Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Playoff Game Discussion: SEA-CHI

This thread is for discussion of action on the field before, during, and after the second-round playoff game between Chicago and Seattle. Each game this year will get its own discussion thread, so please discuss the other games in those specific threads.


Click Here

Comments

1
by Insancipitory (not verified) :: Wed, 01/10/2007 - 8:18pm

No matter the outcome, I would just like to say the Superbowl curse is dead. Long live the Football Outsiders curse. Promotion through attrition.

Re 75, that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, but I politely disagree.

2
by mactbone (not verified) :: Fri, 01/12/2007 - 10:25am

Predictions on the weather? I'm hearing sleet with a possibility of snow. The report I heard said that there will be a blizzard in Chicago on Sunday with about 12 inches of snow. Meanwhile Indy, not too far south is at 50 degrees this morning and is expected to get rain this weekend. I have no idea what's going on.

3
by James C (not verified) :: Sat, 01/13/2007 - 4:39am

mactbone

Welcome to climate change.

On another note is there any chance that the Seahawks will come out in their Blue Man Group outfits and the Bears in their billious orange jerseys. It would set people off playing with the colour and contrast on their TVs all over america. In the snow it would start to look like some futuristic video game.

4
by Marko (not verified) :: Sat, 01/13/2007 - 4:17pm

No, the Bears are not going to come out in their orange jerseys. They'll wear their traditional home uniform (navy blue jerseys and white pants, not the navy blue pants that they wore on New Year's Eve). That means that Seattle can't come out in Blue Man Group attire.

4
by Marko (not verified) :: Sat, 01/13/2007 - 4:17pm

No, the Bears are not going to come out in their orange jerseys. They'll wear their traditional home uniform (navy blue jerseys and white pants, not the navy blue pants that they wore on New Year's Eve). That means that Seattle can't come out in Blue Man Group attire.

6
by NF (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:02am

Who thinks any one of these teams have a realistic chance against the Saints?

7
by Paul (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:54am

#6,

The Saints definitely have to be feeling good. The Eagles were on a big winning streak, and the Saints held on in a good game.

Beyond that, neither the Bears or the Seahawks are particularly impressive. Seattle hasn't done anything great all year, and honestly it took a fluke-ish miracle for them to beat an ice cold Dallas team at home. With the Bears, they are missing some key guys on defense, and overall the defense struggled down the stretch. Beyond that, I think everyone knows it's only a matter of time before Grossman has another stinker.

You do have to worry about the Saints defense a bit, but all told if you're a Saints fan, you should feel very good about your chances of making SB XLI.

8
by Maxpower (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:05am

#6-#7 "You do have to worry about the Saints defense a bit.." lol, I guess you mean how easy it is to beat them deep. One of these teams will beat you next week, the Saints did not impress anybody in their win. Go post somewhere else, this thread is about the CHI-SEA game.

9
by Dan R. (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 7:09am

I hear the Bear's are having some quarterback issues!

I think that once Lovie decided that Rex was the starter that he was absolutely right to tell the press that Rex wouldn't face a quick hook. Why put that much more pressure on an already shaky guy?

Now, Lovie definitely shouldn't have made Rex the starter to begin with, and he shouldn't hesitate to "change his mind" and pull Rex at the first sign of trouble. Even if the Bears fall behind by a few scores and need a strong arm, Rex has been so bad that they're better off with Griese. Unless the Seahawks suddenly wake up, it looks like the Bears will win as long as they can avoid a few huge mistakes. Rex is a good bet to make those mistakes, and there's no reason to think Griese is.

10
by Becephalus (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 11:06am

30* 5-10 mph winds and light snow is the forecast I see for noon

11
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 12:56pm

Anybody else excited about this game? Me neither.

12
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 1:21pm

I'm excited for it, but I'm from Seattle and we haven't been eliminated yet...

13
by Not saying (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 1:26pm

Re: 9 Even if the Bears fall behind by a few scores and need a strong arm, Rex has been so bad that they’re better off with Griese.

You really think that Griese has more big play ability than Rex? I don't know anyone else who feels that way.

Rex is a good bet to make those mistakes, and there’s no reason to think Griese is.

See, that's the "game manager" idea that we can all live with. Saying Griese is less likely to put them down a few scores seems fine. To say that he is more likely to lead an incredible comeback seems ludicrous.

14
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 1:51pm

13: Comebacks don't require strong arms and 60 yard completions, which is the one place where Grossman is clearly better than Greise. Comebacks require moving a team steadily down the field and conserving the clock when the other team knows you're not going to run the ball. To be honest, neither Grossman or Greise has what it takes to pull it off. If the Bears fall behind big, their best chance will be to comeback with defense and special teams touchdowns.

15
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:03pm

22- You're full of crap. My gosh, did it ever occur to you that the almighty DVOA might not always be completely accurate?

16
by Sophandros (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:16pm

Woe to the real person who posts in slot #22...

