Seahawks Win the Superbowl

On December 20 2005 02:32 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
no offense / not good on the road

On December 20 2005 04:30 DTDominion wrote:
the steelers are the ONLY team in the league tough enough to effectively defend the colts offense. and the steeler offense can be good.

On December 20 2005 00:53 IronMentality wrote:
As a Bears fan who was at one of the top ten coldest games in Soldier Field history last night, the Bears with a healthy Rex Grossman, and Mike Brown are going to be the best team in the NFC. Period.

On December 20 2005 11:27 NuclearAntelope wrote:

How can a seahawks fan accuse another team of not being good on the road?

On December 20 2005 12:13 Hot_Bid wrote:

have you watched this season? the steelers defense got manhandled by the colts O-line. the steelers defense is nowhere near as good as it was the year they made it to the championship game.

plus how can they be the only team when San Diego just "effectively defended" the Colts two days ago? the jags did as well in week two, and i'm sure the bears can as well...

it's just that those teams can't score on the colts, but SD can, so indy better pray that SD doesn't make the playoffs because they're the only AFC team with a realistic chance of beating them. denver i guess has a shot, but the colts have owned them the last few years.

On December 20 2005 17:40 Clemens21 wrote:
the first time i go on a starcraft site in about 8 months and were talking about my favorite team in all the world! Go Seahawks!!! ill be in detroit got my super bowl package booked yesterday

On December 20 2005 19:04 ChoboCop wrote:
WHO DEY WHO DEY WHO DEY THINK GUNNA BEAT DEM BENGALS?!?!!

On December 20 2005 21:36 InToTheWannaB wrote:
If the Giants get healthy they are going to crush everyone in the NFC. Tiki too good to be stoped, and no one can score on us lately. We are going to go into Seattle and Osi and Strahan are going to put Hasselback right on his butt again. Eli is his best when the pressuer is on and he going to pick his game up for the playoffs. Giants are going to the superbowl!!!!!

On December 20 2005 12:13 Hot_Bid wrote:

have you watched this season? the steelers defense got manhandled by the colts O-line. the steelers defense is nowhere near as good as it was the year they made it to the championship game.

plus how can they be the only team when San Diego just "effectively defended" the Colts two days ago? the jags did as well in week two, and i'm sure the bears can as well...

it's just that those teams can't score on the colts, but SD can, so indy better pray that SD doesn't make the playoffs because they're the only AFC team with a realistic chance of beating them. denver i guess has a shot, but the colts have owned them the last few years.

On December 20 2005 12:13 Hot_Bid wrote:

have you watched this season? the steelers defense got manhandled by the colts O-line. the steelers defense is nowhere near as good as it was the year they made it to the championship game.

plus how can they be the only team when San Diego just "effectively defended" the Colts two days ago? the jags did as well in week two, and i'm sure the bears can as well...

it's just that those teams can't score on the colts, but SD can, so indy better pray that SD doesn't make the playoffs because they're the only AFC team with a realistic chance of beating them. denver i guess has a shot, but the colts have owned them the last few years.

On December 20 2005 21:39 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Just like they crushed the Ravens in the superbowl a few years ago.

On December 20 2005 21:39 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Just like they crushed the Ravens in the superbowl a few years ago.

On December 21 2005 12:28 omgbnetsux wrote:


God I hate Kerry Collins.

On December 19 2005 16:22 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
-First Round Bye
-We will beat GB @ GB IF we lose the game vs the Colts (who have nothing to play for in that game + will probably rest starters. This gives the Seahawks homefield advantage throughout the playoffs.

Say what you want about the Seahawks, at home they are fucking good. No team in the NFC can beat the Seahawks at home. Bears are not great on the road and have a horrid offense. The Panthers arent on the level of the Seahawks atm. The Giants bode the biggest threat but we already beat em so chances are (in a clean game) wed do it again.

Than we get to the superbowl, where we face the Patriots fresh off of defeating the Colts in champ. Patriots limp into Superbowl and in an epic game the Seahawks win.

Seahawks return to glory and become a dynasty.

On December 20 2005 04:30 DTDominion wrote:
unless the colts choke there is no fucking way in hell they won't make it to the superbowl unless the steelers bring out their A game agains them. the steelers are the ONLY team in the league tough enough to effectively defend the colts offense. and the steeler offense can be good.

i'm not a huge steeler fan but they do have what it takes.

i would still bet on colts winning the superbowl.

On December 20 2005 15:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
nah, it did mean something. Manning is a NFL history buff and he wanted that record more than anything. They didnt rest any starters and they played hard. The only exscuse is they didnt use any of their secret plays im sure they are saving for the playoffs. Still, a 8-5 west coast team traveling to their house and sacking Manning 4 times knocking him down 8 and rushing him 13 times is fucking good news for the rest of us. SD doesnt exactly have the most amazing defense and they found a chink in the Colts armor. This bodes well for Seattle imo (if we do meet them) cause we have 45 sacks in the front 4 and lead the NFL in rushing the passer.

HOHO!

On December 21 2005 20:42 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:


Shows how much you follow the NFL. Based off current rankings, the Patriots will be going to Indy in the Divisional round. Even if they don't, Denver will beat them again. Pats aren't doing shit this year.

Your statement about the Bears held a lot more truth until Sunday's game. Why's that? Because Grossman is a much better QB than Orton is right now. He presents a threat of a pass game, and with that defense, that's all they need.

The Bears are a legitimate Superbowl contender this year, like it or not. Seattle is going to be hard for anyone, but don't count the Bears out of this one just yet. (Even though you are a giant Seattle nuthugger)



Wrong. The Broncos have a better D than SD does, and better than Pitt this year. If anyone is going to give them hell (aside from the old nemesis in NE), it's going to be Denver. Cinci wins the first round game after losing out on the first round bye, as Denver will easily despose of the Raiders this week, then end strong with a victory over SD, thus keeping them at the #2 spot. The Patriots also win their game. Then it's Indy/Pats and Broncos/Cinci, which are won by Indy and Denver respectively, and they meet in the championship. I'd love to see Denver in another Super Bowl, but I like Peyton too much to actually want him to lose to any team.




Not ONLY that, but he fucking HATES to lose. I was just reading an interview with Eli in ESPN today, and Eli talked about a 1 on 1 basketball game they played, which he won by 2 points (going to ten). Peyton was so pissed about that he wouldn't talk to anyone for a couple of days. There was no handshaking, no good job, he just walked away. Now imagine that for a game that really, really meant something to him. He was devastated, which means one thing in my mind: he's going to be electric in the next several games.

-_-: I'd take Jake over Kerry any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Collins has not been the same since his jaw got shattered.

On December 21 2005 20:42 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:


Shows how much you follow the NFL. Based off current rankings, the Patriots will be going to Indy in the Divisional round. Even if they don't, Denver will beat them again. Pats aren't doing shit this year.

Your statement about the Bears held a lot more truth until Sunday's game. Why's that? Because Grossman is a much better QB than Orton is right now. He presents a threat of a pass game, and with that defense, that's all they need.

The Bears are a legitimate Superbowl contender this year, like it or not. Seattle is going to be hard for anyone, but don't count the Bears out of this one just yet. (Even though you are a giant Seattle nuthugger)



Wrong. The Broncos have a better D than SD does, and better than Pitt this year. If anyone is going to give them hell (aside from the old nemesis in NE), it's going to be Denver. Cinci wins the first round game after losing out on the first round bye, as Denver will easily despose of the Raiders this week, then end strong with a victory over SD, thus keeping them at the #2 spot. The Patriots also win their game. Then it's Indy/Pats and Broncos/Cinci, which are won by Indy and Denver respectively, and they meet in the championship. I'd love to see Denver in another Super Bowl, but I like Peyton too much to actually want him to lose to any team.




Not ONLY that, but he fucking HATES to lose. I was just reading an interview with Eli in ESPN today, and Eli talked about a 1 on 1 basketball game they played, which he won by 2 points (going to ten). Peyton was so pissed about that he wouldn't talk to anyone for a couple of days. There was no handshaking, no good job, he just walked away. Now imagine that for a game that really, really meant something to him. He was devastated, which means one thing in my mind: he's going to be electric in the next several games.

