Forum: foot
Page 4834
Subject: Today's Conference Championsship Action 1/21

  Posted by: Ref - Donor [539581218] Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 15:33
Key fumble by NO after barely recovering own fumble last series.
 
1Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 15:37 		Colston yaks it up and the Bears take it down to the NO 6. 4th and one....what to do, what to do. I kick the FG.
 
2Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 15:41 		Man that was pathetic. Grossman is beyond terrible.

 
3Rendle
      Donor
      ID: 014815714
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 15:43 		Bears D really came to play.
 
4Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 15:45 		Tough call. I think I'd have kicked the FG as well, but even though it's a low-scoring game, NO has the ability to score big. Still even if you do make it, as they did, can Grossman score (as he didn't)? Then they had to kick it anyhow. Under these conditions, I'd have prob. kicked it the first time. Turns out they still got it. I don't like how you can't call consecutive time outs.

I know they did it so they can't ice the kicker, but make the 2nd one be a :30 and let them do it.
 
5Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 15:45 		Fumble right off the bat by NO yet again. Being challanged. Very close but I think the play stands and it is a fumble.
 
6Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 15:46 		Rendle, I was thinking the same thing. I don't know if the defense can overcome Grossman though. It sure looks like this is going to be a low scoring game. Not sure if that was a fumble, but not to worry Rex will yak it up. Go Saints!
 
7Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 15:49 		Feels like the Bears' day. Even Grossman can't screw it up if he gets the ball enough from the D. Here's yet another chance deep in NO territory.
 
8Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 15:53 		6-0. Bears have left the door open again. One NO TD wipes away everything the Bears have done thus far.
 
9Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:05 		9-0 now. At least there is some berathing room. Winning in spite of Grossman, but still winning.
 
10Doug
      ID: 441251914
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:05 		I'd be pretty frustrated if I was a Saints fan at this point... seemed like Lewis had regained control of the football by the time he hit the ground... then a ticky-tack offensive PI call... but on the plus side they haven't given up a TD yet and still very in it. They just gotta keep their heads and not give up big plays like the one they just did to Desmond Clark.

The Bears really need to score a TD on this drive to really assert control over the game given that things have been going their way with the calls and turnovers... if they settle for another FG, they're giving NO too many chances.

Fun game to watch so far... I hope it stays close. I have no real rooting interest, although probably a mild preference for the Saints just on the "feel gold story" aspect.
 
11Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:24 		16-0! NO better do something before half to stem the tide!
 
12Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:24 		TD Thomas Jones. The Bears offensive line just manhanled the Saints defense. Looks like it might be lights out for the Saints, unless Brees can get un-tracked.
 
13Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:26 		I took the NO D and Thomas Jones both in the TSN Ultimate play offs. Looks like the NO D was a terrible move!
 
14Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:31 		NO may have saved the game with that TD drive. 16-7.
 
15Rendle
      Donor
      ID: 014815714
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:34 		Rex Grossman might be the most entertaining QB in football. The attempted double time out and then this little act at the end of the half has been quite humorous.
 
16Doug
      ID: 441251914
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:34 		Re: 12... I didn't think that Brees was particular on track until that last drive... regardless, how would him coming un-tracked help the Saints!?!?
 
17Doug
      ID: 441251914
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:36 		Re: 15... the timeout thing reminded me of Chris Webber at Michigan. :) It's been an entertaining game to watch thus far, and that's all I ask for. Gonna go get me some halftime drinks and snacks!
 
18Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:39 		un tracked....on track is what i meant.
 
19Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:56 		88 yards, Brees to Bush and just like that we have a real game!
 
20Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:57 		88 yd TD changes the entire game! Now that's what I had envisioned from the Saints. That prehalf TD changed everything. 16-14.
 
21Rendle
      Donor
      ID: 014815714
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 16:59 		That was kinda impressive. Love the move he put on the Chicago defender.
 
22Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 17:11 		NO is passing the Bears to death right now. Cundiff for the long FG?
 
23Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 17:12 		No points for the Saints. A wasted drive and nive field position for the Bears. Grossman had beeter step up as NO has confidence in their passing game again. Brees has thrown for 295 yds already after a very slow start.
 
24Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 17:19 		That was a huge mistake by the Saints. Saftey put the Bears up by 4.
 
25Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 17:22 		Why are they running with Benson again??? Jones was running so well.
 
26Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 17:34 		33 yards, Grossman to Berrian. Fred Thomas is getting his ass handed to him. Looks like the Bears can close this out with one more score.
 
27Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 17:38 		Great Challenge! I was yelling at Lovie to challenge the play and he barely did. I fully expect the Ref to overturn the call on the field.
 
28Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 17:43 		Well, the Saints gave away momentum with the missed FG and the saftey. If you doubt being able to make the FG, punt!
 
29Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 17:45 		Holding the bears to a FG here makes it a 2 posession game. Grossman, you'd beter step up. Or you could just hand it off.
 
30Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 17:45 		Put a fork in the Saints, they are done.
 
31Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 18:10 		Well I expected the Bears to pound Jones and Benson but I could have never imagined 39 points. I predicted 14 for the Saints and only 17 for the Bears. It was a total ass kicking.
 
32Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 18:13 		The Bears were clearly the better team today. NO missed a FG and got the Int. Grounding in the end zone and it was all over.

If Indy can beat the Colts today, not only will it be a battle of two close cities--about 2.5 hrs away and a lot of former Bears' fans who turned into Colts fants with the franchise move to Indy--but it will also be the first time two black coaches face each other in the Super Bowl. In fact, no black had ever been to the Super Bowl until this year and now there is a chance that both of them will. That should be a major story this week regardless of who wins in Indy.
 
33Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 18:15 		Obviously I meant to say Indy can beat the Pats today.
 
34Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 18:17 		I sure hope Indy dosen't beat the Colts....I'm just being a wise guy. I know what you mean Ref.

I was really impressed by the Bears overall play today. Putting up a great game inspite of Grossman. Mabye this is the game he needed to get him over the hump. A career defining game, perhaps?
 
35Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 18:22 		Well, I am not to impressed with what I have seen from the coach of the year in the two playoff games. 11 rush att. this game, 6 from McAllister and 3 from Bush and 1 each for Karney and Brees. Last week, McAllister was running all over the Eagles, and he didn't stay with that through the game. He will have to check his ego at the door when he coaches in the playoffs again.
 
36Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:06 		Pats just gashing the Colts run D early. Maroney fumbles and the Pats recover in the end zone for a TD. Logan Mankins makes it 7-0.
 
37Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:08 		I watched the NFL show this morning on ESPN, forget the name. A reporter said something that troubled me, that Dungy didn't like that the game was late, wished they could play at 8am. That said a lot to me.
 
38Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:15 		Wonder why he would say that? Perhaps he has a date tonight?

 
39Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:28 		5 quarters without a Colts TD, when was the last time that happened? The last TD was at 10:16 of the 4th quarter in the Chiefs game.
 
40Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:29 		Putting up a great game inspite of Grossman.

What did Grossman do to hinder that? He had no picks and I don't recall any Chicago turnovers at all let alone a fumble from Grossman.

He was 11/26 for 144 and a touchdown with a passer rating of 73.2 in a game where it snowed all the time. He won't exactly get inducted into Canton with those numbers but it's not like the guy threw five picks and the Bears magically won.

Sean Payton and the Saints came into this game way overhyped and overrated. They did go 10-6(IIRC) in the regular season so it's not like we had a Clash Of The Titans on our hands. All week long I heard about their #1 offense but what a lot of the members of the MSM left out was that the Bears scored more points as a team than the Saints did.

Go Bears.
 
41Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:36 		Grossman did what he had to do, when he had to do it.
 
42Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:41 		Did you actually watch the begining of the game Box? Grossman had the opportunity to lead the Bears to 3 TD's early on. That 9-0 lead should have been at least 17 or perhaps 21.

Grossman actually played well in the 2nd half, made very few mistakes and managed the game quite well.

 
43Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:42 		This game is getting ugly.
 
44Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:43 		WTF is wrong with Peyton? Throws another int and this one is goes for a TD.
 
45Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:48 		Do you pull Manning, seriously?
 
46Pancho Villa
      ID: 1311532913
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 19:54 		Tip for gamblers. Whoever I'm rooting for, bet against.

Last week the Chargers and Seahawks, this week Saints and Colts.

I'll be rooting for the Bears in the Super Bowl.
 
47Rendle
      Donor
      ID: 014815714
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 20:27 		I'm going to predict a Colts comeback just because Tom Brady played so crappy for me this year. A score on the Colts first possession will be important.

Does the Saints loss prove the NFL is not scripted?
 
48Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 20:43 		Did you actually watch the begining of the game Box? Grossman had the opportunity to lead the Bears to 3 TD's early on. That 9-0 lead should have been at least 17 or perhaps 21.

Grossman actually played well in the 2nd half, made very few mistakes and managed the game quite well.

