From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Eagles : YIKES!
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:59:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.153523.6594@seq.uncwil.edu> rsmith@seq.uncwil.edu (Ross Smith) writes:
>jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>
>>The Niners best will ALWAYS be beat the Eagles best. End result, 
>>Niners WIN, Eagles LOSE. Please prove to me that the Eagles are
>>better than ANYBODY, based on championships and or SB wins. ZERO!
>>Come on, get a grip. The Niners are the one of the teams ALL other 
>>teams measure themselves against if they have any brains.Which most don't,BTW.
>
>Ummm... I would remind you that the Eagles had 3 NFL Championships to their
>name before the Niners even had one. The Eagles were back-to-back NFL Champs
>in '48-'49 and Champs again in '61...
>
Say What? 48-49...61...no comment.

>>The Eagles have yet to sustain any winning traditions that
>>have culminated in championships and SB wins. Get a clue. Clue to
>>the uninformed, just take a look of the traditions of the five
>>former SB winners. Do you see a commonality there? Clue: tradition!
>>It takes a winner to be a winner. The Eagles are not yet winners
>>of anything except 4 games, get a clue.
>>-- 
>>  ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@sysengr.pacbell.com	--------	
>
>I've tried to support some of what you have said before, but this post
>is pure and simple bullshit. Teams win when everything comes together at
>the right time. I would suggest that so far this season, that appears to
>be the case with the Eagles. They have won every game in a convincing
>fashion. And if you dont think the Saints game was convincing, I would
>remind you that Randall had taken a total of 16 snaps in pre-season games.
>Despite that, and despite turning the ball over at least 2 more times than
>the Saints (all on fumbles I might add...) they had enough of a ball control
>offense and superior defense to still dominate the game, and if not for
>a late 4th quarter TD by the Saints (when the Eagles went into the prevent
>D) and 2 missed PATs, the Eagles would have beaten the Saints by 11 points.
>
>-- 
>______________________________________________________________________________
>|rsmith@seq.uncwil.edu           Ross Smith              smith@oscar.udel.edu|
>|    "I really hate that dog...." - Dr. Chase Matthews, Pet Semetary 2       |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Victories that are easy are cheap. Those only are worth having
which come as the result of hard fighting."  -- Henry Ward Beecher

Yawn, Yawn, YAWN! Ross, in case in was unbeknownst to you, which is
quite obvious, winning four games is hardly coming together. What
does it take to enlighten you in the truth? Can't you understand that
winning four games or winning by convincing scores does NOT mean
jack shit unless you can sustain it. What I am simply attempting to
point out to you boneheads, regardless of what the Eagles are doing 
(or ANY team for that matter), this early in the season, is not a 
prelude to what the final standings will be (remember the wildcard
Raiders, winning it all?). What part of these don't you understand?  
For the record, I also think the Eagles are playing good up to now. 
They have an arsenal of weapons, but they have had these arsensal for a 
couple of years now and to what end.  Frustration, period. You bring up 
"would have's" and that just dosen't cut it. "IF Jim Kelly & Co. would 
have played better, against the RedSkins, they "could have" won 
last years SB"! Yawn, Yawn, YAWWWWNNNN!
-- 
  ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@sysengr.pacbell.com	--------	
  Let us be thankful for the fools; but for them the rest
  of us could not succeed.  -   Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro