line, why would the guy knock it back in unless he thought it was a live ball? I think they all thought it was. So what was Jones to do? Unless there was an official making some sort of signal that he could look back and see to indicate the ball didn't touch the punt receiver, he was in a catch-22. The most likely thought it hit him and were try to keep in in play for the touchdown. In that situation you want to score I don't really blame them.

Yeah I forgot to mention about that punt replay...So for the first 10 replays they showed I thought it didn't touch him, but for some reason they decided to show another angle which they hadn't show yet. That was the only angle that showed it touching him...why didn't they show that until the last second!!!!!!! I thought I saw every replay several times. You can just barely make out the football changing its momentum and spin after it passes his foot. There is no angle that CLEARLY showed it touching, but the ball did make that slight adjustment, which is how I could tell it touched him. Yeah, but they kept showing the one from behind and then one from forward back and forth, but then right when the official was coming back from making the decision they showed ONCE from the side and the side angle was the clearest angle....Yeah I agree there was no CLEAR angle, but they kept showing the behind angle and the forward angle and that showed nothing

Yeah I forgot to mention about that punt replay...So for the first 10 replays they showed I thought it didn't touch him, but for some reason they decided to show another angle which they hadn't show yet. That was the only angle that showed it touching him...why didn't they show that until the last second!!!!!!!

True...and about the whole Orton thing he's actually throwing balls at the defense sometimes...Like some of his interceptions don't even look like he intended to hit a receiver. I really think they rushed him back and ever since then he just hasn't had the right mentality that he used to have

We really didn't that now we really realize how much the Packers have fallen

He bases that analysis completely off point differential in games (including a calculated strength of schedule based on the same information). Wins and losses don't directly affect it at all. It's not as "fair" or "sensible" as a system that relates all wins and losses equally, but it's a much better predictor of future performance (thus why he calls it his "predictor"). He actually runs three separate ratings, one on pure point differential, one on pure wins/losses, and one 50/50 combination of the two. Agree with some of it,but some is off I think, but that's a pretty cool ranking system The main drawback to this and Ken Pomeroy's system (http://www.kenpom.com) is that it's still early enough in the season that a blowout or two in either direction can really affect the overall standing of a team. As the season progresses, the systems get more and more accurate. Well It'll be interesting to look at when we get there

He bases that analysis completely off point differential in games (including a calculated strength of schedule based on the same information). Wins and losses don't directly affect it at all. It's not as "fair" or "sensible" as a system that relates all wins and losses equally, but it's a much better predictor of future performance (thus why he calls it his "predictor"). He actually runs three separate ratings, one on pure point differential, one on pure wins/losses, and one 50/50 combination of the two. Agree with some of it,but some is off I think, but that's a pretty cool ranking system

Wait I'm kind of confused what exactly does he base it off?

that's true

I think it was Favre's domination over the Bears when I was growing up that makes me hate him and the Packers so much. The Vikings were just sort of there, a common enemy of the Packers. Also, I grew up within sight of the Wisconsin border. There were so many Packer fans up there, so that sort of fueled the rivalry for me too.I'm not in awe of their tradition because we have tradition of our own. I have to say the boarder thing with Wisconsin was what made me hate the Colts for the 4 years I was in college. I went to Purdue and every person there is a Colts fan and it just drove me insane. I completely agree with the Farve comment. We hated him because he killed us every year

I said, Arizona beat Gonzaga. No further explanation necessary. People don't watch other games that don't involve big name or ranked teams. Yeah that makes no sense though... It's a popular vote by coaches (assistants?) and media. Legacy and televised games will tend to dominate the mindset of those type of crowds. I could understand like a fan vote for them, but coaches should have better knowledge of whats going on

I said, Arizona beat Gonzaga. No further explanation necessary. People don't watch other games that don't involve big name or ranked teams. Yeah that makes no sense though...

Why? I'd rather see the Packers make it than the Vikings if the Bears were out of it. I hate them both, but I respect the Packers a little. Nah, I agree with UMF on this one. Though I don't think it's the opinion of a majority of Packer fans that the Vikes are a bigger rival than the Bears. I think it's true in the western part of the state, but I think in the corridor from south of Green Bay to the stateline, the Bears are thought of as a bigger rival. It's only been a recent thing where Vikings and Packers have a big rival...My gf lives in Minn right now and her cousins got really up for the Vikings and Packers game

Yeah I understand the reasoning behind the whole New England final game, but I'm just saying like Jacobs if he says he's even a little hurt I think they sit him

Arizona beat Gonzaga, and they're Arizona. Stanford is Stanford, and beat...Northwestern, I guess? reasoning behind Arizona make sense...Stanford makes no sense

Yeah true, but if they do have someone who's even remotely injured they'll rest him

We need to win out...We need the Giants to try even though they have nothing to play for on the road against the Vikes.... Or we need the Eagles to beat the Cowboys and the Raiders to beat the Bucs....Besides that though we still would need to win out I figure even if the Giants don't try, they still have a legit shot to win. The defense will probably play a lot to get them back on track against a strong running team. Tavares had a decent game completion % wise this week. And last week's 4 TD game. So, if he slips up (which is likely, IMO), the Giants can easily win. Still neither of these games are gimmes for the Bears. Houston is tough at home. Yeah if any team has a chance even though they aren't trying its the Giants. Also to add on to it they get to play against one of the most inconsistent QB's in the league. We need to win though bottom line

We need to win out...We need the Giants to try even though they have nothing to play for on the road against the Vikes.... Or we need the Eagles to beat the Cowboys and the Raiders to beat the Bucs....Besides that though we still would need to win out

The Texans are not a bad football team. Had the hurricane not happened and thrown them completely off their routine, I think they'd have another win or two and be just on the outside of the playoff race. They're pretty decent. I know and I have no clue who will try to defend Johnson, but yeah I mean they had the injury to Schaub which really hurt them and the whole hurricane thing kinda of demoralizes any good about the season at that point

I'm not liking the Bears chances with the Vikes playing at home against a Giants team that already clinched top seed. I think Peterson will have a huge game after having his 2nd worst game of the season yesterday and I think The starters will play a little, but the Giants will try to rest up for the next to weeks. Plus I really don't even feel confident about us against the Texans next week.

Same here I think I have like 7 on Boise tommorow