CubColtPacer

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.

Tony Corrente will be the referee on Sunday-have to say, I don't know much about him. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs06/news/story?id=2749604

It might rain. Yep. Isolated T-Storms. From what I've heard from people in FL, weather forecasts down there aren't very reliable till like Saturday, and the most likely result is that it would rain a bit in the afternoon, but would be completely dry during the game, as it doesn't rain during this season in the evening very much at all.

I'm a little confused by your question-the Bears had the better record overall, the Colts had the better record against the opposing conference, and the better record vs common opponents.

How are you sacraficing the ability to score by running? They scored more in the first half (even without the INT return) than they did in the second half and they ran a lot more in the first half. Also it is an assumption that the Colts would have stuffed every running play, a huge assumption looking at the rushing stats for the game. Rex Grossman was having a horrible passing game against the Saints, but with the Bears up 18-14 he led a touchdown drive of all passes to put the Bears in control of the game. Up until that point he had very little success passing the ball against the Saints. If Ron Turner had decided to take the ball out of Rex's hands and run all the time could we have assumed Rex was not capable of leading that TD drive the way he did because he had some failures earlier in the game? They scored 14 in the first half (without the INT) and 13 in the second half, not that big a difference. Also, the first scoring drive was a result of the 35 yard Dillon run on 4th and 1. As CubColtPacer explained, the Colt defense adjusted differently than they do on any other play. The rest of the drive they ran 7 times for 22 yards (3.1 yards per carry) and passed 1 time for 18 yards. The second TD drive, they threw for 49 of the 72 yards they needed to score (the drive began on their 28). The plays were 4 passes for 49 and 6 runs for 23 (3.8 yards per carry). Rushing for 3 yards per carry is decent, but against an offense that scores at will and you have one of the best QBs in the game, you can't rely on the running game when it's obvious you have to score many more points. And the passing game was seeing very good success because the Colts were playing run most of the game. Plus, the rushes they had in the second half were less successful than the ones in the first half. 14 is greater than 13, so they were not sacraficing the ability to score in the 1st half when they ran. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think a one-dimensional offense will work, and that is what the Pats ran in the second half. I believe you can score while running half the time, and by doing this offense you use more clock and leave less time for your opponent to score. My Grossman example of failures early in the game not dictating success or failure later in the game also stands true. Bottom line is this the Patriots were a much much better team in the first half when they used the running game, than they were when they abandoned it. I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one. I would argue that the Patriots were actually more effective on offense in the second half. Both of their first half TD drives were helped by a 4th down conversion that the Patriots gambled on, in situations where they might not have been able to gamble on in the 2nd half. One of the TD's was a lucky bounce to an offensive lineman which the Pats get 3 or 0 on if it's recovered where it bounced to originally. The Patriots really started moving the ball much better in the 2nd half-it's just that they got held to some field goals, and had some dropped passes by Caldwell that really cost them.

The Colts defense gave up 27-7 were to Asante Samuel. I'm actually proud of the Colts defense for that performance. The Patriots had unbelievable field position all night long, they converted 2 4th downs, had a TD scored by an offensive lineman, and of course are led by Tom Brady. Any defense is going to give up some points in that scenario.

So basically, this thread is just like all the baseball threads on the board :D

True-but it wasn't long into the second half before the Patriots weren't trying to keep Manning off the field anymore, but were trying desperately to score points to somehow stay ahead of a Colts offense that was absolutely rolling. I think the Bears running game will do the best any team has done in the playoffs against the Colts-a big key to their effectiveness could be though if Grossman can step up early and make some huge throws to loosen the defense up. I can see the Colts trying to play this game like the Chiefs game in the 1st quarter, and it will be interesting to see if the Bears can respond quickly to that or not.

