I'm a Bears homer so take this post with a grain of salt, but I don't get people saying Manning looked bad or rusty. He threw for 257 yards (last year he averaged 253 yards per game) at over 61% completion rate against an extremely solid and healthy defense. A defense that will go to their grave hacked off about what happened in the Super Bowl. Manning took what he was given and then some. There were several plays that just barely missed that would have resulted in passing TD's for Manning but that's the way things go. Some weeks the stars align and you get 370 and 3 TD's, some weeks they don't. And while Manning only got sacked twice, there were many occasions where he had to get rid of the ball due to oncoming pressure.I turned the game on expecting to watch Chicago lose. Honestly, I even picked Chicago to lose in my pool. However when the scoreboard showed zeros Chicago's offense had performed well enough. Coupled with their defense who played extremely well and also added 9 points to the scoreboard it was enough to pull a stunner. Since the Colts loss was so shocking it seems the general consensus is that Manning looked bad. He didn't look like a worldbeater, but he didn't look bad either IMO. I get the feeling it's just a knee-jerk reaction because the heavily favored Colts lost.On a side note one thing that clearly stood out to me was all the Colt's WR's aversion to contact. They didn't risk any contact, often dropping to the ground or heading OB before contact. Wayne, Harrison, and Gonzalez all acted like they'd been punished one too many times even though the Bears never got a solid hit on any of them.