CubColtPacer

That really doesn't make any sense to me. Haddad tried to file civil charges, and the case got dismissed halfway through the trial because Haddad was lying about just about everything :D. What's next? Are those two guys who attacked the Royals first base coach going to sue the Royals for beating on them after they entered the field? I never understood why Jermaine was involved in the first place (and believe me, I was very critical of the other two players at the time, especially Stephen Jackson). Isn't what JO did about the same as what the Royals players did-simply beat on a guy who came on to the court looking for trouble, even after the initial danger was over with?

Reported by Bill Polian on a radio show, Nick Harper "worked out today and looked good". He didn't specify what type of workouts, but that's still encouraging news.

What kind of leverage does he have? How about a 8 to 9 million dollar initial football contract-that sounds like pretty good leverage to me. (that's about what Santonio Holmes signed for-which sounds about right for Samardzija's draft status if he concentrated on football).

I see an obvious way around it. Addai and Rhodes have the benefit of playing with the Indy passing game. Benson and Jones do much of their work on their own. I think the Bears have a clear RB advantage, while Indy has a clear passing game advantage. The Bears line is also much better run blockers, while the Indy line, while getting better, is still primarily a pass blocking line. It's hard to tell if that would completely eliminate the QB advantage though or just eliminate some of it.

Push. Yeah, I tend to agree. If someone has a edge here, it's probably pretty slight. I would have to agree-the RB's are dead even. Maybe I'm being a homer, but I think the Bears RBs are better...but thats not taking a lot away from the Colts RBs who I think are good. I think Jones and Addai are about a push, but I think Benson is better then Rhodes Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but there's no way IMHO to definitively judge the RB duos of the game, especially since Addai was used progressively through the season. Both duos had a great regular season and have been solid in the postseason. As big of a fan of Addai as I am right now, I'd say the RB matchup is as even of any matchup in the SB. Addai was a really good pickup for you guys. YOu guys didn't lose much getting rid of Edge. They gained by it. Edge was hitting the wall, and Indy wisely saw it. True-there was a lot of criticism for the Colts signing Reggie Wayne to the big deal and not signing Edgerrin. It reminded me of the Manning vs. Leaf debate, and then the why Edgerrin over Ricky Williams crowd. Polian has proved himself to be smarter than the fans so many times. What I find amazing is the Colts first picks in the draft. I'm not sure a team has ever been this great in the first round (and first pick one time when the Colts traded down) in the history of the game. Here are the Colts first picks since 1996. 1996-Marvin Harrison, WR (4th receiver taken) 1997-Tarik Glenn, OT 1998-Peyton Manning, QB 1999-Edgerrin James, RB 2000-Rob Morris, LB 2001-Reggie Wayne, WR 2002-Dwight Freeney, DE 2003-Dallas Clark, TE 2004-Bob Sanders, S (taken in the second round with the Colts first pick after they traded down) 2005-Marlin Jackson, CB 2006-Joseph Addai, RB Look at that list-there are only 3 people taken in the top half of the first round (Manning, James, Freeney). Freeney, Harrison, Wayne, Clark, and Sanders were widely criticized as being reaches. All of them with the exception of Edgerrin were key factors in beating the Patriots last week. They haven't had a single true bust in over a decade, and have built their unbelievable offense and defensive playmakers out of basically their first round picks. That is simply amazing to me.

Push. Yeah, I tend to agree. If someone has a edge here, it's probably pretty slight. I would have to agree-the RB's are dead even. Maybe I'm being a homer, but I think the Bears RBs are better...but thats not taking a lot away from the Colts RBs who I think are good. I think Jones and Addai are about a push, but I think Benson is better then Rhodes Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but there's no way IMHO to definitively judge the RB duos of the game, especially since Addai was used progressively through the season. Both duos had a great regular season and have been solid in the postseason. As big of a fan of Addai as I am right now, I'd say the RB matchup is as even of any matchup in the SB. I would agree with that. If you look at their averages during the regular season, both the Bears RB's were at 4.1. The Colts RB's? 4.8 for Addai, 3.4 for Rhodes, which just happens to average out at 4.1 YPC. That position is as even as it can possibly get, and is the only one besides possibly kickers with the way Gould is kicking that can really be called that way

Well, not to nit-pick, but there are 6 or 7 teams in the NFL without a #3 QB (at least there were the last time I heard the stat, either last year or this year), including the Colts. In fact, the Colts #3 is their punter, Hunter Smith.

Push. Yeah, I tend to agree. If someone has a edge here, it's probably pretty slight. I would have to agree-the RB's are dead even.

That's just silly. You can't expect the media to miss a day of hype. Plus, with an 8:30 pm interview session they might miss dinner. :lol: It's still silly. If I were the Colts, I'd arrive an extra day late just to make 'em more mad. What's the penalty for showing up late I wonder? Penalty is forfeiture of the game. BEARS win the Super Bowl! I don't think that Bears fans would be very happy about that either-there's simply no satisfaction ain a win by forfeit.

That might be mitigated by 55+ starts of Zambrano and Marquis though. zambrano's home runs are nice, but somewhat mitigated by the fact that he hit .151 and drew one walk last season. plus marquis hit 179/210/256 last year. i dont think they're mitigating much. Based on their careers, both of them should be significantly better at the plate next year than they were last year. career lines z=212/223/355 marquis marq= 223/241/316 which is a decent jump, and when you consider that last year affected both of their career lines (and while small, a decent percentage of their total at bats for their career), their lines before last year were even better than that, and much better than an average pitcher.

Proof that the media is trying to take over everything, even though the Colts are following the rules: http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9954505

There are two big problems with your graph. One is that you are calling 2002 a "Hendry year" and its totally not. He was signed as GM in July of that year and had little time to alter the make up of the team for the 2nd half of the season. It is really unfair to hold Hendry responsible for any of the team's results in '02. That roster was fully set before he took control. The first chance he really had to put his stamp on the team was the '02-'03 off season, and we all know what happened the following year. But I don't hold him solely responsible for getting the Cubs in the playoffs that year. A lot of things went right that he couldn't possibly have been directly responsible for. Which brings us to the second problem with your graph. It uses the win/loss record as the sole judge of a GM. So many other factors go into whether a team wins or not than just the make up of the 40-man roster. A GM could put together the greatest roster ever and if enough season-ending injuries happen to enough great players, that team will also finish with 66 wins. Extenuating circumstances must be factored in. Last season was a disaster, not so much because of the decisions Hendry made, (the Pierre trade wasn't good) but because of the onslaught of major injuries to the team's best players and some really poor performances by others who had previously performed much better. It's wrong to blame him for everything that happened in '06. Just like it would be wrong to fully credit him for getting the Cubs into the playoffs in '03. The Cubs got on a roll, got some good luck, had guys stay healthy all year. Hendry helped bring about the result in '03, but I think he actually did more in '04 with the additions of Lee and Garciaparra along with a full season from Ramirez. Those moves allowed the Cubs to stay in contention even with Sosa declining sharply in the middle of their line-up. To be fair and accurate, Hendry's win/loss record looks more like this: 4 years prior to Hendry: 67 wins in '99 65 wins in '00 88 wins in '01 67 wins in '02 4 years with Hendry: 88 wins in '03 89 wins in '04 79 wins in '05 66 wins in '06 And to better understand those win totals, one must also include the extenuating factors each year, both the good (like career years) and the bad (like major injuries to major players). Agreed completely. Hendry has built 1 good team and 3 average teams during his tenure here. The 1 good team underachieved and won 89 games. 1 of the average teams did much better than expected and went to the NLCS, 1 of them remained a perfectly average team, and 1 of them had big struggles including problems with injuries, gave up on the season in August, and were a bad team that gave up and lost games down the stretch with a makeshift lineup (if that team had tried, they could have won 70-75 games-I'm glad they sacrificed the wins for the extra experience they gave to the young players, but that team was not quite a 66 win team). The question is-can Hendry build a more consistent good team, instead of a .500 team that requires luck to make the playoffs? That remains to be seen-if not, then he needs to go, because .500 is not a goal. Hopefully he has learned from his most major mistake (trusting in Prior and Wood) and can have teams that are expected to win consistently.

I disagree only because the Cardinals really don't have enough decent pitchers right now. Which 5 pitchers are they going to start that's going to be better than Weaver, even if you don't consider Weaver to be very good?

Some of you are acting like AmazingGrace's comment was way off base. I don't see it that way. Okay, yes, the Cubs have not gotten progressively worse each year of his tenure. However, I do not count 2002 as a year of his tenure since he was taking over the position and the mess someone else made mid season. Yes, the Cubs won one more game in 2004 than they did in 2003. Short of that one win, they have gotten progressively worse. However, they went from 1st, to 3rd, to 4th to 6th since 2003 in the standings. Many will argue that the final standings have more significance than the final win count. Getting to the playoffs is definitely significant. Regardless of his past, he really can't get much worse than he was this past year, and I'm actually fairly pleased with his offseason. I still have some concerns about the direction of this club, but I'll hold off judgment until the season starts and I actually see that direction. I don't count the 2002 season either, but when you count 2003 as his first year, the improvement from the team that was there in 2002 has to be counted, since Hendry was there the entire 2002 offseason and improved that team into the 2003 version.

That might be mitigated by 55+ starts of Zambrano and Marquis though. zambrano's home runs are nice, but somewhat mitigated by the fact that he hit .151 and drew one walk last season. plus marquis hit 179/210/256 last year. i dont think they're mitigating much. Based on their careers, both of them should be significantly better at the plate next year than they were last year.

Dempster could be for the regular population (if he blows some saves, they'll turn on him quickly), but I think Izturis will be for NSBB. Most Cubs fans will probably like Izturis a great deal next year (because of his defense), but unless he really comes back from his injury NSBB will be all over him on his offensive production.

Bears are #1 in the league vs Tight Ends. I really don't remember a tight end doing a lot of damage to the Bears this season. Yeah-I don't see Clark making a large dent in the passing game, but I do think he can clear out some of the crossing routes for the WR's (by going deep and drawing one of the linebackers out) or for Addai on swing routes out of the backfield, which has been a staple of the Colts passing game as well. It's just too hard to complete a pass on one of those linebackers, as they are really good in pass coverage.

i was really hoping that they were gonna make everyone play stoned. Actually, somebody left a vague title on this subject on another board, and when the person clarified the subject someone said that it was good because Michael Vick and half the Bengals roster were already heading to Miami :D.

A report on the very different kind of grass that is being used for the Super Bowl than is normally used: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/special_packages/super_bowl/16441416.htm

Ward is really that power hitting infielder that you are looking for. In fact, he is almost exactly the same as Nevin. Also, you only have 24 players listed on your 25 man roster.

The big difference is that Rex did that in a 16 game season, his first full season, when you would expect some bad games. Marquis did it in a 33 game schedule, giving him much more of a chance to allow his better games to offset bad games. He also did that 6 games into a career that has had 2 other terrible seasons. Plus, a pitcher's numbers are a far greater indication of exactly what he did than a QB's numbers. QB's numbers depend heavily on what his players do. A pitcher's numbers depend on his defense to an extent, but it's much more of a 1 on 1 battle between pitcher and hitter. The QB is facing 11 opponents trying to stop him and needs the help of 10 teammates. You already admitted it's clear somebody else is the worst on the list. When we already know the answer, the only point in asking the question again is because you want to stir controversy. The "bad Rex" story sells, and the media loves it. They don't want decent Rex. And the only people who would actually think Rex was the worst are people too stupid to understand the truth. No, I only posted some of my analysis because two people made the statements that he doesn't deserve to be on the list with those other QB's, and that this season is better than those other QB's better seasons in their career. I refuted both of those-but he is most definitely not the worst. He deserves to be on the list of the 5 or 10 worst ever, but he's not the worst-that is clear. I would agree with you on the pitcher analogy, but only to say that a pitcher relies on a manager to limit the damage to his numbers like a QB relies on the other 10 people on the field. LaRussa did nothing to limit the damage to Marquis's numbers, and I'm not sure if the Bears did anything to try to limit the damage in his bad games or not. The problem I have with adding Grossman of the list is his lack of experience. The guy is young and just completed his first full season, to me it just shows injustice to put him on the list. True, but I don't think it really implies career, but simply right now. If Grossman goes on to have a successful career though, history will forget it was that way though, and will simply remember it as a good quarterback at the beginning of his career. Remember, a couple of those QB's when they played the SB as well were young, promising QB's also-they just happened not to pan out. I hope for Bears fans sake that Grossman does pan out, but I hope they also remember that Grossman's valient effort in the Super Bowl just fell a little short. :D

Of course, they've been playing just a little bit different of defenses in the playoffs :D ..but then again, that will also be in the case in the Super Bowl. Manning has had a tough test-the #1 scoring defense at their place, the #2 at his place, and now the #3 on a neutral field. Manning's statistics are pretty deceiving, as he's actually played pretty well throughout the playoffs (so has Grossman btw). It could come to QB's, but it certainly might not. Ok-a different question-how do you think the Bears will try to guard the Colts receivers? Who do you double? Whether this is good or bad, the Bears don't often double cover anyone. They tend to try and just do what they do. It usually works out. We'll see, I suppose, how it works in this game. It didn't work against Steve Smith, but that's probably an extreme example of a receiver that can really take over a game on his own. Another question... How big of a factor is Devin Hester in this game? I think he might, in fact, be a big reason the Bears win the game, if the Bears win. The x-factor, to cite an overused cliche. Coupled with the Colts' lackluster coverage unit, Rex and the Bears should see short fields a lot in this game, and Hester may also run one back on his own. Devin Hester is huge in this game, especially on kickoffs. If the Colts kick deep to him every time, I see two kickoffs getting past the 50 (with one maybe going for a TD) and the rest in between the 25-35. If they squib kick it, I see it more constant that the Bears will start closer to the 40. I see the Colts as more likely here doing the former, because their kickoff coverage has been good about half the time, and the Colts are a team that love to hold on to any sign of optimism. I see Hunter Smith trying to kick his punts out of bounds because he tends to outkick his coverage. Hunter loves to boot a 60 yard punt, and I don't want to see that with Hester standing back there. As far as doubling receivers, I can see why the Bears statistics line up the way they do. Some Colts fans noticed that the Bears do very well in every statistic passing wise except against the #1 receiver-and against that receiver, the Bears are one of the worst in the league. The Colts have two legitimate #1's on the outside, but one of them is hurt without telling anyone (Harrison). So it should be an interesting battle like the Patriots did with their corners 1 on 1 with the WR's.

The big difference is that Rex did that in a 16 game season, his first full season, when you would expect some bad games. Marquis did it in a 33 game schedule, giving him much more of a chance to allow his better games to offset bad games. He also did that 6 games into a career that has had 2 other terrible seasons. Plus, a pitcher's numbers are a far greater indication of exactly what he did than a QB's numbers. QB's numbers depend heavily on what his players do. A pitcher's numbers depend on his defense to an extent, but it's much more of a 1 on 1 battle between pitcher and hitter. The QB is facing 11 opponents trying to stop him and needs the help of 10 teammates. You already admitted it's clear somebody else is the worst on the list. When we already know the answer, the only point in asking the question again is because you want to stir controversy. The "bad Rex" story sells, and the media loves it. They don't want decent Rex. And the only people who would actually think Rex was the worst are people too stupid to understand the truth. No, I only posted some of my analysis because two people made the statements that he doesn't deserve to be on the list with those other QB's, and that this season is better than those other QB's better seasons in their career. I refuted both of those-but he is most definitely not the worst. He deserves to be on the list of the 5 or 10 worst ever, but he's not the worst-that is clear. I would agree with you on the pitcher analogy, but only to say that a pitcher relies on a manager to limit the damage to his numbers like a QB relies on the other 10 people on the field. LaRussa did nothing to limit the damage to Marquis's numbers, and I'm not sure if the Bears did anything to try to limit the damage in his bad games or not.

Of course, they've been playing just a little bit different of defenses in the playoffs :D ..but then again, that will also be in the case in the Super Bowl. Manning has had a tough test-the #1 scoring defense at their place, the #2 at his place, and now the #3 on a neutral field. Manning's statistics are pretty deceiving, as he's actually played pretty well throughout the playoffs (so has Grossman btw). It could come to QB's, but it certainly might not. Ok-a different question-how do you think the Bears will try to guard the Colts receivers? Who do you double?

I would agree with that-my guess is that Grossman has a TD or two with a turnover or two as well, which will be fine for what he's asked to do. Then it comes down to the Colts offense vs the Bears defense, which should be a fascinating battle.