CubColtPacer

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 think it's actually slightly better. While the 2004 version put up a few more yards, they had significant drawbacks. The running game could only work if the passing game was working. Second, the running game could not do anything on short yardage or goal line situations. That made the Colts rely on the pass-they couldn't have done anything like run the winning TD like they did last week. This running game can be effective in those situations against just about any team.

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.

Lovie was a first-year coach. Berrian, Tank and Vasher were rookies. Ogun, Urlacher, Tillman and Grossman were hurt. Craig Krenzel was the starting QB. No Moose or Benson or Mark Anderson. I could keep going. Of course, a good portion of the media would probably have you believe that Craig Krenzel is no worse than Rex. Also, just to add, no Hester in 2004, who I think will be a huge factor in this game. Not to mention that Edge is gone and the Colts defense is weaker. Well, that doesn't really help. Addai/Rhodes is actually better than Edge post-injury, and the Colts defense is currently stronger than it was during the 2004 season.

They are not going anywhere-what I heard originally was that they weren't planning to re-sign him after the year, and so they might as well trade him now. They get a prospect or two out of this deal that could help them later on-I don't see this as awesome from their side, but it's not so terrible to think its completely unreasonable.

I sure hope you are right. Ichiro in the top 2 of this lineup makes us a very very dangerous team. Through 6 seasons he has a .331/.376/.438 line. Last year he was 45 of 47 on steal attempts. He is a legit gold glove player every year with a cannon arm, and he plays almost every game. Soriano Ichiro Lee Aramis Murton/Floyd Barrett DeRosa Izturis Zambrano, Lilly, Hill, Prior/Miller, Marquis Wood, Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Ohman, Wuertz, Cotts Floyd/Murton, Ward, Blanco, Theriot, Cedeno That team would have the ability to win it all. If we could sign him to an extension I would give them Jones and let them have the pick of anyone in our system. 4 years ago Corey Patterson was just as "untouchable" as Pie is now...to get a guy like Ichiro to put at the top of the lineup I'd trade what Pie could be for what Ichiro IS. I might be ok with giving up Pie (and I'd have to think about that more) if they didn't give up Gallagher-definitely not both.

I actually thought that article was funny. It makes fun of all the obvious jokes, both Bears and Colts-he wasn't trying to be really serious, so just go with the flow and enjoy it :D Watch it someone got in trouble for saying something like that before. I'm confused, but I'll edit it anyway just to be safe-thanks. How can someone get in trouble for telling someone to "go with the flow"? It's a Bobby Knight joke. "If rape is inevitable, then sit back and enjoy it." Oh-I forgot all about that quote, that was awful. I apologize if anyone thought of that quote when reading my post, because that was the absolute furthest thing from my intent.

I actually thought that article was funny. It makes fun of all the obvious jokes, both Bears and Colts-he wasn't trying to be really serious, so just go with the flow and enjoy it :D No, I'm not going to go with the flow and enjoy it. Going with the flow means admitting that Rex Grossman is the worst quarterback to ever set foot on a football field. The criticism was ridiculous 2 months ago. Its even moreso after playing well in 2 playoff games and getting to the Superbowl. Enough. I'm pissed. I understand-I mean, I've heard about the silly Manning face for years now, and have always hated the use of that crazy term. I guess things have changed because the Colts are actually in the Superbowl, so when Simmons looked in his article for the "perfect Manning face" I thought it was hilarious-and I almost never find Simmons funny. I don't think laughing at the picture automatically means you ahve to believe that Grossman is terrible-I certainly don't, and I laughed. From the comments earlier about the respect thing-I'm getting a little concerned with how much respect the Colts are getting this week-I wish the media as well would give the Bears the credit they deserve (although I do think Bears fans are overstating it a tad, but that's an understandable part of fandom). The only thing that makes me happier though is that 3 out of 4 people on Cold Pizza picked the Bears this morning :D

I actually thought that article was funny. It makes fun of all the obvious jokes, both Bears and Colts-he wasn't trying to be really serious, so just go with the flow and enjoy it :D Watch it someone got in trouble for saying something like that before. I'm confused, but I'll edit it anyway just to be safe-thanks.

I actually thought that article was funny. It makes fun of all the obvious jokes, both Bears and Colts-he wasn't trying to be really serious.

That would be an interesting deal to say the least. I have to wonder if we'd be given up too much depending on the ptbnl. If we get Ichiro, does Soriano play right and Ichiro CF or is it Soriano in CF and Ichiro in right? I think Ichiro would play CF in that scenario. This deal certainly seems plausible. Seattle was rumored to let him on the market, and Ichiro seems like Hendry's model for a top of the order hitter (a good OBP player fueled by an exceptional average with great defense as well). I'm with Vance-if the PTBNL is a very good prospect, then no. But if it's only a decent prospect, I'd pull the trigger. Ichiro has the potential to make the top of the order dynamic-even if they bat him 2nd. Soriano Ichiro Lee Ramirez Barrett Murton That first 6 especially would score a lot of runs.

You only post it because the Colts won, be honest. I almost posted that I would have done it anyway, but I just can't be sure-at least that prediction has Grossman playing well for you guys.

One more completely irrelevant prediction-this time from the Madden video game: http://sports.espn.go.com/videogames/news/story?id=2744222 I only posted it because I used to love when they would play the video game to find out the winner on the SB pre-game show, and one year a friend and I played the Denver-Green Bay game a few hours before the game, and ended up with a score of Denver-31, GB-24-sound familiar? :D

Really, it was Hub who was fanning the flames on that one. BTW - I can't say I'd be completely disappointed if Lovie went to the Cowboys for multiple first rounders and Rivera took over as head coach. Of course, I'd love to keep Lovie around. But in the NFL, multiple first round picks are huge. Just for sake of discussion...Imagine adding 4 first round talents to this team in the next two years. Of course, one or more could always bust. How did that work out for the Raiders? I think that's a disastrous idea. It doesn't suprise me to hear Hub Arkush thinks its a good one.....he's another guy who has been wrong about Lovie and wrong about this team the entire time. I'm sorry, but one failed example isn't enough to convince me that it's a bad idea. While coaching in the NFL is more important than in other sports, talent on the field is still the most important factor in terms of winning football games. If you can add premiere talent in exchange for a coach, and then promote a coach out of your own system who you have every reason to believe is very qualified to take the position (Chico), you have to, at the very least, consider it. You'd be doing yourself a disservice not to. Do you mean to tell me you have no interest whatsoever in adding more of that caliber of talent to this team? BTW, you could also ask-how did that trade work out for Tampa? Sure, they won the Super Bowl with Gruden-but that's more because they finally added a QB who could throw the ball to go with their great defense (Brad Johnson). Gruden hasn't exactly done much since then down in Tampa. The Raiders didn't fail because of the trade. They failed because their GM couldn't make good draft picks of the ones they got (their 2 first round picks the next year I think both busted, at least neither of them are impact players), and the team was old. They had to replace virtually their entire offense, and obviously they haven't done a good job of that just yet-if they had Gruden, they would be in the same predicament.

You may have seen a bit too much of that Mark Prior over those last two months and, as a result, may never see him again Do people have to keep reminding us of that randomly? I'm really trying to forget it :cry:

A glimpse of the difference? He hadn't even given up football yet. True-but he didn't do nearly as much of the training for football as he normally did. In fact, that was a big concern for his senior season of football that maybe his training and timing would be off of what it had been the season before. His total season was also longer, which meant that he had more time consecutively to work on the break of his offspeed stuff. Obviously, this year, both of those things will be taken even another step.

If you're planning to watch the Super Bowl on a large TV, watch out, the NFL is coming after you, just like it did this church: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070201/LOCAL/702010431/

He was. He was acquired from the Rams in a mega-three team trade also involving the Bills. The Colts traded Corneius Bennett, another player or two, and a gazillion draft picks. Yup-there are actually several people in the media who were Colts, but most of them only played a couple years. Tony Siragusa is one example-he was on the 95 team that played in AFCCG. Draft picks didn't mean as much in the 80's-there is no way that teams would trade the picks they used to trade even for star players. I mean, the Rams traded Dickerson-and betwen the picks sent from Indianapolis, they got 3 number 1 picks and 3 number 2 picks! That's crazy.

