PDA

View Full Version : chicago lose or indianapolis win??????



fan from israel
02-04-2007, 08:27 PM
chicago lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rockon:

sbutk
02-04-2007, 08:40 PM
chicago lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rockon:



Rex Grossman = CHOKE


...Talk about giving the game away.


:mad:

chickennob2
02-04-2007, 08:41 PM
Rex Grossman didn't choke. He played exactly how he played the entire season.

Bronco_Armada
02-04-2007, 09:26 PM
the cults did not win it, the bears did not lose it. Rex lost it for his whole team. I am happy he is not with denver. The game seemed kind of slow after the first half. Nice 1st half. Boring second half. :(

tsiguy96
02-04-2007, 09:28 PM
rex grossman officially lost any chance of being a starting quarterback for the rest of his life

Breezer
02-04-2007, 09:30 PM
chicago lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rockon:

Maybe Dungy prayed more than Lovie, so the Colts won! LOL
Please coach, keep the religion to yourself. That was sickening.

JoRo
02-04-2007, 09:33 PM
Maybe Dungy prayed more than Lovie, so the Colts won! LOL
Please coach, keep the religion to yourself. That was sickening.


wow that was classy.....


Whats it matter if he talks about it? It cant hurt you that much an its no worse than some of the other garbage people say :rolleyes: I hate when these posts show up

Breezer
02-04-2007, 09:36 PM
wow that was classy.....


Whats it matter if he talks about it? It cant hurt you that much an its no worse than some of the other garbage people say :rolleyes: I hate when these posts show up

Because religion has it's place and that was not it. Why should I have to hear that?

Bronco_Armada
02-04-2007, 09:38 PM
Maybe Dungy prayed more than Lovie, so the Colts won! LOL
Please coach, keep the religion to yourself. That was sickening.

Free country right? Many people in this nation express their sexuality, religion, beliefs, thoughts, political views... how come he can't express his faith? It causes no harm. More good comes out of it than bad if you ask me.

sbutk
02-04-2007, 09:38 PM
Rex Grossman didn't choke. He played exactly how he played the entire season.


Well, so maybe it'd more accurate to say he "continued choking like he had for the rest of the season". He had a few good moments (then, as well as tonight). But with him it was like "1 step forward and 4 steps back". Remember how much we were lamenting Jake for being inconsistent? Well, Grossman was like that times ten tonight.


Oh well. Congrats, Colts. Maybe, just maybe, this will somehow put me on the road to hating you less. (I'm just not sure how, yet. I'll have to get back to you on that.)

Breezer
02-04-2007, 09:40 PM
Free country right? Many people in this nation express their sexuality, religion, beliefs, thoughts, political views... how come he can't express his faith? It causes no harm. More good comes out of it than bad if you ask me.


He has that right, but I don't think I need to hear it after watching the game. I don't need to hear any of that other crap you mentioned either. Just say good game and move on!

Gulbrand
02-04-2007, 09:50 PM
It's hard to say because the Bears did not provide a good contest. A win or loss ought to be decided with a decent contest. In this case, for whatever reason, Grossman was not able to execute the Game Plan, if there was one. He just does not have the strength to throw the long ball with zip and accuracy. He is a dink and dunk QB, and they should have used him like a Trent Dilfer-type QB.

From my viewpoint, Chicago lost the game due to not showing up with a decent game plan.....

KCLadyFan
02-04-2007, 09:55 PM
Because religion has it's place and that was not it. Why should I have to hear that?

I see nothing wrong with what Dungy said....he didnt preach, he made a
statement...

lots of players pray on the field...I see nothing wrong with that...

JoRo
02-04-2007, 09:57 PM
He has that right, but I don't think I need to hear it after watching the game. I don't need to hear any of that other crap you mentioned either. Just say good game and move on!

Well when you win the presidency you can outlaw sayin wut you want. I am sure you will win it with that kind of view

JoRo
02-04-2007, 09:57 PM
It's hard to say because the Bears did not provide a good contest. A win or loss ought to be decided with a decent contest. In this case, for whatever reason, Grossman was not able to execute the Game Plan, if there was one. He just does not have the strength to throw the long ball with zip and accuracy. He is a dink and dunk QB, and they should have used him like a Trent Dilfer-type QB.

From my viewpoint, Chicago lost the game due to not showing up with a decent game plan.....

