HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danba@pogo.wv.tek.com (Daniel J Balza)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: The Pack is Getting Closer!
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:02:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR.

From article <24470@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, by fzorn@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Frank Zorn):
> Let's cheer for them to win their final two games.  If they do, great!  If
> they make the playoffs, great!  If they don't, well, then six other teams
> had a better season, even though the Pack finished strong.  Then all we can
> do is hope they pick up where they left off next season.  I think they will.

At the risk of making the football gods angry, I have to do this
now or I might not get the chance this year.  I just have to remember
how to do it!

goof..
warf..
foof..
woof

Yea, that's it!!

WOOF WOOF WOOF

Ahh that felt good.

Good luck Packers

Dan
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: fbrown@ssd.kodak.com (Frank Brown)
Subject: Rebellion in Chicago.
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:12:15 GMT


While watching the highlights of the games yesterday. I saw Ditka go off
on one of his famous dressdown of a player. Harbaraugh(sp) took it all
in stride but another player did not want to hear it and told Dikta  "F**K YOU!!" 
Even though I couldn`t hear it I'm positive that is what he said. It was really easy
to read his lips. Anybody from the Chicago know what Ditka was bitching
about and who the player was.  Is he good enough to swear at the coach and
be back next year? Or will It be Dikta himself who is gone?

Thanks in advance

Frank
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: marshall@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Bob Marshall)
Subject: Re: Call against the Vikes
Reply-To: marshall@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:06:56 GMT

>During he 49ers/Vikes games as Terry Allen was rushing for a possible first 
>down, he was stopped short and a 9ers defensive lineman grabbed him by the
>legs and lifted him up.  Flags flew.  The foul was against ... Terry Allen??
>
>Did anyone else see this?  Did Allen do anything that warranted a foul??

I think the flag was thrown because he was irritated at being treated
like a wheelbarrow (rightfully so), and he gave a little kick with his
foot. No big deal, certainly not worth a flag. I'm not sure that's what
the flag was for, but the official threw it right after he did that.
Stupid call, but did not impact the game.

=============================================================================
Bob Marshall                     \\     "Women aren't as smart as they
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.     \\     think they are; they think we
Sunnyvale, CA                      \\    men know a lot more than we
marshall@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com\\   really do."
"I tell the truth 'cept when I lie"  \\     - Tim the Toolman
=============================================================================
From: scsd1055@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: FINAL BILLS POST UNTIL PLAYOFFS..
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:20:58 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

>From: delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu (DERRELL EMERY LAROCQUE)
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:08:04 GMT
>  Anyway, the Saints fans by this time are sitting back, and enjoying their
>  comfortable little "N.O. by 3" over the Bills.. Well, every game that the
>  Bills have been underdogs this year, they have won. 

	To bad they couldn't have been underdogs to Colts, and Jets...hahaha
And that's 3 points my friend!

>  So, why post a bunch of
>  stuff like "Bills shall pummel the Aints" and "N.O. is N.O.thing" when all
>  I have to say is:
>  Beat the 49ers! *laugh* *laugh* *rolling on the floor with laughter*
  
	Well, lets see... who needs this game and who doesn't need this
game?  Saints?  NOPE!  Bills?  YES!  Case closed.   The odd scenerio for
the Saints is that IF they loose both games, and IF the Eagles win both of
their games, then the Saints will loose the home field advantage, but I
really don't see that happening.
	The Bills are a good team, but don't be so confident.  I just hope 
that Swilling, W. Martin, and Jackson, don't hurt Mr. Kelly when they make 
(literally) an Oreo out of him this weekend.   Hey, they may just beat the
Saints, but who cares?  Things in the NFC West are pretty much settled, and
Bills fans were saying in week#5 that the division and the home field
would be decided by this game.  Hmmmm...

>delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu
>
>1988,1989,1990,1991 AFC East Division Champions
>1991,1992 AFC Conference Champions

1991,1992 Superbowl Loosers (hat trick Marv?)
BP
- Geaux Saints!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: RICE BY THE NUMBERS
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:09:33 GMT

In article <5057@equinox.unr.edu> harrisl@unssun.UUCP (Larry Harris) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.172321.17875@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>>In article <5046@equinox.unr.edu> harrisl@equinox.unr.edu (Larry Harris) writes:
>>
>>>The Long and Short Of it - Rice's TD receptions by length
>>>
>>>80 plus yards - 3
>>>70 - 79 yards - 3
>>>60 - 69 yards - 10
>>>50 - 59 yards - 9
>>>40 - 49 yards - 12
>>>30 - 39 yards - 9
>>>20 - 29 yards - 14
>>>10 - 19 yards - 16
>>> 1 -  9 yards - 25

>This is all I have to work with, so I'll give it a stab. The chart is meant to
>give the reader an idea of who threw to Rice, at what point on the field Rice
>caught the ball, and how many times Rice caught the ball for his 101 career
>touchdown catch. It wasn't meant to justify or clarify the total number of    
>yards per catch or any other statistic.
>
>I'll check with some other sources, and I will post the results of what I find
>at a later date.

This chart pretty clearly (IMO) shows a) the real value of Rice and b) the 
effectiveness of the 49er offense. Good teams score TDs when they get the ball
close, and the 49ers are assuredly that. Other teams find a way to work these
"inside-the-20" opportunities into 3-point attempts (boy, that sounds like
my Packers until this year). Good receivers work their way open in these
situations, and that's tough, given that the defense is not giving ground; 
they're covering as tightly as they can, as opposed to, say, mid-field where
they'll let you catch the ball in front of them more easily. In short, 41 TD
catches from inside the 20 is marvelous, worthy of the best tight ends, and
one of the reasons Rice is considered one of the best receivers of all time.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - Oh come on! You didn't think I was serious, did you?
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jjonsson@alexandria.lib.utah.edu
Subject: Re: Looking back at PreSeason Predictions.......
Organization: Marriott Library, University of Utah
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:49:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.165927.13401@news.Hawaii.Edu> bill@gaza.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (William J. King) writes:

>NOT that I am a Steeler fan, but one lone publication (see below)
>predicted the Steelers to be first in the AFC Central. 


Yeah, and that same rag picked Atlanta, and Detroit to be tops in their 
respective divisions.


Jeff Jonsson
Marriott Library System Support, University of Utah.
==============================================================================
--"It's the sound of the secret--  jjonsson@alexandria.lib.utah.edu
-- machinery at the center of  --  jjonsson@utahlib.bitnet
-- the world." -Cliff Steele   --  "You talkin' to me?"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: Dominant Teams of the Nineties
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 18 DEC 92 11:39:16    

In article <1gohp7INNrs0@morrow.stanford.edu>, GC.SUL@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sullivan) writes...

>>Packers- another WR to compliment Sharpe, some help with the O line.
>I don't agree here even though I'm a big Holmgren fan.  I don't
>think they'll compete financially.  Aren't they at the bottom in the
>salary averages?

I don't know if the Packers will be contenders in the future or not 
but financially they'll be okay as long as the league shares TV 
revenue.  The Packers have 3 things in their favor:

1) They don't have to make a profit.  They don't like losing money but 
there's no owner to siphon off $2-$10 million a year.

2) The exact amount is not made public but the Packers are estimated 
to have between 25 and 40 million dollars in the bank.  ie. They have 
a source of cash in an emergency and make $4 million a year in 
interest/dividends off this money.

3) They get free rent at Lambeau Field.

The Packers have generally been in the bottom half of player salaries 
for the past few years but when you consider that they've been in the 
bottom quarter of the league for wins & losses that's not too bad.  
The Packers always finish higher on the salary scale than they do in 
wins & losses.

JGH
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (The Purple Bleeder )
Subject: This week's SI(Inside the NFL)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:32:41 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

The latest issue of Sports Illustrated features a good article
on the Chargers'-D......The Charging Defence.  Makes interesting
reading. Chargers fans out there....Hyderabadi.....and others
...this should be of interest to u guys.

Some excerpts reproduced without permission.

" I don't think that the best in the AFC can beat the NFC's 
second best..... If New Orleans were in the AFC, it might
be the best team in the Conference" .....Mike Lombardi

The Cardinals are 3-2 against the 3 teams that won the last 6
Super Bowls and 1-8 against the  rest.

Entering Sunday's game against the Cardinals, the Colts will
have gone 77 days without a TD catch.

The league's only unbeaten home teams for 1992 reside in 
Pennsylvania, where the Eagles and Steelers are both 6-0.

S.H
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Wilbur Marshall
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:36:01 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Atomic Biophysics H.H.M.I.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <829@blue.cis.pitt.edu> rtcst3+@pitt.edu (Robert   T Conticello) writes:
>In article <51653@seismo.CSS.GOV> perez@seismo.CSS.GOV (Ricardo L. Perez) writes:
>>

 >  I don't have any problem with his ferocity or hitting hard, but every game
 >that I've seen Marshall play he's been flagged for a late hit.  I don't have
 >a problem with him delivering a hard hit to a quarterback, but I have seen
 >him on more than one occasion use his helmet to spear the quarterback as well.
 >
 >Actually, I don't have a problem with Waters hitting low so long as he doesn't
 >use his helmet as a weapon, or go low on a quarterback standing in the pocket
 >or running out of bounds (like the infamous Jim Everett incident a few years
 >back).  It's understandable for Waters to tackle low since lets face it, most
 >running backs are heavier and perhaps stronger than he is.  I don't mean
 >to defend Andre Waters too much since I do believe he deserved his "Dirty"
 >Waters nickname.
 >
 >-rob

Did anyone notice they both are from Buddy Ryan coached defenses ?

Hummmmm....
From: satish@a.chem.upenn.edu (Satish Nair)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: RE: Ray Handley's firing
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:52:44 GMT
Distribution: rec.sport.football.pro
Organization: University of Pennsylvania





yes it's true that parcells timing of retirement was poor in that we lost
bill bellicheck to the browns as head coach.  however, (much to the
contrary of what folks believe) parcells left the giants organization not
only for health reasons but because he and giants management couldn't see
eye to eye.  he wanted to draft players which the giants organization did
not want (he wanted cortez kennedy, giants org. wanted rod hampton).  i
don't think they left on the best of terms and hence i don't feel he had
any loyalties to management as such.

this is mainly the reason why i don't think parcells will return to the
giants.  he wants to be in control of things from the ground up and not
given some players that management drafts.

additionally, i disagree that parcells left the organization with a limited
pool of personnel for head coach candidate.  i think ron erhardt would've
made a great coach (i think barry foster and the steelers' offense will back
me up on this one).  ray is not just a bad coach but also a bully who has
driven his team into the garbage dump!

satish nair
From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: The Dynasty Continues..........
Date: 19 Dec 92 08:42:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1gth45INNq1v@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> djd@agent99.Eng.Sun.COM (Dave Damkoehler - Sun BOS Editor) writes:
>I'll take this as a challenge. Pick any team of the 80s or 90s, and
>demonstrate that it includes a player at every position equal to the
>following:
>
>		1966 Packers		80s or 90s team
>		^^^^^^^^^^^^		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, so it's the 66 Packers vs any 80s/90s team?

This issue has been covered too. Three years ago, in an argument with
Paul Benjamin in the 49ers vs the Steelers. His point was that the Steelers
were greater because they got more HOFers.

But why is that important? If I were a 49er fan, I only want to see the
49ers win. Four championships with Craig Puki, Jack Reynolds, Michael Walter
and Matt Millen as inside linebackers are no different from four championships
with Jack Lambert/Ray Nitschke. If you are comparing the accomplishments of 
the ILBs, then sure, the Steelers or the Packers have the definite edge, but 
hey, when comparing team accomplishments, the edge is gone.

What does it imply? you don't need that many HOF players to win four 
championships.  They'll only have four sure HOFers (Montana, Lott, Rice, 
and Craig) and a few longshots (Cross, Haley and Clark).  Yet their 
championships are every bit as real as the Steelers'/Packers'.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 12 Dec 1992 10:14:15 CST
From: <U13141@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Bears improvements

Well, another season is gone for the Bears. And here are the reasons why:
 1. Unwillingness to get good players. In the past I blasted Ditka for his
desire to get "good people". Well, I don't think it's all his fault. When you
have cheap, anal-retentive owners, what can you do? I'm quite sure if McCaskey
sold that team to someone who is willing to spend some money, maybe they will
look better as a team. Right now, the Bears are one of the slowest and least-
talented teams in football. I'm sorry but the Tom Waddles and the Dante'Jones
just don't cut it. If you want to lay sole blame on the Bears problems, blame
it on Mike McCaskey.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Schmidt Computer Rankings through 8-Dec
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 18:57:56 GMT

<3100@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) said:
>In article <1g35nhINNhv7@gap.caltech.edu> schmke@cco.caltech.edu (Kevin Todd Schmidt) writes:
>>Rank Team                      Points  Record Sch. Str.  Last Week   Change
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>1    San_Francisco             80.873  11-2-0  70.320  (  2,  80.080)  +1
>>2    Dallas                    79.867  11-2-0  70.896  (  1,  80.192)  -1
>
>Much as I hate this part, I have to agree with it.  Dallas has to show
>something in Washington this week to really prove their status as contenders.

If I read the "rankings" correctly above, why does Dallas need to prove
they are contenders.  They've compiled the exact same record as SF against
tougher competition.  It would seem that SF is the one who needs to prove
themselves.

>>5    Pittsburgh                75.782  10-3-0  69.219  (  5,  76.692)  +0
>>6    Houston                   75.423   8-5-0  70.375  (  8,  75.416)  +2
>>7    Kansas_City               75.369   8-5-0  71.579  (  6,  76.570)  -1
>>10   Buffalo                   73.321   9-4-0  68.219  (  9,  74.863)  -1
>>11   San_Diego                 72.982   8-5-0  69.683  ( 12,  72.366)  +1
>
>I can't understand putting San Diego beneath all these other AFC teams.
>Pittsburgh barely squeaked by Seattle, Houston is always in disarray, Kansas
>City is too inconsistent, and Buffalo has lost two in a row to (at the time)
>4-7 team and a 3-9 team.  San Diego, though, has won 7 of 8, and is on track
>to become the first team to make the playoffs after an 0-4 start.

I agree.  SD looks to be legitimate.  Although their opponents strength is
less than Houston and KC.

>>9    Washington                73.859   8-5-0  71.258  ( 10,  72.679)  +1
>
>I don't think that it is right to have Washington so low.  They have
>won convincingly the last two weeks (albeit against Phoenix and New York).
>The return of Green and Lachey seems to have catalyzed the team.

I suppose the rankings take the entire season into account and not just a
certain string of games.

>>3    Philadelphia              79.679   8-5-0  73.570  (  3,  79.208)  +0
>>4    New_Orleans               76.889  10-3-0  70.423  (  4,  77.235)  +0
>
>I also don't see putting Philadelphia ahead of New Orleans.  The Saints'
>defense is playing unbelievably well right now -- they look like the Eagles
>of last year.  Their offense has also picked it up recently.  If they can
>get over their San Francisco jinx, they are as likely to make the Super
>Bowl as anybody.

I think NO is ranked lower because of the strength of their schedule.
Strange how NO with a better record against weaker opponents is behind
Philly, but Dallas with the same record against tougher opponents is
behind SF.  Something isn't right here.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: rweisbe
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Hall of Fame
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:42:57 GMT
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center


  A couple of hall of fame questions.

1) What is the process for one being admitted into the hall
   of fame. If one holds a desirable NFL record will that put
   you in the hall of fame?  Do sport writers nominate players
   for it. Is there a waiting period after retirement before
   you are admitted?


2) Are the following people in the hall of fame?
   
   Dan Fouts
   Jointer
   Jack Kemp
   Jim Plunket (sp)
   Roman Gabrial (sp)
   Ken Stabler
   
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: hariharn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Hariharan)
Subject: Re: `Redskins Repeat !!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: To all non-Redskin fans, after the Redskins beat up on the Cowboys this 
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 09:20:08 GMT

In article <XaR=Y4-@engin.umich.edu> sudhama@engin.umich.edu (Sudhama Gopalan) writes:
>In article <Bz43LI.Cuv@andy.bgsu.edu> dlingle@orchestra.bgsu.edu (Donald Lingle) writes:
>>Sunday, Beware Of The Super Bowl Champs!
>>    I will agree that the Skins are having an up and down season thus far.  But 
>>if we beat the Cowboys this Sunday, you must agree that the Redskins will look 
>>pretty good for repeating as Super Bowl Champs.
>>    The skins have had a bunch of injuries, combined with the late pre-season 
>>start of Mark Rypien.  Some of our players are now returning, (Darrell Green,
>>Jim Lachey), and Rypien's coming out of his slump.
>>    I'm happy to see the Cowboys and Redskins games now mean something.  Before
>>last year, Cowboy fans would hide the week before a Redskin vs. Cowboys game. 
>>As for the 49ers, Vikings, Eagles, Packers, & Saints, I know you would love to 
>>go get a easy Super Bowl victory against an AFC team, but you'll have to wait 
>>for Joe Gibbs to retire or better yet, coach your team.
>>    Well, good luck to all NFL fans.  I am just "touring" the user group.  This
>>id actually belongs to a Pittsburgh Steeler's Fan.
>
>
>Well, I too hope the 'Skins thrash the Cowpokes. Personally, I don't care for/
>hate either. All I'm concerned about is the 49ers - more specifically Montana.
>I'm one of those weirdos who has never seen Montana in action - here's hoping
>the 49ers secure home field advantage before their last game so that I can have
>the pleasure of watching Joe for the first time.
>

Joe who ?

:-) 
-- 
**************************************************************************
Ramesh Hariharan , Chem Engg. Dept., Princeton Univ. 
Research topic : Stabilization of Colloids using diblock copolymers.
Research baap : Bill Russel (no ! not the Celtic legend)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: The Dynasty Continues..........
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 16 DEC 92 14:03:57    

In article <1992Dec15.201324.25111@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes...

>In article <1992Dec15.174724.8216@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>>I could put up with the "best QB of all time" and "best safety of all 
>>time" crap but this "best team of all time" has shoved me over the 
>>edge.  I'll bet none of you even remember the 60s Packers.
>>
>>I'm not going to say that the 60s Packers were better than the 80s 
>>49ers.  I don't want to insult you.  But you better freakin knock it 
>>off 'CUS YOU'RE REALLY PISSIN ME OFF!!!!!
> 
>So are you, John!
> 
>I am really fed up with your "Packers are the best of all-time" nonsense 
>just because they won 5 championships in the bush-league 60s. Which is easier?
>winning one playoff game to be champions or winning 3 playoff games
>to be champions? winning in a 14-team league or winning in a 28-team
>league?

I'm not going to argue with you, Ed, because you are not rational.

I would just like to point out that I did *not* say that the Packers 
are the best team of all time.

JGH
From: bo643@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Frederick E. Vaughn)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: SUPER BOWLS
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:48:46 GMT
Reply-To: fvaughn@lynx.crc.northeastern.Edu (Frederick E. Vaughn)
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I know that this is probably an FAQ that's been asked to death, but could
someone PLEEEEEEEEZE list the sites of the previous 26 Super Bowls (cities and
stadiums, s'il vous plait)?

FRED, who's fed up with these tired Viking Queens and wants to see the VIKINGS
on the field!!
-- 
********** fvaughn@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (PRIMARY)
FREDERICK* bo643@cleveland.freenet.cwru.edu (SECONDARY) 
ELOY	 *"R - E - S - P - E - C - T."
VAUGHN   * 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: wisp@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Wisp)
Subject: Re: The Play of the Day (Skins/Dallas)
Keywords: Lucky Break! Aikman
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:05:12 GMT

In article <BzCxsK.81v@abode.ttank.com> eric@abode.ttank.com (Eric C. Bennett) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.153358.12033@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN P. GLORIA) writes:

[typical jpg drivel...]

>What is this saying then about Rypien? Since Aikman has led the Cowboys on a
>very respectable 11-3 record, Rypien has led the Redskins to a 9-5 record. He
>hasn't looked good all year and he didn't look good during the
>Cowboys/Redskins game.

[cogent comment...]

Rypien needs no comment. There's nothing wrong with him that a goodly dose of
strychnine wouldn't cure. Come back Jay, all is forgiven...

The Wisp. [who's never *quite* forgiven LT...]
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro