I don't understand the complaining about the quality of the teams. What did you expect? First of all, with the NFC you're not going to get very good quality to begin with. Then you have the fact that the league is watered down by free agency (which supposedly people like), so the best teams are not as good as they used to be. This is what the NFL wants. Despite all that, these were clearly the best 2 teams all year. Much better matchup than last year. Also, the Bears D was pathetic and the reason they lost, IMO. I remember earlier on when some people were asking the question "how does this D compare to the '85 Bears"? Ha. They got rolled over by a superior (AFC) team/offense.
That and the offense did an excellent job at ball control. They mixed it up very well using their 2 RBs and then throwing when necessary. Good balance. What got me was when the Colts had the ball in Bears territory with about 5-6 minutes to play they were running passing plays when they should have ran the ball and kicked another field goal. Instead Manning gets sacked and that knocks them out of field goal range which could have put the game in jeopardy. I thought the whole purpose of that was to get Manning more stats to ensure him of the MVP.
Sloppy game, but entertaining none the less...Hester's play was awesome...Grossman sucked azz and it was good to see Tony get the win as his Tampa Bay team won it all a couple years ago... I didn't think Peyton deserved the MVP...
They could have given it to either of the running backs, Manning was not a bad choice either. There were many players who stepped up on the Colts team, it was a team victory.
It was pretty obvious to me with all the turnovers and the domination of possession by Indy's offense that they got OUTPLAYED rather than outcoached.
Was Prince playing lead or rhythm on "Let's Go Crazy"? I thought I could hear a guitar playing when he pulled his hands away from his guitar
Follow-up track recorded BEFORE the event. Lip-synch'd. Backstreet Boys refused to do that several years back and for that they sounded NASTY at live time. Gosh...Iggiots! For whatever it's worth, my 7-year-old and 5-year-old daughters LOVED his "Let's Go Crazy", as I have raised them right on PRINCE music.
I disagree. The best overall team this year was San Diego. But they pulled a Marty. The Colts were the best team last year, but last year they pulled a Marty at home versus Pittsburgh. Agreed, the Bears defense hasn't be all that special for like the last 2-3 months. I thought who really controlled the game was the Indy oline. But of any single player, Peyton was the clear choice. He played great given the weather conditions, lots of throws on the money even when pressured. When the going got tough he stepped it up, something I never thought I'd see from him. The oline play and Peyton's passing is really what opened it up for Indy's running backs. I agree. And the bottom line is Indy has stopped on the ground KC, the Ravens and NE even before facing the Bears. Grossman and the Bears would have to throw well to win, and they had open receivers, they just failed to execute. All Grossman had to do was lead one or two 4th quarter drives, the offensive exection in the second half looked like the Keystone Cops. I have more issue with Ron Rivera and the Bears defensive coaching for not blitzing more, there is no coverage scheme possible to control the Colts in medium and short yardage situations if you give them all day to pass.
wtf are you guys talking about, "the Bears D was pathetic and the reason they lost" - the Bears' D played outstanding - they gave up zero second half TDs and put the Bears in position to win the game in the 4th quarter. They kept the Indy WRs, TEs and RBs in front of them and played a great, 'bend but don't break' strategy that kept Indy out of the endzone and caused TOs- exactly what their job was. It was the Bears' offense that cost them the game. Indy got extremely lucky it was playing Rex Grossman. I saw this game as a near repeat of the Ravens game - in that if the other team didn't have such an anemic offense, the Colts would of lost. Anyone think this Colts team could of beaten any of the past 10 Super Bowl champs? I don't.
Agreed... the Bears rely on winning the TO battle to win their games. Their defense put them in position to win the game, but the turnovers on offense and their overall futility cost them the game.
They gave up almost 200 yards rushing, more than 200 passing. They gave up 5 nearly 50 yard scoring drives. FGs are points too, and the still gave up 22 total points including a missed FG by Vinitari. They also got killed in time of possesion in no small part because Indy had so few, if any, 3 and outs. I don't think the Bears defense played bad. They did play well enough to have a shot to win if the offense was better. But anyway you slice it giving up over 400 yards and over 20 legit points is not dominant or great defense. The Stealers and Pats in years past have far more dominanted even better Colts offenses. The Ravens handled them much better in the playoffs too (giving up only 100 yards rushing and 260 total).
They did blitz and got burned on the long TD early. i honestly don't think it would have made difference. Manning had the short and medium routes all day which is what he would have thrown regardles.
yeah but they did only give up 6 points in the 2nd half. Yards don't matter if you don't put TDs on the board which Indy couldn't do. Would we still be singing Indy's praises if Grossman hadn't thrown that awful INT and instead driven down and put the Bears ahead? No, we would be talking about how great the Bears' D stepped up in the 2nd half and why Manning couldn't put the Colts into the end zone. Given the amount of time they had to be on the field due to their offense putting on their best Texans impression, I'd say the Bears D played more than well enough to win the game. Holding the Colts to zero TDs in the 2nd half of the Super Bowl is dominate enough for me. The fact that Grossman sucked overshadowed Indy's poor red-zone performance.
