Hypo: Would Saints given a better game?

SaintPauly · 02-04-2007, 10:56 PM

Watching the offense of the Colts, I see alot of similarities, between us, and them. Defensively, they are a much better team than we are, but at the same time, they tend to give up big plays at times. The Bear's offense looked terrible, especially for a team from Chicago, how can you not know how to play in the rain? Grossman's mistakes, finally caught up with them. I reallize the Bears beat us good, but now I'm starting to think that the weather had way more to do with it, than I initially thought.

Wish in one hand, ya know? But I think we would have given a much better game against the Colts, than the Bears did. Dang snow.

Congrats Colts! A Manning finally got himself a ring. I couldn't be happier for him, or Dungy. Class acts all the way.

SaintPauly · 02-05-2007, 12:46 AM

I just saw the game stats on Sportscenter, and let me tell you, the Bears are lucky they only lost by 12. Time of possession was completely in favor of the Colts. Total yards, Colts 450 to the Bears 256.(not exact but close)

They really didn't show up for this game. This has to be pretty disheartening for the whole organization. Getting to the Superbowl is one thing, but not showing up to play is just rediculous.

GoldRush26 · 02-05-2007, 12:55 AM

I wouldn't say the Bears didn't show up to the game. That's not giving enough credit to the Colts. For goodness sakes they ran the opening kickoff for a touchdown. Hester didn't do that all by himself.

The Bears got beat, plain and simple. The Colts coaching staff schemed excellently and the Bears didn't make the right adjustments. I wouldn't say they didn't show up though. I don't like that statement personally. They showed up. They tried but it wasn't good enough. I know it may seem as if the Bears were not as competitive as they were against us, but against us they had a home crowd, which makes a huge difference. Also I guess this game shows that the AFC's best is significantly superior to the NFC's best

And to answer your original question I don't know that we would have played a "better" game necessarily. We would have scored more points, but the Colts would have as well. They probably could have put 40 on us with Fred "Toast" Thomas back there. I wish we had been in the game though.

SaintPauly · 02-05-2007, 01:19 AM

The Colts came into the post season, boasting the 27th ranked defense in the league, where as the Bears were at No. 2. The Colts no. 3 offense, (ours was No. 1) put up 450 yards on them. Now, where as I agree that their home field had alot to do with their dismantling of us, you cannot deny the MAJOR discrepencies, after seeing this game today. There was no home field advantage for either team in Miami. If the weather favored anyone, it was the Bears. I agree with you, the Bears got beat, by a superior team, but you don't go into the postseason with the No. 2 defense, and let a team go ape crap on you, throwing up those kinds of numbers. In fact, the Colts went into Baltimore, the NUMBER 1 ranked defense, and kicked field goals to win the game, but the Ravense put up a good fight on the defensive side of the ball. Chicago's defense looked lost. Blown coverages, missed tackles.... Me thinks that the old saying, "Defense wins championships", just got a lethal gut wound.

neugey · 02-05-2007, 06:19 AM

Who knows? The game is so volatile - look at all the turnovers, especially in the first half. And I think the Bears have a great defense, still bette than Indy's, it's just that any defense is gonna get tired when they are basically out on the field for the entire first half and third quarter. The unsung hero has to be the Colts OL. They are the best OL in the NFL, and I don't think anyone ran that well against the Bears all year (and also without a fullback leading the way).

I don't think the Saints would've given up that opening return to Hester or fumbled away the QB-Center exchange two times. But our secondary would have had a tougher time with Harrison-Wayne-Clark too.

SapperSaint · 02-05-2007, 08:04 AM

I don't know if we would have given them a better game, but I do feel in some small way that we do have a SB victory with a Manning having a SuperBowl ring now.

Way to go Peyton!

LordOfEntropy · 02-05-2007, 12:02 PM

I disagree. I believe the Saints would've been a better game than Da Bears. I believe we would've lost, of course. But Da Bears had no business being in that game in the first place.

papz · 02-05-2007, 12:27 PM

I don't believe we would have beat the Colts had we gone to Miami but I do think it would have been a more exciting game to watch.

Fleured · 02-05-2007, 01:44 PM

only 3 points after the first quarter? New Orleans would've definitely sweated the Colts more than the Bears. It would've been a close first half but New Orleans is a second half team and it would've a late fourth quarter decision.
But Congrats to Tony, Peyton and the rest of the White and Blue. It was a long time coming and i hope they can now relax. Besides, it's the closest thing the Saints can have to winning a Super Bowl until they get there themselves 8)

LordOfEntropy · 02-05-2007, 02:07 PM

True, it's about the closest we can get without being there. I bet Archie was beaming with pride. But I was suprised they didn't show Archie and Eli congratulating Peyton after the game.

02-04-2007, 10:56 PM	#1
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	Hypo: Would Saints given a better game? Watching the offense of the Colts, I see alot of similarities, between us, and them. Defensively, they are a much better team than we are, but at the same time, they tend to give up big plays at times. The Bear's offense looked terrible, especially for a team from Chicago, how can you not know how to play in the rain? Grossman's mistakes, finally caught up with them. I reallize the Bears beat us good, but now I'm starting to think that the weather had way more to do with it, than I initially thought. Wish in one hand, ya know? But I think we would have given a much better game against the Colts, than the Bears did. Dang snow. Congrats Colts! A Manning finally got himself a ring. I couldn't be happier for him, or Dungy. Class acts all the way.

02-05-2007, 12:55 AM	#3
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594	I wouldn't say the Bears didn't show up to the game. That's not giving enough credit to the Colts. For goodness sakes they ran the opening kickoff for a touchdown. Hester didn't do that all by himself. The Bears got beat, plain and simple. The Colts coaching staff schemed excellently and the Bears didn't make the right adjustments. I wouldn't say they didn't show up though. I don't like that statement personally. They showed up. They tried but it wasn't good enough. I know it may seem as if the Bears were not as competitive as they were against us, but against us they had a home crowd, which makes a huge difference. Also I guess this game shows that the AFC's best is significantly superior to the NFC's best And to answer your original question I don't know that we would have played a "better" game necessarily. We would have scored more points, but the Colts would have as well. They probably could have put 40 on us with Fred "Toast" Thomas back there. I wish we had been in the game though.
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594

02-05-2007, 01:19 AM	#4
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	The Colts came into the post season, boasting the 27th ranked defense in the league, where as the Bears were at No. 2. The Colts no. 3 offense, (ours was No. 1) put up 450 yards on them. Now, where as I agree that their home field had alot to do with their dismantling of us, you cannot deny the MAJOR discrepencies, after seeing this game today. There was no home field advantage for either team in Miami. If the weather favored anyone, it was the Bears. I agree with you, the Bears got beat, by a superior team, but you don't go into the postseason with the No. 2 defense, and let a team go ape crap on you, throwing up those kinds of numbers. In fact, the Colts went into Baltimore, the NUMBER 1 ranked defense, and kicked field goals to win the game, but the Ravense put up a good fight on the defensive side of the ball. Chicago's defense looked lost. Blown coverages, missed tackles.... Me thinks that the old saying, "Defense wins championships", just got a lethal gut wound.
	What's popular is not always right, and what's right is not always popular.....

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

02-05-2007, 12:46 AM	#2
SaintPauly Senior Citizen Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gulfport, MS Posts: 3,180 Blog Entries: 1	I just saw the game stats on Sportscenter, and let me tell you, the Bears are lucky they only lost by 12. Time of possession was completely in favor of the Colts. Total yards, Colts 450 to the Bears 256.(not exact but close) They really didn't show up for this game. This has to be pretty disheartening for the whole organization. Getting to the Superbowl is one thing, but not showing up to play is just rediculous.

02-05-2007, 06:19 AM	#5
neugey Hu Dat! Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,590 Blog Entries: 13	Who knows? The game is so volatile - look at all the turnovers, especially in the first half. And I think the Bears have a great defense, still bette than Indy's, it's just that any defense is gonna get tired when they are basically out on the field for the entire first half and third quarter. The unsung hero has to be the Colts OL. They are the best OL in the NFL, and I don't think anyone ran that well against the Bears all year (and also without a fullback leading the way). I don't think the Saints would've given up that opening return to Hester or fumbled away the QB-Center exchange two times. But our secondary would have had a tougher time with Harrison-Wayne-Clark too.

02-05-2007, 08:04 AM	#6
SapperSaint Pink Nightmare Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Mississippi Posts: 3,028 Blog Entries: 7	I don't know if we would have given them a better game, but I do feel in some small way that we do have a SB victory with a Manning having a SuperBowl ring now. Way to go Peyton!

02-05-2007, 12:02 PM	#7
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	I disagree. I believe the Saints would've been a better game than Da Bears. I believe we would've lost, of course. But Da Bears had no business being in that game in the first place.

02-05-2007, 12:27 PM	#8
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,681	I don't believe we would have beat the Colts had we gone to Miami but I do think it would have been a more exciting game to watch.

02-05-2007, 01:44 PM	#9
Fleured The NY Geaux Getter Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 348	only 3 points after the first quarter? New Orleans would've definitely sweated the Colts more than the Bears. It would've been a close first half but New Orleans is a second half team and it would've a late fourth quarter decision. But Congrats to Tony, Peyton and the rest of the White and Blue. It was a long time coming and i hope they can now relax. Besides, it's the closest thing the Saints can have to winning a Super Bowl until they get there themselves 8)

02-05-2007, 02:07 PM	#10
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	True, it's about the closest we can get without being there. I bet Archie was beaming with pride. But I was suprised they didn't show Archie and Eli congratulating Peyton after the game.