CubColtPacer

I'm not saying he's awful overall and should be benched! I'm saying that for most of the Saints game, Grossman was awful-that's it. Although I do think that if you did that, the only games where Grossman really needed to play well and did were the Detroit, Seattle, Giants, Rams, and Tampa Bay. Why leave out Buffalo and SF? Well, the SF game, they gave the Bears the ball on the SF 15, the SF 41, and the SF 13, and the SF 24-and that was just barely to the first part of the second quarter. I don't think any quarterback could have lost that game with the way the Chicago defense and special teams were playing. The Buffalo game wasn't quite as bad, but the Bears still started at the 50 or better 4 times in the first half. That, combined with the Bears shutting Buffalo out till a late meaningless TD, meant that it was the defense who won the game, not really anything the offense did.

I'm not saying he's awful overall and should be benched! I'm saying that for most of the Saints game, Grossman was awful-that's it. Although I do think that if you did that, the only games where Grossman really needed to play well and did were the Detroit, Seattle, Giants, Rams, and Tampa Bay.

I am a Bears fan, but the whole "who cares about his stats, he wins" argument is the most [expletive] thing in the history of retardation. Having a great supporting cast that bails you out does not erase your mistakes. Sure the bears have won 15 games this year, but what would their record be had Rex been consistently good? 17-1? 18-0? Possibly. When the Bears have lost, Rex has been primarily responsible. This being so on a team with a great running game and great defense, making his poor performances look even worse. As a QB on the Bears, you have to be pretty abysmal to single handedly lose a game. Listen, I think Rex is capable of coming out Sunday and being more than adequate, even throwing for 250+ and a couple TD's and no picks. I believe he just might do that. But let's call a spade a spade. Let's not use platitudes like "but we won" to excuse poor play. And 4-18 in a half, no matter how you want to dissect it, is poor. Let's just hope Rex is better than that Sunday, or we're boned. That wasn't really the point. Don't you think Rex would have played the game differently if we had been losing as opposed to winning? If we had been behind and needing to catchup and he had been 4-18, then that's a heck of a lot worse than 4-18 when you're playing it careful with a lead. That was my point. The problem is, if they had been behind, Rex would have had more of an excuse, because the rushers would have been coming constantly. Instead, he had all the advantages on Sunday-the defense was forcing TO's, the runners were running wild, and yet the game was close because Grossman couldn't move the ball whatsoever against a defense that was trying to stop the run, and so the Bears had to keep settling for FG's. With the way the defense and running game was working, the Bears should have been up by 3 TD's at that point in the 3rd quarter, rather than nursing a 2 point lead. If your QB is being so careful that he's not completing much of anything (and 22.5 percent is not much, especially when 2 of the 4 passes completed were for a 4 yard gain and a 3 yard gain respectively), it's better that you just hand it off every time.

You weren't paying attention if that's what you think. There were a probably a handful of times in the first half where Grossman threw balls away intentionally in an attempt to be extra cautious. He certainly missed some throws (one in particular to Clark in the endzone) but I didn't think he was wildy erratic or anything. That's why I couldn't understand why Aikman and Buck were harping on his slow start, percentage-wise. A QB has to not only not make mistakes-they have to make plays. Even if you take away 5 incompletions as throwaways (which every QB has, BTW) Grossman still started 4/13. 60 percent is considered average for a professional QB. Under 50 percent is considered as being pretty bad, and Grossman's 4/18 start, or 22.5 percent was simply awful. I'll bet there weren't 5 QB's this year all season besides Rex that ever started a game that poorly in completion percentage with so many attempts.

John Clayton's article today pretty much says Harper won't play. He said that he's only been able to get about 10 min of running in this week, and that he's wearing a boot. While that bodes well for us, I hope that Grossman just doesn't key on whoever is replacing Harper and go after him...I want Rex to go through his reads as he normally would. Clayton's article also says Rex has been bad more than good this season. Which is plain wrong any way you try and look at it. It also says what Clayton harps on every time he rights about the Bears: "Fans wanted him replaced by Brian Griese." Nice generalization John. Fans always want the starting QB replaced unless their name is Manning. I had completely missed the "More times, he's been cold" comment. It also says he was terrible in the NFC Championship game. Another lie. Well, to be fair, for most of the game, he was pretty awful, which is how his stats still don't look good even with the one great drive. He didn't throw any INT's, but he couldn't complete any passes for 2 1/2 quarters and basically wasted his defense's efforts until the one drive. Sorry, but I've seen awful Rex. That wasn't awful Rex. Saying he was ineffective for the first half might be more accurate. But awful is just overstating it. It might not be awful Rex, but any time your QB is 4/18 for 54 yards at one point in the second half, it's playing awful as a QB. If any other QB had those numbers, you wouldn't say he was simply "ineffective" Rex has really simply stretched the boundaries of what it means to be awful, as 2 or 3 of his performances this year are probably listed on the 20 or 30 worst games in football history (I know the Arizona game is with 6 TO's). Of course at the same time, he's been very effective in large stretches of the year as well-I'm not saying he's awful overall, but he was awful most of the game last Sunday.

John Clayton's article today pretty much says Harper won't play. He said that he's only been able to get about 10 min of running in this week, and that he's wearing a boot. While that bodes well for us, I hope that Grossman just doesn't key on whoever is replacing Harper and go after him...I want Rex to go through his reads as he normally would. Clayton's article also says Rex has been bad more than good this season. Which is plain wrong any way you try and look at it. Yeah, I don't get that. I suppose if you define "good" as Manning-esque 100+ QB ratings, then yeah Rex only had 7 games like that. But I don't think Peyton had more than 8 100+ QB rating games either, did he? I've been hearing alot on the radio about "Rex getting frustrated" and "Rex fires on the media" I didn't hear the interview, but reading this article it kind of sounds like the moment was actually a humorous one: http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/sports/240266,3_2_EL02_C05BEARS_S1.article The only way I can see it is if they are looking hard at Y/A, which some statisticians think is the most important stat for a QB (Football Outsiders takes this view). Manning had 1 regular season game under 6 Y/A this year-Grossman had 7.

John Clayton's article today pretty much says Harper won't play. He said that he's only been able to get about 10 min of running in this week, and that he's wearing a boot. While that bodes well for us, I hope that Grossman just doesn't key on whoever is replacing Harper and go after him...I want Rex to go through his reads as he normally would. Clayton's article also says Rex has been bad more than good this season. Which is plain wrong any way you try and look at it. It also says what Clayton harps on every time he rights about the Bears: "Fans wanted him replaced by Brian Griese." Nice generalization John. Fans always want the starting QB replaced unless their name is Manning. I had completely missed the "More times, he's been cold" comment. It also says he was terrible in the NFC Championship game. Another lie. Well, to be fair, for most of the game, he was pretty awful, which is how his stats still don't look good even with the one great drive. He didn't throw any INT's, but he couldn't complete any passes for 2 1/2 quarters and basically wasted his defense's efforts until the one drive.

John Clayton's article today pretty much says Harper won't play. He said that he's only been able to get about 10 min of running in this week, and that he's wearing a boot. While that bodes well for us, I hope that Grossman just doesn't key on whoever is replacing Harper and go after him...I want Rex to go through his reads as he normally would. Yeah, apparently according to the metrics Harper has allowed less than 6 Y/A this year, which is amazing. Marlin Jackson should be fine replacing him-what worries me is Kelvin Hayden on Rashied, especially since Rex likes to look that way on 3rd downs.

BTW, the more I hear about it, the more I think Harper will not play. It is a high ankle sprain, and he just doesn't sound ready to go. That is a big loss for the Colts, especially because their nickel corner now is very inexperienced.

LOL-I knew you were joking. I'm trying not to get excited for the game yet so I don't get too excited-although I can start to feel how close the game is now. Tomorrow night, I'll probably really wish the game was right then (especially because the Colts have already played twice on Saturdays this postseason!).

Peyton will get his yards. Its the design of the cover-2. Even Drew Brees threw for 350+ yards. Its points that are the deciding factor. We didn't play much cover-2 against the Saints. Oh, and 88 yards of that was the play Bush scored after getting open on an illegal pick. Well, the NFL said that wasn't an illegal pick because of the little to no contact that the picking player made-you're allowed to shield apparently, as long as you don't block the guy (like Troy Brown did) or knock him over. Yeah, well the NFL was wrong. It was an illegal pick. Wait a minute-the NFL sets its rules for the league-but what it says doesn't go, but instead it's just what every fan wants the rules to be? That's fine with me-there will be no touching of the Colts receivers whatsoever on Sunday :D

Peyton will get his yards. Its the design of the cover-2. Even Drew Brees threw for 350+ yards. Its points that are the deciding factor. We didn't play much cover-2 against the Saints. Oh, and 88 yards of that was the play Bush scored after getting open on an illegal pick. Well, the NFL said that wasn't an illegal pick because of the little to no contact that the picking player made-you're allowed to shield apparently, as long as you don't block the guy (like Troy Brown did) or knock him over. Yeah, one of the Colts players was talking about the Cover 2 myth. The Bears don't play that much of it, and the Colts have been playing much more Cover 3 than any other defense so that Sanders can be wreaking havoc around the line of scrimmage.

I don't get the lack of respect for the Bears either, although I think they are getting a lot more respect from the serious football people this week (Football Outsiders, KC Joyner, etc.) and a little more from the talking heads. I don't understand what you're upset about the Seattle game-I saw only about 1/3 of the people pick Seattle, and they did take you to OT-so those people were almost right. There is one difference between the Colts and Saints-the Saints line has had little to no experience pass blocking against a defense such as the Bears all season. The only one they had faced that compared was Baltimore, and in that game, the Saints turned it over 5 times and got sacked twice, and they were out of the game in the 4th quarter-sound familiar? The Colts are much more prepared for a great defense-they've just faced two of them back to back. That being said, they're not going to just walk down the field on the Bears-Manning will throw a couple of TD's and an INT or 2 in this game. The key is when those come, and then the other key is the other side of the ball. Does Rex play like he has in the playoffs so far, or does the Colts defense play like they have in the playoffs? That's a huge variable that will probably end up deciding the game-whatever happens, it should be fun.

Make a case-who should have made it from the Bulls? I can't see anybody who could beat anybody out that got picked for the reserves. Gordon definitely deserved to make it and Deng could've made it too, but I understand Deng not making it. There were two Pistons that made it, two Wizards (both very deserving, so I won't say anything about that), and two NETS that made it. How can two Nets make the All-Star Game? Kidd's had a good year, but Carter hasn't really been as good as he usually has been this season. Gordon deserved to make it over VC and probably one of the Pistons as well. Carter has more points, rebounds, and assists per game than Gordon. Also, Carter has less TO's-Carter has been better in every single category. Hamilton is the same way except for assists, where he is tied with Gordon. Billups is the only interesting case-but they wanted another point guard, and Billups is averaging 18 points, 7.6 assists, 3.5 rebounds, and 2.2 TO's, while Gordon has 21.5 points, 3.6 assists, 2.8 rebounds, and 3.1 TO's. Billups really edges him out in that comparison. Yeah, the only other reason you can make a case for Gordon over Billups, is Gordon played 10 more games. Carmello missed 15 games and isn't on the team, so the 10 games Billups missed could have put Grdon over the top. I forgot that-good point (although I think if Anthony had missed 15 games due to injury instead of suspension, he probably would have made it).

Make a case-who should have made it from the Bulls? I can't see anybody who could beat anybody out that got picked for the reserves. Gordon definitely deserved to make it and Deng could've made it too, but I understand Deng not making it. There were two Pistons that made it, two Wizards (both very deserving, so I won't say anything about that), and two NETS that made it. How can two Nets make the All-Star Game? Kidd's had a good year, but Carter hasn't really been as good as he usually has been this season. Gordon deserved to make it over VC and probably one of the Pistons as well. Carter has more points, rebounds, and assists per game than Gordon. Also, Carter has less TO's-Carter has been better in every single category. Hamilton is the same way except for assists, where he is tied with Gordon. Billups is the only interesting case-but they wanted another point guard, and Billups is averaging 18 points, 7.6 assists, 3.5 rebounds, and 2.2 TO's, while Gordon has 21.5 points, 3.6 assists, 2.8 rebounds, and 3.1 TO's. Billups really edges him out in that comparison.

Have to give it to both teams there-Virginia made a great shot, and then that was quite a pass by McRoberts to set up an unbelievable look for the win there-Paulus just didn't make it. Great win for Virginia.