17
by Anger...rising (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:19pm

You really think that Griese has more big play ability than Rex?

No, but he certainly has more "stop digging a hole" ability, and considering Chicago's superiority in the other phases, that's probably more than half the battle.

18
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:30pm

Judging from Grossman's performance when down 20-0 and 23-3 to Arizona, I can't imagine Griese would be anything but better if they're down big

19
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:39pm

Click my name for hour-by-hour forecast for Chicago...looks like there could be some precipitation late in the game

20
by Pat on the back (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:47pm

Okay, has anybody noticed that, 15 minutes before game time, there are fewer posts in this thread than there are in the SD-NE game that is 4 hours away?

21
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:47pm

19 - great. I think that helps the Hawks. We've played enough games under those conditions these years...

22
by Stereochemistry (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:48pm

DVOA told me to break up with my girlfriend before the holidays.

23
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:49pm

22- You beat me to it

24
by Pat on the back (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:52pm

You both were dating the same girl?

25
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:55pm

It has to do with post 15

26
by Pat on the back (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:56pm

26,
appreciated. I was just being a wise-ass.

27
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 2:58pm

RE: 9

We've seen Griese. He was pretty poor in relief.

28
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:00pm

RE: 22

LOL. Nice one.

29
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:05pm

217 - Yeah I can't believe how well the Hawks are doing either!

30
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:10pm

I think Joe Buck just said "Kroots". I was always under the impression it was "Kroitz"

Anyone have insight into how Kreutz is pronounced?

31
by Quinn (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:12pm

30:

I've always heard 'Kroots,' although it could easily be the other way and everyone gets it wrong.

32
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:12pm

Unbelievable catch by Davis

33
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:13pm

Rex gets away with one. It might be Chicago's day

34
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:13pm

If Seattle had actual defensive backs, that would have been an easy pick.

35
by johnt (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:13pm

Sexy Rexy's new strategy is to gun the ball between the DBs hands with too much velocity for them to catch. Brilliant.

36
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:14pm

That was a quick score

37
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:15pm

might be a LONG day :/

38
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:15pm

Nice block by Clark for the TD.

39
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:16pm

RE: 30

I agree with 31.

40
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:17pm

That was a really nice return

41
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:21pm

You will never see a luckier catch. that was crazy

42
by Daniel (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:21pm

30/31 It's a name of German origin (I'm pretty sure) so it would originally have been "Kroits" - it depends on whether or Olin and family have been in the US long enough for it to have become Americanized to "Kroots"

43
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:22pm

And what are the Seahawks doing punting on 4th and 1 at the Bears 44?

44
by Ruben (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:23pm

Just re-watched the Thomas Jones TD run. Regardless of the the outcome of this game, he definitely owes Desmond Clark a night out at the strip club.

How come Jones never ran with that confidence in Arizona? Ugh...

45
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:23pm

Lots of running, DBs who can't catch and coffin-corner punting. It's retro night tonight.

46
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:23pm

That fruitcake on the sideline sure didn't look like Mike Brown.
I would've seriously considered going for it there, but at least Plack had a good punt. A lot of punters put it in the endzone in that situation, which means punting is pretty stupid, especially on 4th and 1.

47
by Zac (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:23pm

At least Plackermeier did a good job with the coffin corner. It went out of bounds at the 7.

48
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:24pm

I'm not so sure there's an analyst who hedges more than Troy Aikman.

49
by Artur Klosek (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:25pm

RE 30: Since its basicly a german name, the correct pronunciation has be "Kroits".

On that Verizon Wireless commercial with the black family (is it allowed to say that? German talking here) does the father say "Daddy got host" or "Daddy got hoes"...the latter would be very, very funny :)

50
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:27pm

43: Cause Holmgren is a coward. He always has been.

51
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:27pm

49- It's "Dad got hosed" as in screwed, or the short end of the stick, but people have been saying it sounds like something less appropriate

52
by Stereochemistry (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:27pm

RE 49:

He says "hosed", but for awhile I thought it was a very edgy commerical for Verizon.

53
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:28pm

How does Grossman not see a guy blitzing in front of him. It's not like it was a blindside hit or anything.

54
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:28pm

How was his arm going forward?

55
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:29pm

Thomas Jones getting a lot of yards after contact.

That could've been ruled a fumble, and the Seahawk closest to the ball was spacing out.

56
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:29pm

Seattle probably got away with a neutral-zone infraction on that last third down play.

57
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:29pm

Babineaux looks better blitzing than he does in coverage.

58
by DEW (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:29pm

Re: 35

And you just know that if the quarterback was Favre or Vick or any other highly-regarded gunslinger that's exactly what the analysts would be saying: that he "threw it too hard for the defender to react." But since it was Grossman, then it was obviously a botched play by the defense rather than a great "laser rocket" (TM) throw by the QB.

59
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:29pm

RE: 49

It's hosed.

60
by ChrisV (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:30pm

its funny how in these Sparta movies they never dwell on how thoroughly gay the Spartans were.

61
by Anger...rising (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:32pm

Grossman's arm was going forward in relation to his body, but that seemed more a "slam on the brakes and hit your head on the windshield" effect than a volitional movement of the arm. I hate that rule.

62
by Joel Dias-Porter (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:32pm

Whisenhunt to Ariz as HC

63
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:33pm

I always thought the place Ricky Manning played best was Denny's

64
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:33pm

Well I was looking at the arm, not the body as a whole. Just looking at the arm, it appeared stationary.

65
by Joel Dias-Porter (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:34pm

#61 Technically it's part of the "Tuck Rule"

66
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:35pm

Forget what could have been on that Grossman "fumble" - Seattle was definitely offside anyway. It was a missed call both ways.

67
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:36pm

I was wondering about the offsides too; that's possibly a camera angle issue...

67
by Harris (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:36pm

Re: #60

In the book, the Spartans spent most of their free time gamboling in the nude. I doubt that makes it into the film either.

69
by ChrisV (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:37pm

61 -- i know the "arm going forward rule" does not alway reflect when a pass is being made, but imo it is the only way to have a clear rule about this, otherwise you never know when a pass is being made.

70
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:38pm

Touchdown!

And was it just me, or was that a really quick first quarter? Less than forty minutes.

71
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:39pm

Great second effort by Burleson to get the TD.

72
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:39pm

Well I officially can't complain about the call. Tie game!

73
by Obi (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:39pm

from foxsports:

PAYTON'S FORTUNE-TELLING: Saints head coach Sean Payton pulled an interesting little motivational tool on Friday night. As his players were leaving their meeting room the coach gave each guy an envelope but implored them not to open them until they each got to their respective rooms.

Once in seclusion the players opened the envelopes only to find their itinerary for next week's game in Chicago. How's that for making a pair of predictions? In the itinerary Payton included that Chicago would beat Seattle and what the team's exact schedule would be when it got past Philly.

74
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:40pm

RE: 62

Ummm yeah. Glazer announced it on the pregame, over an hour ago.

75
by ChrisV (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:40pm

That safety really messed up the tackle... i thought Chicago had a perfect defense or something.

75
by Anger...rising (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:40pm

Insancipitory is a gentleman and a scholar.

77
by coyotl666 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:40pm

anyone seen a sign of the fuck da bears girl?

78
by Anger...rising (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:41pm

A joke four days in the making goes for naught! Bastard!

79
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:42pm

73: If Seattle wins, that story will be great bulletin board material.

80
by Ivarsson, Sweden (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:42pm

Re 76

I had the exact same idea... also missed it tho

81
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:42pm

well that didn't take long...

82
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:42pm

WOW. Uh, yeah, it seems to be Good Rex today

83
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:43pm

Woo Wee! Good Rex in da House!

But who had (or rather didn't) the coverage?

84
by johnt (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:43pm

I knew this was going to happen. Good Rex will come out today, luring all into a sense of complacency. Then next week against the Saints when Bad Rex has a 4 QB rating it will make it all the shocker.

The Drama of Rex Grossman is basically like a WWF wrestling storyline.

85
by Harris (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:43pm

Sexy Rexy with the armcock and Berrian is the gleeful recipient of a THROWGASM (TM).

86
by Joel Dias-Porter (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:46pm

#83 The corner Jennings played like he was expecting deep safety help. Babineaux looked like he got caught inside and couldn't get back.

87
by Darrel Michaud (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:46pm

Bernard Berrian better not be covered by Fred Thomas anytime in the NFC Championship game.

88
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:47pm

Whew. Urlacher pulls a Ray Lewis and prevents an INT.

89
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:48pm

This is ooooouuuuuurrrr coooooouuuntreeeee

90
by Paul (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:48pm

The Seahawks just cannot run the ball. Alexander is just looking awful and has nowhere to go.

Grossman is playing the exact opposite of how Bear fans feared he would play; of course, that could be subject to change at any minute.

91
by rollo (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:48pm

Urlacher joins the playoff-only "MLB who your safety secretly hates for deflecting an INT" club.

92
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:48pm

VERY nice adjustment by Urlacher. The announcers didn't catch on. Urlacher and Briggs showed blitz, so Hasselbeck had both of his RBs stay back to protect. Then Urlacher called off the blitz, backing the LBs back into coverage. Beautiful.

93
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:49pm

84: Are you sure? It's not like the Saints have a particularly good secondary either.

93
by Marko (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:49pm

On that play action bomb to Berrian, Cedric Benson was in the backfield and it was his first play of the day. That's at least the third time this year that the Bears have gone deep for a big play off play action on Benson's first play of a game.

95
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:50pm

I think we're all falling into a trap.

Let's not underestimate Rex Grossman's ability to singlehandedly lose a game for his team.

96
by Paul (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:50pm

Lol, 88.

I find it odd a guy like that can prevent an interception and then be heralded for great play.

Either way, this Seahawk defense is looking rough.

97
by Pat (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:52pm

82/83: Was there ever any doubt? Really? Seattle's 23rd in pass defense DVOA. Their defensive backs aren't that good (duh, some of them were on the street a few weeks ago) and frequently let people wide open.

The missed INT by Babineaux just showed that Rex is still Rex, throwing straight into coverage. It also showed that Seattle's not going to be able to take advantage of him.

And I'd bet if Chicago wins, Good Rex is out in force next week, too. Sorry, Saints fans.

98
by johnt (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:53pm

93: Neither does GB. When Bad Rex comes out to play, it doesn't matter who he's playing.

99
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:53pm

Twice Grossman's been hit by a blitzer from the front that he hasn't seen. Is that Rex, or is that a problem with protection?

100
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:54pm

RE: 90

Alexander isn't a very good player without the dominant OL, it seems. What a horrible signing.

101
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:55pm

I expect Grossman to play well vs. the Saints, assuming the Bears win here.

102
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:55pm

News flash, Joe Buck doesn't understand fractions.

103
by Quinn (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:56pm

I'm not surprised that Joe Buck doesn't know whether 3/8's or 1/2 is larger.

104
by The Other Jed (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:56pm

Joe Buck,

5 is greater than 3. Just for the record.

105
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:56pm

Alexander looks like he's afraid to get hit. WTF? He's going down at the prospect of contact, unlike, say, a professional NFL running back.

106
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:56pm

Joe Buck can't do fractions. Geesh.

107
by ajn (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:57pm

joe, 5/8 is bigger.

108
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:57pm

good call

109
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:58pm

Hass is doing a good job vs. the Bears blitz, even if DJ did bobble that one. They are better off just covering instead.

110
by John (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:59pm

Is not knowing fractions supposed to make Joe Buck a man of the people or something?

111
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 3:59pm

haha, I missed it. What did Buck say? That 5/8ths isn't greater than 1/2 or something?

112
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:00pm

110: This is our Country. We don't need no stinkin math here.

113
by Paul (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:00pm

100,

I'm a big 'Bama fan and personally I love Shaun. He's a class act and a good football player.

But the truth is that the tailback is pretty much the most replaceable guy in the NFL, and I think anyone is pretty dumb to give a tailback a huge contract, particularly one going on 30.

If you have a good offensive line, you will be able to run the ball very well. If not, almost regardless of who you have at tailback, you're not going anywhere.

Alexander has proven that the past couple of years.

114
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:01pm

How exactly isn't that intentional grounding?

115
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:02pm

How is that not Intentional Grounding?

116
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:02pm

Technically, it's not intentional grounding if you're not about to get sacked.

117
by The Other Jed (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:02pm

Troy Aikman: The light has gone on, and Grossman's playing well.

Rex: Oh, yeah? Watch this! Take that, empty field!

Ref: I saw nothing!

118
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:03pm

Or if you didn't mean to throw it away but did because you got scared silly by a blitzing linebacker. Yeah, sure.

Oh, and, this is our kuuuuunnntree!

119
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:04pm

What kind of tree is this?

120
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:05pm

I think the Romo play is the Seahawks' break for the next decade or two.

121
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:05pm

RE: 113

He is a class act, but if I were Seattle, I would have either let him go after last season, or franchised him and THEN let him go. A 29 year old RB who was never dominant and who's been used a lot the past few seasons. Was it any surprise he battled injury and was never effective this season? The future isn't bright, either.

122
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:05pm

Grossman is now 6/12

123
by Stereochemistry (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:07pm

Is that better than 1/2?

124
by fogarty (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:07pm

Re 118: Was anyone else reminded of this quote from the Family Guy movie?
Brian: Isn´t there an "o" in Cross-Country Tour?
Quagmire: No.

125
by The Other Jed (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:08pm

Hester has stolen the anointing oil gloves from Romo, it would seem.

126
by Joe Buck (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:09pm

re 122:
That's better than 5/12, right?

127
by billsfan (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:09pm

102, 104, etc:

Joe Buck at least explained that he doesn't know fractions because he didn't play football. Get him off my television.

128
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:09pm

Well the one good thing is that we're playing like crap, aren't getting breaks, and we're still in the game.

129
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:09pm

Yep. It's probably starting to mess with his mind. Bet he muffs at least one more

130
by coyotl666 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:10pm

maybe hester's trying to lull them to sleep with the fumbles, making them forget to not kick it right to him.

131
by The Ref (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:10pm

Just take the sack Rex!

132
by jebmak (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:10pm

What an idiot.

133
by Randy S. (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:10pm

Yes! Evil Rex! Thank god. Go Seahawks!

134
by Joel Dias-Porter (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:11pm

Bad Rex sighting!!

135
by rollo (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:11pm

Grossman reveals his half-baked side.

136
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:11pm

Uh, yeah. I'd like to echo what I said in 95

137
by fogarty (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:11pm

Goodbye, Good Rex, we hardly knew ya

138
by Kyle (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:11pm

Yeah, targeting Lavar Arrington instead of Julian Peterson made tons of sense, Ernire Accorsi. Peterson was far too expensive to justify signing him, and that injury! Who in their right mind sinks big money into players with an injury history? like Peterson? Arrington was most definitely the best choice.

139
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:12pm

Git er' done, Seachickens!

140
by billsfan (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:12pm

116:

Philosophically speaking, if you're about to get sacked, that's all the more reason that it should be intentional grounding, and I'm pretty sure that that's how the rule goes. Unless the QB is Drew Brees and the game is fixed.

141
by black (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:12pm

off topic, I see the Cardinals signed Whisenhunt as coach. Interesting

142
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:13pm

Maybe Rex Grossman needs a breath-right strip. Big time mouth breather there.

143
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:13pm

Please tell me the Seahawks are going for it here and not kicking a field goal

144
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:13pm

Punch it in.

145
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:14pm

Easterbrook is going to praise them if they make it, and say "kick early, go for it late" if they don't

and they do

146
by Alex DL (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:14pm

I just remembered that I have to root against the Seahawks. If they make it to the super bowl, that first round draft pick for branch becomes either a 31 or a 32.....Go Bears.

147
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:14pm

That looked like last years' Seahawks.

148
by MCS (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:14pm

Any comments, B?

re. 50

149
by jebmak (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:15pm

Good job Rex, you could have gone into the half up seven, now you make the game much more exciting for viewers. Dumbass.

150
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:15pm

TMQ is always right, no matter what. He's a second-guesser, not a first-guesser.

151
by billsfan (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:15pm

you think TMQ still writes the column? I'm sure it's all macros and autotext.

152
by Josh (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:16pm

146 - that reminds me, I have to root for the Seahawks

153
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:17pm

From what I've seen, Hester doesn't seem like a very good bad weather returner. He looks much more comfortable in domes and similar situations.

154
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:18pm

Maybe Alexander isn't so useless.

Also, stop with the squibs!

155
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:18pm

RE: 141

Old news.

156
by Ernie Accorsi (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:19pm

re 138: But Arrington played in my division, so I was always seeing him beat up on my team. When he was healthy, I mean. And when he wasn't, we usually won! So it was all good.

157
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:20pm

Alexander had a good set of runs there. I still maintain that it was a stupid decision by Seattle. It's not like Shaun is a horrible running back, but he's just not worth all the guaranteed money they threw at him. Similar decisions made with Walter Jones and Tony Gonzalez.

158
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:25pm

Why a time out? Shouldn't Chicago have just demanded a measurement?

159
by Register Allocation (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:26pm

150
Good thing there aren't any second guessers here. Right?

160
by Becephalus (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:26pm

158 lovie smith hasn't gotten to that level in the coaches brotherhood yet. Next year he will reach grand poo-bah status.

161
by Chris S (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:26pm

Can Troy please explain what being the home team has to do with going for it on 4th and inches near the goal line?

162
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:27pm

score

163
by Josh (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:27pm

Glad to see that going for it on 4th and short has paid off today

164
by young curmudgeon (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:29pm

Is Whisenhut's going to Arizona make Grimm a shoo-in for the Steelers? And is that good news or grim news (sorry)? What's that? There's a game going on right now?

165
by Yaguar (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:29pm

The Seattle defense was remarkably bad on the touchdown run.

166
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:31pm

I like the aggressive 4th down decisions by both coaches. I've always maintained that on 4th and 1 or less, a team should almost always go for it (unless the FG ties or wins the game in the waning moments).

167
by Joel Dias-Porter (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:32pm

164 Grimm's got to be the frontrunner now, although Tomlin is lookin better also.
161 I think he's confusing End of Game strategy with with end of half tactics

168
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:33pm

Lovie 1, Aikman 0. Rueben Brown couldn't find a man to block.

169
by Artur Klosek (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:40pm

TMQ must be sittin' in front of his TV and m*st*rb**ing after those 4th down conversions...

170
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:43pm

RE: 167 I disagree. To me, the departure of Whisenhunt indicates that the Rooneys are cleaning house and starting fresh. I see Grimm going elsewhere.

171
by tanner (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:44pm

Looks like the Bears bought the leftover turf from Gillette Stadium, probably a good strategy. New Orleans better bring their pitchforks and shovels.

172
by tanner (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:46pm

Re: 170
Do we know if Wisenhunt even wanted the Steelers job? It wouldn't be the first time an assistant refused to take the mantle from very successful HC.

173
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:47pm

Engram is not the receiver that Hass has the most confidence in, Aikman. That guy's name would be Darrel Jackson. Hass was on him like a radar lock throughout the first quarter. The only reason Engram caught so many balls last week is 'cause DJ left the game.

174
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:49pm

RE: 172, I don't know that, however if they wanted to make it a priority, they could've kept him as an assistant.

175
by Anger...rising (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:49pm

Play fake and go deep!

176
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:51pm

Whenever I've seen the Seahawks run sweeps and other outside stuff with Alexander this season, it never seems to work. He can't outrun the pursuit. Saw this a few times against the Cowboys as well.

177
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:52pm

175 - I wish.

I watch close plays in slow motion. Watching a hand off 3 yards behind the line on 3rd and 1 was painful that way.

178
by ChrisV (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:53pm

176 -- i think the problem here was that his blocker fell on his face way too early and thus allowed Briggs to jump over him. Lead blockers should try to stay on their feet like running backs.

179
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:58pm

If that's pass interference, what isn't? Within 5 yards of the line, both players are hand fighging and the DB is hurled down. PI on the DB. Bah!

180
by Compucrazy (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:58pm

The adventures of Rex Grossman continues.

181
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 4:59pm

Sackin' up! Nice.

182
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:00pm

179 - I suspect that a quick pass would always draw that. Could be a good strategy.

Didn't hurt anything though.

183
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:02pm

RE: 172

Not really. He wasn't going to turn down a HC job to stay as OC.

184
by Not saying (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:04pm

Joe Buck: "The first sack and it belongs to Winstrom."

5 seconds later the stats appear at the bottom to show 2 sacks already on Grossman. The first one was the Peterson one. You know, the one that led to the fumble, so I can see how it would be easy to forget.

185
by jonnyblazin (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:04pm

I don't know if Burleson could have caught that ball, it looked like it would have bounced infront of him regardless of what Wesley did. I don't know the exact rule and if that is relevant or not.

186
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:05pm

RE 183, mostly true, but it's Arizona in this case. It's a win desert with few oases.

187
by ChrisV (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:06pm

I am so glad Branch is not playing against the chargers today.

188
by Josh (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:06pm

Very impressed by Hasselbeck's ability to find open receivers with Chicago dropping 8, even 9 defenders into coverage

189
by JK (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:08pm

Holmgren is scheming his ass off!

190
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:08pm

So sometimes running on 3rd and 10 works. Color me surprised.

191
by johnt (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:08pm

That draw is the exact same play we all said was utterly retarded last week when they called it on 3rd and long against the Cowboys. Although now it's a "great call" according to Aikman.

I kind of still think it's dumb.

192
by cd6 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:09pm

183

Last year he turned down the Oakland job to remain OC of the steelers.

Arizona, though, with Leinart and those receivers, in a considerably weaker division, was a much better situation.

Nice TD run by Alexander

193
by Chris S (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:10pm

No surprises this weekend. The Colts won a tight defensive battle and the Bears are losing an offensive shootout. Yawn.

194
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:10pm

Again, watching in slow motion...

"Oh no, not the draw again! I hate th... TOUCHDOWN!!! W0000!!!"

195
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:10pm

well, it works 22% of the time, according to FO's stats. Seattle's had more success than anyone else with the 3rd and long draw.

196
by Not saying (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:11pm

Re: 191

That's a good point. It's the same one that Doug Farrar thought never worked but Aaron showed that Seattle had a good success rate with.

197
by cd6 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:13pm

It helps that the center blocked Urlacher completely out of the play. It wasn't a pancake, it was better. Urlacher was driven 3 yards back and then another 3 yards towards the sideline. The middle of the field was open enough to drive a truck through

198
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:14pm

That's twice these announcers have talked over a ref call. They didn't even notice the flag there.

Any chance we can just say the game is over now?

199
by cd6 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:15pm

Bad call, Muhammed pushed off on Jennings

200
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:15pm

Grrrrr. PI decides too many games by far. Sonofabitch.

201
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:18pm

Let me say again that I'm STUNNED that important calls go against the Hawks ;)

202
by Chris Heinonen (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:18pm

Wow, that seemed like a really bad spot, and almost a decent play for Seattle to challenge. You'd still leave them with 3rd and 1, but at least have a better chance to force a FG.

203
by cd6 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:20pm

Wow, that was a huge penalty

204
by rollo (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:20pm

Grossman didn't really hang in there for that corner blitz. Penalty makes the short completion moot.

205
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:20pm

I don't think I've ever seen that called... sigh...

typical.

206
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:20pm

That's a REALLY dumb penalty.

207
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:21pm

RE: 192

Like you said, that was Oakland, the worst job in the NFL. Arizona is an attractive job.

207
by Mike \ (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:21pm

I didn't know we'd have to be playing the refs again.

209
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:21pm

Did they just award a first down to a receiver who ran his route short of the sticks, got hit and driven backwards immediately upon landing? When the official even spotted it well short of the sticks? What am I missing here?

210
by johnt (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:21pm

See what happens when you bitch too much about the refs, Seahawks? They come back and ... screw you really bad.

211
by ChrisV (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:21pm

I don't get it. I thought the defense was allowed to move before the snap as long as they do not get caught in the neutral zone.

212
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:23pm

Why do I even bother...

212
by Chris Heinonen (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:23pm

Did the Seattle player even go offsides there and get caught when it was snapped? I didn't see the Chicago lineman move at all, so it shouldn't have stopped the play and Seattle should have been able to get back onsides before the snap, correct? Maybe I just missed the lineman for Chicago moving, but I think we went over this rule yesterday in the Indy game.

214
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:25pm

3rd and goal from the 10 - who thinks a killer INT is coming?

215
by JK (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:25pm

Re 213
It didn't look like he crossed into the neutral zone, but he could have made a sound simulating the snap maybe?

215
by black (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:25pm

Grossman really does drift backwards like my cousin playing madden, and I thought it was unrealistic.

217
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:25pm

BAD REX

218
by Chris Heinonen (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:25pm

OK, all those bad calls by the refs are forgiven now.

219
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:25pm

That actually wasn't really his fault

220
by Peter (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:25pm

More like Bad Moose.

221
by cd6 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:25pm

Pete Hunter off the street two weeks ago to get the INT.

Bears should have just kicked that field goal

222
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:26pm

BAD MATT

223
by cd6 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:26pm

And Hasselbeck gives it right back

son of a

224
by Mike Holmgren (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:26pm

Stupid refs making my quarterback throw an interception.

225
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:26pm

Pete Hunter puts a helluva an interest charge on that one!

226
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:26pm

Yes! And it went through before the play!

Although it wasn't the horribly forced throw into double coverage I was expecting, it was just far enough behind the receiver to still be classified as a bad throw, although it should've been caught.

No worries, the Hawks are always good to give it right back.

227
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:26pm

Wow. It's the dumb five minute frenzy.

228
by Chris Heinonen (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:26pm

And evil Hasselbeck shows up right after.

229
by coyotl666 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:26pm

brilliant tactics by seattle -offsides on the gimme figgy giving bears first and goal expecting turnover and no points

230
by JK (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:27pm

Hasselbeck is just so bad this year.

231
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:27pm

Jack Hass.

232
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:28pm

God I wish I didn't care...

233
by Anger...rising (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:29pm

The word you're looking for is "indefensible," Troy.

234
by brian c (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:30pm

How did seattle get to the super bowl last year again????

235
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:30pm

Did someone swap receivers for Defensive backs while no-one was looking?

236
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:31pm

Does this mean they screwed the pooch punt?

237
by cd6 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:31pm

It still works out that Seattle doesn't allow the points

And just wastes some clock

So, net positive for Seattle

238
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:33pm

lmao, I'm listening to the TV and the radio coverage and the radio guy just called Rashied Davis "Rasheed Wallace".

239
by Chris S (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:34pm

Bears this half: 15-yard penalty for interference with punt return (leading to TD drive); false start near the goal line; 2 dropped passes; delay on a FG attempt. Not a lot of discipline.

240
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:34pm

Too early to worry about clock.

241
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:37pm

Dear Seattle,

You might want to block the Defensive End.

And I'll bet this is coming back.

242
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:37pm

Flag down. Probably block in the back

243
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:37pm

Nothing better than the semi-muted cheers on a long punt return with obvious blocking penalties.

244
by Sid (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:39pm

Hester continues to have problems fielding the punts.

245
by Not saying (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:39pm

Interesting that both Buck and Aikman thought Stevens would have a good game, given that Chicago had the #1 defense versus tight ends and it's not that close (-50%).

246
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:43pm

I was scared for a repeat of the Panthers game where they picked up the flag on the Smith TD for no apparent reason.

247
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:45pm

Never mind Stevens. Seattle are 26th (14.6 DVOA) against the Tight End, so where the hell has Desmond Clark been? He has 1 catch for 13 yards.

248
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:45pm

kick or go for it? I say kick

249
by Quinn (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:46pm

So, the refs really are trying to give the Bears this game.

250
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:46pm

Wheee! This is actually turning out to be a decent game. Even as a Seachickens fan, I think Benson probably made that.

251
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:47pm

god, getting NO breaks from the refs on spots at least.

252
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:47pm

no kidding. they gave them about a yard

253
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:47pm

248: Just wait for the officials to change their mind.

254
by Alex DL (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:47pm

horrible job there fox.
I can totally see the bears turning it over on this 3rd and ten...losing out on points again. A field goal it is.

255
by Compucrazy (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:47pm

this is getting ridiculous, I know Grossman's been iffy, but you gotta at least TRY to win.

256
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:48pm

that was good by about six inches

257
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:49pm

Hated the 3rd-down call. It wasn't 3rd-and-23, it was 3rd-and-10. Give your offense a chance.

