goonys evil twin

It's quite a bit premature for Colts fans to start comparing the playoff success of Peyton Manning and his team to the success of Tom Brady and his team. I don't see how they are doing that. They are celebrating the fact that Peyton and the Colts beat the Patriots, a feat that many people decided was impossible.

Triple B, Short of the Cubs acquiring a right-handed platoon partner for Jones, I still think that when the Cubs are facing a lefty, Lou Piniella will consider using DeRosa in RF and starting Theriot at 2B. Hoops I hope you are right, as I would be pretty pleased to see that. I would be pleased as well. I still think they need a RH bat for the bench.

They don't do the crap Bush did. Everybody in the league does some sort of celebration, that's completely different from pointing at your opponent on the way into the end zone and doing the flip. Dance all you want, that's part of the game. Flipping into the end zone is not. So dancing after you sack a quarterback is not taunting, but doing a flip into the end zone is? Sounds like quite the double standard there, not to mention that "dancing" really is not a part of the game at all. It's not a double standard. Pulling that crap while the play is ongoing is taunting. Celebrating afterward is commonplace, and accepted. I don't care for it at all. I get annoyed when Bears players do it. But there is a significant difference between pointing/flipping during the play and dancing afterward. It's not a double standard, it's quite a simple and clear distinction.

Over the course of the season, including the playoffs, youd o not believe that the Bears have proven themselves to be a better team than the Colts? I do. Not that that brings in match ups or anything. May I ask how the Bears have proved to be a better team? Record against Common Opponents-Colts-6-0, Bears-3-2 That's just one statistic. Now, I am not one of these Colts fans who believe that the Colts are better than the Bears-they are not. This is going to be a very even game, although I do think there are some matchups the Colts can exploit. I certainly do not think though that the Bears have proven that they are better than the Colts, and am wondering what your evidence is for that. I would say the evidence is that Indy lost multiple meaningful games down the stretch against ho-hum competition. Indy got the ball run down their throat repeatedly, and while the playoff run stopping has been impressive, it's been as much about teams abandoning the run against them as it has been about Indy stopping people. Both teams scored the same amount of points while the Bears gave up a lot less (and when you including playoff games, the Bears have scored more ppg). I guess that would be the evidence. Although I'm not going to say that it proves the Bears are better. I think it's a great matchup of two equally matched teams. And I have no problem with Indy being a 7-point favorite. Spreads aren't about experts saying which team is better, they are a means to get people to gamble. Not many people would bet on the Bears if they were favorites due to the perception that they are somehow not deserving of being here.

They don't do the crap Bush did. Everybody in the league does some sort of celebration, that's completely different from pointing at your opponent on the way into the end zone and doing the flip. Dance all you want, that's part of the game. Flipping into the end zone is not.

Mike and the Mad Dog aren't giving the Bears a chance, predicting Indy wins by 14-20 points. It's deja vu all over again.

So anyway, Oneri Fleiti doesn't look anything like I thought he looked like.

:roll: Seriously. For once, I don't mind the roll-eyes. How many QB's have performed like Rex has with the amount of game experience Rex has? Not many. Hell, look at Drew Brees's first couple of seasons. If you compare, his numbers are right there with any of the greats this early in his career. He may or may not become a great QB (all it will really take is the consistency to turn his clunkers into mediocre games like yesterday), but how anyone could pass judgment on him already, based on what he's shown, is beyond me. To be fair (and trying to stay out of the "is Rex good" debate), RSF said Rex IS not good at football. I don't recall reading anything from him saying Rex WILL NOT be good at football or HAS NO CHANCE at being good at football later. I don't see how that's fair. Saying he is not good at football is saying you don't know anything about football. You don't do what Rex has done in the NFL without being good at football.

At least both of them answered "no". Theisman answered no, but said that's only because he hasn't played in the Super Bowl yet. Sometimes, I wish LT broke Theismans neck, instead of his leg. I think everybody is taking this the wrong way. From reading his whole answer and his other answers, I think he is saying Rex is young and he'll prove that he is a good QB; worthy of leading a Super Bowl team. I agree, he's saying Grossman will prove worthy of the honor of being a Super Bowl QB, even though many people think he's a blight on the game. Theismann: No, Grossman isn't the worse quarterback in Super Bowl history. He hasn't even played in the game yet. Give him time and he'll prove worthy of this honor, even if he might not be now in some people's eyes. Theisman has been a relative Bears supporter for a few years now. I remember him picking them quite frequently before the team really emerged as a real threat.

Fred Thomas should be shot. He's no NFL DB and it's stunning he is still in the league. I've watched the replay several times now and it makes me sicker each time I watch it. A mediocre college DB would have been able to knock that ball away. That play almost made me throwup. Wow. The kid's doing the best he can. Look, the Saints put all their eggs into the offensive basket this year. That dictates there will be some sacrifices on the defensive side, just because of the salary cap. Also----good corners are in short supply in this league. Some teams with good defenses find themselves a little shaky at that position. Honestly? If I'm a safety and I know my CB can't cover and I see the Bears best WR lining up 1-on-1, I'm making damn sure I get over to help out in coverage. But that's just me. Speaking of which, thats been a problem for the Bears often when people want to blame our corners for some coverage problems. Its usually the Safeties fault for not coming over there in time. And/or the d-line's fault for giving the QB too much time.

I think there are a few reasons. First of all, their most prominent hometown writer, Pierson, made that claim going into the playoffs. He actually thought the Seahawks and Chiefs were more exciting stories. But some of it comes from the Jets game, when they beat NY with a fairly blah gameplan. Everybody decided that the only smart way for Rex to play was to be game manager Rex from that game, so they automatically hand the Bears the boring label. And then, of course, the Bears have been known as a low scoring, field position, defense and running game team. Nobody is talking about how many points the Bears actually scored this year. Nobody will talk about how the Bears have actually average more points per game played this season than Indy (including playoffs it's 27.4 - 26.5). It just doesn't fit into their talking points.

If Soriano plays like Pierre everyday, there will definitely be some holes.

I seriously doubt that made a lick of difference. Do the Bears D have to get taunted to play hard and effective? No, they just need to play a team with a better defense, like the Saints, to get inspired.

The difference between Rex and a typical game manager is that Rex completed multiple big time passes. A game manager is just supposed to complete short passes and not screw up. Rex provides an opportunity for big plays. True he does have that ability to go long but they ran the ball enough to keep the game out of his hands. That pass that the Bear WR made a wonderful play for a TD on should have been an interception. Somebody else wrote something very wise about the "should have been an interception" theory. It just doesn't hold true. The only time you can say that is when a guy is standing still and it hits him in the chest. DBacks are not receivers. QBs can take risks because they know their WR are the better receivers back there, and the vast majority of the time, the pass will end up complete or incomplete. There's no reason why that "should have been an int". It wasn't, and the only way it could have been is if the DB made an amazing play. I don't think you can assum players should be able to make amazing plays.

The difference between Rex and a typical game manager is that Rex completed multiple big time passes. A game manager is just supposed to complete short passes and not screw up. Rex provides an opportunity for big plays.

Agreed. If the Bears are going to win, Grossman is definitely going to have to make some big plays. Or no stupid ones. I'm not sure if Rex just playing safe is going to do it. The Colts are going to put up points. Rex might have to answer the call on one or more occasions. The one thing I'm nervous about is the mystique of the Super Bowl getting to a guy like Grossman. Manning seems to be the seasoned vet that might thrive under Super Bowl pressure. (Although I am aware of his past playoff problems) This is the type of game that could define Rex Grossman's career. If he does well under this type of pressure, I can see him becoming great. If he folds, well, lets not get into that. The Bears have won with great Rex, the Bears have won with terrible Rex, and the Bears have won with mediocre Rex. I'm not going to put any "they can only win if Rex...." type restraints on this team. The Bears' chances of victory almost definitely reside in their defense and special teams. If they are at the top of their game, they could probably win this game without Rex doing anything.

I think they do a pretty good job with holding. It's a tough one. But they basically let anything go until you are reaching for guys or literally wrapping your arms around them. If you're in close with hands in front, you can clutch, but you can't reach. I'm fine with that.

From ESPN Page 2's AM Jump: Kyle Orton already listed as "doubtful" for Super Bowl with severe hangover (DJ Gallo has overtaken The Sports Guy in humorous sports-related writing)

And I hope Hendry is right about Izturis. But, I'm very, very skeptical that Izturis will be any better with a bat than the worst SS's in the league. if he stays healthy & plays great defense, does it really matter what he hits? the sox & cards won the WS with guys who had .713 & .694 ops's respectively. Of course it matters. That black hole in the lineup has more of an impact than anything he does on defense, no matter how good his glove is. Those teams may have won with those shortstops, but it wasn't because of them. Obviously it matters. I don't get why people think it doesn't. Just because other teams have won with bad players it doesn't mean the Cubs should purposefully use bad players. The CWS won with a supply of quality pitching that the Cubs are not guaranteed to have, and STL won because they were lucky to make the playoffs in the first place and they got extremely timely quality pitching from some otherwise mediocre pitchers.

If they cover kicks the way they did yesterday, Hester will have 3 returns for TD.

The Saints have nothing to be disappointed about. They will be a team to take seriously next year. Not that they shouldn't have been taken seriously this year. They were the team I was most afraid of in the NFC this year. Brees is an awesome QB. If Brees had time he could have done a lot of damage. I'm not sure why the Saints abandoned the running game just to ease the pressure but Peyton knows his team and I'm sure he had a reason. Can you really say they abandoned the run when they never really ran in the first place? Deuce and Reggie combined for 10 carries. Brees threw the ball 49 times. I don't get the abandoned the run story. New Orleans lived by the pass and they died by the pass. They are not a good running team. They had one of the lowest running averages in the league this year. They were top 5 in passing attempts this year. People were talking about the Deuce and Reggie show, but the fact is that team relied on the passing game more than anything else. It was a question of whether or not Drew could lead that offense threw the air against the Bears. And he couldn't.

Well, at least the national media will have something they enjoy covering instead of having to write about these boring crappy Bears.

The Colts are the better team, so for ease of victory I'd prefer the Bears play the Pats, but I was rooting for Indy last night and believe this is the true matchup of the league's best teams. I would have hated to deal with 2 weeks of Brady/Belicheck fellating. I was impressed with the way Indy stopped the Chiefs running attack. But the Ravens were not a good running game, and Lewis is just a shell of his former self. While they shut down Maroney yesterday, he's never really impressed me all that much. And two other mediocre backs had some big averages. People were critical of Herm for just running it into the middle, but the fact is KC only had 17 rushing attempts in that game. New England had just 24 and Baltimore had 20. These are teams that averaged 30+ rushes per game. The Bears averaged 31.5 in the regular season and have gone 34 and 46 in the two playoff games. The Bears have to stick with the run, even if Indy stops the first few, and I think even if they get down by double digits early.

If Hendry finds a way to field an OF with Murton, Soriano, Jones, Floyd, RH bat to platoon with Jones who really handles lefties well, then I think the Cubs OF would quite possibly be the most productive in the NL.

Why? A prospect who can't be traded has only one way of helping a team, and that is by becoming a good major league player. If a prospect can't be traded, I'd estimate 25-40% of his value to the team disappears.