you forgot to mention 3 things: 1. the patriots, for some mystifying reason, maybe they wanted to lose or something, ran the ball 5 times in the second half after dominating the line of scrimmage in the first half. why did big fat slobby want brady in the shotgun for the entire half? who knows? all i know is that both dillon and faulk averaged nearly 7 yards per carry in that game and the belichek, looking like he just fell out of bed, doesn't go with the ground game in the second half, unbelievable--this perception of belichek as some sort of genius has made him the ultimate arrogant poo-hole. 2. the ravens just kept turning the ball over, and that's a credit to the colts defense, no doubt. but it's not like jamal lewis was held down or anything. both lewis and mike anderson were over 4 yards per carry in the game--they just didn't have a chance to run the ball very much, what with the exalted steve mcnair throwing goal-line interceptions and such. 3. the chiefs just didn't have time to get johnson started. most of that can be attributed to the colts ball control offense holding the ball for twice as long as the chiefs. I'll just do the Patriots game for now-I can tell you why Belicheck stopped running the ball-it wasn't working! Dillon had the 35 yard run on 4th and 1 (when everyone knows if it breaks through, it can be a big play). Faulk went out of the game with an injury, but before that yes, he had 4 carries for 27 yards, all on draw plays on 2nd and 3rd and long (and the Patriots only picked up 1 first down on any of Faulk's carries, and one other of his draws set up the 4th and 1 that Dillon's long run came from). Other than those runs, the Patriots carried the ball 19 times for 31 yards. They simply could not run the ball effectively on 1st and 2nd down, which made them go to 3rd downs consistently when they tried to run. Also-it's 21-3 Patriots now in the second quarter. Look at their runs after this point (not counting the Brady kneel down): 1-10-Maroney for -3 2-5-Maroney for -1 2-10 Faulk for 8 (his last run before his injury, he was really the only back the Colts had trouble with all postseason) 1-10-Maroney for -1 1-6-Dillon for -1 2-6-Maroney for -2 3-10-Evans for 4 Your team's only running success has been running draws in passing situations with your 3rd down back, who is now hurt, and a 4th and 1 play where the other teams defense gambled that it would be a QB sneak and lost. Your other 2 runningbacks last 5 runs have all resulted in negative yardage, not even a single one got back to the line of scrimmage, and you have Tom Brady. Are you going to keep running the ball? This sounds exactly like what we heard about the Saints run defense. They give up 1 or 2 big plays, but other than that they shut teams down. They had the most stops on running plays for 1 yard or less in the league, or something like that. If I were the Patriots, yes I would have kept running. o start a half up 21-6, and only run the ball 5 times in that half is poor coaching, especially with #18 on the other side of the ball. Maybe they had 7 carries for 4 yards, but they also had quite a bit of success running before those 7 carries. If Brady had gone 1 of 7 for 4 yards on seven consecutive passes at some point in the game, do you stop passing? I don't think so. The problem was, they simply didn't. Dillon and Maroney struggled most of the game running on 1st and 2nd down. Faulk was out of the game, so the Patriots couldn't use him-he was the only runningback having any kind of consistent success whatsoever. Besides, they couldn't run the ball much more in the 2nd half. Every time they ran the ball, it put them into a passing situation that wouldn't allow them to get another carry (2nd or 3rd and long). When the Patriots passed, they had more success. The Colts scored 32 points in the second half, if the Patriots had done a better job of controlling the clock, there is no way the Colts would have been able to score 32 in a half. Dillon had 48 yards on 7 carries. Yes, 35 of them came on 1 play, but if he has 12 more carries, he may bust a few more for 35 as well. The Pats had more success in the first half when they balanced runs and passes than they did in the second half where they passed nearly every play. They scored 14 offensive points in the first half and won the time of possession, while they scored 13 offensive points in the second half and lost the time of possession. If they worked the clock better, and ran more they would have been able to protect their lead better. I also don't get how you can say they couldn't run the ball any more often in the second half. They had multiple drives in the second half where they did not call one rushing play. Maybe Dillon breaks another 35 yarder, but that is not nearly as likely since the conditions of the 4th and 1 play were not likely to happen again (the Colts sent everybody up the middle on that play, while normally they would be pursuing to the outside on even a down like 3rd and 1). Here are the Patriots 2nd half possessions-yes, they could have ran the ball more, but I don't think that much more: 1st possession 1-10-Inc Pass 2-10-Faulk for 8 3-10-Pass complete, no gain More runs? 1 probably-if they ran on 1st down, they wouldn't have run on 2nd down, but they could have ran it on 3rd and 2. 2nd possession- 1-10-Maroney for -1 2-11-Pass for 17 yards 1-goal from 5-Dillon for -1 2-goal from 6-pass inc 3-goal from 6-pass, TD extra runs-0, I don't see anywhere where they should have ran and didn't. 3rd possession- 1-10-Pass for 4 2-6-Maroney for -2 3-8-Pass for 6, punt extra runs-0, the pass on 1st down was as good as a run, they tried running the ball on 2nd down, and that forced them into a 3rd and long 4th possession- 1-10-pass for 16 1-10-pass for 14 1-10-penalty for 5 1-15 (from the Colts 18)-pass inc 2-15-pass for 8 3-7-pass inc extra runs-0-I'm not sure where the Patriots were supposed to run here. The first two passes worked great, and 1-15 from the 18 yard line is not a great place to run, as it's even hard to run a draw from there being so close to the goal line. 5th possession- 1-10-pass for 25 1-10-pass inc 2-10-pass inc 3-10-run for 4 extra runs-1, they could have easily run on 1st or 2nd down-although if they had run on one of those downs, they probably wouldn't have run on 3rd down (because the 3rd down run was just to set up the field goal)-so it's 1, but a shaky 1. 6th possession- 1-15 (12 men in the huddle penalty)-pass for 7 2-8-pass for 4 3-4-pass inc runs-1 maybe? The Colts were gearing up to stop the run, as they needed to get the ball back without giving up a single first down-the Patriots were going for the knockout punch, as they usually do-that penalty at the start ruined any chance they had at running for the first down really. last drive they were forced to pass, as I'm sure you agree. Well, there you have it. I think the Patriots could have ran the ball 3 more times in the half, but I don't think that would have made much of a difference.

MLB.TV has bad security? :D

you forgot to mention 3 things: 1. the patriots, for some mystifying reason, maybe they wanted to lose or something, ran the ball 5 times in the second half after dominating the line of scrimmage in the first half. why did big fat slobby want brady in the shotgun for the entire half? who knows? all i know is that both dillon and faulk averaged nearly 7 yards per carry in that game and the belichek, looking like he just fell out of bed, doesn't go with the ground game in the second half, unbelievable--this perception of belichek as some sort of genius has made him the ultimate arrogant poo-hole. 2. the ravens just kept turning the ball over, and that's a credit to the colts defense, no doubt. but it's not like jamal lewis was held down or anything. both lewis and mike anderson were over 4 yards per carry in the game--they just didn't have a chance to run the ball very much, what with the exalted steve mcnair throwing goal-line interceptions and such. 3. the chiefs just didn't have time to get johnson started. most of that can be attributed to the colts ball control offense holding the ball for twice as long as the chiefs. I'll just do the Patriots game for now-I can tell you why Belicheck stopped running the ball-it wasn't working! Dillon had the 35 yard run on 4th and 1 (when everyone knows if it breaks through, it can be a big play). Faulk went out of the game with an injury, but before that yes, he had 4 carries for 27 yards, all on draw plays on 2nd and 3rd and long (and the Patriots only picked up 1 first down on any of Faulk's carries, and one other of his draws set up the 4th and 1 that Dillon's long run came from). Other than those runs, the Patriots carried the ball 19 times for 31 yards. They simply could not run the ball effectively on 1st and 2nd down, which made them go to 3rd downs consistently when they tried to run. Also-it's 21-3 Patriots now in the second quarter. Look at their runs after this point (not counting the Brady kneel down): 1-10-Maroney for -3 2-5-Maroney for -1 2-10 Faulk for 8 (his last run before his injury, he was really the only back the Colts had trouble with all postseason) 1-10-Maroney for -1 1-6-Dillon for -1 2-6-Maroney for -2 3-10-Evans for 4 Your team's only running success has been running draws in passing situations with your 3rd down back, who is now hurt, and a 4th and 1 play where the other teams defense gambled that it would be a QB sneak and lost. Your other 2 runningbacks last 5 runs have all resulted in negative yardage, not even a single one got back to the line of scrimmage, and you have Tom Brady. Are you going to keep running the ball? This sounds exactly like what we heard about the Saints run defense. They give up 1 or 2 big plays, but other than that they shut teams down. They had the most stops on running plays for 1 yard or less in the league, or something like that. If I were the Patriots, yes I would have kept running. o start a half up 21-6, and only run the ball 5 times in that half is poor coaching, especially with #18 on the other side of the ball. Maybe they had 7 carries for 4 yards, but they also had quite a bit of success running before those 7 carries. If Brady had gone 1 of 7 for 4 yards on seven consecutive passes at some point in the game, do you stop passing? I don't think so. The problem was, they simply didn't. Dillon and Maroney struggled most of the game running on 1st and 2nd down. Faulk was out of the game, so the Patriots couldn't use him-he was the only runningback having any kind of consistent success whatsoever. Besides, they couldn't run the ball much more in the 2nd half. Every time they ran the ball, it put them into a passing situation that wouldn't allow them to get another carry (2nd or 3rd and long). When the Patriots passed, they had more success.