Yeah I watched the whole game, start to finish, which is something you clearly did not do. You stated that the Bears played a great game in spite of Grossman, but then go on to say that he actually played well in the 2nd half, made very few mistakes and managed the game quite well. How does that happen? How does a QB play well in the 2nd half, make very few mistakes, yet his team plays great in spite of him? Granted, Grossman had no turnovers the whole game so it's not like his first half was a total disaster.

You say that the lead should have been 17 or 21, based on what specifically? What did you see in the game that made you believe? I watched the whole game. Let's see if you did.

The Bears established a very effective running game early on. Why abandon it and make Rex win it? The best thing to have offensively is a dominating running game. It burns the clock and wears out the opposing defense. Did you not see this occur during the game today? Should the Bears have just said "Ah screw it." and forced Rex to air it out 50 times?
 
49Pacers Rule
      Sustainer
      ID: 910311210
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:09 		If the DB lets him come down, his second foot comes down out of bounds. As it stands now, probably will not be overturned.
 
50Rendle
      Donor
      ID: 014815714
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:10 		Helluva game so far.
 
51Pancho Villa
      ID: 1311532913
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:13 		Box is right. Good analysis. Now, work on your politics which are also right. I mean wrong. I mean wrong cause they're right.;)
 
52Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:18 		Was the first down after Utech got hurt a sympaty 1st down? He was three yards short, what a spot.
 
53Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:29 		You're right Box.
 
54Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:38 		Manning could be hurt.
 
55Pacers Rule
      Sustainer
      ID: 910311210
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:42 		How can the colts not cover that WR that 1st and 15 play? And how can he drop that pass???
 
56Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:43 		That's two easy ones.
 
57Pacers Rule
      Sustainer
      ID: 910311210
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:43 		And how do the officials not call pass interference on that 3rd down pass to the end zone? Even us Colts fans could see that was interference!

Fortunately we got away with a FG but it probably should have been first and goal at the 1.
 
58Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:49 		3rd & 5 and running the ball?
 
59Rendle
      Donor
      ID: 014815714
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:54 		That play call didn't upset Phil Simms AT ALL.
 
60Rendle
      Donor
      ID: 014815714
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:57 		Side note from Rotoworld:

ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports Michael Vick was not carrying marijuana at Miami International Airport and won't be charged with a crime.
The Falcons expect to hear something formal regarding the accusation by Monday, but for now it appears Vick is in the clear. Authorities at the airport had only said Vick's partitioned Aquafina water bottle "smelled" like marijuana, but apparently had no substantial evidence.
 
61Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 21:59 		Wow, what a stop. The D stepped up. Now it is time for the Colts D to step it up.
 
62Pacers Rule
      Sustainer
      ID: 910311210
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:00 		Oops, nice start to the final possession, NE.
 
63Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:00 		I was a little suprised. IND had been moving the ball quite well through the air.
 
64Pacers Rule
      Sustainer
      ID: 910311210
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:03 		Yeah, that first down pass Peyton really choked on. Even he was laughing at himself.

He got those happy feet on third down that he sometimes get when he has pressure and Sims was right, it took just enough off of his throw for the defender to get there.
 
65Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:04 		Can Peyton exercise his deamon with 2:17 left in the game?
 
66Pacers Rule
      Sustainer
      ID: 910311210
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:04 		Well, the INDY D did something right....3 and out.

Here we go again from the 20. IF you were in the situation, Peyton Manning is one of the few QB's you'd want to have.
 
67Pacers Rule
      Sustainer
      ID: 910311210
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:06 		Let's hope the superbowl is this good of a game!
 
68Astade
      ID: 57544126
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:08 		I hope those that thought this game would be boring, aren't watching...
 
69Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:10 		Tryin to run some clock. Looks like the worst scenerio will be OT.
 
70Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:12 		Well, they have the lead, but Brady has a minute. Special teams will be a huge factor now. What a game.
 
71Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:12 		TD Addai!
 
72Pacers Rule
      Sustainer
      ID: 910311210
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:12 		Well, it was looking pretty weak there in the 2nd quarter! But yeah, this is one sweet game. What a great AFC rivalry.
 
73Pacers Rule
      Sustainer
      ID: 910311210
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:14 		Well, apparently, from the graphics there, Brady's not so bad at gamewinning drives, either. Sheesh!
 
74Electroman
      ID: 44651412
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:17 		Congrats to the Colts and their fans.
 
75Pacers Rule
      Sustainer
      ID: 910311210
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:18 		Wow. total team effort on the win. Impressive. This team is better than I thought.
 
76Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:18 		Great game! Nice comback by the Colts.
 
