dew1679666265

The Colts deserve their due, but the Bears really, really helped them out tonight. The Colts did their share of helping out the Bears too.

Oh c'mon. As much as I'd like to believe that, seeing as how you tore up my Saints, that's just a bit much. Look at the .500 or above teams the Colts beat this year: Patriots twice, Ravens, Eagles, Jaguars, Bengals, Jets, Giants, Titans, Broncos, Chiefs, and the Bears. That's 11 teams. .500 or above teams the Bears beat: Green Bay, Seattle twice, Giants, Jets, Rams, and Saints. That's 6 teams. Plus the Colts nearly had a second win over the Titans (while we were playing as well as anybody at the end of the year) if not for the Rob Bironas miracle (fluke) 60-yard field goal.

Why is wikipedia trying to jenx us? Arrogant Bear fans. :wink:

After Sweet Lou has led us to three in as many years with the team. 8-) Lou retires, hands the reins to Matheny, we sweep the season series vs. the Cards and win our 4th World Series!! ***wakes up*** No need for that my friend. I'd rather just stay asleep. :D

Awesome.

Strange they would set up a parade for the losing team. :wink: Not really last I heard they were considering doing one win or lose. Interesting. I didn't think parades were held when the team lost, pretty sure Nashville didn't hold one after the Titans lost.

Strange they would set up a parade for the losing team. :wink: I don't dare say that directly yet, no matter how I feel :D I can though because I'm not a fan. I just want to see Peyton win one and be able to talk about the Titans sweeping the defending Super Bowl champs next year. :P

Strange they would set up a parade for the losing team. :wink:

After Sweet Lou has led us to three in as many years with the team. 8-)

Is it my birthday? Bears are in the Super Bowl, AND Favre is coming back, thereby slowing the Packers' reemergence by another year? Wow. Aaron Rodgers, sucks to be you buddy. Personally, I think Favre is better now than Rodgers ever will be.

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.

Really wish Ed Hochuli was the ref. He's a very good ref and could probably beat up half the guys on the field. :D

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. Not trying to prolong the discussion too much, but I wanted to clear up one point that it doesn't seem like I made well enough. I don't think running the ball hurts a team's ability to score. I think continuing to run the ball when it hasn't worked consistently all game and hoping for the unlikely chance that it randomly starts working is a bad idea. Especially when you have the second best QB in the game on your team and the best QB in the game on the other side. The Pats were in numerous fourth downs in the first half because they continued to run the ball when it wasn't working. In the second half they have 14 more points if Reche Caldwell (former Florida WR) can catch absolutely wide open passes. Both game plans worked, the Colts simply executed better.

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. Also, the Bears were right to keep passing because the Saint pass defense is weak and has been consistently. The Colt run defense, especially in the playoffs, showed the ability to play well. They shut down the second best running back in the game (Larry Johnson) and the best O-line (Chiefs).

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. True enough, but even when the Colts closed the gap, the Patriots should be involving the run game in the offense. This is the same thing the Saints did (whether it was because McAllister was hurt or whatever), just passing is going to get you in trouble (especially when you have the Colts' pass rush). If the run game is even marginally successful on some consistent basis this is true, but running just to run when there is no consistent success is simply wasting plays when you have one of the best QBs in the game.

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. You are assuming none of those extra runs could lead to more first downs and longer drives. That is not an assumption I would agree with. The thing is, it's not an assumption that they wouldn't have gained more, it was shown throughout the game that they couldn't run the ball consistently. Sure, it's possible that any run could possibly be broken for a long run, but banking on all of a sudden breaking a long run after having next to no success all day is very poor strategy. Plus, the Pats only had a 21-6 lead in the second half for one drive, a Colts touchdown drive. The first time the Patriots had the ball, they were up one score, 21-13. At halftime, I said the Patriots would have to score more to hope to win because 21 points rarely beats the Colt offense. When you simply pound the ball and run clock, you're sacrificing the ability to score.

He's a former NFL running back or fullback, not sure exactly. He's been with ESPN for as long as I can remember, I believe since he retired sometime in the 90s. He sued the Bears for playing him when he was injured. Won a pretty good settlement. Anyway, it's no secret he doesn't like the Bears. He's a total Steelers homer, where he spent most of his career. I knew he was a Steelers homer, don't have to watch him much to see that. Didn't know about the Bear thing though, interesting.

How does he become available? Cha ching. Money talks and if the Cowboys want him I'm sure they'll "contact" him and let him know that the money is there for him. If the Bears decide to go on the cheap or in their words a "fair" price they may lose out on Lovie. I know he has a year left in his deal but something may be worked out. I like Lovie and I think he is a very good coach but the Boys may make a very good offer that the Bears my accept. This all depends on 3 things: -Do the Bears lowball Lovie -Is Lovie really interested in going to Dallas -Is Jones willing to pay the picks for Lovie While I think Jones is more than willing to pay the $$ for Lovie, I don't think he's willing to pay with picks. It's not his way. Jones has always believed the talent on the field is more important than the coach. My guess is that after interviewing Singletary, Jones will attempt to hire both Turner and Singletary away from the 49ers. I think his true desire is for Turner to come aboard to groom Garrett and have Singletary run the defense. Garrett and Singletary would give the Cowboys two young talents on each side of the ball and the one who shows the most promise would end up becoming the next coach when Turner steps down. I thought I had heard that Singletary could only leave the 49ers to become a head coach somewhere. This is due to his having the title "assistant head coach." I could be wrong on this, though.

He's a former NFL running back or fullback, not sure exactly. He's been with ESPN for as long as I can remember, I believe since he retired sometime in the 90s.

I would tend to agree with this. I'm of the mind that our defense wasn't that great last year, but with the addition of Izturis over Cedeno, a healthy Lee and improving Aramis, it appears the D would be better. I'm not sure though how much improvement DeRosa is over Theriot (who played most of the year that Neifi wasn't, and Walker played few games at 2nd) or Soriano is over Pierre, so the level of improvement is iffy.

Filed under "Things I'll never understand": The repeated firing and hiring of Norv Turner. Yeah, really. How the heck is this guy such a hot commodity every season? I don't think he's so much a hot commodity as a seat-warmer for Jason Garrett. There are few better for that job considering he's immensely popular amongst 90s-era Cowboys (Aikman, Irvin, Emmitt, etc.).

Perhaps Jerry Jones just wants to abide by the Rooney Rule? That was what I immediately thought of.

Wow on Landry. I'm pretty sure I've never seen him below 10-12. That would be quite the steal for the Giants. I like that he has the Titans taking Meachem. If Ginn and Calvin are gone (quite obviously Calvin will be), I think Meachem's my favorite. Not real high on Jarrett. Jarrett is every bit as good as advertised. He's big, strong, and has great hands. He may not be as fast as Meachem, but he's proven that he can do it on the big stage (Notre Dame, Michigan) It's not so much that I don't think he's the real deal, I just don't like him as much as Calvin, Ginn and Meachem. In most drafts, I could easily see Jarrett being the first receiver taken, the problem is, this draft is incredibly deep. My problem with him is primarily attitude driven. I've heard quite a few disparaging things about his attitude and would prefer the Titans to steer clear of guys with that stigma because we're already dealing with a couple of iffy attitudes right now (Pacman and LenDale). I've got hope for LenDale though, he's been hanging out with Vince alot.

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 team around the running game is just as important as the running backs that actually carry the ball. Any running game's success must take into account the offensive line, the team's passing game, and how often a team actually runs the ball. Thus, the Bears are still going to have to deal with the Indy passing game in the Super Bowl and therefore, if the stats play out, the Colts' running game will equal the Bears'. It may be more impressive that the Bear tailbacks did what they did since their passing game was weaker, but it doesn't mean they are more of a strength in the game than the Colt tailbacks.

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 Agree completely. Benson gained 647 yards on 157 carries while scoring 6 TDs this year. Rhodes gained 641 yards on 187 carries while scoring 5 TDs this year. Very slight advantage, if any, for Benson. Jones carried 296 times for 1210 yards and 6 TDs. Addai carried 226 times for 1081 yards and 7 TDs. About the same advantage for Addai that Benson has over Rhodes. If you make their carries equal at the rate that Addai had yards per carry this year, Joseph has over 1400 yards. Overall, it's a complete push. I see no other way around it.