Ok, I guess I'll do the Baltimore game as well. Baltimore really ran the ball well on 1 drive-but that's really it for them. First, let's get rid of 2 of Anderson's carries for 12 of his yards-this is when Baltimore was running out the clock at the end of the first half with the crowd booing, and the yards were meaningless. That gives Anderson 2 carries for 6 yards on the day. Baltimore tried to come out and establish the run early. Lewis ran twice for 3 yards, and then McNair completed a pass short of the 1st down. It would be the 1st of 7 passes that were complete but short of the first down on 3rd down on the day (which I think is an amazing statistic, and possibly some sort of record). 2nd possession-only 2 plays, ending with the Heap fumble. 3rd possession-a pass for a first down, 2 Lewis runs only results in 5 yards, and on 3rd and 5 forced to pass they complete a pass short of the marker. 4th possession-the only Lewis carry on this short drive is a 4 yard pickup on 2nd and 10, which resulted in a 3rd down that Baltimore did not pick up. 5th possession-this is the only drive Baltimore did well running the ball. runs of 9, then 3, then 18, then 3 more. After a pass, Baltimore had 1st and goal on the 7, which Lewis took it down to the 3 on 1st down. On second down though, he got thrown back for a loss of 1-3rd and goal from the 4, Ravens forced to pass, INT 6th possession-Ravens try to run a 2 minute offense, go 3 and out After Halftime now 8th possession (7th one was described above)-Ravens move the ball through the air, get a penalty which sets up 2nd and 19, which means they couldn't run the ball in that situation, and they punt. 9th possession-they mix the run in well on this drive, getting 3 runs for 14 yards, but move down the field using the pass. When they get to the Colts 31 yard line though, they get called for a false start. On 1st and 15, Lewis gets stopped for no gain. On 2nd and 15, they get a holding penalty. 2nd and 25 does not allow any more time for any runs. 10th possession-their only run is a Lewis run on 1st and 10, and he only picks up 1 yard-which causes them to get in a passing situation, and an INT results. 11th possession-Lewis gets 2 on 1st down, they are forced to pass after that (it's getting quite late in the ballgame at this point and they are down), and 2 incompletes result. Baltimore didn't abandon the run that was working all day-the run worked on 1 drive, and was ok on another. The rest of the time, the run just continually set up 3rd and longs that turned into turnovers or punts. Also, penalties kept the running game from getting all the touches they may have wanted it to.