Probably had something to do with the fact the team has 23 years of history and the former Baltimore Colts will not associate with this team. How about the Edge? There are still Indy guys out there that they could get to at least show some kind of Indy point of view. A current player for another team? Why not interview Roosevelt Colvin? The Bears have ex-players coaches who are constantly on the radar of the media, whether the Bears are good or bad. The Colts, at least the Indy version, don't. This isn't a case of two politicians fighting for equal time. True and I'm sure you would feel that way if it were the other way around. I did see one former Colts-Quadry Ismail, he played about 3 games for the Colts-he tried to give away some of the Colts signals on TV the other day. I do agree Harbaugh should be somewhere, but I don't mind if the Colts aren't represented much now-I will if they are not at least somewhat represented after this current generation, however.

I'm not sure Durant might not pass up Oden. You may have to "settle" for Oden at #2. Durant is just a freak. Agreed on Durant's talent level, but I don't see how you can pass up a big man like Oden when you find him. There are only 3 or 4 true big men in the NBA, and Oden has the chance to be the best of them in 3-4 years (he probably will be when Shaq retires or continues to wear down). Durant's unbelievable, but there are players like him that come out at the top of the draft every year or two.

The next 3 games now for IU are critical-I think they are 3 or the 4 hardest games left (the hardest one is at Michigan State). At Iowa, home against Illinois, at Purdue. If IU can win 2 or hopefully all 3 of those games, they can really start to make a push for the top 2 of the Big 10. The good thing is that with this win tonight, IU has really created some separation for that #3 spot, especially since they don't play OSU or Wisconsin again this season.

The Cards score more runs than the Cubs. Their rotation can afford to be worse than ours. Also, 2/5 of our rotation is composed of an injury riddled Miller/Prior and Jason Marquis. After losing Weaver and Suppan, their rotation will probably not match last year's, however, and the Cards haven't really added much on offense or pitching wise, other than the aforementioned Wilson. The Cubs should have a somewhat better starting rotation but the Cards should have a significantly better offense. Honestly, everyone in the central looks pretty mediocre at this point (save the Pirates, who still suck, and Houston, who will only have a shot if Clemens comes back again). I think everybody other than those two teams could win the division if things break their way. It will probably come down to who is healthier. I'm going to need some convincing that the Cardinals offense is even slightly better than the Cubs, never mind significantly better. Their approach to the rotation should be familiar, because it's what we've done the past few years with a different variable. Instead of "if these guys stay healthy" it's "if these young guys progress/if duncan can turn these guys around". They scored around 65 more runs than us last season, despite Edmonds being injured for a good part of the season. We've added Soriano and subtracted Pierre for an upgrade, but everything else has been kind of a lateral move. DeRosa may or may not be better than Todd Walker offensively. Izturis is no better than Cedeno or Perez offensively. If Lee stays healthy, we'll be better at 2 positions. We may make up some without Dusty giving all those ABs to the likes of Perez and Bynum. Our offense will be better than last year's, but last year's was terrible (ahead of only Pittsburgh), and St. Louis's offense was 6th in the NL. I think the Cubs move up, and finish maybe 8th or 10th in the NL, with St. Louis about where they were last year. If you go position by position though, it doesn't work out so well. The Cubs have Izturis while the Cardinals have Molina-that's a wash. DeRosa and Belliard are probably about the same. That leaves Lee, Aramis, Soriano, Jones, Barrett, Murton vs Pujols, Rolen, Edmonds, Duncan, Encarnacion (am I missing a Cardinal OF), Eckstein Pujols is easily the best on that list-but Encarnacion and Eckstein are worse than any of the Cubs hitters as well. I'd take those Cub 6 hitters vs the Cardinals 6. Belliard isn't a Card anymore, Adam Kennedy is their 2B. But I still agree. Thank you for the correction-and Belliard and Kennedy are somewhat similar, so it's still the same comparison :D

The Cards score more runs than the Cubs. Their rotation can afford to be worse than ours. Also, 2/5 of our rotation is composed of an injury riddled Miller/Prior and Jason Marquis. After losing Weaver and Suppan, their rotation will probably not match last year's, however, and the Cards haven't really added much on offense or pitching wise, other than the aforementioned Wilson. The Cubs should have a somewhat better starting rotation but the Cards should have a significantly better offense. Honestly, everyone in the central looks pretty mediocre at this point (save the Pirates, who still suck, and Houston, who will only have a shot if Clemens comes back again). I think everybody other than those two teams could win the division if things break their way. It will probably come down to who is healthier. I'm going to need some convincing that the Cardinals offense is even slightly better than the Cubs, never mind significantly better. Their approach to the rotation should be familiar, because it's what we've done the past few years with a different variable. Instead of "if these guys stay healthy" it's "if these young guys progress/if duncan can turn these guys around". They scored around 65 more runs than us last season, despite Edmonds being injured for a good part of the season. We've added Soriano and subtracted Pierre for an upgrade, but everything else has been kind of a lateral move. DeRosa may or may not be better than Todd Walker offensively. Izturis is no better than Cedeno or Perez offensively. If Lee stays healthy, we'll be better at 2 positions. We may make up some without Dusty giving all those ABs to the likes of Perez and Bynum. Our offense will be better than last year's, but last year's was terrible (ahead of only Pittsburgh), and St. Louis's offense was 6th in the NL. I think the Cubs move up, and finish maybe 8th or 10th in the NL, with St. Louis about where they were last year. If you go position by position though, it doesn't work out so well. The Cubs have Izturis while the Cardinals have Molina-that's a wash. DeRosa and Kennedy are probably about the same. That leaves Lee, Aramis, Soriano, Jones, Barrett, Murton vs Pujols, Rolen, Edmonds, Duncan, Encarnacion (am I missing a Cardinal OF), Eckstein Pujols is easily the best on that list-but Encarnacion and Eckstein are worse than any of the Cubs hitters as well. I'd take those Cub 6 hitters vs the Cardinals 6.

The Cards score more runs than the Cubs. Their rotation can afford to be worse than ours. Also, 2/5 of our rotation is composed of an injury riddled Miller/Prior and Jason Marquis. After losing Weaver and Suppan, their rotation will probably not match last year's, however, and the Cards haven't really added much on offense or pitching wise, other than the aforementioned Wilson. The Cubs should have a somewhat better starting rotation but the Cards should have a significantly better offense. Honestly, everyone in the central looks pretty mediocre at this point (save the Pirates, who still suck, and Houston, who will only have a shot if Clemens comes back again). I think everybody other than those two teams could win the division if things break their way. It will probably come down to who is healthier. I'm going to need some convincing that the Cardinals offense is even slightly better than the Cubs, never mind significantly better. Their approach to the rotation should be familiar, because it's what we've done the past few years with a different variable. Instead of "if these guys stay healthy" it's "if these young guys progress/if duncan can turn these guys around". I was going to post that earlier-I don't see how the Cardinals lineup is any better than the Cubs lineup, and it might be a little bit worse.

Because when healthy he's a very good pitcher. But if he's healthy.. doesn't he already have a spot in the rotation.. why does he need to contend? because he needs to prove healthy. I'm confused. If he's pitching, doesn't that prove he's healthy? So why does he need to contend for a spot in the rotation if he can pitch? He pitched last year-9 starts. He wasn't healthy enough to be effective though, and had a 7.21 ERA. He has to prove that he was healthier then he was last year, not to be able to just pitch but to actually be effective doing so.

I could see running a little more but to argue they should have had a balanced offense is hoping for something that is highly unlikely to happen. A perfect example of this is the Tennessee v Florida game earlier this year. The Vols were up 10 (I think) at halftime and had no success in the running game at all in the first half. In the second half, they continued to run the ball, trying to run out the clock because they had the lead. Because we kept running the ball into three and outs and giving the ball right back to Florida, they had the opportunity to come back and win 21-20. Had we abandoned an obviously pathetic run game that day, we likely beat Florida and the whole season is completely different. Running the ball when ahead is an excellent strategy, if you can move the ball when running. The Patriots couldn't move it and thus had the correct strategy to focus on passing the ball. I would completely agree. Why do teams usually need to sprinkle in the run? Usually, it's to make teams at least respect it a little bit. The Colts were respecting the run plenty in the second half-which is why they stopped the Patriots cold when they tried to run it with Dillon or Maroney. The Patriots were going to pass the ball until the Colts backed off the run-instead, the Colts never backed off the run. Another good example of this would be a Colts-Packers game a couple of years ago. The Packers kept blitzing on every play. Instead of trying to stay balanced, which wouldn't have worked, the Colts just decided to pass the ball every play. They passed it 22 times in the 1st quarter to 0 runs, for 252 yards and 3 TD's. If the opponent won't back off, they won't back off. The Colts played the run most of the second half-which is why the Patriots had success throwing the ball, and absolutely none running the ball, and there is simply no reason to waste a down just to run a play that the defense is attempting to stop.