-_-: I'd take Jake over Kerry any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Collins has not been the same since his jaw got shattered.

On December 23 2005 11:45 LeJester wrote:
Woody never lies. The Falcons are going to the Superbowl.

On December 23 2005 18:21 Tossim1 wrote:
hah
stupidest thing i've heard today
its all about the skins sonson

On December 24 2005 17:40 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
your right, they will beat the Pats in the superbowl.

On December 24 2005 18:30 GoGoGo[cF] wrote:
YES <3 SEAHAWKS CAN I GET A SOUL CLAP?!!!



28-13 W

Seahawks > Colts

On December 24 2005 19:21 oneofthem wrote:
calm down, Colts rested their starters.

On December 24 2005 20:05 Tossim1 wrote:
skins just raped giants? sup?

CANT STOP SANTANA

On December 19 2005 16:22 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
-First Round Bye
-We will beat GB @ GB IF we lose the game vs the Colts (who have nothing to play for in that game + will probably rest starters. This gives the Seahawks homefield advantage throughout the playoffs.

Say what you want about the Seahawks, at home they are fucking good. No team in the NFC can beat the Seahawks at home. Bears are not great on the road and have a horrid offense. The Panthers arent on the level of the Seahawks atm. The Giants bode the biggest threat but we already beat em so chances are (in a clean game) wed do it again.

Than we get to the superbowl, where we face the Patriots fresh off of defeating the Colts in champ. Patriots limp into Superbowl and in an epic game the Seahawks win.

Seahawks return to glory and become a dynasty.

On December 27 2005 12:20 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
skins beat not raped the Seahawks at skins home. GL doing that @ Seattle fag

On December 27 2005 16:47 mensrea wrote:
As the saying goes, "on any given Sunday...". And anything can happen in the playoffs.

But, I gotta say, I would not want to be playing against the Patriots. The odds are stacked against them going all the way (no team in NFL history has won three Super Bowls in a row before), but they sure do seem to have their mojo back - the D is starting to hit again and Brady's as clinical as ever. Their dismantling of the Bucs a couple of weeks ago confirmed to me that they're going to be tough sobs to beat, their mediocre record notwithstanding. Don't know about the Super Bowl, but I can see a Colts vs Patriots conference final. Should be highly entertaining to watch given the recent history between the two teams and their respective QBs.

I'd love to see Seattle go all the way. But I can't see that happening. They don't have that aura of invincibility most Super Bowl champs have. The Ravens, Rams and Patriots all had "it" when they won, just to name the recent winners. The Colts are pretty close - but they have to make it past the Patriots (or have someone else bump the reigning champs off). It will not be easy. In fact, on a head-to-head basis, I give the Patriots the edge. But, if Manning & Co. somehow survive the Patriots, then they go all the way. About fucking time, too.

On December 27 2005 18:14 GoGoGo[cF] wrote:
Harsh. Seahawks are doing well. Let's all at least agree to that. Better than any of the teams mentioned here....Except for maybe the Colts..and the Broncos, Bengals, Patriots, Jaguars, and Steelers.......

On December 27 2005 19:36 KOFgokuon wrote:
yeah, the jags have a chance vs the seahawks. go on day dreaming

On December 27 2005 20:25 ApollyoN wrote:


They already beat them this year

On December 27 2005 22:14 KOFgokuon wrote:


any team that only beats san francisco 10-9 gets absolutely no respect in my opinion

of course, i did forget that the seahawks had a really close game vs the 49'ers as well.

On December 28 2005 00:58 mensrea wrote:
On any given Sunday, yes. But. The Jags won't upset anybody. These Jags are not underrated. They are simply not contenders. Same goes for the Skins (are they even in the playoffs? I haven't been following them because I know they will not do anything.)

Aside from the favorites based on record (Colts, Seahawks and Broncos), the Bears, Bengals and (if they play things right) Panthers are much more of a threat to go deep into the playoffs.

And of course the Pats. Fuck I hate them. But, as already mentioned, they're close to hitting on all cylinders again.

