CubColtPacer

Mark my words, Peter will use Rex's past quarterback ratings as an reason to dump on him at some point. In fact if I go look through his archives, I'm pretty damn sure he's already done it! Plus his point is stupid. Peyton Manning played like crap. Brady played pretty poorly too. By the way, every time Robbie Gould makes a kick I get more and more pissed off. Not because I hate the Bears or anything, but because he sucked when he was at Penn State. And I blame the PSU coaching staff for that (since they inexplicably refuse to hire a special teams coach). I would agree partially with Peter King on his point. Both men should not be criticized as much as normally those ratings would make one criticize because of the quality of defenses they were facing. However, neither one of them were "gallant". Manning played ok the entire game, and Brady played terrible most of the game, and very good to great for part of the game, which averages out to "ok" as well. I would say that Grossman still played a little better than either of those two QB's-his stats were much better against not anywhere near the same caliber of defense, which puts him closer to Manning and Brady, but still ahead of them for this week.

Personally, if I was an opposing coach I would never kick it to Hester on kickoffs, and I would always kick it to him on punts. He is almost a liability on punts sometimes-3 times yesterday he almost turned the ball over. Twice he fumbled, but the one I thought was the worst was when he dove and extended to make that fair catch-all it took was one bobble on a very difficult catch, and all the Seahwaks could have jumped on him. I've seen him field numerous punts inside the 10, and that's not the first time he has fumbled a few punts either. So, I'd try to get him to use his aggressiveness and punt it to him, but I'd avoid him on the kickoff, where he can take it back on any return, and he has virtually no risk of doing something silly like a punt. Kickoffs is where the Bears should continue to get good field position no matter what the opponents do, and that's where his value is to you.

It looks like Vegas agree with me that all the teams are even-opening lines that I've seen has the Colts and Bears as 3 point favorites, which means both games would be a pick em game on a neutral field.

The RCA Dome is going to be the loudest it's ever been next week, and when the Dome gets loud it I think is the loudest place in the league. I'm not saying that the Colts are necessarily the best fanbase at generating noise, but that dome is so small and a confined space that the noise just amplifies in there. It is going to be crazy in there next week, and I wish I was there (my dad is going to the game next week). It's going to be a great ballgame, just as the Colts-Patriots game in the regular season was. Well, one of the 2 results I wanted today happened (and the more important one). Sorry Bears fans, I was only rooting against you because I didn't feel the Seahawks were any kind of threat to win the SB, and I think the Bears are a legitimate threat. I think the 4 teams left in the playoffs are very equal, and I can see home field advantage possibly swinging either one of the two games.

Bolonga. You have to make a "football move." He caught it and had it ripped away before he could do anything. Anyone else never hear anyone anywhere use the term "football move" until the refs tried to steal a playoff game from the Steelers last year? Not me-I heard it used a long time before that.

I just don't understand that coaching decision at all-if it was 4th and 3, maybe. 4th and 11 though? That's just not a very smart decision to make, and I was thinking that not in hindsight.

I thought I saw the block in the back, but it was a little further up, closer to midfield. It was definitely worse than the one they showed before the break though.

I've seen them do this before-they are advertising for their pregame show (as somebody mentioned), that's why they have it listed at the time they do. It's not an error, that's when they believe their "coverage" of the game starts.

The Colts offense was ok today, the Colts defense was very good. I have no problem with the way Manning played today-that was an amazing defense who have done that to almost everybody all year (Many of the points scored against that defense have been in garbage time-if you take out garbage time, they are only averaging giving up something like 8 or 9 points per game). Manning didn't play extremely well, but he did manage to go down and get some points, and only had 1 INT that hurt at all (admittedly, he could have easily had 2 more-although 1 of those wouldn't have hurt that much, as it was on 3rd down as well). The running game was very good against a Baltimore defense that was extremely stingy against the rushing defense. I think that showed that Baltimore was willing to give up the run that they had done well against all season to try to take away the pass. The defense? Just wow-if they can continue playing like this, the Colts have a great chance against either opponent next week. Obviously, next week the other team is going to score more points-it's almost impossible to keep teams like the Patriots or Chargers under 14-17 points. If they can keep them under 21 though, I think the Colts have a great shot to win the game, and it is an amazing turnaround by the D. Well, the Patriots might beat us this week, but I have to root for them anyway tomorrow. I'd love to see an AFC Championship game in Indy, but I think the team has a puncher's chance against either San Diego or NE at this point.

They might have called Reed's forward progress stopped before he even went out of bounds (making the pitch irrelevant)-I'm not sure though.

