VanceJergins

But what if you dont believe that this happened, much less is possible? It always bothers me when people say something like this. Are you kidding me? I answered that in the part of my post that you didnt quote. I said, "I'm not saying you have to believe that, but that is what a good amount of people believe." It doesnt matter if you dont believe it, it offends the people that do believe it, which there are 2 billion of. Btw, I feel bad for rocket sauce, he's apologized like 5 times and even changed his post but still ended up kind of looking bad. I dont have any hard feeling towards anyone about this, I just wanted to put my opinions out there. Using the Lord's name in vain is like saying, "I just flushed a steamy Muhammad"....I hope this Floyd deal turns out well. GO CUBS!

=D> =D> =D> I guess since Muskat has not asked you to remove derogatory posts about her we can continue calling her Muskat. Maybe we can mix it up a little, like God Muskat damn. . btw - I have reason to believe that Carrie's been here in the past. OTOH, I'm pretty sure it's not worth God's time to see what people are saying about Him here. And I'd hope that He's got a pretty thick skin about such things. I've never understood why He would be put out by mere mortals using his name in vain, anyway. It seems so petty. If you were all powerful, would you care?!? If I was all powerful and cared about my creation so much that I became a man and died for them....yes, I think I would care. I'm not saying you have to believe that, but thats what a good amount of people believe. When you take the Lord's name in vain, you're reducing the name of the God that many believe suffered and died for them, to a cuss word. You're equating the words "God" and "Jesus" with words like "damn" and "crap". I think calling Muskat, Muskat, is stupid, but it doesnt carry the same weight as turning the name of people's Savior into a cuss word....But thats just what I believe and you're welcome to disagree.

That's the official storyline, but the fact is KC had only 17 runs while Baltimore had only 20, well below their season averages. Both teams threw considerably more frequently than they ran. At the start of the game thats all they tried to do, but when they were averaging less than a yard per carry (negative yards for a good amount of the first half) they tried something else. Its not that they didnt try to run, its that running didnt work, Dungy had great game plans and they executed amazingly. Baltimore was the same thing only not quite as dominant. There's also the time of possession to look at, the Colts completely owned the Chiefs and they didnt run many plays total. I agree with that, I should have said, "I dont agree with THOSE examples". But again, you do have to look at the competition. The Colts have beaten the best teams in the league. The best team the Bears have beaten is the Saints. The teams the Colts have beaten that are better than the Saints are New England (twice, home and away), Baltimore, and Denver (at the time they played). The Colts have lost to some bad teams but they seem to have righted the ship.

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. Thats not even close to being true. Thats all Kansas and Baltimore tried to do. They may have started passing more towards the end of the games, but it has definitely been Indy's D stopping some of the best backs in the league. And about the Bears being better in the playoffs, you cant ignore the fact that the Bears would probably be the only NFC team in the playoffs if they were in the AFC. Going through Seattle and New Orleans isnt quite like going through Baltimore (in Baltimore) and New England. I think the Bears are a great team and could definitely win this game, I just dont really agree with the examples you used.

Hhah, fo-sho, bro. How can there be pass interference if the guy doesn't TOUCH the other player? I don't care if he dives in front of him and doesn't turn around....he didn't TOUCH THE GUY. Either way. The calls didn't make the Patriots give up 32 points or whatever in the second half. Any defensive stand on any number of drives and they'd be in the Super Bowl. That is a clearly defined rule. You cannot just turn your back and stick your hands up. Thats face-guarding and its against the rules. Its not even a controversial call. Was not aware. Either way, its a dumb play by the DB, because even if he didn't touch the guy, he made no attempt to play the ball at all, and left himself exposed to the PI. Why is this a rule anyway? If he doesn't touch the receiver, how is he interfering with his ability to get the ball? First of all, I think I over-reacted a little bit, so sorry for that. I'm not sure why its a rule. I remember having it called against my high school team several years ago and being a little confused, but I've seen it called in the NFL a few times since then. I think its just so people arent just sticking their hands in the receiver's face to try and block their vision and stuff like that. Understood. I didn't mind the 2nd one so much either, if only because it enabled me to get off the quote of the night to one of my friends I was watching the game with: (This was after the two Caldwell drops) "The only excuse they could have for not calling it is if they ruled it uncatchable because it was thrown to Reche Caldwell." Haha, he had some pretty ridiculous non-catches. Although the one where NOBODY was on him wouldnt have been a touchdown because Sanders had an angle on him....that was still hilariously awful.

Hhah, fo-sho, bro. How can there be pass interference if the guy doesn't TOUCH the other player? I don't care if he dives in front of him and doesn't turn around....he didn't TOUCH THE GUY. Either way. The calls didn't make the Patriots give up 32 points or whatever in the second half. Any defensive stand on any number of drives and they'd be in the Super Bowl. That is a clearly defined rule. You cannot just turn your back and stick your hands up. Thats face-guarding and its against the rules. Its not even a controversial call. Was not aware. Either way, its a dumb play by the DB, because even if he didn't touch the guy, he made no attempt to play the ball at all, and left himself exposed to the PI. Why is this a rule anyway? If he doesn't touch the receiver, how is he interfering with his ability to get the ball? First of all, I think I over-reacted a little bit, so sorry for that. I'm not sure why its a rule. I remember having it called against my high school team several years ago and being a little confused, but I've seen it called in the NFL a few times since then. I think its just so people arent just sticking their hands in the receiver's face to try and block their vision and stuff like that.

Hhah, fo-sho, bro. How can there be pass interference if the guy doesn't TOUCH the other player? I don't care if he dives in front of him and doesn't turn around....he didn't TOUCH THE GUY. Either way. The calls didn't make the Patriots give up 32 points or whatever in the second half. Any defensive stand on any number of drives and they'd be in the Super Bowl. That is a clearly defined rule. You cannot just turn your back and stick your hands up. Thats face-guarding and its against the rules. Its not even a controversial call.

Just a few things: 1. The Saints offense is definitely not better than the Colts'. The Colts put up good numbers against the best defenses in the league all season. 34 at Denver when their defense had been off to one of the best starts in NFL history, at New England, at Baltimore (not huge numbers, but decent yardage). And no offense to the Bears but the Ravens' D is a decent amount better and they wont be playing in Chicago. The Saints had a good season but the Colts have many more weapons and are just better. 2. The people saying, "just run, run, run" havent been watching the playoffs. They completely shut down Johnson and Lewis in the last two games and did pretty good against NE's 3 backs. It was the passing and special teams that gave them the most trouble tonight. The Colts have gotten much better against the run with Morris, Bethea, and the superhuman Sanders. I dont think the Colts are a lot better than the Bears, but they're better than the Saints and a lot of the things you heard during the regular season dont apply anymore.

I wasn't going to be the one to say it, but my thinking was that if some calls had been switched(namely your 1 and 2), the Pats would've won and many people would've cried foul about the Pats being gifted the AFC again. 1. That was face-guarding. You have to try and get to the ball, you can't just turn your back and try to block out the receiver. That was very good, obvious call. 2. Yeah, there should have been a call, but there are plenty of calls like that both ways every game. If I reviewed the tape I could find at least 10 each way. 3. Thems the rules. He hit the quarterback after the pass was cleared. I dont like weak calls like that, but those are the rules. How about the double face-mask that was called only on the Colts, another very obvious face-mask on a kick-off, the receiver whose back foot was touching the back of the end-zone before he jumped up and made the catch, which he probably wouldn't have come down with both feet anyway? The Colts clutched their way to a clutch victory behind the amazingly clutchy Peyton Manning with the Jackson cluthingly picking off Cpt. Clutch in the clutchiest part of the game and Bill Belichick clutched up a clutchstorm as he clutchtastically pouted in the post-game interview. The Colts won because they're better, not because of the calls. GO COLTS!!!! (The Bears are my 2nd favorite so I wont cry too much if they win.)

The Colts are favored by 3-the opinion is pretty much split down the middle on this one. It really is because of the Colts variability-nobody really knows what Manning or the Colts defense is going to do on Sunday. If they're both good to great, the Colts blow the Patriots out. If they're both bad, the Colts will almost certainly lose. If one is good and the other is not (or if both are average), it will be a very, very good game (which is the most likely option). Man, I'm all about great games and storybook finishes, but I dont want this game to be close. I want the Colts to have a comfortable 14+ point win. Then they can have their classic in the superbowl. I just finally want a team I love to be in a championship.

That would definitely be interesting with so many ball state students being from the region but Colts fans would still out number them pretty heavily.

If the Colts' defense can be anywhere close to the past 2 weeks, I think the Colts should definitely win this game. I dont see Manning having 3 horrible weeks in a row, he's going to be motivated like never before.

I distinctly remember that too. I dont think I was very old at the time but remember being very shocked.

I'd add Bedard to that list and then agree with you.

"Kenny Rogers: I resolve to use Vaseline next time. " I think this one crossed the line. :wink:

Sorry about that everybody.

If not before... I agree. However, with Boras as his agent (if he is still z's agent) I'm thinking talks won't start until after Zito is signed. Just my 2 cents. Either way, I expect Hendry to get him signed. Hendry seems to be playing with monopoly money this year. I'm pretty sure Zambrano fired Boras. So that will probably make things a little easier.

I'm very against Murton having to share time with Floyd, and I'm not a big Jones fan, but how can you say that the projected 07 outfield would be worse than 06 and especially 05? 05 was probably the peak of crappiness followed closely by 06, but Murton, Jones, Soriano wouldnt be a bad outfield.

Dang, I just looked up Bagwell's stats and he was much better than I thought. I never really paid much attention to him but he had some amazing seasons. I think he definitely deserves the HOF.

I don't know exactly what the Nats have asked for Church, but it's likely they've started with Rich Hill. They're famous for this kind of stuff. It's possible a trade could happen late in the off-season or during spring training. I've not heard the name of Gross mentioned with the Cubs. Thanks for the insight Bruce.

I'm surprised its getting so much consideration considering his hideous winter.

Gross is worse than Jones. He batted .095 against lefties last year. Yuck. I would much rather keep Jones. I hadnt looked at his splits...but that was only 21 AB's

Bruce, have you heard any specifics as to what Washington is asking for Church and if you think those demands will come down as the offseason goes on? Do you know if the Cubs have considered guys like Gabe Gross?

i would say its almost a sure lock that soraino is in rf next year. 2b & cf seem to be out of the question and they want murton to get a shot in left. they just need to get rid of jones. I dont seriously want Klesko in RF.

I fully expect Klesko to repeat his 384 OPS+ from last year...we need him in RF.