From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: AFC TEAMS STINK
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:34:19 GMT

In article <By6zzH.179@acsu.buffalo.edu> v073pzuy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Damned for all time...) writes:
>You stated that you felt ***no*** AFC team (that wasn't in the SB) could have
>beaten the NFC champ.
>
>I guess you're wrong.  In 1985, the Dolphins beat the Bears on Monday Night
>Football in Miami, didn't they?  That was the only Bears' loss that season.
Why am I wrong? The Bears losing to the Dolphins at the Orange Bowl doesn't
mean they would have lost in New Orleans again, especially since the Dolphins 
gave up 500 yards rushing in the playoffs. Go back to the articles a week 
ago when I argued about this with Gidi. If you just want a regular season 
result as evidence, then there shouldn't be any doubts. Buffalo lost the 
Detroit last year, they lost to Washington two years ago ....

>So, please, try again.
No need to, because you haven't prove anything.

>What does the fact that the Broncos lost to one NFC team in one game have to do
>with the idea that 8 other NFC teams could have beaten them, in your opinion?
Where did I say 8 other NFC teams? quote it.

And if you must know, these are the reasons:
1) The Saints and the 49ers have had better seasons than the Broncos.
2) They had defense, the Broncos didn't.

>Your dreamed matchups didn't happen, either.  Mine (1985, Miami--vs--Bears) did.
>My team was also victorious.  So I find most of what you say pure fallacy.
Nope, your team wasn't victorious in a playoff matchup, only a regular season
game at home. Tell me the score of Bears vs Dolphins at a neutral site in
January 86.

>No.  There is no bottom line.  Since it's hypothetical, any outcome that is 
>physically likely has enough of an element of truth in it to be considered
>valid.
Yes, just like UCLA is also physically likely to beat the Bills, yet what
did you say? 

  "I admit the Bills will be a prohibitive favorite to win." 

Doesn't seem like any outcome to me.

>People with brains admit that there are other possibilities, instead of being
>close-minded and saying, "These teams were all also better than the AFC champs.
>Period."
Well, if you consider there are other possibilities in the N hypothetical 
matchups I listed, we can examine them one by one. Yet you weren't talking 
about N matchups. You were talking about one particular matchup, such as the
Rams vs the Broncos in 89. What are the possibilities?

a) Rams win
b) Broncos win

I pick possibility (a). Are you telling me that I must pick both (a) & (b)?

>The 49ers may have beaten the Broncos.  The options here are not limited to,
>"The Broncos lose" and "the Niners win," although I'm sure JPGloria would
>agree with you (nice company you're in there.)
Oh, are you telling me that when I pick the outcome of a hypothetical
playoff matchup, I can predict something in addition to "SF > Denver"?
Please tell me what it is. I bet when you make picks, you must be doing
something like: SF will beat Denver, and Denver will beat SF.

>Now you've seen it.  THE DOLPHINS WOULD HAVE BEATEN THE BEARS IN 1985, 
>ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN TWISTED LOGIC.  THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO OTHER OUTCOME.
>YOU ARE WRONG IN SAYING THAT NO AFC TEAM COULD HAVE BEATEN THE BEARS, THUS
>INVALIDATING YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.
You have NO evidence that the Dolphins would have beaten the Bears in Jan. 
1986, in the playoffs. They beat Bears in the week 13? They beat the Pats 
in week 15 too. So based on your "regular season => playoff" logic, there
could have been no other outcome, Dolphins would have lost to the Bears too.

>>1) You are not into hypothetical matchups. You are just forced into this thread.
>>2) Anything can happen, i.e. you have no ability to form an opinion.
>>3) You pick the Bills. Or is that possible? since you advocate "anything can 
>>happen" if you happen to root for the underdog in the hypothetical matchup.
>
>I admit the Bills will be a prohibitive favorite to win.  
Oh, so what happen to "the options are not limited to the Bruins lose and 
the Bills wins"?

>Since the game isn't being played, 
Well, the game between the Broncos and the 49ers in 1987 isn't being played 
either.

>I HAVE NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN ANY SUCH OUTCOME.
But I have, because you contradict yourself in the whole argument. When the 
team you root for is the favorite in a hypothetical matchup, then it is "a 
prohibitive favorite to win". When it's the underdog, then you cry that 
anything can happen ....

>Then I pick.  I easily concede the game could go the other way, though--you 
>do not (ie., all these NFC teams would also have beaten the AFC champ.)
Because I see these NFC teams as superior teams. You have any problem with that?

>>>As you say, "Stick to the facts."  I said the Redskins beat the Niners 
>>>at the 'Stick.
>>So what's the score of that game? 
>Go back and find it.  1987.  Look it up, come back, and tell us.
Dumbo, you made a claim, it's your burden to prove it. Can't prove it?
then what you said was just hot air.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro