CubColtPacer

I'm not sure, but it's a good problem to have. The team has left no depth behind players like Prior and Miller for years (with Wood being Miller now), and now that they have depth, the question becomes what happens if everyone is healthy. I hope the result though of that question is that whoever is pitching worse, Miller or Marquis, gets sent to the bullpen and becomes the long man.

I'm curious what the Wisconsin stats look like (Packers) and what the southern states look like (Saints). Wisconsin: 67/34 (some rounding issues there) colts Louisiana and Mississippi are both about 80/20 colts Looks like there's bitter Saints face too That's not necessarily the case-there are a great amount of Manning fans in that area too (which always skews polls like that) because of his growing up in NO-with the connections to Peyton and Archie, they'd vote for the Colts even if they hadn't just lost to the Bears.

Many of the people in the media that I've heard pick the Colts actually are saying that they think the Colts are a better overall team right now. For example, I heard both John Elway and Chris Simms say this on the Dan Patrick show. Well personally I think the Bears D is better than the Colts, the Colts O is better than the Bears, the Bears special teams overall is better than the Colts special teams. That to me would constitute the Bears being a better overall team. It's hard to say. The Colts are something like a 9 on offense, a 6 on defense, and a 7 on special teams. The Bears are a 6 on offense, an 8 on defense, and a 9 on special teams-the Bears numbers add up to more, but the 3 units are not equal, nor are they always needed to be strong. For example, the Colts don't need such a good punt or kick returner because their offense is so good-they don't need a guy like Hester to score TD's, they just need a player who won't fumble. A player like Hester who scores more often and fumbles more often may actually hurt the Colts overall as a team even though he is obviously better than anything the Colts have to offer. The Colts defense is designed to play with a lead-the better the offense does, the more valuable the defense is. It really is hard to isolate one unit from another like that because teams usually build their units to feed off of what their best unit does.

That's what I was about to just come here and post :D

At the same time, he puts the Bears at 28 points, so it's not the Bears offense that he thinks will struggle in the game on Sunday.

I thought the Colts won the AFC :-k Might as well be "The Bears .v. the World, since EVERYBODY---outside of Chicago and the fanbase of the Bears---has given the Bears NO SHOT at beting the Colts. Except for the 2 of 6 people on CBS sportsline, the guy on espn.com, Mike Greenberg, 3 of the 4 people on Cold Pizza... yup you got it, nobody thinks the Bears are gonna win. I sincerely doubt that the nation will be in mourning either-just because most of the nation may be picking the Colts doesn't mean there won't be plenty of people rooting for the Bears on Sunday.

Strange they would set up a parade for the losing team. :wink: I don't dare say that directly yet, no matter how I feel :D

Chicago has announced that they will be holding a ticker-tape parade on Tuesday afternoon.

Eli Holman took the floor last night for his high school for the first time in a long time (the IU recruit who was shot a couple weeks ago)-he had 27 points, 12 rebounds, and 9 blocked shots in his first game back.

Don't worry though-3 of 4 people on Cold Pizza picked you, you're fine :D

I realize that. But how did he make more of a difference in the SF game than the Detroit game? The stats are very similar (including the score). Unless you're talking about the second Detroit game... I was talking about the first one-that game is right on the border. The only reason I gave it to him is that 17 of the 24 points in the first half came on drives that started on the Chicago 30 or worse. The TO's helped Detroit not score, but it didn't put the offense right in position to score, and Grossman led them down the field 3 times in the first half to help make the game a blowout.

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. Maybe he couldn't have lost it, but he could have had the same kind of game that he did with the Saints where you've told us all that he was "awful" in the first half. If he could be awful there, I don't think you can discount when he plays well in a similar game. (Admittedly, it wasn't the NFC championship, but the early turnover scenario was similar.) Well, the question wasn't which games he played well in, but rather the ones he made a "huge difference in winning". Grossman certainly played well in both of those games, that is for certain. Sorry for the confusion.

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.