Actually Grossman is crap when he is a dink an dunkin usually... the one real strength he has is the long ball but that was taken away with the rain tonight

Geandily
02-04-2007, 09:57 PM
People that blame Grossman for this loss are what I like to call "idiots"

Day1BroncoFan
02-04-2007, 10:00 PM
He has that right, but I don't think I need to hear it after watching the game. I don't need to hear any of that other crap you mentioned either. Just say good game and move on!

That's what he was doing, why don't you do the same.

Grossman played as expected. The Colts were the better team.

KCLadyFan
02-04-2007, 10:01 PM
People that blame Grossman for this loss are what I like to call "idiots"

I don't blame Grossman....the Chicago D couldnt stop the Colts from scoring..
of course they were on the field for quite awhile...

also at one point...they showed the # of 1st downs towards the end of the
game...

Indy had 23 to Chicagos 9

it was a team loss...not just a QB loss...

Ravage!!!
02-04-2007, 10:04 PM
Indy won this game. Chicago didn't give anything that the Colts didn't take from them. Indy completely dominated Chicago's "dominating" defense.

JoRo
02-04-2007, 10:09 PM
I don't blame Grossman....the Chicago D couldnt stop the Colts from scoring..
of course they were on the field for quite awhile...

also at one point...they showed the # of 1st downs towards the end of the
game...

Indy had 23 to Chicagos 9

it was a team loss...not just a QB loss...


You and Rav both earn cps for what I would like to call "good postin in the face of danger of catchin the disease called stupid"


Was a team effort Grossman dint cost them anythin, he jus dint save them either.

BroncoKazuki
02-04-2007, 10:16 PM
The Colts did exactly what they did to us when we faced them...

Take the run away and make Grossman beat them with his arm.
I swear thats what they did. They forced Grossman to beat the Colts secondary with his arm and the Bears paid for it.

As well Payon just chewed up the clock as much as he could even with the bad weather. Witch the Bears should have had the advantage.
Throught the game it was all Colts last half.

First half it was a toss up even with the gimme 7 in the start.

Every advantage the Bears had with their defense and special teams. The colts took away.

At one point they compared the short routes.
Rex's pass only produced 1 or even
Payon's produced more then 4 yards or better.

All in all the Colts Offense just flat out owned the Bears mighty defense.

superFREAK
02-04-2007, 10:23 PM
The colts were the better team on both sides of the ball today. They played tough on D and P Manning did what he had to do. There is no point in trying to take away credit from the super bowl champs, and there is no way you can make a case for the Bears losing it for themselves

Colts won it. Period.

RealBronco
02-04-2007, 10:26 PM
I like how people always blame one guy. Last time I checked, football included 11 players on the field at a time. I know Grossman didn't single-handedly lose the game, and I know the defense didn't lose or win the game...The BEARS lost, not Grossman or Urlacher.

And whoever has a problem with individuals expressing their feelings in the light of something emotional (i.e. a Superbowl Victory) should probably just pick up that little remote and switch the channel.

You probably wouldn't complain or haven't whenever you hear some Hollywood star or Music star thank God in their acceptance speech, but for some reason it bothers you because a coach noticed that God had a hand in things? Hmm.

If you didn't want to watch the presentation of the trophy you could have changed the channel man. :coffee:

And back on topic... The Colts showed up and the Bears didn't. End of story.

At least the Colts didn't have to rely on Viniatieri to win them the game... :laugh:

JoRo
02-04-2007, 10:27 PM
The Colts did exactly what they did to us when we faced them...

Take the run away and make Grossman beat them with his arm.
I swear thats what they did. They forced Grossman to beat the Colts secondary with his arm and the Bears paid for it.

As well Payon just chewed up the clock as much as he could even with the bad weather. Witch the Bears should have had the advantage.
Throught the game it was all Colts last half.

First half it was a toss up even with the gimme 7 in the start.

Every advantage the Bears had with their defense and special teams. The colts took away.

At one point they compared the short routes.
Rex's pass only produced 1 or even
Payon's produced more then 4 yards or better.

All in all the Colts Offense just flat out owned the Bears mighty defense.


good post.

But honestly you hafta look at how the Colts are built. They are built for keepin a lead. Their defense is built to stop you from makin big plays an pressuring you all day long wit their front four. I have been surprised at how well they play the run, but once the Colts were up near the end I knew it was over. Once you are fightin botht he Colts and the clock you are playing thier game.

Only a few qbs can really compete against that with any sort of consistancy, and I would say only one or two are in the NFC (Brees is the only one atm to come to mind, not sayin noone else but just my 2 cents...)

The bears on the other hand are best playin a close to the game thing. When they get behind they get into trouble. Their defense has given up yards in bunches since the injuries to Tommy Harris and Mike Brown, and once you have a lead you dont try and do quick scores (what the cover 2 is built to stop) so then all of a sudden the Colts dont care if they are patient and slowly kill you. That and the fact that the Bears have a much weaker passing game than the Colts a run game... once the Colts were up by a score wit the 4th quarter starting I figured it was over.

BTW: I PREDICTED that Hester would score :) I felt that this morning in Church (WOOPS I SAID CHURCH! hopefully that is ok Breezer :) :P)

JoRo
02-04-2007, 10:28 PM
I like how people always blame one guy. Last time I checked, football included 11 players on the field at a time. I know Grossman didn't single-handedly lose the game, and I know the defense didn't lose or win the game...The BEARS lost, not Grossman or Urlacher.

And whoever has a problem with individuals expressing their feelings in the light of something emotional (i.e. a Superbowl Victory) should probably just pick up that little remote and switch the channel.

You probably wouldn't complain or haven't whenever you hear some Hollywood star or Music star thank God in their acceptance speech, but for some reason it bothers you because a coach noticed that God had a hand in things? Hmm.

If you didn't want to watch the presentation of the trophy you could have changed the channel man. :coffee:

And back on topic... The Colts showed up and the Bears didn't. End of story.

At least the Colts didn't have to rely on Viniatieri to win them the game... :laugh:

You hafta admit V played a big part in their game tho, keepin Hester outta the game other than that one kick was a big deal cuz he coulda really changed the momentum. I dont think he won it for them but he sure was a helper. Some kickoff people (like ours) kick it deep but still let our coverage unit get burned by returns

RealBronco
02-04-2007, 10:34 PM
You hafta admit V played a big part in their game tho, keepin Hester outta the game other than that one kick was a big deal cuz he coulda really changed the momentum. I dont think he won it for them but he sure was a helper. Some kickoff people (like ours) kick it deep but still let our coverage unit get burned by returns

You know what I mean. The only reason the Patriots have three rings is because of their little savior #4. But apparently the Colts don't need to rely on just their kicker, because they have talent elsewhere. Plus I was happy to see #4 miss one finally... bahahahaha. Didn't matter much but it still made me feel better. :rockon:

Also, I didn't get why they kept botching the kickoffs. I mean I know the reasoning behing it, to prevent big returns...but when you think about it, none of them really went that far and the Bears kept ending up with decent field position anyway so I don't know if it was really worth it.

JoRo
02-04-2007, 10:41 PM
You know what I mean. The only reason the Patriots have three rings is because of their little savior #4. But apparently the Colts don't need to rely on just their kicker, because they have talent elsewhere. Plus I was happy to see #4 miss one finally... bahahahaha. Didn't matter much but it still made me feel better. :rockon:

Also, I didn't get why they kept botching the kickoffs. I mean I know the reasoning behing it, to prevent big returns...but when you think about it, none of them really went that far and the Bears kept ending up with decent field position anyway so I don't know if it was really worth it.


They dint want to watch Hester burn them again.

I knew wut you meant, I am jus sayin tht he did play a big part in their game. I think most the Colts played a big part in the game same as the bears. One player dint cahnge the whole game if you ask me

Hawgdriver
02-04-2007, 10:46 PM
Maybe Dungy prayed more than Lovie, so the Colts won! LOL
Please coach, keep the religion to yourself. That was sickening.
Please Breezer, keep the religion to yourself...lol

Ravage!!!
02-04-2007, 10:50 PM
They dint want to watch Hester burn them again.

I knew wut you meant, I am jus sayin tht he did play a big part in their game. I think most the Colts played a big part in the game same as the bears. One player dint cahnge the whole game if you ask me

I don't know. I personally believe that ANY kicker could have done what he did on THIS particular day. Kicking it on the ground isn't anything that any kicker can't do, and that was a coaching decision, not his. Plus, on every one of those kicks, except the last one, he didn't do a very good job of kicking those low ones. He was giving them the ball on the 40. Kickers can kick it low, but still put it deeper than he was. So the coaching decided to kick it low, and let the defense hold the Bear's pathetic offense. V-man is a great kicker, but he missed an easy one, and wasn't needed to pull off the big kick on this day....thank goodness.

omac
02-05-2007, 01:44 AM
This was definitely a Colts Win, not a Bears Loss.

The Bears were going to win with their suffocating defense and their special teams, while the Colts were going to win with their prolific offense.

At the start, the Bears had the Colts where they wanted them, then sometime at the 2nd quarter, the Colts adjusted. Manning understood what the Bears were doing and started to pick their defense apart. They were patient and confident, in no hurry; no desperation, just like against the Pats.

