Are You Ready for Some Football

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This bias against ESPN is incredibly funny. You'd think ESPN goes around spitting at people .

I've heard West Coast people complain about ESPN's "East Coast Bias". I've heard about people complain about ESPN's "West Coast Bias" when they were 'fawning over USC' (so it was said). I've heard they were biased towards Brett Farve and the heartland.

It seems to the be favorite rallying cry when there is nothing substantive to complain about .


Oh, and ESPN will probably have a field day with this, especially since it is Manning's oppertunity to get the "can't win the big one" charges against him off his back. And two black head coaches in the SuperBowl. Lots of fun there.

Imran, I only notice that the ESPNers dis the Chicago teams. Everyone to a man thought the Bears were no good. Ditto the Sox two years ago. This "ignorance" has to have a source.

[Ned]

Before I checked the line (-7 Indy) I felt the game between Chicago and Indy was dead even. These were the teams that started 7-0 and were the best teams in footbball this year. It is right they meet each other in the Superbowl.

Chicago played in a weaker conference for sure. But they blew out so many of these games that it was clear they were much better than the NFC as a whole. This was demonstrated in spades on Sunday.

Chicago's only losses have been to Green Bay in a game that did not count, to Miami, a game they were expected to win, and to New England, a game where Rex committed 5 turn-overs and still the Bears almost won.

It is clear from all this that the Bears can lose if they don't prepare right. This is more than true of Rex Grossman. But it also shows that the Bears are as good as any team in the NFL when they do prepare.

Indy had a bad streak late in the season when some key defensive folks were injured. But before this, they lost to Dallas, a team not quite as good as the Bears, but a good team. What THIS shows is that Indy can lose to a quality team when Indy is at full strength.

Sagarin's power ratings has them dead even as well. I think this is right. It should be close.

The LV line -7 for the Colts is a joke and is more reflective of the group-thinking that goes on at ESPN than anything rational.

[mrmitchell]

ESPN is full of garbage. The only accurate way to determine outcomes is to read bones thrown at the ground. Why do you think I'm 6-1? I only picked the Saints because of a deal among friends, and I decided to put all my eggs in one basket. Fat luck that gave me. Off to cast one final lot...

[pchang]

Bears defense is better than the Patriots defense. Colts and Peyton Manning will most likely not score more than 30.

Colts DBs are faster than New Orleans. It is much less likely for Chicago's WRs to get behind the Colts (like they did to Fred Thomas). However, Chicago still needs to put in max protect packages to make sure Grossman doesn't get rushed (especially with the Colt's speed rushers).

Chicago has a much better running attack than the Patriots. Chicago should be able to run on the Colts.

I would definitely take the Bears and the points.

[asleepathewheel]

Chicago's avg start is going to be around their own 40. The Colts kick coverage is awful.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, I only notice that the ESPNers dis the Chicago teams. Everyone to a man thought the Bears were no good. Ditto the Sox two years ago. This "ignorance" has to have a source.

Ditto the Bulls in the 90s... oh wait... nevermind.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I was thinking about that last week when everybody was in full-on "oh noes not teh Patriots again!!!1!" mode. Why is it ok for some teams to be dominant and not others? I don't remember a whole lot of anti-Bulls feelings in the years they were far above the rest of the NBA. There's certainly an anti-Yankees movement, but (I think, at least) that goes back to the perception that they're basically buying their success and that isn't possible with the NFL salary cap. I don't know, I don't understand it I guess; I like to see players and teams that are head and shoulders above their competition, whether they're "my" team or not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There was some "Oh no, not the Bulls again" stuff, but the reason is wasn't that big was that no moron on the Bulls said how disrespected they were and all that jazz. They were a pretty professional squad who didn't whine whenever they lost (such as they year that Jordan "retired"). That goes a long way.

[Donegeal]

Here, lets do a team comparison:

QB: Indy (Manning is WAY better than Grossman)
WR: Indy (Harrison and Wayne are one of the best 2 WR combos ever)
RB: Chi (Jones alone is better than Addia and Rhodes)
O-Line: Chi (I admittedly don't know much about Indys O-line, but Chicago has one of the best)
Def: Chi (Best in the NFL when healthy, still much better than Indy while missing two probowlers)

What does this mean? Heavy dose of Jones/Benson behind a superior O-line will wear down the clock and keep Manning off the field.

Chicago wins in a low scoring affair (both in teens or low 20's).

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think that Jones is better than Addai. Maybe earlier this season, but not now.

[Donegeal]

19 rushes for 123 yards and 2 TDs? And you think Addai is better than Jones?

Not that I agree with you, but for the sake of argument, I'll let that one slide. Follow Jones up with Benson, who has been running better and better with each game. Hell, I'd take Benson over Addai and Rhodes, not even counting Jones!

Are you seriously going to argue that Indy has a better running attack than Chicago?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, I think Addai is better than Jones. Simply having one great game doesn't mean one is a better running back.

Are you seriously going to argue that Indy has a better running attack than Chicago?

No, I think Indy has a very comparable running attack to Chicago. During the regular season Indy and Chicago had very similar numbers in rushing yards. Chicago rushed for about 10 yards more per game (Indy had a 0.2 advantage in yards per carry).

I'd rank the running backs, as so:

Addai
Jones
Benson
Rhodes

And I think if anything, on the running side of the ball it's a push. And no RB is better than both of the other team's RB. To say so is being absolutely ridiculous.

[Donegeal]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Just like I think it's rediculous to say the running games are even.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Just like I think it's rediculous to say the running games are even.

If you look at the stats, like Imran has, it is true that on paper, the two running attacks look pretty even. I don't think it's wrong to claim both are even. (and I'm totally biased toward the Bears)

And, his ranking of the backs is a fair one as well.

The only real difference is the perceived value of the running game to each team. With the Bears, we "think" we are running team, while the general perception is that Indy is a passing team. However, in reality, both teams are similar in their running game based on the stats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And listen, I don't care if someone thinks the Bears running attack is better than the Colts. It is an arguable point. However, I think it really goes off the deep end to claim one of the Bears backs is better than both Indy backs combined.