Indianapolis vs. New England

RedCanadian said:
Vick with a better head for the position, but better than Manning... :wenger: :wenger: :wenger:
Click to expand...

I love Vick's and McNabb's style of play, but they are both so prone to mistakes
 
MrMarcello said:
The same defense that's giving up about 5 yards per rush in the playoffs and allowed tons of points during the final four games of the regular season and against Seattle before actually stepping up against New Orleans?

I agree on Hester but he does tend to fumble at times (ex: vs Seattle).

Indy's D is giving up 110 yards less per playoff game than Chicago has. Indy has surrendered fewer points per game than Chicago. Indy's D has given up 40 points in 3 games (deducted 7 off Manning INT for TD), Chicago gave up 38 in 2 games but did a great job shutting down New Orleans (although you spot any opponent 4 tunorvers and you'll most likely lose). I can see Manning throwing for over 300 yards. I can't envision Grossman doing this. I also don't know if Chicago will run the ball effectively as none of the 3 playoff opponents did against Indy. But it's possible. And Manning has struggled at times this January. Give Chicago a short field and they'll manage to score some points.

Indy's offense knocked off the #1 ranked defense (Baltimore) and #6 ranked defense (New England - scoring 38 points to boot). KC was ranked 16th and gave up 23 points. In contrast, Chicago has knocked off the 11th and 19th ranked defenses (New Orleans and Seattle, respectively).

Compare points per game:
vs Kansas City (t-11th @ 19.7) - scored 23
@ Baltimore (1st @ 12.6) - scored 15
vs New England (2nd @ 14.8) - scored 38

vs Seattle (19th @ 21.2) - scored 27
vs New Orleans (13th @ 20.1) - scored 39

Offense rankings:
Kansas City - 16th total, 15th scoring
Baltimore - 17th total, t-12th scoring
New England - 11th total, 7th scoring

Seattle - 19th total, 14th scoring
New Orleans - 1st, 5th scoring

But on any given Sunday...
Click to expand...

you really have to look at the turnovers as well. The Bears' defense is not about yardage as much as about the end result. They create many more fumbles than Indy. No comparison. If you honestly think Indy's defense is better, you need to watch some Bears games mate.

Also, you need to have strength of schedule next to the rankings to make them more accurate.
 
rrarraroon said:
you really have to look at the turnovers as well. The Bears' defense is not about yardage as much as about the end result. They create many more fumbles than Indy. No comparison. If you honestly think Indy's defense is better, you need to watch some Bears games mate.

Also, you need to have strength of schedule next to the rankings to make them more accurate.
Click to expand...

Indy would top that too... they played more games against winning opponents during the regular season and had to go on the road to win a playoff game.

I didn't claim Indy has a better defense... but their D has played better than Chicago's over the last 2-3 weeks.

Don't like watching Bears games... very boring and defensive... akin to watching Liverpool or Chelsea.
 
MrMarcello said:
they played more games against winning opponents during the regular season

Don't like watching Bears games
Click to expand...


1. do you have a link for that stat? not saying you're wrong

2. you can't be a real fan then. Chicago is exactly what American Football is all about IMO true toughness, just imagine if Harris and Brown were healthy
 
rrarraroon said:
1. do you have a link for that stat? not saying you're wrong Just look at the schedules and find how many winning teams Chicago played vs Indy - Bears beat 2 teams with winning records, Indy beat 4. The AFC is much more stacked too. Bears had a creampuff schedule for the most part, as did most the NFC.

2. you can't be a real fan then. Chicago is exactly what American Football is all about IMO true toughness, just imagine if Harris and Brown were healthy
Click to expand...

I'm a Texan, so obviously I was born and bread a gridiron football fan. I also support a club that dominated the 90s and has won 5 Super Bowls, something your fav club can only dream to achieve. ;)
 
MrMarcello said:
I'm a Texan, so obviously I was born and bread a gridiron football fan. I also support a club that dominated the 90s and has won 5 Super Bowls, something your fav club can only dream to achieve. ;)
Click to expand...

I didn't know American football teams were called "clubs." And how do you know what "club" I support? And no offense, but you beat Buffalo in three of those 5 right? Doesn't really count.
 
rrarraroon said:
I didn't know American football teams were called "clubs." And how do you know what "club" I support? And no offense, but you beat Buffalo in three of those 5 right? Doesn't really count.
Click to expand...

I can call them clubs, teams, franchises, whatever. Six of one and a half dozen of the other.

Dallas beat Buffalo twice... beat the Steelers the other time in the 90s. Beat Miami and Denver in the 70s, losing to Baltimore once and Pittsburgh twice.

Buffalo was a darn good team in the 90s (Kelly, Thomas, Reed, great OL, Smith, Bennett - numerous all-pros). Funny how those championships apparently do not count in your opinion. Does beating SF to get to those first two SBs in the 90s count?

Judging by your opinion, Chicago's win over a vastly inferior New England 'team' in Jan 1986 should not count. Nor should NY Giants or Washington's SB victories over Buffalo in Jan 1991 and 1992 respectively. :rolleyes:
 
MrMarcello said:
I can call them clubs, teams, franchises, whatever. Six of one and a half dozen of the other.

Dallas beat Buffalo twice... beat the Steelers the other time in the 90s. Beat Miami and Denver in the 70s, losing to Baltimore once and Pittsburgh twice.

Buffalo was a darn good team in the 90s (Kelly, Thomas, Reed, great OL, Smith, Bennett - numerous all-pros). Funny how those championships apparently do not count in your opinion. Does beating SF to get to those first two SBs in the 90s count?

Judging by your opinion, Chicago's win over a vastly inferior New England 'team' in Jan 1986 should not count. Nor should NY Giants or Washington's SB victories over Buffalo in Jan 1991 and 1992 respectively. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Obviously it "counts" you idiat. And I usually defend Americans when people say they have no sense for sarcasm. Bruce Smith and Andre Reed are legendary in my book.
 
rrarraroon said:
Obviously it "counts" you idiat. And I usually defend Americans when people say they have no sense for sarcasm. Bruce Smith and Andre Reed are legendary in my book.
Click to expand...

That wasn't a very good attempt at sarcasm but nice attempt to backtrack.
 
RedCanadian said:
Don't forget about Jim Kelly!!!! :D
Click to expand...

He's not up as high as Smith and Reed in my book. There's nobody like Smith in his prime playing today, and Reed was almost up there with Rice.

Yes, Kelly pioneered the no huddle, but he couldn't hold it down when it mattered. 4 chances to win! He will be a Hall of Famer for sure, but Reed and Smith are still ahead of him for me.
 
rrarraroon said:
He's not up as high as Smith and Reed in my book. There's nobody like Smith in his prime playing today, and Reed was almost up there with Rice.

Yes, Kelly pioneered the no huddle, but he couldn't hold it down when it mattered. 4 chances to win! He will be a Hall of Famer for sure, but Reed and Smith are still ahead of him for me.
Click to expand...

He is already in the Hall. Kelly led the drive in the last 2 minutes only to have Norwood blow it (WIDE RIGHT!!!!). And against Washington and Dallas they were way overmatched as those team were just too good. The Bills could have had Montana, Marino, or Elway in those games and still wouldn't have been close.....
 
RedCanadian said:
He is already in the Hall. Kelly led the drive in the last 2 minutes only to have Norwood blow it (WIDE RIGHT!!!!). And against Washington and Dallas they were way overmatched as those team were just too good. The Bills could have had Montana, Marino, or Elway in those games and still wouldn't have been close.....
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't know he was inducted already.

If it was Montana in there he would gotten Norwood closer than a 47 yarder :wenger:

:lol: I don't know, he was definitely great, just not as good as Bruce and Andre IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.