258
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:49pm

At home, you go for the tie. Of course, conservative traditional philosophies rarely win playoff games. On the other hand, running on 3rd and 10 worked for Seattle. I need a third hand.

259
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:50pm

I half-expected the shameless Buck to mention Jack Bauer as they went to break. I guess Buck is still working on his fractions.

260
by Obi (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:50pm

i was waiting for them to use the score as a promo for 24

261
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:50pm

It would be traditional for Brown to win this with a 53-yard field goal on the last play...

262
by dave whorton (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:50pm

why does it just seem that dallas nor chicago isn't attacking the corners of the seahawks? i mean the starters were horrible this year

263
by Jeremy Billones (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:51pm

Joe Buck: "24-24, with 4:24 left, and _24_ premiering tonight on FOX."

264
by Not saying (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:51pm

Re: 247

Didn't Clark come up limping early in the game? I remember that, and I think it came up in the clips about the turf. Maybe that makes a difference.

265
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:52pm

That extra yard given on the spot is crucial.

Oh well... we still have a great shot.

266
by coyotl666 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:53pm

anticipating the ot coin toss. "we'll take the ball and we're gonna score"

267
by johnt (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:53pm

Matt Hasselbeck wants the ball and he's going to win the game!

268
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:53pm

266: So Ricky Manning Pick six for Chicago?

269
by cd6 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:55pm

Go for it Holmgren

Go for it.

270
by Anger...rising (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:55pm

A man goes for it.

271
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:55pm

C'mon Seattle, have a go.

272
by John (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:56pm

ohhh, let's have a bold move. Go for it, Seattle! (No rooting interest, I just like bold moves).

273
by coyotl666 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:56pm

gota go here

274
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:56pm

What a decision point. I think they'll punt. I hope they go for it.

275
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:56pm

Best game of the playoffs so far? Maybe so.

276
by tanner (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:56pm

A man with no cornerbacks definitely goes for it.

277
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:56pm

go for it or attempt a 62 yard field goal? Too bad they're not playing Philly. I agree, go for it.

278
by zzyzx (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:56pm

Twice during the season we missed crucial first downs by a yard. That might be our curse.

279
by johnt (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:57pm

I can see the logic behind punting. The Seahawks have had absolutely no short running game at all today. Rex on the 2 minute drive isn't the scariest thing ever.

But the Bears are a better team and I think they have to go for the win while they've got the shot. 4th and 1 and then 15 more yards and they've got the win.

280
by rollo (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:57pm

By the internal logic of this game, if you go for it here you get a TD and the win!

281
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:58pm

Easterbrook better be enjoying this

282
by cd6 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:58pm

Did I say go for it? I meant punt

Oopsies

283
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:58pm

I liked the call, gutsy. Not Holmgren's fault the execution was a mess.

284
by Tarrant (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:58pm

Wow. Or you fumble the snap and turn it over on downs.

285
by John (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:58pm

Oy, you would have liked to see them at least get a good snap.

286
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:59pm

I don't think crapping out on the snap was part of the plan...

Still Seattle have 3 TO's left, so it's not hopeless.

287
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:59pm

Hasselbeck nearly fumbles the snap. That would have been poetic.

288
by Becephalus (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:59pm

because of the bad snap the online got no push? really?

it sure looked ot me like regardless what happened with the snap the bears blew up the oline.

289
by rollo (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 5:59pm

Still like the call - the playcall, not so much.

290
by Jesse (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:00pm

huge third down here...

291
by cd6 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:00pm

Clutch stop by the Seahawks D

Hasselbeck gets another chance here

292
by Anger...rising (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:00pm

Grossman almost got Eli-ed.

293
by John (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:00pm

wow, that ball hung in the air FOREVER!

294
by James, London (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:00pm

Seattle force the 3 & out. Anyone for overtime?

295
by chuangtzu (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:01pm

Heart in the throat. Nearly a D lineman rumbling, bumbling and stumbling towards the TD... but no.

296
by DavidK44 (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:01pm

That's "one of those little things"...of course it's not predictable or anything, but still, Thomas Jones' play there is HUGE.

297
by hector (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:01pm

Awesome awareness from Thomas Jones. And all of a sudden Grossman has Drew Bledsoe disease, hitting the linemen in the mitts.

298
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:01pm

Thomas Jones with the defensive play of the game. That's how you bail our your Quarterback.

299
by Chris S (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:01pm

Sure was neighborly of the Bears to throw 3 clock-stopping incompletes and then punt into the end zone.

300
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Sun, 01/14/2007 - 6:02pm

Ballsy call (I agree with it). I hope that if the Seahawks lose, the media/fans don't pretend this was a bad call. I think my hopes are too high.

Then again, it's not like Chicago's doing anything with it either. Great play by Jones to knock away Rex's 2nd pass to a DL on the drive.