CubColtPacer

grr..that wasn't even a great runback either. The Colts just opened up the entire middle of the field to Randle El..all he had to do was basically run straight. At least 2 people missed their gaps there, just very disappointing.

3 quick reactions from the Colts board that I'm on. First was stunned silence. Then, a quick reaction screaming how that wasn't roughing the passer for going up around the neck after the play, when Freeney just got called for roughing the passer for hitting the QB in the face while tackling him before he threw the ball. Finally, some relief when he came on to the field, although them running the ball on 3rd and 8 was not a great sign.

Yup-if Troy P. hadn't been out there, Vick might have been able to take that one in for a TD.

Was it to Gates? Gamecast has it to Manumaleuna.

The only thing you cannot do down a field goal, less than 4 minutes to play, 3rd and goal, and what does Jake Delhomme do? Throw an easy INT in the back of the end zone.

BTW, Monte Reagor, the Colts starting DT, was in a major car accident on the way into the game today with also a lady in the car. They were both taken to the hospital. I doubt it is life-threatening, but I'm not sure since I'm hearing it secondhand (it was on the Indy local news apparently). Remember both of them today, I heard his SUV flipped.

BTW, Ronde Barber has 2 INT's now and 2 TD's-Mcnabb has thrown 3 INT's overall, and it's 17-0 TB over Philly. Wow.

If they play a good game today, I think that they will take over the Bears for consensus best team in football again I'm not sure. There are a great deal of misconceptions about the Colts this year. The Fox pre-game show started off by telling its audience that the Colts have absolutely no running game this year. They backed it up by saying that Edge was 5th in running at this time of the year, and Rhodes is only 30th this year. Of course, the Colts use 2 RB's-and the tandem has had a better YPC average and a better YPG average than Edge did in the first 5 games last year. I don't know if that type of misconception will die easily.

I would say that Indianapolis already had their tough week(s) with the Jets and Titans in weeks 4 and 5 respectively. The Colts have struggled though coming out of their bye weeks (until last year when their bye week was right before New England, and they destroyed NE-but last year was just a special year, nobody could hang close with us at that point in the season). I expect a tough game with Washington this week-I hope the Colts can get a win, because their next 2 weeks are at Denver and at NE.

No, the coaches poll had Georgia as 24 last week. I was looking at the polls during the game yesterday, and I couldn't believe they were still in the coaches poll after the 2 losses-so they actually dropped a spot after yesterday. It's not like the teams that are just out of the polls are usually pretty good anyway this year. The first 5 teams out of the AP poll-Georgia, Tulsa, BYU, Va Tech, Miami-anybody want to put any of those 5 in the top 25?

I wouldnt worry about the Irish next year, im not. Those are most definetly tough games. That's actually probably quite accurate. The Irish youngsters are going to have to learn very fast to have a good team next year-right now it looks like a 6 or a 7 win team though for next year. Who's their quarterback going to be next year? Some of my friends who are ND fans are saying Claussen. Not sure if that's a great idea. Good to see Mizzou finally get the KSU monkey off their backs. There was a bunch of good recruits in the next two classes at the game. Hopefully they liked what they saw. If I had to guess today, I would say Clausen would be the favorite. Is it optimal? No-but the only other options would be sophmores who don't have any game experience either. Even if they start the season, Clausen will probably end up coming in by 4-5 games in anyway, so I'm guessing they just skip that and go with him to start. I'm not expecting big things out of him next year, but I hope it'll be a learning experience for him.

It's stupid. Hypothetically even if we go 11-1 and win the Big Ten in either of the next two years, people will say it's just because we didn't play UM or OSU. You're really in a no-win situation as far as major achievements. Plus the Michigan and Ohio State games are the ones you look forward to and get excited about. I can understand what you mean there about not being able to prove yourselves. The funny thing is that Indiana, the other team who will not play Michigan or OSU the next two years, their fans are ecstatic about it. They think it will be a good way to build their program, because now they have a better chance to go to a bowl game the next two years, which will increase visibility for recruits. Iowa though is definitely in a different position, and Michigan and OSU being gone will have to make Iowa for the most part go out and prove themselves outside of the conference.

I wouldnt worry about the Irish next year, im not. Those are most definetly tough games. That's actually probably quite accurate. The Irish youngsters are going to have to learn very fast to have a good team next year-right now it looks like a 6 or a 7 win team though for next year.

Interesting, Nebraska #15. They are good, no doubt, but they haven't impressively beat anyone in conference. A bad KU team by only 7, a bad Iowa State team by only 14, and a meh K-State team by only 18. They are good, and I'd rank them higher than Missouri at this point (just because they have played USC and UT tough), but I don't think they're a top 15 team. I see them losing two of the next three games: on the road against a solid Oklahoma State, home vs. Missouri, and on the road against A&M. Wasn't Nebraska #17 this week? You don't go up 2 spots by losing, IMO. Yes, I know they played a top team. I still don't think they'll go up. they barely lost though. a win would have put them in my top 10. losing by two to a heavy favorite top 5 team is at least 2 spots IMO. Who else would you put at 15? Oregon lost badly, GT lost badly (even though it was to a great clemson team). That's two teams that dropped to let Nebraska go up 2. I would think Rutgers would deserve to be in 15th now at least now that they are 7-0 and have beaten a legitimate opponent. Also Wisconsin deserves to be in front of Nebraska-only one loss to Michigan. A 3rd team that should be in front is BC-only one loss, and wins over Clemson, Va Tech, and Florida State.

That is the sentiment I don't understand? Who behind them has been definitely better than ND? All of those teams have had at least one scare and most of them 2 scares like ND has had along with a loss, just like ND. What teams would you put above them?

I think you might see Clemson or GT jump up into the better part of the top 10 if they can blowout each other That's certainly possible-I see that as more likely for Clemson than GT (since I don't see GT probably jumping ND in the polls, and ND is at the back of the top 10). They are both good teams that have been underappreciated though.

That ND-UCLA game was so great. Both teams played so well defensively, it was a shame one team had to lose. It seems like it is happening all over the country to the one loss teams that played anybody at all. Texas, ND, TN, and Cal have all been severely tested today (TN is still being tested). I haven't seen anything today to differentiate between the one loss teams today-they all have really struggled.

Because they got killed at home against the other good team they faced. LSU has played multiple teams of that caliber, lost them both by close margins. Florida has beaten multiple teams of that caliber. Auburn beat two teams of that caliber. Florida and Auburn definitely deserve to be up there. LSU it's hard to tell. They certainly have not proved anything. Other than their 2 losses (BTW, the Florida loss was never that close in the second half for them) they've blown out everyone they've played-but their schedule for their wins is horrible-Louisiana-Laffyette, Arizona, Tulane, Miss State, Kentucky. I really have no idea right now about how good LSU is. Arkansas is getting hurt by the USC game, preseason predictions, but also the fact of a couple of other games. Vanderbilt had a field goal try to beat them in the closing seconds, and they had to beat Alabama in OT (and Bama should have won that game other than their ST was absolutely terrible-I believe a couple missed field goals, including one very late in the game, and the game-losing missed extra point in OT). So Arkansas really has only had 1 good game all year.

How does having Glavine bunt "hugely" increase the chance for an out at third? I think he's saying because they would be playing up for the bunt for Glavine. There were other people on the Mets bench who could bunt who the Cardinals would have to at least partially respect their hitting, though.

I don't think ARam is going anywhere, but obtaining ARod or Tejada is a step backward because ARam matches them in production and the Cubs don't have to give up players for him. The only thing with that is that Ramirez's money will come off the books as well, which will allow the Cubs to sign another big-time FA. Don't get me wrong-I'll be very disappointed if the Cubs don't re-sign Ramirez. I definitely think it is a big priority that the Cubs sign him. Right now, the team is looking at signing or trading for one big hitter. If Ramirez leaves, they will hopefully just take the money and go get two big hitters instead.