Make a case-who should have made it from the Bulls? I can't see anybody who could beat anybody out that got picked for the reserves.

regardless of their record and ranking this year, duke really doesn't impress me this year Even though they beat IU when they played at Duke earlier in the season, they didn't impress me either. IU was really tight, and Duke still barely pulled out the victory. If it was anywhere but Cameron or later in the season, I don't think Duke would have won that game-they simply don't have enough offense this year.

Now you're hitting it. That could be more of a problem for the passing games.

That's original-why didn't you just use the one that's been used for 20 years, count on losing this Sunday :D I don't think rain is all that bad for the Colts-it's been snow that's been trouble.

The reality is that most schools are so similar that top players like this really sign with a coach instead of a school. You're right though-Gordon and his dad had the responsibility of informing Weber. They were the ones who made the verbal committment, and they were the ones who re-opened the commitment. That was a mistake-the sad part is to see the fanatics in the UI fanbase make a mistake as well by doing things like threatening Gordon. No side is completely clean on this one unfortunately. In this case, if he truly signed with the coach then why didn't he commit to OU while Sampson was there? Or even have OU on his top list? It's just my belief that Sampson or someone from his staff contacted Gordon after his verbal. From my understanding it's an unwritten rule to not contact players after they have made a verbal commitment. Some kids like Gordon want to stay home. It was always Gordon's dream to go to IU, but they didn't like IU with Mike Davis at the helm. Once the coaches changed, Gordon took a second look-there could probably have been several coaches that Gordon would have signed on with in order to get the chance to get to IU. As far as the contacting part? From the small amount of time that people have talked about it, it seems pretty clear now that it was the Gordons who initiated contact with Sampson shortly after he got the job.

The reality is that most schools are so similar that top players like this really sign with a coach instead of a school. You're right though-Gordon and his dad had the responsibility of informing Weber. They were the ones who made the verbal committment, and they were the ones who re-opened the commitment. That was a mistake-the sad part is to see the fanatics in the UI fanbase make a mistake as well by doing things like threatening Gordon. No side is completely clean on this one unfortunately.

I hope this is as good as his career gets. Good luck with that. Kelvin Torbert Bracey Wright, it has happened before. That said I don't think it will here. Or Frank Williams? Uh...what? Frank was one of the best players Illinois has seen. Sure he didn't have success in the NBA, but he was a great college player. Bracey Wright was supposed to be one of the best players in all of college basketball and he was nothing but a constant disappointment. To throw Frank Williams in that list is kind of a joke. True, but I don't really consider Bracey a bust because of talent, but more because of injury. He was great the first part of his freshman year before his back injury, but he stopped taking the ball to the basket after his back surgery-which only left him with his good but incredibly streaky outside shot. Add to that an Indiana team that forced him to throw up contested 25-30 footers constantly, and a really bad situation quickly results.

Here is the football outsiders article preveiwing the SB (and no, he doesn't make a prediction)-this is some great analysis of the game. While I never agree with everything, this is always the deepest analysis out there: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/02/01/ramblings/game-previews/4913/

Why are you upset about what Paige says? Everybody with a working brain, knows that the Colts/Bears in 2004, are NOT the same teams in 2007. The Colts are slightly weaker then that team, and the Bears are remarkably stronger then the 04 version. So, if Paige is suggesting that the Colts will beat the Bears something like 41-10, like they did a couple of yrs ago, then he clearly not working on a full tank. Look, I have no problems with the Colts, but I'm tired of the media hyping the Colts as this "unstoppable" machine, that the Bears have no hope of beating. And that is the reason why if I am the Colts, I would be worried, cause the media gave the Saints they same type hype, and look and what the Bears did to the Saints. While I agree that the 2004 results have nothing to do with these teams on Sunday, the Colts team this year is definitely better than the 2004 team-I'm not sure why everybody thinks they are weaker than that team, other than that team scored a lot of points in several games (due to the way that certain teams played them, specifically blitzing a lot). This Colts team is not quite as good as last years, but they are certainly a better bunch than that 2004 squad. Do you think the running game is as strong now as it was in '04? I do, but it's a minor quibble (imo). Their running game was at its peak before Edgerrin's injuries. I agree with that-Edge pre-injury was an absolute monster. Post-injury, he got great yardage because he was a very smart and patient, and because the passing game allowed the lanes to open up on the stretch play. He just couldn't do some of the things he used to be able to do though.