you forgot to mention 3 things: 1. the patriots, for some mystifying reason, maybe they wanted to lose or something, ran the ball 5 times in the second half after dominating the line of scrimmage in the first half. why did big fat slobby want brady in the shotgun for the entire half? who knows? all i know is that both dillon and faulk averaged nearly 7 yards per carry in that game and the belichek, looking like he just fell out of bed, doesn't go with the ground game in the second half, unbelievable--this perception of belichek as some sort of genius has made him the ultimate arrogant poo-hole. 2. the ravens just kept turning the ball over, and that's a credit to the colts defense, no doubt. but it's not like jamal lewis was held down or anything. both lewis and mike anderson were over 4 yards per carry in the game--they just didn't have a chance to run the ball very much, what with the exalted steve mcnair throwing goal-line interceptions and such. 3. the chiefs just didn't have time to get johnson started. most of that can be attributed to the colts ball control offense holding the ball for twice as long as the chiefs. I'll just do the Patriots game for now-I can tell you why Belicheck stopped running the ball-it wasn't working! Dillon had the 35 yard run on 4th and 1 (when everyone knows if it breaks through, it can be a big play). Faulk went out of the game with an injury, but before that yes, he had 4 carries for 27 yards, all on draw plays on 2nd and 3rd and long (and the Patriots only picked up 1 first down on any of Faulk's carries, and one other of his draws set up the 4th and 1 that Dillon's long run came from). Other than those runs, the Patriots carried the ball 19 times for 31 yards. They simply could not run the ball effectively on 1st and 2nd down, which made them go to 3rd downs consistently when they tried to run. Also-it's 21-3 Patriots now in the second quarter. Look at their runs after this point (not counting the Brady kneel down): 1-10-Maroney for -3 2-5-Maroney for -1 2-10 Faulk for 8 (his last run before his injury, he was really the only back the Colts had trouble with all postseason) 1-10-Maroney for -1 1-6-Dillon for -1 2-6-Maroney for -2 3-10-Evans for 4 Your team's only running success has been running draws in passing situations with your 3rd down back, who is now hurt, and a 4th and 1 play where the other teams defense gambled that it would be a QB sneak and lost. Your other 2 runningbacks last 5 runs have all resulted in negative yardage, not even a single one got back to the line of scrimmage, and you have Tom Brady. Are you going to keep running the ball?

I can say that each networked computer does have it's own IP address. That's both true and not true. It is true that each computer is assigned it's own IP address, but the outside world might not know that IP address. For example, a local school that I helped them with their network. Inside the network, each computer had a specialized IP address, and they were running a Class B network. To the outside world, they were running a Class C network, and they had 1 server. I've had rejections from places like yahoo when working on 2 different computers in one of their labs, based on the objection from the outside world that they are the same IP address (for example, 2 people trying to create 2 different fantasy teams in the same league). That's how it looks to the Internet, but obviously on the network all of them are assigned different addresses in order to know what information to send to which computer.

Yes, I'm fairly resigned to the idea that the Colts are going to get their yards against us. I'm confused and worried about that Colts run defense. Has there ever been a run D so bad that suddenly got so good? I can't figure it. Can't just be Sanders. What's Dungy been feeding those boys? We'll need to run on Mr. Sanders and his suddenly solid run D or else obviously we will lose the football game. The run defense by the Colts has been a combination of several things. 1) Booger Mcfarland has finally gotten comfortable, and now he is drawing constant double teams. That means more free passes for the linebackers. 2) The DE's for the Colts are not running quite as far outside as they did earlier in the season, which is tightening the running lanes 3) Rob Morris has taken over at SSLB-Morris is a good run stopper, even if he's terrible in pass coverage-he replaced Gilbert Gardner, who was the worst player I have ever seen. 4) Sanders-he lets everyone move a little faster, because Sanders can make up for mistakes that others make. He is truly a special player when healthy. 5) When Sanders moves into the lineup at safety, that means that Marlin Jackson can play more corner, and Marlin is the best tackler the Colts have at corner (with Nick Harper also a good tackler, but Jason David struggles against the run because of being tiny). Finally, it's confidence and attitude-the Colts defense was really run down near the end of the season, and that caused them to go a little slower-now they have that swagger back, and it has allowed them to play closer to what the defense did in 2005 with basically the same lineup, instead of the horrible run defense seen in most of 2006.