On December 28 2005 08:52 KOFgokuon wrote:


redskins have to beat dallas to make the playoffs
if ramsey is starting, who knows........but the eagles are trash this year so they'll prolly win regardless

i dunno if they have NO shot. i think they can beat the bucs, and they can give the giants a run for their money. seahawks and bears...who knows. they have the hard hitting athletic stingy defense to do well in the playoffs tho

On December 28 2005 10:52 ~OpZ~ wrote:
in reply to the 49ers only getting beat by one point, do not forget, last season the New England Patriots, lost to the Miami Dolphins....and the pats did win the Super Bowl...So yea...

Anyway Seahawks aren't going to make it to the Super Bowl -.-...They are another, "OGM PLAYOFF TIME, LETS CHOKE" team, just like the colts.

On December 23 2005 02:29 TreY wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm about 95% sure I'm right, but don't the top two teams in the league get 1st round byes? So "with current standings", the Pats will play the Jaguars. Correct? The worst division leader against the best wildcard. Or, seeds 4 and 5. Either way you look at it, I'm generally sure that I'm right.

On December 28 2005 11:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I honestly dont see the Colts in the Super bowl. Broncos / Pats are my best bet. And nobody has done a real good job at giving me a reason to doubt the seahawks beyond the smattering of "omgnmmgn XXX team is better!"

Let me remind you guys. 21-3 @ home in last 3 years. More false starts by opponents than ANY other stadium in the NFL this year. #1 Offense. #4 Defense in Pts allowed. #1 Sack team. NFL MVP, NFL Defensive ROokie of the Year (Tatupu) and oh yeah, the quarterback with the best rating in the month of December completing over 60 passes of 80 with 0 interceptions.

On December 30 2005 08:40 HyunG wrote:
i think leftwich should play this week. i dont think first game back should be a playoff game, it may be too much for leftwich to handle due to pressure. He should get some playing time in this week.

On December 30 2005 09:21 pooper-scooper wrote:
Gahh I also hate the Patriots, and the Steelers have to play them AGAIN.... For god sakes, they kill us in the playoffs every year.

On January 02 2006 19:23 decafchicken wrote:
Bears will make it to the superbowl and smoke you like a cheap cuban cigar.

On January 03 2006 04:24 mensrea wrote:
Speaking of talent, but no drive, two words: "Michael Vick".

On January 03 2006 14:26 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
if seahawks go to superbowl it will NOT be a blow out. I think thats the best chance for a better super bowl. Bears would keep it low, but their offense blows huge donkey nuts. Panthers arent what they used to be, Bucs would be nice but their offense is only a bit better than the Bears, and their defense is actually fairly inconsistant.

Id love a Seahawks / Colts/Broncos/Pats superbowl inspite my huge and blind bias to the seahawks i think them vs the amazing offense of Colts or the most balanced team in football with the Broncos or the legendary Pats would be epic!

On January 03 2006 14:47 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
that would rock, but i think by the time the media is done pounding our faces with peyton drama we'd be sick n tired of the game before it was even played. Giants CAN be a very entertaining and good team to watch, but they too are very inconsistant (mostly due to eli).

On January 07 2006 18:48 TreY wrote:
Jags down 7-3 at halftime. Leftwich looking good.

On January 08 2006 08:17 KOFgokuon wrote:
that redskins games was one of the worst offensive performances i've ever seen in my life

On January 08 2006 14:41 Tossim1 wrote:
my prediction:
skins > hawks 21-3

On January 08 2006 15:36 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Your fucking retarded

On January 08 2006 23:34 HyunG wrote:
i think it'll be a real close game due to the fact that alexander will actually be somewhat contained I think. We'll see. Im thinking redskins by a field goal or so. oo

and its over for Pitt. If Colts score first, then u can expect a blow out.
As for New England, it'll be a great game i think. But I think Denver is a bit too much for NE this year. Good run though.

Last playoff game: Panthers looked good, but I think the cold weather will help out the bears. Both teams will be forced to run, and Bears have better D and better run attack with Jones than Panthers with Foster. But it will be close game since Bears D does allow alot of yards.

