Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

chicago lose or indianapolis win??????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • sbutk
    replied
    Originally posted by SM19
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • sbutk
    replied
    Originally posted by Medford Bronco
    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/[email protected]


    Originally posted by Medford Bronco
    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.





    ...Of course, that would've required the Defense to have actually done their job of stopping the Colts' attack, as well.
    Last edited by sbutk; 02-08-2007, 05:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Medford Bronco
    replied
    Originally posted by sbutk
    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.


    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Breezer
    replied
    Originally posted by Day1BroncoFan
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Breezer
    replied
    Originally posted by JoRo
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • sbutk
    replied
    Originally posted by RealBronco
    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.

    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...


    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • goucho141
    replied
    grossman sucks

    Grossman sucks. they need to trade that frigging second stringer

    Leave a comment:


  • omac
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ravage!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by JoRo
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hawgdriver
    replied
    Originally posted by Breezer
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • JoRo
    replied
    Originally posted by RealBronco
    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.

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • RealBronco
    replied
    Originally posted by JoRo
    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoRo
    replied
    Originally posted by RealBronco
    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.

    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...
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • JoRo
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoKazuki
    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 )

    Leave a comment:


  • RealBronco
    replied
    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.

    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...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X