Last I checked it was one login per IP address. I would be suprised if you are able to login more than one time per game while still logged in on the original IP. When did you check??? I had used my same user id to login to multiple computers (anywhere from 3 to 6 computers were running games with my ONE user id) all the way up to game 5 of the 2006 WS. We did that almost every game. Suprised you accomplished this. Perhaps you are behind a firewall that broadcasts out the same IP. My understanding is that your login ID sync's with the IP address on the computer logged in. However, if you are behind a firewall, MLB's servers may see you as 192.168.x.x etc... Not sure, maybe others with a better understanding of IP Addressing and general connectivity can chime in. Again, I would be shocked if 1 username could populate several computers. If that is the case, I will buy a NSBB username and share it with everyone! When I read her post, that's what I thought. All of her computers are on the same network, so the site will treat them all as the same (there's probably just one line actually going out to the outside world-the computers only get differentiated after the information comes to the access point inside their network). She probably couldn't do it for both her home and her work, but all her work computers would be able to watch.

So if Dallas Clark goes in the slot, who would be assigned to cover him? Well, this isn't backyard (you got that guy I got that guy) football, that could change on any given play. It could be a lineback, it could be a dback, or it could be nobody if they are in zone. True, but usually one player gets the bulk of the responsibility-my main question was which linebacker usually gets coverage responsibilities in that sort of base-my guess is that in the Cover 2 system it's your WILL, but I'm not completely sure which outside backer your WILL is. Briggs. However, you are mistaken if you think we run a textbook Cover-2 . We change plenty of things around to fit Urlacher's skillsets. Yeah, I can tell-it's a testament to the Cover 2 being changed when your MLB leads the team in tackles-it should be the WILL who gets all the stats but is not completely deserved (for example, Cato June for the Colts got a Pro Bowl appearance last year, was tied with Urlacher in tackles this year (5th in the league)), but people are not calling him one of the top free agents this year with good reason, because his stats are inflated by the whole defense designed to bring the runner back to him. The fact that Urlacher has so many tackles shows both his extreme talent level, and the fact that the defense has been adapted in some way.

So if Dallas Clark goes in the slot, who would be assigned to cover him? Well, this isn't backyard (you got that guy I got that guy) football, that could change on any given play. It could be a lineback, it could be a dback, or it could be nobody if they are in zone. True, but usually one player gets the bulk of the responsibility-my main question was which linebacker usually gets coverage responsibilities in that sort of base-my guess is that in the Cover 2 system it's your WILL, but I'm not completely sure which outside backer your WILL is.

So much for the Colts SI cover jinx-this week's cover: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/covers/issues/2007/0205.html

So if Dallas Clark goes in the slot, who would be assigned to cover him? Probably Urlacher or Briggs. If Wayne is in the slot, likely Ricky Manning. Hmm-I could maybe see the Colts running the ball a decent amount in this rotation-but if they run the stretch play to that side, I'm going to scream! I want them to run it up the middle in a formation like this to take advantage of the linebacker out wide. I do not however see them running this formation as much as in previous games-I think the Colts may try to stay with a more standard look of the 2 tight ends in tight to try to condense the field a bit more, and allow their receivers to work with a little more room. If the Bears play the receivers 1 on 1, I see the 10-12 yard out working several times for the Colts (a staple of the Colts offense) because those corners will have to respect the deep threat. What I do not see is routes like the Saints took where they sent their outside receivers over the middle of the field. First, that's not the Colts way anymore to run a great deal of crossing routes. Second, it's simply too dangerous with the Bears linebackers out there.

So if Dallas Clark goes in the slot, who would be assigned to cover him?

I'm going to shamlessly bump my own post, only because I was silly enough to post it at 1:30 in the morning, and don't want it to get buried with only 1 or 2 responses. I really would like to know what defensive alignment Bears fans think they should stay in most of the time, and how they match up with the Colts in that particular alignment.