If I were the Bears I would have

#2
#2
What did they have to lose? Uh, how about the game? They were only down by two at the half.
 
#3
#3
Until the pick six, the Bears were looking at the very real chance of winning that game. Grossman didn't perform nearly as badly as revisionist media hype would have us all believe....
 
#4
#4
It's extremes with that game... Like nobody can agree on what actually happened. Grossman did play awful, especially late in the game. So the media is right on that account. But he was doing ok for most of the game, and the Bears were in it until the end, despite all the mistakes they were making. As a team.

Besides, you know how Lovie Smith feels about Rex Grossman. He's their guy.
 
#6
#6
orange+white=heaven said:
Until the pick six, the Bears were looking at the very real chance of winning that game. Grossman didn't perform nearly as badly as revisionist media hype would have us all believe....
Click to expand...


You have to be kidding me. Not being able to accomplish the qb/center exchange looks pretty bad to me.
 
#7
#7
allvol123 said:
You have to be kidding me. Not being able to accomplish the qb/center exchange looks pretty bad to me.
Click to expand...
Just saying, the score was close enough at that moment that the Bears could have won. Never said the dude looked like a mirror image of the other team's QB....
 
#8
#8
Although in reality Manning's stats weren't eye-popping. He hit it when it counted, though.
 
#9
#9
orange+white=heaven said:
Just saying, the score was close enough at that moment that the Bears could have won. Never said the dude looked like a mirror image of the other team's QB....
Click to expand...

That game really wasn't as close as it ever looked on the scoreboard. After the first 15 seconds, Indianapolis outscored them 29-10.
 
#11
#11
allvol123 said:
That game really wasn't as close as it ever looked on the scoreboard. After the first 15 seconds, Indianapolis outscored them 29-10.
Click to expand...
16-14 at half.
22-17 in 4th quarter.

i agree that the score wasn't as close as the game looked, but the score was what it was. the reality is that the bears, despite all the bad stuff, in the 4th quarter were one score away from taking the lead.

and if we're being technical, it's really 22-10 if your're going take away Hester's TD, you have to take away the colts pick 6. both cheap td's.
 
#12
#12
allvol123 said:
You have to be kidding me. Not being able to accomplish the qb/center exchange looks pretty bad to me.
Click to expand...
agreed. that was pathetic.

but i would also point to the Bears Defense. they couldn't get off the feild. the colts dominated the TOP. they had the ball for the entire 1st half of the 3rd quarter. nearly a full hour in real time went by between Bears possesions in the 2nd and 3rd qtr.

the defense gets a stop or two...who knows. that game was in doubt until the pick six. end of story.
 
#14
#14
jakez4ut said:
agreed. that was pathetic.

but i would also point to the Bears Defense. they couldn't get off the feild. the colts dominated the TOP. they had the ball for the entire 1st half of the 3rd quarter. nearly a full hour in real time went by between Bears possesions in the 2nd and 3rd qtr.

the defense gets a stop or two...who knows. that game was in doubt until the pick six. end of story.
Click to expand...
That had as much to do with the offense's inability to stay on the field as the defense's bend but don't break play.
 
#15
#15
milohimself said:
That had as much to do with the offense's inability to stay on the field as the defense's bend but don't break play.
Click to expand...
it's kind of like which came first, the chicken or the egg? i think the lack of possesions for the bears affected Turner's play calling...like he had to make something happen cause he didn't know when he'd see the ball again....which is why they went away from the run.......just conjecture......but it all played in to the colts hands.
 
#16
#16
The better team won and would 99 out of 100 times.

The only possible difference the other 98 times would be the Colts punching it into the endzone at the end of those long drives and the score reflecting the beatdown they actually administered.
 
#17
#17
tidwell said:
The better team won and would 99 out of 100 times.

The only possible difference the other 98 times would be the Colts punching it into the endzone at the end of those long drives and the score reflecting the beatdown they actually administered.
Click to expand...

Agree :thumbsup:
 
#18
#18
tidwell said:
The better team won and would 99 out of 100 times.

The only possible difference the other 98 times would be the Colts punching it into the endzone at the end of those long drives and the score reflecting the beatdown they actually administered.
Click to expand...
Again, what beat down? Where is the beatdown when they don't actually punch it in? The score doesn't always reflect the momentum of the game, but it is what it is and is always as close as the score says it is.

It's part of the same argument lunatic Auburn fans use to try and claim the 2004 national title after that "three point beat down" of Virginia Tech.
 
#19
#19
You clearly didn't watch the game, so I don't see the point in explaining something that most everyone else saw; the Colts offensive and defensive line pushing the Bears around for the majority of the game on their way up and down the field.
 
#21
#21
Didn't you say you were drunk while watching the game? Maybe that's how you missed the Bears offense do nothing, their defense stop no one, the Colts run for nearly 200 yards, Manning complete everything underneath that he wanted, and the Colts dominate the line of scrimmage on both sides? Yes, we all realize the score was close, no need to remind us of that for the 28th time, despite everyone seeming to realize who the better team was.
 
#22
#22
We know the better team won... But not in a blowout like you repeatedly claim. Blowouts are only reflected in the score. If the opposing team is standing at midfield with the ball with 3 minutes left on the clock with a chance to take the lead, it is not a blowout under any circumstance. I don't care if the Colts had 1,000 yards of offense to the Bears' 100. That's the way it was, the game was not in the bag until damn near the very end. That ain't a blow out.
 
#23
#23
I've never said it was a "blow out". I said the Colts dominated/controlled the game. You can dominate someone without blowing them out, see Florida/Tennessee 2006 and LSU/Tennessee 2006.

The only difference being the Colts did win by 12, and the Bears were never at midfield with 3 minutes to go to take the lead. I believe the Colts were up 12 already at that point and running the clock down.
 
#24
#24
You said in the last page they administered a beatdown. Last I checked, that usually includes getting the point differential to make it so.

Take the Florida analogy. They won by one point. Yeah, they controlled pretty much every aspect of our team except Ainge that game. Say they just slip for one play and he hits Meach for a 60 yarder and the win? What happened to the one point beatdown? Same goes for Auburn-VaTech '04, whatever.

Controlling the game at the lines or wherever else is one thing, but the actual beatdowns and such actually have the score to reflect them.
 
#25
#25
I disagree.

Not only did the Colts "administer a physical beatdown", they also won by 12. Looks like they covered both criteria.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top