Ironically I think the Bears were doomed because of the rain.

Journeyman · Feb 5, 2007

Looking back the Bears were much worse off because of the weather.

Not taking up for Rex but you would have to think if the game isn't a slippery one, the game plays out a little different...

Rex's biggest attribute is his deep ball which was completely taken away by the slippery rock.

If the Bears had to rethink this game...., I think they also blitz Manning, they played right into the weather situation by allowing the underneath, something that Manning's accuracy and the Colts precision passing game excels at.

No blitzes, the Bears didn't do anything to win this ball game, they played not to lose...the weather amplified everything towards Indy's strength.

mike0187 · Feb 5, 2007

As a Bears backer I was terrified everytime Rex put the ball in the air, right from the beginning...

I think you are right, the rain hurt them

Journeyman · Feb 5, 2007

Some QBs are terrible witha wet ball...I don't know about Rex...John Elway was one of the worst wet ball QBs to ever play, maybe he has small hands too....the deep ball was impossible, the botched snaps etc.

I would have been bringing people though, if I were Chicago's D, if you think about the teams that gave Indy trouble in the past they always brought a lot of pressure to Peyton, plus the injury.....the Bears never even tried that approach.

lapdance · Feb 5, 2007

don't think it would have mattered what the bears did. one of the most lopsided sb ever. plats at one time were 73-21 in favor of colts.

G.MONEY · Feb 5, 2007

REX..is just plain bad...I have been saying all yr that he was not the man for the job. And once they started winning with him I new Lovie was going to stay with him. Lovie says rex got us here so we stick with him.

I have said in some other threads..IF he is the starting QB next YR and goes the distance the Bears will not win 5 games...He is less than average QB.

I hope I am dead wrong and you can Bump this thread next yr.

oldmanTED · Feb 5, 2007

I don't feel the rain doomed the Bears. The Chicago offense really didn't drive the ball the whole game. Points came from Hesters' opening kick-off return, Jones' 52 yard run to the 5 yard line setting up the second touchdown and Goulds' 44 yard field goal after the Bears started possession on the Colts 40 yard line following a squib kick and an upsportsmanlike penalty. It was clear that the Colt game plan was to stop the run and, except for Jones' long run, accomplished that goal and forced the game into the hands of Grossman to make plays which he couldn't do on any consistent basis. The final score masks how one-sided this game really was and after all the Colts are the domed team. If the Bears had the ability to move the ball, the weather wouldn't have mattered.

NorthernStar · Feb 5, 2007

Look at the stats on Rex 20-26, that is not that bad. I know one of the incompletions was the last pass that looked like a reception and a fumble. 2 interceptions, first one he is basically trying to throw a jump ball to a taller receiver. Throws it to the wrong side. The worse part of that play is that is goes for td the other way. The second int he said slipped from his hand and at that point they had to take chances to win. Two fumbled snaps hurt, his fault, centers fault or weather or some combination.

To me the biggest reason they lost the game is the Chicago defense inability to stop the Indy run. They kept them out of the endzone and a few turnovers and a missed fg kept it close.

I played Chicago and felt pretty good at 14-6. Manning didn't look sharp, one blown cover when he was almost sacked for their td. Chicago had run the ball and Rex had thrown a TD. Chicago's offense was unimaginative and didn't drive the ball but the defense allowed the colts to drive with poor tackling and no pressure (one sack).

There have been more lopsided superbowls than this and far worse performances by qb's.

The_Man · Feb 5, 2007

i thnk dungy out coached smith.

if the bears would have brought pressure, dungy would have figured out a way to make adjustmesnts by maybe running a few screen plays to break it up or something else. they would have figured it out though and probably hit a guy deep to burn the blitz.

indy was the better team and deserved the win and it showed.

that game was awesome, think i will go watch it again.

other than leaving 4 points on the field, was ver happy with the outcome. how often will vinatieri miss a 36 yard field goal and then have an extra point attempt botched due to bad snap. costed me a small play on the over 47 even money.:nopityA:

having indy and the way the game started out on offense for the colts, was semi worried that mannings thumb was acting up and going to be an issue. thankfully it ended up being a non issue. :suomi:

WCBias · Feb 5, 2007

If it was not raining, Indy would have won by three TD's minimum. Indy could not throw the ball down field, and only had one long pass due to a complete collapse in the secondary. Harrison and Wayne combined for 7 pass receptions for a total of 120 yards, 53 of which came on one play. And chicago's defensive weakness is their secondary.

The rain made indy rely on the run and short pass far more than they would have. Indy and ball control are two words you rarely see together in the same sentence.

cofan · Feb 5, 2007

Northern Star said:
Look at the stats on Rex 20-26, that is not that bad. I know one of the incompletions was the last pass that looked like a reception and a fumble. 2 interceptions, first one he is basically trying to throw a jump ball to a taller receiver. Throws it to the wrong side. The worse part of that play is that is goes for td the other way. The second int he said slipped from his hand and at that point they had to take chances to win. Two fumbled snaps hurt, his fault, centers fault or weather or some combination.

There have been more lopsided superbowls than this and far worse performances by qb's.

You can't look only at the stats. He had 3 completions at the half. Going into the 4th, he had 50 something yards and about 8 completions. All his stats came in garbage time late in the 4th. He had 111 yards in the 4th, 46 on that last drive. He was terrible throughout the game.

The fumbles were his fault. He even admitted so. He said it hit him in the center of his hand but "somehow" slipped out. Great job Rex.

SkinsRaj28 · Feb 5, 2007

WC Bias said:
If it was not raining, Indy would have won by three TD's minimum.

Absoultely. I wish it hadn't rained so the Colts could've just obliterated the pretenders.

TTinCO · Feb 5, 2007

There are so many reasons why o47 should have been a push at the ABSOLUTE WORST, I could puke.

viking611 · Feb 5, 2007

Bears were doomed long before it started raining...they are terrible...got totally dominated in this game from the 14:45 mark. See ya bears fans!:howdy:

gynecologist · Feb 5, 2007

AFC was just a much better conference is all...

Bears are just not that good and would of been at best the 6th team in the AFC playoffs...

sean1 · Feb 5, 2007

If it had not rained, Peyton would have laid 45 on them.

The Colts, Pats, and Chargers all are 10 pts better than the bears at this time... You do not win big games with bad QBs.

Sean

Journeyman · Feb 5, 2007

I had Indy and feel Indy was the play...all I am saying is the Bears were actually worse off because of the weather than Indy....and most people would think the weather would favor Indy.

If the Bears had to do it again I think they woudl have blitzed Manning...sitting back played right into the Colts hands, especially in the rain.

Ironically I think the Bears were doomed because of the rain.

Search

Journeyman

Banned

mike0187

New member

Journeyman

Banned

lapdance

New member

G.MONEY

New member

oldmanTED

Professional At All Times

NorthernStar

New member

The_Man

ball dont lie

WCBias

New member

cofan

New member

SkinsRaj28

For G-Baby

TTinCO

.

viking611

www.youtubecom/hubbardsmusic

gynecologist

Banned

sean1

New member

Journeyman

Banned

Forum statistics

Share this page