Super Bowl Recap: Vol Good Guy 29, Hateful Smart Aleck Jerk Gator 17 - Page 2

**volmanjr** · 02-05-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakez4ut

i agree. when they got that running in to the kicker call in the 3rd quarter.....that could have been the time in the game to go for it and take control of the game for good.

I was suprised by the call, the replay looked like the automatic 1st down infraction to me.

**jakez4ut** · 02-05-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volmanjr

I was suprised by the call, the replay looked like the automatic 1st down infraction to me.

same here, but even when they only called running in to the kicker, you get the ball at like what the 1 1/2?

you have had their D on the feild for more than 1/2 of hte 3rd quarter. the offense has sputtered. your D is playing well. worst case, you put 'em on the 2 yard line against a fresh D in a driving rain.

best case you get a two score lead late in the 3rd quarter.

it was simply amazing it was a one score game in the 4th quarter.

**milohimself** · 02-05-2007, 12:28 PM

Actually guys, what I was saying during the game and now that it's calmed down somewhat, that was an incredibly sloppy game. It really came down to who could suck less.

holdemvol · 02-05-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakez4ut

i thought for sure the bears would cover....glad i didn't put my money where my mouth was....

I wish I would not have done so.

I was really surprised that Chicago wasn't more aggresive on defense.

**jakez4ut** · 02-05-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milohimself

Actually guys, what I was saying during the game and now that it's calmed down somewhat, that was an incredibly sloppy game. It really came down to who could suck less.

oh, i agree......take out the peyton factor, and it was easily one that i could probably do with out.......sort of like last year's game......except instead of penalties being the thing of the day, it was turnovers and rain.

**volinbham** · 02-05-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milohimself

Actually guys, what I was saying during the game and now that it's calmed down somewhat, that was an incredibly sloppy game. It really came down to who could suck less.

Anyone remember the weather during the game?????

Of course it was a sloppy game -- it was played in a driving rain storm.

ut 4 me · 02-05-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crimedawg12

That game had blowout possibilities! Seems Fulmer and Cut's presence had an impact!

**milohimself** · 02-05-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volinbham

Anyone remember the weather during the game?????

Of course it was a sloppy game -- it was played in a driving rain storm.

We all know Indy is the dome team, but a team like Chicago is supposed to thrive in that kind of weather. Besides, the game doesn't recognize weather short of a full on hurricane.

**jakez4ut** · 02-05-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milohimself

We all know Indy is the dome team, but a team like Chicago is supposed to thrive in that kind of weather. Besides, the game doesn't recognize weather short of a full on hurricane.

i don't argue that it was a sloppy game. turnovers, weather etc......it was sloppy.

but there was a point in the third and 4th quarter where what Indy was able to do running the ball, methodically and deliberately driving down the feild, even though mostly resulting in FG's, that it was absolutely beautiful football. nothing fancy, line up, hit the guy in front of you and pound out 3-4 yards, or dump it off for 5-6 yards and then a draw up the middle for 10 yards.....how many times did the colts get a RUN for 8-10 yards?

if you really love football.....it was beautiful to watch. the big play gets the oohs and aahs...but they physically imposed their will on the bears and just wore them down.

it wasn't a beautiful game, but it had beautiful moments, from a football standpoint. and i think to a certain extent, the weather just enhanced it. two midwest teams playing in mud and bad weather.....running game and defense ruled the day. yep.....what it lacked in style it made up for in football purity.

**milohimself** · 02-05-2007, 02:08 PM

I don't doubt that, Rhodes and Addai could have been co-MVP's. But whether you like smash mouth or finesse football, mistakes are never a good thing. A team usually should not have 3-4 turnovers and win a game. Like all the decently smart analysts said coming up to the game, turnovers are always the key stat in Super Bowl games. Neither team played exceptionally. Something I usually don't expect to see when this is supposed to be football on the highest of high level.

**jakez4ut** · 02-05-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milohimself

I don't doubt that, Rhodes and Addai could have been co-MVP's. But whether you like smash mouth or finesse football, mistakes are never a good thing. A team usually should not have 3-4 turnovers and win a game. Like all the decently smart analysts said coming up to the game, turnovers are always the key stat in Super Bowl games. Neither team played exceptionally. Something I usually don't expect to see when this is supposed to be football on the highest of high level.

yeah, the back to back turnovers, twice, the muffed extra point etc.....sloppy. Peter King in SI.com has a good article, and he stated as much...1 or 2 because of the weather is one thing......4-5 and it's just careless.

the only exceptional part of the game is what the colts were able to do offensively from the end of the 2nd quarter thru the 1st half of the 3rd quarter. and the only thing you can take a way from that was after as much as they dominated the bears, the bears were only one score down, and you knew they should be up by at least two TD's....

but still, i was impressed with parts of the game....if i had no rooting interest in it, i probably would have watched something else.

it was no more ugly than last year's SB......

the good thing is for me, the teams i rooted for the past two years are world champs. and after a while, that will be what is remembered...

**volinbham** · 02-05-2007, 02:24 PM

The Bears caused 44 or so turnovers during the year - 2 - 3 per game average.

Add the weather and I don't think the 3 for the Colts is that surprising. Overall, I don't think the Colts were very sloppy at all. They executed quite well - 66% completion rate, 44% 3rd down conversion rate, relatively few penalties. Conserative play calling in the red zone made sense given the weather, the Bears problems on offense and the presence of the best clutch kicker in history. Colts defense tackled very well and really only gave up one big play.

The Bears did not execute on offense, played bend don't break defense (which kept them in the game).

**jakez4ut** · 02-05-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volinbham

The Bears caused 44 or so turnovers during the year - 2 - 3 per game average.

Add the weather and I don't think the 3 for the Colts is that surprising. Overall, I don't think the Colts were very sloppy at all. They executed quite well - 66% completion rate, 44% 3rd down conversion rate, relatively few penalties. Conserative play calling in the red zone made sense given the weather, the Bears problems on offense and the presence of the best clutch kicker in history. Colts defense tackled very well and really only gave up one big play.

The Bears did not execute on offense, played bend don't break defense (which kept them in the game).

two good points......though i disagreed with the conservative play calling in the red zone given how the game was being played out at the time.

**volmanjr** · 02-05-2007, 03:13 PM

I thought most of the fumbles (except for rex's snap troubles) were caused more by hard hitting stripping defenders, the weather just aided them somewhat. Take away the rain and I bet only two fumbles go away (1 being 1 of rex's snaps).

**milohimself** · 02-05-2007, 03:52 PM

It's more the responsibility of the ball carrier to maintain possession than it is the defender's to cause a fumble. Proper carrying technique should practically never result in a fumble; proper technique while playing the ball on defense does not always result in a forced fumble.

I'm not saying it was entirely terrible; there were some good aspects, and some stretches whwere the Indy offense was cruising. But the Bears offense really lost the game. They looked Oakland-bad at numerous points.