77Pancho Villa
      ID: 1311532913
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:21 		Now I don't know who to cheer for, Colts or Bears.

Nice to see Manning execise the demons. I think Colts.
 
78wqrtyt
      ID: 517212322
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:39 		Praise the lord for that win
 
79Pancho Villa
      ID: 1311532913
      Sun, Jan 21, 2007, 22:46 		#77

oops..I think exorcise is the word I wanted.
 
80Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 00:14 		Oh ye of little faith. ;)
 
81Boxman
      ID: 211139621
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 06:25 		I'm a little let down that the Colts won. I have a severe loathing for the Manning family especially after the Eli whine-fest when the Chargers wanted to draft him. Peyton just reminds me of Dan Marino.

It should be a really good game. Indy's O and the Bears D.

Go Bears.
 
82barilko6
      ID: 07191722
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 07:33 		Does anyone else think that Reche Caldwell was paid off? He dropped 2 WIDE open passes, one of which was a possible touchdown...
 
83Frick
      Donor
      ID: 3410101718
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:25 		Re: 82, You have to wonder, you almost think that he was looking around for a sniper? Did you see his eyes?

Re:81, I don't think Eli is that great of a QB, but do you hate Elway?
 
84Coltsfan101
      ID: 20035227
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:37 		I think we need to give RENDLE a little bit of props for predicting a Colts comeback at halftime when it was 21-6 New England. Great call.
 
85Coltsfan101
      ID: 20035227
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:38 		I think we need to give RENDLE a little bit of props for predicting a Colts comeback at halftime when it was 21-6 New England. Great call.
 
86Coltsfan101
      ID: 20035227
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:38 		I think we need to give RENDLE a little bit of props for predicting a Colts comeback at halftime when it was 21-6 New England. Great call.
 
87Coltsfan101
      ID: 20035227
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:38 		I think we need to give RENDLE a little bit of props for predicting a Colts comeback at halftime when it was 21-6 New England. Great call.
 
88Coltsfan101
      ID: 20035227
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:38 		I think we need to give RENDLE a little bit of props for predicting a Colts comeback at halftime when it was 21-6 New England. Great call.
 
89Coltsfan101
      ID: 20035227
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:38 		I think we need to give RENDLE a little bit of props for predicting a Colts comeback at halftime when it was 21-6 New England. Great call.
 
90Coltsfan101
      ID: 20035227
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:38 		I think we need to give RENDLE a little bit of props for predicting a Colts comeback at halftime when it was 21-6 New England. Great call.
 
91Coltsfan101
      ID: 20035227
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:38 		I think we need to give RENDLE a little bit of props for predicting a Colts comeback at halftime when it was 21-6 New England. Great call.
 
92Coltsfan101
      ID: 20035227
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:39 		wow what the hell happened there. Sorry about that
 
93WiddleAvi
      ID: 241137114
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 08:40 		Re 82: I was thinking that Caldwell should have been tested right after the game because he was definitly on something.
 
94Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 09:05 		Re:81, I don't think Eli is that great of a QB, but do you hate Elway?

I was too young for the Elway draft antics, but yes it's irritating. What's the point of the draft if the player gets to dictate where he's going? I probably have a greater distaste for the Mannings because I was older and more into sports. I'm just glad SD got the better end of that deal.
 
95Perm Dude
      ID: 55017229
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 10:21 		Well, Elway's point was that, as worker, he should be able to determine where he works in the United States. I thought he was a bit of a dick at the time, but then came to realize his point.

If I were in his shoes, and got drafted by a company I didn't like and had no opportunity to work for another company (either more successful, or just a better company to work for), I'd probably do the same thing.
 
96KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 15023167
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 11:34 		Boxman, I have a severe loathing for the Manning family especially after the Eli whine-fest when the Chargers wanted to draft him.

Given that Eli's father played for a team that was perpetually in a state of disrepair and never made it to the playoffs, much less any sort of Championship, I'm sure the recent history of the Chargers (to the time of Eli's draft year) weighed heavily on him. Can you blame a guy for wanting to play for a winner, or at least a team that seemed to have a better chance of winning, when his father never got that chance? I sure can't. I don't agree with his tactics, but I can't fault him for wanting to avoid the Chargers at the time.

As for what any of this has to do with Peyton, I don't know. Peyton never complained about getting selected by Indy and has never been anything but a stand-up sort of guy. Whatever Eli has done shouldn't reflect poorly on Peyton. I know I wouldn't want to be judged by my brothers' actions, nor would I want my brothers to be judged by my actions.

PD, If I were in his shoes, and got drafted by a company I didn't like and had no opportunity to work for another company (either more successful, or just a better company to work for), I'd probably do the same thing.

Of course, all players, Elway and Eli included, had/have the option of not entering the draft and trying to make any roster they want to as a non-drafted FA.

The problem with that is that you actually have to prove yourself, make the team, and take a much smaller offer. It's much nicer for them to enter the draft and just get the guaranteed payday.

Personally, with the kind of money these guys make for being drafted, I'm pretty sure I'd be okay getting drafted by a company I didn't like. I could always take the Peyton Manning route and try to make the best of the situation. And, if things didn't work out so well, I could always explore other companies after my contract was up and my bank account was overflowing.
 
97Perm Dude
      ID: 580552210
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 11:56 		Maybe you would be OK with it, but I agree with Elway that getting paid a lot of money shouldn't eliminate your rights as a worker in the US. Rights aren't for sale.

Your "option" really isn't one at all.
 
98Trip
      Leader
      ID: 13961611
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 12:00 		Also, remember Peyton stayed for his fourth year at UT, even though he had already graduated. It should also be pointed out that Peyton is definitely not his brother...try googling Eli Manning drunk for some examples.
 
99Perm Dude
      ID: 580552210
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 12:03 		Heh. Yeah, Eli is not even close to Peyton. The Giants made a mistake in bumping Warner for Manning.
 
100Motley Crue
      ID: 3610301412
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 12:03 		You're kidding me, right? No one has a 'right' to play pro football. If you elect to try to play pro football, you enter the league under the established rules of the NFL. If that includes going into the draft, you are restrained by the parameters of the draft rules.

If you don't like it, get your degree and go into public service or business or something.

That's the option for workers, Perm Dude. There are plenty of jobs out there.

Elway was a prick for what he did, as was Eli Manning. Manning has gotten some comeuppance so far. Elway was too talented to languish forever, but his glory was in doubt long enough that I'm sure he long wondered whether he'd ever reach his goals.

The bottom line is that you agree to the rules of the game when you elect to enter the draft. Petulant athletes suffer from egomania and deserve to be treated accordingly. How would you treat anyone else that acted that way in life? I treat them scornfully. They deserve it.
 
101Perm Dude
      ID: 580552210
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 12:08 		MC: Workers have the right to not have to face a monopoly in their job search. You say "there are plenty of jobs out there" but that's the point: A player who is drafted has no other jobs in that market, do they? Thay's the whole point of the draft--to reduce options.

Even an ego-driven man-child has rights.

And the NFL has no right to hire workers like they don't.
 
102Motley Crue
      ID: 3610301412
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 12:13 		OK, well I want to be a Senator.

What? Whadda you mean I have to get nominated or obtain 45,000 signatures on a petition or else I can't be a Senator? And I have to win an election, too! Preposterous!

OK, then I want to be an astronaut. What? I'm not smart enough, fit enough, tall enough, or able to hold my vomit down well enough? How dare you require me to be something I'm not? Perm Dude says I have a right to work in my chosen profession and you bureacratic employers can't stop me.

Huh, you'll let me be an astronaut on the Nepalese squad? Now that's more like it. Where do I sign up?
 
103Perm Dude
      ID: 580552210
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 12:22 		Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that employment law dictates what employers can and cannot do with regard to eomployee contracts. While baseball enjoys a Congressionally-mandated monopology, no other sports do, and so monopolistic actions on the part of an industry (including collusive actions) can be challenged.

No one is saying that all the standards for entry need to be removed or modified in any real way. What Elway was saying is that he should be free to negotiate with any teams who want to negotiate to use his services. Ironically, just like most other college graduates.

What you'd like to do, on the other hand, is deny rights if you don't like a guy.
 
104Perm Dude
      ID: 580552210
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 12:23 		Let me make that more clear: Elway wasn't saying he has a right to play. Elway was saying he has a right to negotiate to play with anyone who wants to negotiate with him. In other words, college graduates would be free agents.
 
105Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 13:06 		Coltsfan101: At the top of this page there is a link to self-edit this page. Click on that and you can remove posts 85-92.

If you thought the game was over when the Colts were down 21-3, then you have never seen Manning and the Colts play. After TB won the Super Bowl, the Colts marched down there on Monday Night Football and Manning made three TD drives in the final 4 Minutes to tie it up and then win it in OT.

But it wasn't just that they were down 18 points, but they weren't getting ouplayed as much as the Colts weren't playing well. The Pats were playing well, but not nec. sensational--though Samuel and Hobbs were a couple that were. Can't say enough about Samuel, he was sensational and with the safety help he was able to squat on pass routes and take chances and was so athletic to knock down passes. Still, I was hoping they'd mix it up and take what they were given instead of doing what the Saints did and go long and throw every time. The Colts started to do the latter and then Manning did the former and it worked. Get in a rhythm and get the defense on their heals and start guessing. Obviously they start to get tired and take advantage.

Still the Colts needed some TDs and the D needed to hold. One good thing that may have come out of the long Hobbs return was that it got the Pats D back on the field quickly and the Colts could take advantage again of their tiring bodies.

Ultimately, the Colts were able to get NE out of their game plan and make just enough stops for the Colts' 32 second half points be enough.

As far as Caldwell goes, the first dropped pass for a TD didn't matter as the one where the receiver was forced out came right after that. The one he dropped when he was initially uncovered still wouldn't have gotten him in the end zone and they kicked a FG anyhow. If Brady would have snapped it quicker it may have been--esp. if Caldwell would have ran down the field instead of simply turning aorund to catch it. By the time Brady snapped it, there was a defender closing in and there was safety help. His eyes did look like weird. Not sure if that's hwo they always look or not.

You talk about Eli--well wtf! Yeah I don't like how he refused to play for the team that drafted him either, but there are others like the afforementioned Elway refusing to play for the Colts. Peyton was the first overall pick and he didn't back out. Big deal. Because he played for a terrible team, he's very good under pressure and used to coming from behind. That builds character as well as experience in those situations.

Still, it gets old of all the people talking how Peyton won the game. He may have led them, but the Vinatieri FGs and teh running game of Rhodes and Addai were huge. Also the receiving corps (including the TEs and even a DT!) came up big. That 2 pt conversion was huge. Making Brady have to score a TD in that final drive was the key. Forced him to have to take some chances to get in position to get the touch. The O-Line was tired too and they were great. The special teams' coverage were a little lax but came up big late. Sanders was very good as usual and there were some nice plays made on the defense.

As far as the oficiating goes, it seemed like a pretty fair game. There wasn't one illegal contact penalty--but it seemed like there didn't need to be one. I thought for sure NE would do it until they got caught a couple times, but nope. There are always a few plays that could go either way or wasn't called or what have you.

Plays that come to mind that I'd like to hear the NFL comment on...The Reggie Wayne trip that was flagged by one official and not flagged by the other one. It's obvious to me that Wayne tripped over his own feet and even if he didn't--the tripping alone is not a penalty. However, when you get a hand on your hip like that, I'm wondering if that was enough to cause the trip? The receiver never looked for the ball.

Next, I'm not sure if the replay has a more conclusive angle, but I don't know how the receiver stays on his toes and his heels are not on the end line before he jumps and gets forced out. If he really is in bounds, that's a great call by the refs. I think he'd have landed out of bounds too, but you have to give him the benefit of the doubt and credit the TD.

The Colts lack of a DPI in the end zone. There seemed like too much contact to me, but the defender was indeed looking back over his shoulder for the ball. I'd like to hear the league talk about why that isn't DPI.

The facemask on the Colts during the ST coverage. Was a great call against the Colts. But I'm wondering if it shouldn't have been offsettign facemask penalties. Even the announcers commented that the NE player grabbed the facemask first. Still, if you're stupid enough to grab the facemask and yank off the helmet and have to throw it down, then you deserve the penalty. Dumbass!
 
106KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 15023167
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 13:31 		What Elway was saying is that he should be free to negotiate with any teams who want to negotiate to use his services.

Again, what's wrong with not entering the draft and just proving yourself and getting offers as a non-drafted FA. If being free to negotiate with any teams is THAT high on your list of priorities, just don't enter the draft.

It's really pretty simple.
 
107Perm Dude
      ID: 580552210
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 13:42 		Surely you're not so naive as to think an undrafted player will get the same money as the #1 pick? Pretty simple, eh?
 
108bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 13:58 		KKB - are you sure that the players have an option to enter the draft? I always thought that the NFL could just draft anyone they wanted.
 
109Motley Crue
      ID: 351045610
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 14:06 		Imagine how the draft would come tumbling down if 6 or 8 first rounders started spouting PD-style philosophy.

Maybe we could have 3 or 4 first rounders signing with the Redskins? They have the money and the willingness to shuffle the cap for all of the young talent.

"I'm convinced that my career won't be all I need it to be unless I am onboard with Mr. Snyder's team. So I'll only sign with him."

There's a reason that only a few anomalous cases have come up in all the time there's been a draft. The draft is as balanced a way to divide up talent as could possibly be conceived, short of re-drafting the whole league every year. It's admirable that guys want to play for a winner, but if no one's noticed, the trend the last decade has been a shuffling in and out at the top of the dogpile, with the salary cap clearly responsible for it. Only a few teams haven't participated in the postseason in the past decade, and I envision that most of them will be in with an infusion of talent at some point. One guy shouldn't be able to come in and buck the system. It works perfectly well for virtually all sides.

Even the spoiled punks who come into the league and are forced to play for a team they didn't want to while the numbers on their bank accounts spin ever upwards.
 
110Sludge
      ID: 16109168
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 14:14 		A player cannot willingly forego the draft and then immediately sign on as a free agent. If a player is drafted (whether or not he wants it), that team holds the rights to that player for four years (link). If a player has first-round talent, he will be drafted, despite his stated intentions. KKB's posts seem to indicate that a player can voluntarily forego the draft and immediately turn around and start negotiating as a free agent. Simply not the case.
 
111KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 15023167
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 14:42 		Surely you're not so naive as to think an undrafted player will get the same money as the #1 pick? Pretty simple, eh?

PD, of course I'm not that naive. But, in the end it's still a choice.

Sludge, I actually didn't know about the 4 years, but that's also related directly to the NFL. There are other leagues, should a player choose to have choice more than money, that a player can sign with.

---

The fact is, players like Eli and Elway want the best of both worlds. They want to get paid and they want a choice. What they don't realize is that they've had a choice all along. You play in the NFL, you play by the NFL's rules. If you don't, you're free to go play in Canada or any other football league you choose. They may not like the choices they have, but that doesn't mean they don't have choices.

Remember JD Drew playing Independent ball because he didn't want to sign with the Phillies? He sat out, from a monopolistic league none the less, for a bigger paycheck. Surely Eli or Elway could have sat out for a choice in team if it really meant THAT much to them, no?

But, I suppose it's much easier to become part of the system and then complain about it as opposed to not entering the system at all. Especially when the system is luring you with all those millions of dollars.
 
112Frick
      Donor
      ID: 3410101718
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 15:41 		Umm, don't the players have a choice? While the NFL does have a monopolgy exemption, a player could choose to play in the Arena league or the CFL, heck even for a semi-pro team. He isn't denied an opportunity to play football if he doesn't play in the NFL, he just might be denied an opportunity to play for millions of dollars.
 
113Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 15:52 		Still trying to figure out what this has to do with the games yesterday... ;)

They are already calling this the I65 Super Bowl, referring to the highway that connects the two cities of about a 2.5 hr drive apart.
 
114KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 15023167
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 16:19 		Getting a bit more back on topic a la Ref, did anybody else notice that all 4 teams playing yesterday featured a 2-headed rushing attack?

NOR: Bush/McAllister
CHI: Benson/Jones
IND: Addai/Rhodes
NWE: Dillon/Maroney

Is this the way to win in the NFL now? Or just a complete fluke?
 
115Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 16:30 		Obviously keeps them fresh--unlike the NE Defense.
 
116Motley Crue
      ID: 351045610
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 16:36 		It's an NFL-wide trend, and statistics bear out that the workhorse back is falling by the wayside (if it ever existed as a true phenomenon to begin with). There aren't many one-horse teams anymore.

San Diego
Kansas City
Seattle
San Francisco
St. Louis

A few others are basically in there, like Cincinnatti and Miami. But most teams are giving less than 60% of their carries to any one guy, I'd venture to guess.
 
117Texas Flood
      ID: 4905267
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 16:55 		KKB, Do you think that the two headed back is by design or circustance?

Here's my quick thought on the matter.

Deuce/Bush: Deuce was the starter, injured and Bush is available in the draft. Deuce bounces back and Bush is not the smash he was projected to be right off the bat, but a very good player just the same. Neither one of these guys is a stud in his own right but both do many things well.

Jones/Benson: Benson seems to be a straight up banger while Jones appears to be more of a game breaker type. Jones gets the edge as a receiver.
I think these guys work pretty well as a duo and perhaps either one could be a feature back. IMHO they work best splitting time.

Rhodes/Addai: When the season opened Rhodes was the starter. It appeared to me as the season moved on Addai became the clear cut go to guy. He was dinged late in the season but I feel that he will move ahead of Rhodes on the depth chart next season. Addai is a very good receiver, blocker and my have some star quality about him.

Dillon/Maroney/Kevin Faulk:

Dillon former stud at the end of a career. I thought by the end of the season Maroney would have the job to himslef. It did'nt work out that way. I do look for Maroney to be "The" guy next season if he can learn to be an effective receiver. Kevin Faulk seems to have a knack for catching the ball and making big plays from time to time so until Maroney can learn to catch the ball on a consistant basis Faulk will have a job.

I really don't think that the two back system is ideal but in some cases it works quite well. As I said before it seems to have more to do with circumstance than a trend to change the way things are done in the NFL.

 
118Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 17:00 		Colts had a few injuries, but none more serious than Nick Harper's severely sprained ankle. Dungy said he was uncertain whether it was a high ankle sprain or a basketball-variety sprain he sustained by rolling the ankle. If it's a high ankle sprain, it could take four to six weeks to recover.

Also worrisome is Manning's thumb. It was discolored and really had him hurting after the game and he is getting X-Rays on it today. If he can play with a broken jaw, he can figure out a way to play with that thumb, even if it is broken.

Utecht says his knee looked more serious than it was and he will be play in the Super Bowl.

No other reports of the banged-up players from that game so it should mean they will be fine.
 
119Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 18:08 		Excerpts from Bill Simmons of ESPN (A HUGE Pats fan)

As strange as this sounds, I headed into halftime believing that the 21-6 score removed much of the pressure off him. There were eerie parallels to the Dave Roberts Game in that the Colts (A) were handicapped by their collective history (much like the Red Sox heading into that 2004 ALCS), (B) were battling their long-time nemesis who always owned them (much like the Yankees), and (C) needed to hit rock-bottom to set up the whole "miracle comeback that makes everyone forget that this team was snakebitten in the first place" thing (like the Red Sox being three outs away from a sweep). Nothing's scarier than a home team playing with house money in front of a desperate crowd dying for a reason to jump back into the game.

Still, Manning needed to come through. He had four legitimate outs last night -- after the brutal Samuel interception made it 21-3, after Wayne's pass interference got overturned right before the half, after the thumb injury, and after the three-and-out with four minutes left -- and didn't take any of them. For once, he got better when it mattered, even if there was never a moment when anyone thought, "Wow, he's cutting the Pats up with a SCALPEL right now." Unlike the famous QBs from the '80s and '90s (Marino, Elway, Montana, Favre) or even Brady right now, Manning never gives you that feeling that he stepped right off the set of a sports movie to save the day. He's exceedingly human, dorky and endearing, the kind of guy who might have a giant pimple pulsating on his forehead during a big game. Even as Brady was trying to save the game in the last minute, Manning remained sitting on his own bench, his head bowed, staring at the ground and terrified to look up. Almost like he was sitting in a hospital waiting room awaiting the results of a blood test. He certainly didn't seem like your typical football hero.

Now he's one win away from putting that "can't win the big one" label to rest and getting to enter the John Elway Zone – loosely translated to mean, "All right, here's my ring, now you guys can all shut the hell up and leave me alone." And if he ends up beating the Bears and winning a Super Bowl, 30 years from now, nobody will remember that the Patriots needed only to convert third-and-4 to win the 2007 AFC Championship Game. They'll remember that Peyton Manning came back from 18 down, toppled his arch-rival and prevailed in one of the greatest playoff games in NFL history.
 
120KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 30372221
      Mon, Jan 22, 2007, 22:37 		KKB, Do you think that the two headed back is by design or circustance?

A little bit of both, IMHO.

In reality, all four situations are the past and the future. None of them truly has a "present." McAllister, Dillon, and Jones are all good, but their best days are likely behind them. Rhodes is probably the only one of the four that has real upside in the future, but Indy clearly likes Addai. And by Indy, I mean Peyton. ;)

Bush, Maroney, and Benson are all first or second year guys. Anybody who expected any more out of any of them than what they've produced is just expecting Superman to touch down because they love to think that they've found Superman. In reality, these guys will likely come into their own in the next year or so, just like Larry Johnson did.

That said, I think there was some design to each of these situations. I think at least three of the four teams (Indy excluded) saw that the present wasn't going to last much longer and turned the present into the past by picking up the future. The future kind of fell into the lap of the Saints, but I don't think they're complaining much. I think of all of them, Indy had this planned the most. Rhodes is a great fill-in back and Addai clearly understands the complicated Indy offense. That's a duo that could work for quite a while. I think the rest will be a one-headed horse within two years; three years max.

Still, it was interesting to watch it all play out yesterday. :)