I know-I wouldn't mind if that was a penalty, but the Ravens have been doing that all day, so if it wasn't called then it shouldn't be called now.

It's spelled Dominic, but it's pronounced like Dominique.

We'll see, as an IU fan I hope they win. However, they are 0-3 on the road so far this season. Granted, those three road games were Duke, Kentucky, and Ohio State. Despite, PSU not being as good a team, I think the game will be a lot closer than the Purdue and MSU games. Gotta shoot well on the road for a change. BTW, if they played today, IU would beat Duke and UK on the road. And I also count Butler as a road game. It was like 5 minutes from their campus. I have a hunch that Butler fans probably didn't outnumber IU fans at that game. There are probably more IU fans in the greater Indianapolis area than Butler fans in the entire country. I wouldn't say that for sure-there was a tournament in 2002 where both IU and Butler participated in that I went to -there were at least as many Butler fans as IU fans there. There are a great number of IU fans in the area, but Butler has a pretty big following around Indy as well, and probably got plenty of fans there.

I think Jones is slightly better for the short-term, but I actually think Church is a better fit for the Cubs, then Jones, because of his ability to reach base consistantly. If you think Jones is slightly better for the short-term but Church is better because of his ability to reach base constantly, then are you saying that Jones' slugging advantage over Church slightly outweighs Church's OBP advantage? Because in a much worse hitting environment Church has outslugged Jones the past two years. Church has put up OPS+ of 120 and 128. Jones hasnt come close to that since his break out year in 2002. The only valid concern about Church is that he hasn't been a full time player, but I think that is more a reflection of an organization that just gave Nook Logan the starting CF job. I believe Bruce Miles stated before Christmas that the Cubs have no interest in Ryan Church. No, he said that the Cubs had interest, but that Washington was asking for way too much for him to make a deal at that time.

He's not that type of receiver though. If you want a receiver to go across the middle and muscle others around, go for Samardzija, Jarrett, or Calvin. Ginn is the speedy type of receiver that relies on running excellent routes and being quicker than DBs. I'm not saying he'll be this good, but think of Marvin Harrisson. They're very simialr in body type (Ginn is taller) and you almost never see Marvin go across the middle (that I can think of). I will agree though, that Ginn will need to work on his route running to truly succeed in the NFL. I'd love the Titans to take him at 19 unless Calvin (or maybe Samardzija) is there. I'm ok with Ginn, and I believe he's gone over the middle more than most people believe this year. That's something he's going to have to do in the NFL though, at least initially. I know Marvin had to do it-for 3 to 5 years at the start of his career, Marvin was known as the man who would go across the middle one yard past the sticks, catch the ball and get drilled but hold on for the first down. It's only the last 4-5 years where he has really been able to avoid the punishment on his body that will lead him to a very long career. From watching 6-7 OSU games this year, my belief is that Ginn can go across the middle. I think it will be up to a team's needs on if they are going to draft a Ginn or a Jarrett, as they both would fit better with a certain type of NFL QB. I would agree that if Ginn or a player of his caliber falls to 19 that he should be taken very quickly.

The Iverson trade makes less sense for Denver now-they just agreed to a trade with Milwaukee where they give up Earl Boykins and Julius Hodge for Steve Blake. Basically, this deal came about because of the Iverson trade, and so it can almost be added to that deal that Denver has to do an almost salary dump now. This makes Milwaukee a little scarier now-already, all 5 teams in the Central are making the playoffs, and I hate to see the Bucks getting better.

With the talent in the 1st round at receiver, I could easily see 5 or more receivers taken in the 1st round. 3 of them will be taken in the top 12-15 (CJ, Ginn, Jarrett), and then the Patriots will likely draft a receiver with one of their 2 picks (and the one unfortunately who I think will take Samardzija especially with their connections to Weis), and then I think one other team at the bottom of the first round will take a WR.

Vance didn't suggest letting Clark playing fulltime while Jones and Murton platoon, but rather a Clark/Pie platoon-that lets Pie get used to the major leagues while not having to face the lefthanders he has had some trouble against. I'd like that idea a great deal-my one concern is where somebody like Clark would bat. For his production, it would suggest that he bat in the 1st or 8th slot, but neither of those is an option on this team. I'd worry if the Cubs got Clark that he would bat 8th and Izturis would bat second, and that would negate almost all of the gains that Clark might possibly bring.

Samardzija at 13 is a bit of a surprise. I thought so too. I just don't see him as the second best receiver in the draft. Remember, Ginn is not on this board yet. He might still go above Samardzija. I'd put Ginn and Jarrett as well above Samardzija, but I think Jeff is the 4th best receiver on the board, which normally would still put him safely in the 1st round.

Samardzija at 13 is a bit of a surprise. I'm not very shocked about that-he has all the tools of the top receivers. The only big concern about him is his commitment to baseball. If people want to drop his status, start a big PR campaign about how he is going to pick baseball over football, and his draft status will drop like crazy :D.

Indiana with back to back blowout wins-I almost cannot remember the last time this has happened. This time it is 85-58 over Purdue. This team seems to be getting better and better as the season goes along, and a favorable Big 10 schedule will make it even better for them.

Well, uh, good luck to him I guess. I have absolutely no idea why he would do this either (I can't think his pro prospects are that high) but you're right, ND might be better off without him at this point. Walker's running style would not fit the offense very well next year, as ND will need a guy who can run inside just a bit more than Walker does and can get a more consistent yardage, instead of going for 0, 0, and then 10 or 20 with a young QB.

All of that is of course true-at the same time, Auburn got drilled in both of their losses, while USC barely lost both of their games. Auburn didn't have another significant win that I can think of besides LSU, UF, and Nebraska in the bowl game. USC had Arkansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Michigan, and Cal. I think USC's good wins outweigh Auburn's great wins, and I think the losses are pretty similar (USC lost to worse teams, but that is counterbalanced by Auburn not being competitive in either of their 2 losses). Also-one more thing-Auburn had 4 to 5 absolutely terrible teams on their schedule. USC had only 1 or 2. That has to count for something.

Fans of teams that aren't in the big 10 get tired of hearing about how OSU/Michigan should rematch for the championship. Everyone said Florida had no chance. Pretty much the big 10 has 2 good teams (sometimes 3). They play about 2 hard games a year and the media acts like they are on a different level than other teams. In the SEC you play a tough game nearly every week. So the fans of an SEC team enjoy it when one of the SEC teams hands a big 10 team their butt. That's the best explanation I can give. I might agree with that point this year but not usually. Usually, the Big 10 is as deep as the SEC-this year, that wasn't the case at all. Still though, the Big 10 did go 2-1 against the SEC, which doesn't prove the Big 10 was better (their 0-4 record in other bowls kind of shows that they weren't) but that the difference wasn't as big as most people would think it is. A friend (who is a big SEC fan and a proud supporter of the SEC's superiority) and I did a comparison of the SEC and Big 10 before this season started. Take the Big 10 schools and the SEC schools and rank them from top to bottom based on their performances over the last 10 years, and throw out the SEC school that's either 6th or 7th (throw out one of the middle ones to equalize the difference of 1 school between the 2 conferences). Then, compare the accomplishments over those 10 years between each of the matchups. I think you'll find that the two conferences have been virtually identical over that time period. You can throw them out when doing a comparison, but when the real games happen you still have to play them. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. SEC teams miss 3 of their conference teams every year while Big 10 teams only miss 2 of them. The fairest thing to do is to take the team out that is the most average. Or are you saying that the SEC has a fundamental advantage by having the extra team?

Basketball has a top 25 ranking and a championship game. That's not a fundamental flaw. The rankings are used to determine who gets to play the game, and the game determines who the champ is. A 4-team playoff doesn't eliminate controversy, but it certainly reduces it. If you take the top 4, that eliminates the controversy coming from the top 4. There will be bitching by the 5th/6th ranked teams, but I say too bad. If you didn't play well enough in the regular season to be ranked 4th, that's your own fault. And if you ended undefeated but were not ranked, schedule better opponents. The biggest problem with a large playoff is there is no motivation to schedule meaningful out of conference regular season games. The regular season is still the bread and butter of CFB, and I think it should remain so. I think it will change with a +1 game, then a playoff. The BCS setup was the first step in the gradual transformation away from voting for champs and playing for champs. A 4 or possibly 8 team playoff is the inevitable end. Anything larger than that would be absurd. The one question I have is how does Boise State get these better opponents to schedule in order to break into the top 4? Top programs are going to want to have nothing to do with Boise for good reason. If Boise beats them, that's obviously bad news for a team like USC. If USC beats Boise, then Boise gets discredited because they have a loss and no good wins, and that of course doesn't make USC look good either. So there's absolutely no reason for a good team to put Boise on their schedule, and Boise then will never get a good game and will never get into the top 4. Their only chance is something like this year but a little better, for a team who was thought to be bad (Oregon State) turns out to be decent or even better.