They did the same thing against the also highly regarded Baltimore defense. They got off to a shaky start, they understood and adjusted, then they owned the Baltimore defense, picking it apart, winning the ball possesion battle, and getting the opposing defense tired. Later, neither Baltimore nor Chicago could stop not just the pass, but the run too.

The Bears don't have the confidence in their offense to get yardage and points patiently in small increments, and it was evident in their play calling. Down 5, they could've passed horizontally much more, and gotten small yardage through short runs, like a proper west coast offense, if they had one. But what was also telling by their offensive play calls was their lack of confidence that their defense could stop the Colts from the ball possesion battle and scoring, that's why they felt they NEEDED a touchdown, instead of 2 field goals, which were more do-able and in-character for their offense.

The Bears were trying to match the Colts' offense, because the Colts had, in the 2nd quarter, physically and mentally beaten the Bears' defense. By doing that, they put Grossman and the offense in "trying to do too much" mode. If they had a Shanahan running their offense, they would have the confidence in getting short yardages at a time.

Great win by the Colts. They made a great Chicago defense look ineffective, just like they did with a great Baltimore defense. :)

goucho141
02-05-2007, 10:54 AM
Grossman sucks. they need to trade that frigging second stringer

sbutk
02-05-2007, 12:51 PM
I like how people always blame one guy. Last time I checked, football included 11 players on the field at a time. I know Grossman didn't single-handedly lose the game, and I know the defense didn't lose or win the game...The BEARS lost, not Grossman or Urlacher.

And whoever has a problem with individuals expressing their feelings in the light of something emotional (i.e. a Superbowl Victory) should probably just pick up that little remote and switch the channel.

You probably wouldn't complain or haven't whenever you hear some Hollywood star or Music star thank God in their acceptance speech, but for some reason it bothers you because a coach noticed that God had a hand in things? Hmm.

If you didn't want to watch the presentation of the trophy you could have changed the channel man. :coffee:

And back on topic... The Colts showed up and the Bears didn't. End of story.

At least the Colts didn't have to rely on Viniatieri to win them the game... :laugh:



Maybe not, but he was responsible for 3 turnovers (i.e. leaving potentially 9 - 21 points on the field). Again, I'm not dumb enough to say that would've been 100% given - far from it, the way the Colts were playing (See? Here I am, giving the other team credit). But all I'm saying is that definitely was a large factor in the Bears losing the game. Sorry if anyone can't see that.


:coffee:

Breezer
02-06-2007, 06:23 AM
Well when you win the presidency you can outlaw sayin wut you want. I am sure you will win it with that kind of view


That was a dumb statement!

Breezer
02-06-2007, 06:25 AM
That's what he was doing, why don't you do the same.

Grossman played as expected. The Colts were the better team.

And I did! Now lets all get out our Bibles and enjoy the scriptures!

Medford Bronco
02-06-2007, 08:31 AM
Maybe not, but he was responsible for 3 turnovers (i.e. leaving potentially 9 - 21 points on the field). Again, I'm not dumb enough to say that would've been 100% given - far from it, the way the Colts were playing (See? Here I am, giving the other team credit). But all I'm saying is that definitely was a large factor in the Bears losing the game. Sorry if anyone can't see that.


:coffee:

Responsible for 4 turnovers, 2 fumbles and 2 picks, one which I would not want my local high school Qb throwing. Rex is about 70% responsible for this loss and the rest is on the coach for not havin the guts to put Griese in with 8 mintues left and a fighting chance to win this game still.

Lovie reminded me of Herm Edwards in the lost department :eek:

sbutk
02-07-2007, 03:31 PM
Responsible for 4 turnovers, 2 fumbles and 2 picks


I'm just going by NFL.com, all I remember is him putting the ball on the ground a lot - whether the Bears actually turned it over or not.

http://www.superbowl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20070204_IND@CHI



Rex is about 70% responsible for this loss and the rest is on the coach for not havin the guts to put Griese in with 8 mintues left and a fighting chance to win this game still.


I would officially have become a Brian Griese-worshipper, if they had actually made the switch and he came in and miraculously pulled off the win.


:eek:


...Of course, that would've required the Defense to have actually done their job of stopping the Colts' attack, as well.

sbutk
02-08-2007, 05:15 PM
The Colts' second-half possessions went field goal, field goal, punt, punt, turnover on downs. Indy's only touchdown in the second half was defensive. I'd say the defense did enough to make a comeback possible.



Yeah, I guess you're right.