David

The problem is, most non-Bears fans buy into the same media garbage and don't recognize the crap they're being spoon-fed. They've seen one or two national games and have made their conclusions about the Bears already. FWIW, Mike Murphy on the Score just had this guy he has on every week who runs a statistical analysis site (I wish I remembered the name of it). He has some sort of model to predict games, and claims to have correctly predicted 14 out of the last 16 Super Bowls. Last week, the model had the Bears on top of the Saints, and pointed to turnovers probably being the big difference in the game. For the Super Bowl, the Bears win 9 categories, the Colts 2, and they tie in another. Just take it for whatever it's worth (maybe nothing). I wish I could elaborate more on it, but I wasn't paying close enough attention. Maybe someone else here was listening?

I can't say that article is all that good. He seems to use a lot of silly reasoning for why the Bears will win. Reminds me of the article last week where somebody had to come up with 3 reasons why the Bears could beat the Saints, and pretty much made it look like they didn't believe the Bears could beat the Saints. Yes. It's a lot like that Clayton article. Like they had to have some guy write a positive piece on the Bears. EDIT - On the other hand, I will say, at least it does point out the major weaknesses of the Colts to wipe out some of this Indy mystique that reminds me a lot of the Saints love that was all over last week. It's not just the type of, "Oh, the Bears are due for some turnovers," crap of Clayton's piece last week. Considering we could've wound up facing the Chargers or Ravens in this Super Bowl, I'm not going to complain about the matchup.

The article makes a comparison to the 2001 Super Bowl, and that's really what's been coming to mind for me since this matchup materialized. It wouldn't be as much of an upset, but there are a lot of similarities in terms of the way the teams matchup. People were doubting the young QB could get it done, even though he helped get his team into the Super Bowl. There was no way the Pats defense could stop the high-powered dome offense in perfect/controlled weather conditions. I could go on with these, admittedly, loose comparisons. Maybe if the Bears win this one and Rex has a solid game, people will finally start to take this team seriously. It certainly seemed to change peoples' opinions of the Pats (of course, now its 5 years and two more rings later).

How good is Indy's O-line? Obviously, it has to be at least decent, considering how good the Colts are on offense. Is there any chance the Bears can get good pressure on Manning without having to bring the kitchen sink? Can the d-line do it? I noticed the Bears went away from the Cover 2 a bit and went more toward a blitz oriented style for the NFC Championship game, but, as others have mentioned, it'd be best if they avoid doing this as much as they can get away with against Manning.

I don't even think Ogunleye should be saying anything. I saw him mimicking the referee's safety signal, and I know he'll celebrate after a sack. Unless you're Barry Sanders and you never celebrate on the field, shut the hell up and quit whining about other people showing you up. Mimicking the ref's safety signal? Seriously man, your trollish anti-Bearness has gone to new levels. He was calling for the refs to make the safety call. Considering it took them 10-15 seconds after the play to make the call, it made perfect sense that a player would be making that signal. Guys do the same thing when a player gets in the end zone. Their is an enormous difference between mocking an opponent mid-play, and signaling a safety or TD after it has occurred. Yeah this is akin to complaining that players signal "no catch" or make a facemask gesture. It's like comparing Bonds standing at home plate admiring a home run and then doing a 360 twirl before rounding the bases to Todd Walker signaling "safe" as he crosses the plate. It's not even close.

If Bears are one-dimensional they will lose. And I don't mean throwing in a play-action pass every 5 runs, I mean they have to throw it about as much as they run. Of course, I'm exaggerating. I definitely want Rex throwing the ball. Balance on offense is big. But the Bears need to use their 1-2 punch in the run game to attack the Colts' biggest weakness and to keep their offense off the field. I'd like to see Rex wind up around 200 yards with a decent completion percentage and no turnovers. If that happens, along with Benson and/or Jones having success, I see the Bears winning. Easier said than done.

All I have to say about this game is....run, run, run, play action. And then run some more.

I can't even wrap my brain around this. I can't imagine what it'd look like. Photoshop anybody? Two words: Violet Beauregarde. Wikipedia says the Colts wore blue pants with white jerseys for their first three games of 1995, and then switched back to all white. Pictures should be online somewhere, I'm just not motivated enough to look. :o Bow down. http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/indy/FaulInd2.jpg Is that guy doing a Reggie Bush TD dive? No, he's doing a Marshall Faulk TD dive. :wink:

I can't even wrap my brain around this. I can't imagine what it'd look like. Photoshop anybody? Two words: Violet Beauregarde. Wikipedia says the Colts wore blue pants with white jerseys for their first three games of 1995, and then switched back to all white. Pictures should be online somewhere, I'm just not motivated enough to look. :o Bow down. http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/indy/FaulInd2.jpg

Oh man. I'll never forget Joe Carter asking McMahon about him.

Cool video. Not a big fan of the song. For something like this, I'd prefer a song like that have more of an intimidating feel to it, whether it be hard rock/metal(i.e. Metallica - For Whom the Bell Tolls, which they play after TDs) or hip-hop. For some reason, that song just doesn't have the right vibe to it. JMO

I'm pretty sure anyone can recognize that statement as being sarcastic, despite what he said. Not that it matters to me. If anything, I agree with you.

The Bears also played the easiest schedule in the NFL, whereas the Colts had a middle of the pack strength of schedule... and the Bears' strength of victory was in the bottom third of the NFL, whereas the Colts' strength of victory was 4th in the NFL. Yup. The Bears have no right to be in the Super Bowl. Where's the AP Poll when you need it? Get over yourself. Truffle's making a case for Indy being a better team over the course of the year than the Bears (a case I find hard to argue with although I am also picking the Bears to win), not that the Bears have no right to be there. Recognize the difference before you make posts like that. It's called sarcasm. Dry your eyes. Yes, and he's politely telling you not to be a smart ass. He obviously knows it's sarcasm.

It's because it has nothing to do with any of this, particularly in football. Football is about game planning, strategizing, and scheming. In game coaching strategy plays a huge role in how a football game plays out. Baseball, on the other hand, is more about not screwing it up. Set the lineups correctly, make the right pitching changes, but let the players play. This may be an oversimplification, but it's my take.

Hahahaha. Gotta love those B&B guys. Looks like they're stretching out into left field to try and find a controversy. Lovie's so back for a multi year deal it isn't even funny. You're way off on B&B. They've been extremely positive on the Bears all year and constantly ridicule the morons in our fan base that have been hypercritical of this team all year. They laugh at all the so-called controversy around the team because they think it's ridiculous that there is any controversy. It's probably the most level-headed media coverage I've seen with regard to the Bears. Lawrence Holmes was on for the Bear Report and suggested that there are rumblings that Dallas is going to ask the Bears for permission to talk to Lovie, and brought up the whole thing about it being Lovie's childhood dream to coach the Cowboys, which could throw a hitch into extension negotiations. All B&B suggested in response to this was that if you're gonna give them permission to discuss anything with Lovie, you ask for a couple of first rounders in return and then you consider it and possibly promote Chico to the head coaching position.

It's amazing how clueless 90% of sports journalists really are.

I don't know. If this is the case, we were reported incorrect information earlier. Either way, I'm not concerned much about it. It's probably nothing more than a formality. I'd be very surprised if they kept him out of the game.

It's just an incorrect story that the AP or another newswire is probably running with. It was on sports radio and in the papers and very well publicized that Tank received permission to go to Miami and the coach, a Packer fan, said something to the effect of, "...but you won't be needing to go." Do you mean judge? :lol: Haha, my bad. Fixed.

It's just an incorrect story that the AP or another newswire is probably running with. It was on sports radio and in the papers and very well publicized that Tank received permission to go to Miami and the judge, a Packer fan, said something to the effect of, "...but you won't be needing to go."

:roll: Seriously. For once, I don't mind the roll-eyes. How many QB's have performed like Rex has with the amount of game experience Rex has? Not many. Hell, look at Drew Brees's first couple of seasons. If you compare, his numbers are right there with any of the greats this early in his career. He may or may not become a great QB (all it will really take is the consistency to turn his clunkers into mediocre games like yesterday), but how anyone could pass judgment on him already, based on what he's shown, is beyond me. To be fair (and trying to stay out of the "is Rex good" debate), RSF said Rex IS not good at football. I don't recall reading anything from him saying Rex WILL NOT be good at football or HAS NO CHANCE at being good at football later. If you make it to the NFL, you "are good" at football.(Quasim Mitchell being the exception). His post was far from anything "rational". While I'm on your side about how RSF was being anything but rational, this isn't really the argument to make. When talking about bad and good players within the context of the NFL, we're talking about how good they are relative to the talent in the league. Otherwise, you could never say that anyone in a professional league is bad at his particular sport. They're all, by definition, the best players of their game in the world.

:roll: Seriously. For once, I don't mind the roll-eyes. How many QB's have performed like Rex has with the amount of game experience Rex has? Not many. Hell, look at Drew Brees's first couple of seasons. If you compare, his numbers are right there with any of the greats this early in his career. He may or may not become a great QB (all it will really take is the consistency to turn his clunkers into mediocre games like yesterday), but how anyone could pass judgment on him already, based on what he's shown, is beyond me. To be fair (and trying to stay out of the "is Rex good" debate), RSF said Rex IS not good at football. I don't recall reading anything from him saying Rex WILL NOT be good at football or HAS NO CHANCE at being good at football later. OK, fine. I can go with that. But to say that somebody who posted a 100 rating in 7 games, was pretty good in 4-6 others, and then, admittedly, crapped the bed in ~5 games, is not good at football is malarkey. Let's not even mention that this particular player helped carry the team down the stretch when his defense was struggling (including in a playoff game) and is about to play in the Super Bowl. It's absurd.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ngh8hdrYhfE Um, WTF?

:roll: Seriously. For once, I don't mind the roll-eyes. How many QB's have performed like Rex has with the amount of game experience Rex has? Not many. Hell, look at Drew Brees's first couple of seasons. If you compare, his numbers are right there with any of the greats this early in his career. He may or may not become a great QB (all it will really take is the consistency to turn his clunkers into mediocre games like yesterday), but how anyone could pass judgment on him already, based on what he's shown, is beyond me.

Right. What a joke.

At least both of them answered "no". Theisman answered no, but said that's only because he hasn't played in the Super Bowl yet. Gee, it's not like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have played in and won Super Bowls or anything.