On January 09 2006 06:30 KOFgokuon wrote:
steve smith shut down all dayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
redskins have the ridiculus linebacking core to at least slow down alexander, seahawks will have to beat them in the air. their secondary is still beat up though, so it's definitely plausible. I'm still not convinced that the seahawks defense is that great. They may have good numbers, but come on, nfc west? Either way, we'll see this week if they're overrated, or if they're legitimately good. I just don't think the seahawks have the top-level playmakers on defense that most of the other teams have. Let's see if I get proven wrong on saturday

On January 10 2006 18:48 HyunG wrote:
1. i never said anything about points.
2. wow my bad. i didn't look up the stats before i said it. I had the bears d on my fantasy team and it looked like they allowed a lot of yards. I thought they just got a lot of turnovers to give me points.
3. You got something against me?
4. stop trying to be so smart rofl. I know football, maybe not as well as you (i dunno how much u know).
Ps I went 3-1 last week =p Giants game was not expected.

On January 10 2006 21:11 KOFgokuon wrote:
thomas jones is definitely an unsung hero for the bears this year. he put up really good numbers for an anemic offense (scored half of the bear's offensive touchdowns) while being banged up most of the year. I don't see how you can possibly say that their run game is average at best, not when they have a top 10 rusher in yards AND touchdowns. And how can you say that Rex Grossman sucks? We've barely seen him play. at all. it's one thing to say he's inexperienced, and we have no idea what we'll get out of him. Saying that he's trash just because he's injury prone and hasn't had a chance to prove himself is something else entirely.

Orton isn't very good though, that is true. But to say they have no shot at the superbowl is dumb. The ravens had a terrible offense too, yet they won the superbowl. Everything about these teams is very similar, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them make a run at the superbowl at all.

On January 11 2006 06:01 -_- wrote:


Grossman is awful. And you'll see sunday just how awful. He is inexperienced, but that doesn't mean he doesn't suck.

On January 11 2006 16:43 Chris.K wrote:
Rookie Quarterback... Almost no season experience... = doom.... atleast for the ravens dilfer was a little better than a rookie with one game under his belt....


remember what happened to big ben.... yeah unless the defense scores some points the bears offense won't make over 10.

On January 11 2006 16:04 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:


You are an idiot, and clearly know nothing about football.

Anyone who watches Grossman sees that he has certain things going for him already, especially considering his inexperience. He has a quick release, and pretty decent field vision, especially for a guy who hasn't played much. He makes better reads on the defense than some quarterbacks, definitely so against most rookies, and he has good pocket presence, too.

On the contrary, you're going to see exactly how overrated the Panthers are because the Giants happened to play bad last week. They're going to go up against a great defense, and Foster will NOT run for 100+ yards. If Foster can't run, that forces the game into DelHomme's hands, which is bad news for the Panthers, because he's not exactly the guy you want to rely on in a pressure situation; he's a decent QB, but nothing special by any stretch of the imagination.

Remember the last time they played? Yeah, of course you do. 8 sacks, two picks, 3 points allowed. You really think that team has the ability to beat this year's #1 defense, and one of the best defenses over the last 20 years?

On January 11 2006 19:22 shuturface wrote:
seahawks are going to lose for sure, redskins defense has been unstoppable and will keep alexander from running the ball...also the skins offense will be back in gear this week and santana moss and clinton portis will have big games...the spead on the game is +10 last i saw for the skins, anyone who bets should put money on them

On January 11 2006 18:35 -_- wrote:


I don't know much about football, but frankly, I think I know ten times as much as you.

"Anyone who watches grossman..." Huh? He's thrown the ball 39 times ALL SEASON.

How the fuck do you know that he has "a quick release... pretty decent field vision... makes better reads on the defense than some quarterbacks, definitely so against most rookies and has good pocket presence." Unless you're a profesional football analyst SHUT THE FUCK UP.

On January 11 2006 20:53 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
and ur latest post was just factually wrong. Maybe "most polls" i guess you have some kind of poll counter compiled before you. Im going off what vegas said, considered the mecca for gambling and is really nothing to argue against.. the safest bet as of now in Vegas is seattle. And no they didnt just pull it out of their ass, they might have considered all the numbers kid.

On January 11 2006 22:00 Chris.K wrote:
The polls DO NOT take into account the strength of the schedules which I fully did the seahawks had a much easier time than lets say... denver or san diego or oakland or kansas... i'm naming these 4 teams because this is the hardest division in the league and those teams sparred against each other quite a few times.

