From: jmd@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (joseph.m.dakes)
Subject: Re: Eagles Victory...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:06:15 GMT
Summary: Philadelphia at Dallas

In article <3241@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>, dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.200139.27364@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> jmd@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (joseph.m.dakes) writes:
> >Strange air down there in Dallas.  They think winning 20-10 is a
> >thrashing while losing 31-7 is a ballgame.
> 
> You know the facts, Joe.  Dallas played as good as Philly the first time,
> but turned it over.  They didn't the second time, and dominated them.

Of course I know the facts, I was at the game at the Vet.  And as it's
been said a couple hundred times before, the Eagles defense dominated
the Cowboys offense in the first game.  I don't care how many yards
the Cowboys put on their offensive stat sheets.  New Orleans outgained
the Eagles this past Sunday, too.  Alot of good it did them.  Remember
Dallas' lone TD in the first contest was set up by a fluke bounce off
Eric Allen's hands into the hands of Michael Irvin.  And that play came
after an Emmit Smith fumble which the refs failed to call.

In the second game, it should have been over at halftime.  But the Eagles
kept it close and even took the lead at one point.  The Birds even had a
chance to cut the lead to 20-17 or 20-13 with a couple minutes to play.
But McMahon was intercepted in Dallas territory.   I guess forcing
turnovers is dominating only when Dallas does it, huh?

> >Need I remind you that Emmitt got the majority of his 163-yards in
> >the fourth quarter?  The Eagles defense was tired becasue they were
> >on the field the entire first half.  A first half which saw the
> >mighty Dallas offense score all of three points.
> 
> This is hysterical.  First you say how the Eagles defense was on the field
> the whole first half, and then slam the Cowboys' offense in virtually the
> same breath.  Pretty funny.

You said the Cowboys offense was far superior to the Saints' and that
if the Saints could score 20 on the Eagles, Dallas would be able to
score more.  I pointed out that under almost the exact same circumstances,
i.e. the Eagles defense on the field for the entire first half, New
Orleans scored 17 while Dallas only had 3.  Make of it what you will.

> >And need I also
> >remind you that the score should have been 14-10 Eagles late in the
> >third quarter?  Only the refs blew the TD call.
> 
> Waa-waa-waa.  The refs robbed us, the refs robbed us.  The refs *gave* you
> the opportunity in the first place, with an unneccessary roughness call on
> Holt after the Eagles failed on third down.  Gee, so the score should have
> been 20-14.  Much different.

Notice how the Dallas fans shrug off any bad calls that go in their
favor.  I seem to remeber quite a bit of waa-waa's after Dallas lost
at RFK a few weeks ago.  And that on a call that could have gone either
way.  There was no question about Herschel's TD.  The refs just blew
the call.  There would have been alot more going on in Aikman's head
if the Eagles converted another of his turnovers into a 14-10 lead
rather than a 10-10 tie.  It could have been an entirely different game.

> >And may I add, led by a quarterback who has never won a playoff game.
> >Gawd this is going to be a fun week!
> 
> Again, hysterical, considering that the same could be said of your beloved
> Randall three days ago.  At least Aikman hasn't *lost* a playoff game.  Or
> three.  Cunningham is a hell of a lot shakier than Aikman ever was.

Yeah, and it was said about Randall a couple million times by his
distractors, which included every Dallas fan on the face of the earth.
And Aikman's never lost a playoff game because he's never taken Dallas
to the playoffs before this season.  He gets his first chance this
Sunday.


E-A-G-L-E-S

Joe Dakes
AT&T Microelectronics
555 Union Boulevard
Allentown, PA  18103
alux1!jmd

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro