Super Bowl XLI

[KingPK 0]

The Bears ALWAYS go for the strip on tackles. I remember vividly from their game at Gillette that every replay showed the tackler trying to knock the ball loose as he was dragging the ballcarrier to the turf. The fumble from Ben Watson when the ball shot straight up into the air was the result of a Bears defender knocking his helmet right into it.

 

New England had four fumbles that game (three lost). That wasn't because of the weather.

Edited January 23, 2007 by KingPK

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

Yeah, the Bears are taught to strip at all times. They're technically not even a Bear Weather Team in that aspect. It's not like a Dick Butkus "plant that motherfucker in the ground" approach, it's all about takeaways. That doesn't mean they don't hit hard, though. naiwf will do anything to avoid giving the Bears credit for anything at all.

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

Someone really needs to throughly explain how this game isn't appealing because I'm not seeing it. Great offense meets great defense, with mysteries abound for the other sides of the field. A field general in Manning looking to cement his legacy against the young QB with a questionable ability to handle the pressure with nothing to lose but everything to gain. Two good rushing attacks. Special teams will play a factor. That's before getting into the dynamics of a young (in tenure) head coach against his former mentor whom has been around for awhile waiting for this moment to come.

 

Were you really wanting to see Shannon Sharpe do a remorseful yarn about Katrina? The game is a complete mystery because who knows which team shows up.

 

Some people actually like to be able to root for (or against) one of the teams involved in a game to be excited by it. Just a thought.

 

 

They can root against the Bear's soft regular season schedule.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

The Colts lost to the Titans and Texans, you know. This isn't the NCAA, so who cares about strength of schedule, anyway?

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

The Colts lost to the Titans and Texans, you know. This isn't the NCAA, so who cares about strength of schedule, anyway?

 

 

I do. You guys floated by by playing in the NFC North. That's how you got the 1st round bye.

[Red Baron 0]

Bears can cover one or two receivers. Try covering four different receivers, a tight end and a half back. Oh and Peyton Manning is the QB.

 

Good luck.

[Brett Favre 0]

Dallas Clark is the shit. Anybody else a Dallas Clark fan?

[Annabelle 0]

Bears can cover one or two receivers. Try covering four different receivers, a tight end and a half back. Oh and Peyton Manning is the QB.

 

Good luck.

 

oh quit. they just dominated the #1 ranked offense in the league.

[KingPK 0]

The Patriots can cover one or two receivers. Try covering four different receivers, a tight end and a half back. Oh and Kurt Warner is the QB.

 

Good luck.

 

Or:

 

The 2002 Buccaneers say hi.

Edited January 24, 2007 by KingPK

[alfdogg 0]

Bears can cover one or two receivers. Try covering four different receivers, a tight end and a half back. Oh and Peyton Manning is the QB.

 

Good luck.

Don't forget KLECKO~!

[Guest Vitamin X]

The Colts lost to the Titans and Texans, you know. This isn't the NCAA, so who cares about strength of schedule, anyway?

 

 

I do. You guys floated by by playing in the NFC North. That's how you got the 1st round bye.

 

And... the Colts floated by by playing in the AFC South, what's your point? Granted, you don't have the Lions to beat up on twice in the division, but there are the Texans and Titans (who really overachieved at 8-8). Chicago got the 1st round bye by being the best in the conference, thanks to the NFC East underachieving and being wildly inconsistent, and the NFC South beating up on each other. And they proved it by getting to the Super Bowl. Jesus Christ, Czech is right, noone will give the stupid fucking asshole I hate their guts and I don't know how I'm fucking defending them here Chicago Bears any credit.

[Fökai 0]

So the Colts could handle the Ravens D...but there's no chance against the Bears'?

 

0 TDs is handling the defence?

 

Exactly. The Colts couldn't do shit against the Ravens' D. It was the Ravens inept offense that cost them that game. The Bears offense is considerably better than Baltimore's.

 

Team statistics put them neck-and-neck in offense.

 

EDIT:

Bears:

Points/Game 26.7 (2nd)

Total Yards/Gm 324.9 (15th)

Rush Yards/Gm 119.9 (15th)

Pass Yards/Gm 205.1 (14th)

 

Ravens:

Points/Game 22.1 (13rd)

Total Yards/Gm 317.0 (17th)

Rush Yards/Gm 102.3 (25th)

Pass Yards/Gm 214.7 (11th)

 

Not that I'm discounting the Bears, but they are exactly what the Ravens are on offense, just younger.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

Other than getting flustered at you guys, I have so much positivity about this Super Bowl. The Bears, Manning, two class acts and good friends who happen to be the first two black coaches in the big game, Prince at halftime. There's just a lot of good stuff happening here, a game that I hope the league can be proud of for being a close competition in addition to the ancillary stuff. (I'd also accept the Bears trampling the Colts 41-0 like the Jets did once.) It seems a hell of a lot better than XXXIX's Invisible Patriot Disrespect, Owens-McNabb Bullshit, entitled jackass sportswriters bitching about the host city, and so on. Whole thing was about as unpleasant as you'd expect anything involving Philadelphians, Bostonians, and Jacksonville to be.

[Guest Legalise Drugs and Murder]

Despite SOS being an ignorant argument in the pros, which has already been pointed out, the other two conference finalists were in comparable divisions. New England's in there with Buffalo, Miami, and a Jets team that played WAY over their heads this season, much like the Titans. New Orleans had awful Tampa Bay, chronic losers in Atlanta, and a Carolina team that fell flat on their faces.

 

In fact, only ONE other team from any of those four divisions even made the playoffs, and that's the Jets.

 

Parity, dude.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

So the Colts could handle the Ravens D...but there's no chance against the Bears'?

 

0 TDs is handling the defence?

 

Exactly. The Colts couldn't do shit against the Ravens' D. It was the Ravens inept offense that cost them that game. The Bears offense is considerably better than Baltimore's.

 

Team statistics put them neck-and-neck in offense.

 

EDIT:

Bears:

Points/Game 26.7 (2nd)

Total Yards/Gm 324.9 (15th)

Rush Yards/Gm 119.9 (15th)

Pass Yards/Gm 205.1 (14th)

 

Ravens:

Points/Game 22.1 (13rd)

Total Yards/Gm 317.0 (17th)

Rush Yards/Gm 102.3 (25th)

Pass Yards/Gm 214.7 (11th)

 

Not that I'm discounting the Bears, but they are exactly what the Ravens are on offense, just younger.

 

Using yardage totals is bad way of analyzing things, both offensively and defensively, because of the inverse relationship between different aspects of the game. Chicago had the best special teams in the NFL, which constantly gave them superior field positioning. It's a lot easier to score going 50 yards than 60 or 70. Secondly, look at the Ravens rush yards per game. That's just an atrocious number and really reflects the difference in the two offenses.

 

The Bears, as you have pointed out, were 2nd in the league in scoring. Part of that is due to the fact that the defense had so many takeaways, but nonetheless it illustrates that the Bears are more effective at putting points on the board. It won't help matters that the Bears biggest strengths double as Indy's biggest weaknesses (defense against the run, special teams).

[KingPK 0]

According to Cold Hard Football Facts' Quality Stats, the Bears were 3rd in Defensive Passer Rating (Indy was 15th), 3rd in Bendability Index (Indy was 23rd), and 2nd in Scoreablility Index (Indy was 5th). The latter two stats take things like special teams, red zone efficiency (offensive and defensive) and turnover differential into consideration.

 

Total yardage is like batting average; everyone cites it, but it really doesn't tell you anything (or, at least, not nearly enough) about the player or team it belongs to.

Edited January 24, 2007 by KingPK

[Fökai 0]

So the Colts could handle the Ravens D...but there's no chance against the Bears'?

 

0 TDs is handling the defence?

 

Exactly. The Colts couldn't do shit against the Ravens' D. It was the Ravens inept offense that cost them that game. The Bears offense is considerably better than Baltimore's.

 

Team statistics put them neck-and-neck in offense.

 

EDIT:

Bears:

Points/Game 26.7 (2nd)

Total Yards/Gm 324.9 (15th)

Rush Yards/Gm 119.9 (15th)

Pass Yards/Gm 205.1 (14th)

 

Ravens:

Points/Game 22.1 (13rd)

Total Yards/Gm 317.0 (17th)

Rush Yards/Gm 102.3 (25th)

Pass Yards/Gm 214.7 (11th)

 

Not that I'm discounting the Bears, but they are exactly what the Ravens are on offense, just younger.

 

Using yardage totals is bad way of analyzing things, both offensively and defensively, because of the inverse relationship between different aspects of the game. Chicago had the best special teams in the NFL, which constantly gave them superior field positioning. It's a lot easier to score going 50 yards than 60 or 70. Secondly, look at the Ravens rush yards per game. That's just an atrocious number and really reflects the difference in the two offenses.

 

The Bears, as you have pointed out, were 2nd in the league in scoring. Part of that is due to the fact that the defense had so many takeaways, but nonetheless it illustrates that the Bears are more effective at putting points on the board. It won't help matters that the Bears biggest strengths double as Indy's biggest weaknesses (defense against the run, special teams).

 

What is your argument? How is the Bears offense considerably better than the Ravens offense? They don't have to drive the ball further? Should we use red zone efficiency to complement your argument, because:

 

17th. Bears - 48 possessions, 24 touchdowns and 18 field goals. .875 efficiency.

22nd. Ravens - 48 possessions, 22 touchdowns and 16 field goals. .792 efficiency.

 

Or should we just use subjective judgment?

[KingPK 0]

What is your argument? How is the Bears offense considerably better than the Ravens offense? They don't have to drive the ball further? Should we use red zone efficiency to complement your argument, because:

 

17th. Bears - 48 possessions, 24 touchdowns and 18 field goals. .875 efficiency.

22nd. Ravens - 48 possessions, 22 touchdowns and 16 field goals. .792 efficiency.

 

Or should we just use subjective judgment?

 

The arguement is that it takes more than offense to put points on the board.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Bears: Points/Game 26.7 (2nd)

Ravens: Points/Game 22.1 (13rd)

 

That's all you need to know.

[Brett Favre 0]

Aren't some of those points coming from the defense though? The Colts don't really turn the ball over (well throughout the season).

[Fökai 0]

It's a difference of five touchdowns with the defense and special teams combined, to the Bears advantage. Add that to Gould's 144 points, compared to Stover's 121, even though their percentages are the same (useless stat: Gould had 13 more field-goal attempts outside of the 30-yard line than Stover). That's 53 points, which is over three points a game this season. That means that the "Bears defense will create great field position" argument points more to their success in two weeks, rather than "the difference between a Bears win and a Ravens loss to Indy is their offense".

[snuffbox 0]

The most important statistic here is that the Bears are in the Super Bowl & the Ravens will be watching.

[2GOLD 0]

How exactly is Rex Grossman even RANKED with the worst Super Bowl quarterbacks ever? He finished the season with more touchdowns than interceptions and threw for over 3000 yards. He's not great, but come on. This Grossman crap is getting extremely old.

 

How can you even declare something like this when the frickin game hasn't even been played?

NY Daily News must be run and staffed by a group of people suffering from blunt force trauma injuries to the head.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Chicago was 5th in the NFL in turnover margin at +8 (the 4 teams ahead were Baltimore, ST LOUIS?!, San Diego, and New England, who Chicago is actually tied with) and Indianapolis is right below them at +7, tied with Cincinnati, that's for the regular season, but then if you throw in playoffs, Chicago and Indy were the top two teams in the postseason, at +3 and +2 respectively.

 

Not surprisingly, most of Chicago's giveaways were from interceptions, and made up for it in generating takeaways (they led the league in recovering fumbles, which we've discussed here that they ARE indeed very good at stripping the ball, and were 2nd to the Ravens in INTs) while the Colts just didn't turn it over much.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

NY Daily News must be run and staffed by a group of people suffering from blunt force trauma injuries to the head.

BY simpletons, FOR simpletons!

[Art Sandusky 0]

[Red Baron 0]

 

He'll get the pass off for the touchdown.

 

Though his body will be in an incredible mess.

[2GOLD 0]

He'll still have time to pull his bloody body off the ground, look at Jim Sorgi and say, "Be ready!"

[cabbageboy 0]

The scarier aspect for the Bears is not whether Grossman falls on his face. He may, he may not. The thing is, the Colts can still beat them and beat them handily even if Grossman plays reasonably well. The Bears after all nearly lost to the Seahawks in the playoffs even with Grossman playing well. The Bears' defense is what makes them go and the reality of the situation is that if the Colts don't put the ball on the ground they should move the ball.

 

I'm not sure I understand the comparison to the Ravens. The Ravens are a team that is offensively challenged, but their D is better than the Bears. It's not all about causing fumbles and what not...it's about making you go 3 and out and punt with the odd interception thrown in.

 

I don't get why Grossman is being called the worst QB to ever play in the Super Bowl. I mean there's always David Woodley, who was last in the league in passing the year the Dolphins went to the Super Bowl.

[Guest Vitamin X]

The Seahawks are a strong offensive team that had many of the pieces back from a Super Bowl run last year. The majority of this year they played with a battered secondary, and their starting quarterback and MVP running back out. The fact that Seattle kept it close speaks more of how underrated they were going into the playoffs, not how overrated the Bears were/are. Moreso, the fact that Chicago was still able to grind it out and beat them also shows that they can overcome a strong offense like Indianapolis', since, even though Nate Burleson, Darrell Jackson, and Deion Branch is no Harrison-Wayne-Clark, but neither is Joseph Addai and Rhodes anywhere near a Shaun Alexander. Seattle was a good team that scraped by the regular season due to injuries, but still won the games they needed to and even kept it close with the elite teams like regular season champs San Diego, who they only lost to by 3.

 

The Bears' defense is what makes them go and the reality of the situation is that if the Colts don't put the ball on the ground they should move the ball.

And that's a tremendous IF. I'll go so far as to guarantee that Indianapolis turns the ball over at least once or twice in the Super Bowl. This is playoff Manning we're talking about here, and I already learned this postseason about trying to forget one's playoff past as proof they'll inevitably fail again (Hey Marty, how's the family?). He's good for an INT or two, and Chicago's defense will force a fumble or two.

 

Jeez, and just imagine what if Chicago had Mike Brown and Tommie Harris playing. There'd be no question as to who would dominate in the big game.