I would agree with that. I don't think the Mets score either way in hindsight. BTW, the last pitch was great-but that second pitch that Beltran barely got a piece of was even better I thought. Beltran could have taken 10 swings at that curveball and might have gotten it out to the infield 2 or 3 times, and it might have been called a strike if he had taken it. It was simply nasty.

With Floyd, who has only had one other at bat the whole series? Floyd is hurt and can't run. Even if he did get a hit you have to take him out anyway. I thnk the smarter move was to bunt, then PH Floyd for Lo Duca possibly if needed. Floyd had just as much capability to drive the ball into an alley, over the fence, etc. as he would to make an out. Unfortunately for every Mets hitter in the 9th, Wainright had a very nasty breaking ball that the best hitters in the league couldn't have hit. Floyd's normally going to make an out almost 70 percent of the time. With him being hurt, his swing seemed to be off. Floyd was just as likely to hit into a DP as get a base hit with him hurt and not swinging as well as he usually does-and then a base hit does not get it to a tie.

That was one situation I definitely would have bunted. You need both of the runs. Floyd's only had 2 AB's in a week and is hurting. With the combination of those two factors, he is probably close to as likely to hit into a DP as he is to get a hit. If you bunt, you've got two more spray than HR hitters (I know, Reyes has power also) only needing a single to tie the game. Most of the times I'm not in favor of bunting-but that was a perfect bunting situation IMO.

When he put on that Jersey. I swear Duncan is a Genius or they are the luckiest team alive pitching wise. they turn lemons into lemonade consistantly. Look at Weaver for god sakes! actually weaver sucked during the regular season for the cards too... he just all of a sudden learned how to pitch once the playoffs rolled around. Sometimes the pixie dust doesn't come alive until they need it to, as opposed to just letting them run away with everything a la 2004-05. Yup..with their roster, they realized that in 2004 and 2005 their pixie dust ran out. So this year, they conserved it, like a Nascar or Indycar driver conserves fuel while in the lead. They conserved it so much that they almost gave up the lead, but have been putting a lot of it on now. Getting Yadear Molina to hit that kind of home run? They must have used the rest of it :D

Wasn't this our problem in 2004? Either we would win with the long ball or we sucked. Piniella has stated that the home field should be an advantage to us. If that is true (and I believe it is), then we had better learn how to win when the wind is blowing in at 20 mph. Power will not help us much in that situation. As with any good team (coach), you have to learn to adjust to the environmental conditions of the ballpark, particularly with Wrigley. If we want to be a playoff contending team....we have to learn how to use Wrigley as an advantage to us. Ken Other teams didn't have problems launching HRs into the wind at Wrigley. That's not quite completely true. The Cubs did much better at keeping pace with the opponents when the HR's were into the wind than anywhere else. This is my rough count of the number of HR's hit by each team in games where there was wind coming in, wind blowing out, or a crosswind. I didn't put the zeros into my number data, which is why you may see different amount of numbers for each one. BTW, as most of you probably know, the wind blows in many, many more times then it does out-or at least it did this year. Wind Blowing In Cubs-1,2,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1=30 Opp-1,1,1,1,1,1,4,1,1,1,1,1,1,4,1,1,2,2,2,1,3,2,1,2=37 Wind Blowing Out Cubs-1,1,1,2,3,2,4,2,2,1,4,1,2,4,3,6,1=40 Opp-6,3,1,1,8,1,8,1,4,4,5,6,1,1,6,2,2=60 Cross Wind Cubs-1,2,2,1,1,2=9 Opp-6,2,1,1,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,1,4=26 As you can see, HR's did not play a big factor in losing games for the wind blowing in. Also, there is a huge difference in the number of HR's per game with the wind blowing in and the wind blowing out. There are only 3 numbers above 2 HR's in a game with the wind blowing in (all from the Cubs opponents). With the wind blowing out, with several less games to work with, there are 15 of those 3 HR games or more for one team (6 for the Cubs, 9 for the opposition). Environmental factors do play a big difference at Wrigley. I would agree with the solution though of getting more people on base to counteract that HR problem when the wind is blowing in.