On January 11 2006 23:04 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Strength of schedule doesnt mean shit in the playoffs. Hardest or easiest its a 1 game live or die baby. So when i say the seahawks have the best odds they are taking into account MANY aspects, while you are taking into account strength of schedule? That doesnt matter. Thats the past.

Ive continually said, this is the seahawks hardest game until superbowl. IF we win this game we are a guranteed superbowl team i promise it. Not winning a playoff game in 20 years = a mental hill we have to climb no matter how good we are. That and the Skins are the hottest teamin the NFL winning 6 must win games in a row. I am absolutely ecstatic about this game, its gonna fucking rock.

But you seriously can count on me verbally reaming you when the seahawks win. And they will.

On January 11 2006 23:04 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Strength of schedule doesnt mean shit in the playoffs. Hardest or easiest its a 1 game live or die baby. So when i say the seahawks have the best odds they are taking into account MANY aspects, while you are taking into account strength of schedule? That doesnt matter. Thats the past.

Ive continually said, this is the seahawks hardest game until superbowl. IF we win this game we are a guranteed superbowl team i promise it. Not winning a playoff game in 20 years = a mental hill we have to climb no matter how good we are. That and the Skins are the hottest teamin the NFL winning 6 must win games in a row. I am absolutely ecstatic about this game, its gonna fucking rock.

But you seriously can count on me verbally reaming you when the seahawks win. And they will.

On January 14 2006 16:53 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Hey Chris, FUCK YOU

We GAVE you the ball 3 times and you couldnt score more than 10 pts. We lost the MVP after 5 rushes and STILL scored 20 on your defense.

Eat cock i told you the hawks would win.

On January 14 2006 17:17 -_- wrote:



I hope by eight tommorow I will be saying the same thing to lemon-_-

On January 15 2006 17:30 -_- wrote:
Hey sweetlemon...


Thomas Jones and Adrian Peterson officially sucked cock. What did they have 70-80 combined yards?

Rex Grossman ruled, though, right? OH WAIT. Did he even break the 200 yard mark? Down the stretch how did this games played rookie fare? He fucked up with a crucial interception.

Hmmm, weren't you talking about how jake delhomme couldn't throw, and that if they took deshaun out of the game they were screwed, we'd be 'playing right into their hand'... well foster was out in the third quarter with a high ankle sprain AND DELHOMME FUCKED YOU UP. You should really be a analyst!!!

You say the bears had one of 'greatest D's of all time' AHAHHAHAHA. Great to the tune of twenty fucking nine points given up.

OOOOOOHHHHH. Looks like the gosu football guru didn't know that Delhomme had a 100+ QB rating in the playoffs... playing into their hands my ass.




GO PANTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

On January 14 2006 22:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Any news on how wrong you were? The AFC isnt so fart ahead of the NFC im pretty sure your in for yet another piss poor prediction. Alexander is a pussy he had his bell rung and had to sit it out, he will be back for the championship and hopefully he will decide to tough it up for an entire playoff game.

Btw your doing the classical "thats fine im happier this way anyways! nahahaha"

I told you if you take that stance, once ur wrong im going to gloat like an obese pregnant woman and here i am being a bigger man. I will settle with my previous completely immature post and simply wait until the superbowl to yet again gloat at how the two conferences arent so fart apart like you seem to believe.

On January 15 2006 17:30 -_- wrote:
Hey sweetlemon...


Thomas Jones and Adrian Peterson officially sucked cock. What did they have 70-80 combined yards?

Rex Grossman ruled, though, right? OH WAIT. Did he even break the 200 yard mark? Down the stretch how did this games played rookie fare? He fucked up with a crucial interception.

Hmmm, weren't you talking about how jake delhomme couldn't throw, and that if they took deshaun out of the game they were screwed, we'd be 'playing right into their hand'... well foster was out in the third quarter with a high ankle sprain AND DELHOMME FUCKED YOU UP. You should really be a analyst!!!

You say the bears had one of 'greatest D's of all time' AHAHHAHAHA. Great to the tune of twenty fucking nine points given up.

OOOOOOHHHHH. Looks like the gosu football guru didn't know that Delhomme had a 100+ QB rating in the playoffs... playing into their hands my ass.




GO PANTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

On January 16 2006 20:53 Chris.K wrote:
4 yards a carry isn't tearing it up... OH MAYBE IT IS.. haha I'm actually used to a running game being a denver fan and all..

On January 16 2006 21:08 KOFgokuon wrote:
Yeah, since when was averaging 4 yards a carry considered "Tearing up that D?" They ran him 20 times, ample opportunity for him to break a big one and really impact the game. If you take out his one big run of 24 yards, he averaged less than 3 yards a carry, really impacted the game a lot! they had more success throwing screen passes to him than running the ball.

Let's be honest here, you can claim all the stats that you want to during the regular season, but in the game that actually mattered, the bears played terribly. You can't be considered an all time great no matter what your numbers are if you play that terribly. If you can't win a playoff game, no matter what, all claims to greatness are negated. Since the schemes and defenses that the bears had to defend smith weren't working, why not adjust at all? He was clearly destroying them in every way -- deep, in the middle, on end arounds. You can't just stick with the original game plan when he was creating that much havoc.

On January 16 2006 20:44 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:


Did you watch the game? Probably not...

Thomas Jones was tearing up that D when he actually ran. He was averaging four yards a carry. The problem is that they never ran him. Again, going back to how you obviously didn't watch the game, Rex MAY have thrown a pick, but that's a rookie mistake, and he also threw a TD, and led the team right down the field for three scores. Of all the first time playoff QB's he did the best. And by the way, he missed the 200 yard mark by 8 yards, good argument, moron.

Going to DelHomme. He's not that great of a QB, he just has one of the top WR's in the league. Also, I'd like to see where I said he couldn't throw. What I said was that you don't want him in a pressure situation, which is the truth, because he's not a top notch QB. By the way, they ran on the Bears, it just wasn't Foster running. They had 123 yards rushing against the Bears, which opened them right up for the pass.

The Bears defense was statistically one of the greatest defenses there has been, and there's simply no denying that. You can say all you want, they had a bad game, but look at the stats, they were amazing throughout the regular season. It WAS one of the best defenses over the last 20 years, just as I had said, they came out flat, and got ripped apart by Steve Smith, which isn't a surprise, because that was one of the biggest concerns of any Bears fan-- Steve Smith.

They have NO ONE to cover him, and they never decided to double him, either. Not to mention that they play a Cover 2 defense, which puts them into zones most of the time, and with a guy like Smith playing, he's going to find creases in the zone. Jake DelHomme didn't have such an amazing game, he just put it where it needed to be put. Also, you may as well take that first TD away from them, because Smith shoved Tillman to the ground, after HE initiated the contact. Then Tillman got called for the penalty.

Finally, if you're basing a team's greatness off of one game, it's better for you to shut the fuck up, because you're definitely retarded. The problem was a lack of preparation. They were rested for too long (and go ahead an ask Mike Shanahan about resting starters in the final game), and they were underprepared. The schemes they used to try and defend Smith were horrible, and they never double covered him, leaving guys like Tillman and Vasher (who are good CB's, no doubt, but not the type to keep up with a guy like Smith) to single cover him. That spells doom. Just look at the stats, and name 15 teams that were better than the Bears' defense was this year. 12.6 PPG allowed, that's enough said.

On January 17 2006 07:16 RowdierBob wrote:
How the fuck did the Steelers win.

So much for the Colts almost perfect season =\

On January 17 2006 16:21 Chris.K wrote:
this is funny.... Carolina is still a championship team and I still rest my case... this is the 2nd nfc championship game in 3 years I believe.... yeah the bears shore own them... Oh man here come those ruff ridah hawks

I've been in love with carolina since I saw delhomme go TD for TD against brady in that superbowl.. the panthers are an amazing team with almost 0 credit towards em.....


shore would be ncie to see Holmgren against shanahan again though.... so torn so torn.. regardless broncos take all :D

On January 17 2006 16:15 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
"By the way, he had 10+ catches for 168 yards last time with no touchdowns"

No touchdowns is the key. It doesn't matter if a team puts up a thousand yards in a game if they can't score on you.

I never said DelHomme sucked, I said he wasn't the best QB there is, which is a fact.

I cannot account for the mismanagement in the game, I'm not a Bear coach or player. After Foster went down there was one threat left, really, that being Steve Smith. Why did they have a third stringer single covering him? Don't know. Why were they single covering him at all? Don't know. I can only name one CB who could almost certainly single cover Smith and handle him, that being Champ Bailey (who is definitely one of the top CB's in the league, but I really don't know a lot of CB's, so there might be more, or even better guys out there). Smith won them that game, and this is a fact. When one player covers over half a teams entire offense, something was wrong with scheming. Smith had 218 yards, and they totaled 434. That's OVER half from one player. He also had 2 TD's that game, which is about half their points. Had they gameplanned for him just a bit more, maybe they could have won, but they didn't, and I cannot explain why because, as stated, I'm not a part of the organization.


The problem the Bears have had all year has been their offense, and not being able to pass the ball. Muhammed didn't do shit all year long, and we lost our #2 reciever pretty early on (Bradley). So, basically, they were relying on the defense to come out and win that game for them. The defense came out and played like shit, and the coaching staff NEVER made ANY adjustments. They never got pressure on DelHomme, and they single covered Smith. If you're not going to double cover a guy, then get the fucking QB. They didn't do that.

Yes, I did say he was going to be shut down, but the whole time I was talking shit about the Panthers, I was doing just that: Talking shit. I thought the Bears D would come out prepared, but they didn't. I thought they'd double cover Smith once they had shut down the running game, and hopefully would have taken the early lead, but they didn't. It wasn't a typical Bears game at all, and the team played nothing to what they were capable of.

Also, last I checked, I was the one living in IL, and the one who listens to the Chicago sports radio.. Yes, Bears fans were definitely worried about what Steve Smith was going to do to that defense. The thing is, most people also figured that Lovie Smith and co wouldn't be stupid enough to attempt to single cover one of the league's best WR's when they have no shut down CB's.

EDIT: Also, apparently you skipped the post where I noted that all my comparisons were towards our second stringer, who sucked shit, Kyle Orton. Grossman was undoubtedly the better QB. The reason I brought up the fact that he HAD played more than one game is because you said he had only played once, but he hadn't. At any rate, his total time on the field still equated to that of a rookie QB, or a 3rd stringer. Having played 7 games over 3 years does not make him a seasoned player, however, saying that he had only played one game makes you misinformed, because he put the offense in place with Turner.

On January 17 2006 16:15 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
I never said DelHomme sucked, I said he wasn't the best QB there is, which is a fact.

On January 17 2006 17:05 NuclearAntelope wrote:

And I quote:
"Going to DelHomme. He's not that great of a QB, he just has one of the top WR's in the league."

Slight difference between those two statements. Saying he's "not that great" of a QB is pretty much just a nice way to say that you do not think highly of him at all. I guess you must not think highly of Tom Brady, either, since both of them play their best when the pressure is on.

You neglected the other few hundred words I wrote, so that's that I guess.

On January 17 2006 17:28 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:


No, saying that says he's a good QB, but nothing super-special.

Tom Brady is a great QB, I'll never deny that, but I think some people overrate him a bit. They act like he's the second coming of Christ, or something.

Also, to -_-, my post was in response to you, I just didn't quote you. You're asking me to explain things, in fact, everyone is asking these things of me, that I simply cannot explain. I don't know why they didn't do certain things, but they didn't.

Also, I'm not the only person in the world who doesn't think they ran enough. I was just listening to the radio, and the guys there said they never established the run, and that they handled Smith all wrong. The Bears did not play the game they know how to play.

Finally, the run is not all about "Give it to Thomas Jones and he'll make it!" it's about clock control. Incomplete passes stop the clock, but every run guarantees another 30 seconds ticking off the clock, barring an injury or timeout. The three ways to beat Smith are these: Don't give their offense the ball (aka controlling the clock), double cover him, or pressure the QB. The Bears did NONE of these things, and that's why they got beat. The ones to blame are the coaching staff.