HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN)
Subject: Re: VIKINGS WIN!!! 6-3
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:43:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.134001.27322@bmw.mayo.edu> bergerson@mayo.edu writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec20.210940.14098@PacBell.COM>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:
>->Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
>->From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN)
>->Subject: Re: VIKINGS WIN!!! 6-3
>->
>->sorry, not to cause any flames, but if the Vikes cannot
>->score anymore than 6 points, their playoff advancement hopes are
>->rather dismal.
>->-- 
>SO WHAT!!  You only need 6 points if the other team only gets 3. :^)
>
>Awesome defense.
>
Spoken like a true FAN!  Pause.....Reality check! Get Real, please
for your own sanity. Yes GREAT game for the fans, but do you
seriously contend that they can win through the playoffs this way?

-- 
 ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know
everything or nothing about it."   Olin Miller
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN)
Subject: Re: It wasn't Pretty (49ers WON)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:35:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.210943.23105@weber.com> steve@weber.com (Steve Keshen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.170701.7522@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:
>>Gary, you just don't give up do you. :-) Tell you what, 
>>practically the WHOLE world has the Niners as favorites to
>>go all the way despite their winning margin. Check out
>>their record, 13-2. Also check out their QBs: Young, Bono,
>>and that other guy, hmmm, oh yeah, JOE MONTANA. Hmmm,
>
>Ya right.  And let me guess - he's throwing and not feeling any pain.  Oh,
>and he'll be back in a couple of weeks right?
>
>Montana WAS great,  Young is OK,  Bono's a wannabe.
>
>--
Young is OK! Incredulous! Are we a bit jealous Steve? Check out the 
stats Steve, re: Highest rated QB in the NFL. Bono, in your eyes might 
be a wannabe, but Bono is a BONOfide QB in the NFL and could easily be 
a starting QB anywhere else.  Your response is typical of certain
net.whiners. :-)

-- 
 ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know
everything or nothing about it."   Olin Miller
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: Adriene_Nazaretian@QM.cis.YALE.EDU (ALN - Go Giants!)
Subject: San Diego in playoffs?????
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:47:14 GMT

True? 

Could this be the only team to start 0-4 and make it?  Anyone go 0-3 and 
make the playoffs?  Just wonderin'

A
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: john7552@mach1.wlu.ca (Niall Johnson u)
Subject: Ronnie Lott
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:17:39 GMT

I watched parts of the NO - NY Jets game this afternoon - Randy Cross
announced his selections for players of the year. I missed the O player
(anyone catch it?) but his selections were interesting.

He picked George Seifert as Coach of the Year, Ricky Watters and Brett Favre
as Rookies of the Year (he argued that 1st real season) and Ronnie Lott as D
Player of the Year.

I few of his old buddies and SF 49er people eh?

But having seen Lott play recently I gotta agree. Lott may be getting real
old now but he is playing damn well. Made some big plays again in today's
late game as the Raiders pipped the Redskins 21-20. Over the last few weeks
Lott definitely has a claim to being the best defensive player in the
league.

As a 9er fan this is one player I think they goofed on. I was disappointed
when I heard the 49ers hadn't protected him and the Raiders signed him. Good
move LA. Its been good to see him continuing to play well, even if not for
the 9ers.

Opinions?

Ciao

Niall Johnson,
Dept. of Geography,
Wilfrid Laurier University.
     john7552@mach1.wlu.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: root@robby.cmp.rpi.edu ()
Subject: Re: Vikings Playoff chances/QB
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:01:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.154508.12544@ttsi.lonestar.org> hbishop@ttsi.lonestar.org (Huett Bishop) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.135428.11565@hellgate.utah.edu> twolf@cs.utah.edu (Tom Wolf) writes:
>>>In article <13773@express>, currie@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Currie) writes:
>>>->COME ON!  Buerlein???  Tomczak???  These guys are no better (possibly
>              ^^^^^^^^
>Yeah, right. The QB that most coaches said they would rather have as their
>backup.
>
>The backup who took Dallas into the playoff last year with a 5 game winning
>streak, starting with the thrashing of the Redskins. At RFK.
>
>>>->worse) than what the Vikings have now.  I agree the Vikings can improve
>>>->themselves by upgrading the QB position, but I don't think the rest of
>>>->the NFC is `shivering' at the prospect.  They still have questionable
>>>->special teams, a running back who fumbles waaay too often, and an
>>>->overly conservative offensive scheme.
>>>->        
>>>->Kim
>>>->
>>>Are you a guy or a gal???  Either way, you don't know what you are talking 
>>>about.
>>
>What the H**l is this? My wife knows more about football, college or pro than
>about 75% of men. She knows individual and team stats, coaches, players and
>where they came from, how they did in college, Super Bowl Stats, the play-off
>tie breakers and an infinite amount of strategy, offensive and defensive.
>
>Whenever we enter a football pool she has about 90% accuracy and can tell
>you the playoff picture during each Sunday game and what the affect of each
>game has on the playoff picture.
>
>So don't think that males have a lock on the love of football.
>
>Personally I believe you don't think at all.
>
>>
>>What does this person's sex have to do with their analysis? What, men can't
>>discuss things rationally? Or women can't? I think you are out of line here.
>>Leave a person's sex out of the discussion and just respond to the posting.
>>
>>Well, that is enough flaming, you will probably get more publicly on the net.
>>I have to admit though, I think your posting merits a public apology.
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hear Hear! I agree.
>>
>>Tom Wolf

Hey butthead!!!,

The poster signed the name Kim... All I think he wanted to know is wether
or not "kim" was a female. I know both male and female "Kims".

Let's cut this over-sensitive shit out! We're starting to sound like a bunch
of militant feminists for god's sake.


--------------------
J.R. Ordon

GO VIKES (and VIKE-etes!)
From: mark@totaltec.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Was Re:GIANTS kicked ASS
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:17:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Total Tec Systems, Inc.

In article <Adriene_Nazaretian.73.0@QM.cis.YALE.EDU>, Adriene_Nazaretian@QM.cis.YALE.EDU (ALN - Go Giants!) writes:
> In article <1992Dec19.210009.13105@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:
>>From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN)
>>Subject: GIANTS kicked ASS (is ALN happy?)
>>Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:00:09 GMT
>>Hey, no need to say much except the HOSS looked
>>good, the O and D looked good. Hmmm, why were they
>>the underdogs?  Again, the NFC (Giants) rules against the
>>AFC (Chiefs). Just think a 5-9 team kicks ass on an
>>AFC team with a 9-5 record (records prior to the
>>game). This only adds more credence that the
>>bottom NFC teams (record wise) can beat the TOP
>>AFC teams. YES, Homey thinks so! Does the AFC
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What the hell is this 'Homey thinks' so crap John ? It's not bad enough
that we have to listen to your endless '49er's are great' shit but now
this 'Homey' shit. Give me a break will ya.

>>really think they can win the SB? Shit, Homey don't
>>think so. The score? Who cares. The Giants W-O-N
>>Well, okay:  Giants  35  Chiefs 21
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: MVP
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:28:40 GMT

<1992Dec28.234251.21942@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor):
><1992Dec28.223124.3814@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>How isn't Young the best QB on his own team in 1992? You mean Bono plays
>>>a better QB in 1992? or Montana plays the position better in 1992?
>>
>>Depends on who you talk to.  I'm not saying he's not the best this year.
>>I'm saying that, depending on who you talk to, 
>Well, it doesn't depend on who I talk to. I have not seen or heard anyone
>saying that Bono/Montana PLAYED a better season than Young in 1992.

Geez, I was warned to not get into a discussion with you.  Now I know why.

>>there are others who think
>>that the other two QBs are just as good if not better.
>But that has NOTHING to do with the 1992 MVP. "as good" is not the same as
>"actually play as well on the field in 1992". MVP is earned on the field,
>not on the bench.

The MVP, Most Valuable Player, is the player who is determined to be the
most valuable to his team during the regular season.  If I've got three
great tailbacks on my team then *individually* they are not as valuable
as the team that only has one great tailback.  Do you understand the logic
here?  If Young isn't in there you put in Bono who "could start for any
other team" and he does the same thing.  How "valuable" does that make
Young?  Look at Barry Sanders, if Sanders goes out who comes in and takes
his place?  Do you think Sanders might be a little more valuable to his
team than Young is to his?  I think most people would say yes.  People who
weren't just being argumentative that is.

Young has had a great year and is statistically the best QB in the league.
He took over for their other QB who was statistically the best QB in the
league.  Some of the "experts" around here think that Bono is just as good
as Young.  To me that reads that any *one* of them is not that valuable to
their team as, say, Barry Sanders is to his team.

This is my last word on this thread.  I don't have the time to argue with
someone who is being purposely dense.  Yes, I think it's on purpose
because I've seen other posts of yours that were well written and logical.


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.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Miami Dolphins - AFC East Champs!!!!!
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 04:46:35 GMT
Organization: VMark Software, Inc.

Ok...  so their offense has sputtered and looks lethargic.
Ok...  so they haven't looked pretty in some of their victories.

But...
They end up with an 11-5 record, which is a GREAT record...
Their only losses come on the road to San Fran. and NO (two teams with 
some of the best records in the league), to Buffalo (another 11-5 team),
the very respectable Colts (9-6), and to the always troublesome Jets.

But...
They end up as the AFC East Champs!!!  And, with the 2nd best placing in
the AFC, they get a first round bye..

Now, we can only hope that those people who participated in "The Bet" (and
all it's incarnations) can finally realize that Miami is indeed the better
team :-)

Also, we can only hope that Offerdahl comes back so the Miami Defense
(especially run defense) becomes ready for everyone...

And, who will Miami play???

Well, if San Diego wins, they will play San Diego in Miami...
If Kansas City wins, they play the winner of the Houston/Buffalo game...

Anyway, go Fins...

-- 
David T. Meeks            || "New shadows tugging at the corner of his eye
VMark Software, Inc.      ||  Jostling for attention as the sunlight flares
uvmark!davem@merk.com     ||  Through a curtains tear, shuffling its beams
davem%uvmark@merk.com     ||  As if in nervous anticipation of another day"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: metv@triton.unm.edu ()
Subject: Re: Sleepers (Redskins fan) 
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 18:20:11 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: usa

In article <BzoGpL.4IG@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> thaddeus@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Thaddeus R. Crews) writes:
>In article <wjgr#nd@lynx.unm.edu> metv@triton.unm.edu () writes:
>>
>>Redskins - If Redskins have a better quarterback like Young, Montana, or Marino,
>>they would win the game.  I'm not saying that Rypien is bad; he's an average 
>>QB.  Next Week, Raiders at home, they should win this one.  I'm a Redskins fan
>                                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>but I don't really think that they are a threat to Niners and Cowboys.
>>
>>Packers - This is a team that I want see in playoff.  Now it's down to Skins
>                                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>and them.  I want to see Packers go because they deserve it.  They have playing
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>well and winning the important game.  They would be a good match up for
>>       
>>Metro 
>
>Metro, *I* am a Redskins fan.  *You* are a person who enjoys football and
>is pleased by the Packers play this year, as are many of us.  But do not
>go around calling yourself a fan of a team that you do not even want to
>make the playoffs.  The Redskins have done a wonderful job of fighting
>through an above average number of key injuries this year and have shown
>themselves to be a class organization.  (There is a good story about this
>in THE SPORTING NEWS this week).  Anyway, most of the folks on the net
>tend to use the word "FAN" a little more seriously than you do, Metro;
>perhaps you might enjoy the league even more if you find a team to stand
>behind in good times as well as bad.
>
>Just MHO.
>-- 
>-- Thad Crews                             (email thaddeus@vuse.vanderbilt.edu)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"I have a friend named Void and he is really upset.  He cannot cash
>any of his paychecks..." 

I'm sorry if I said something to offend the Redskins or Redskins fans.  When
I say I'm a fan of the Redskins, I am very serious.  I will be their fan for
a long long long time "good or bad".  Their organization, players, and coaches
are great.  Yes, I like to see them in playoff and repeat; but they are having
problem winning big games.  I was very disappointed last week when they lost
to the Eagles.  I was jumping up and down; but they lost.  Last week I was
hoping that the Redskins would win and the Vikes would lost; but didn't 
happend.  That way the Skins and the Packs would be in playoff.  If the 
Skins doesn't play well; they won't last 1st or 2nd round.  Anyway either 
the Skins or the Packs go; I will be happy.  I think the Packs have more
chance to knock Niners or Cowboys down.  
I'm a Raiders fan also and still is.  I probably will not be any another 
team fan except this two.  And yes I enjoy watching good football games.

Metro 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: billms@eecs.umich.edu (William Mangione-Smith)
Subject: Re: No Cowboys 'D' in Pro Bowl
Organization: University of Michigan
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:36:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.172442.13349@unet.net.com> asgari@ssc00.net.com (Asgari Roger) writes:

   In article <Bztz8t.4ry@abode.ttank.com> eric@abode.ttank.com (Eric C. Bennett) writes:
   >Does anyone feel it was right that no Dallas Cowboy players made it to the Pro
   >Bowl this year? They have the #1 defense in the league. Granted their defense
   >is much more a 'team' defense rather than a couple of players excelling at a
   >certain position, I feel that they at least deserved one person from their
   >squad on the Pro Bowl roster to represent the team. I know that the Pro Bowl
   >rosters are voted on.... I just makes me mad that the Cowboys have worked so
   >hard on defense this year and got the #1 ranking and no one from the team made
   >it to the Pro Bowl.
   >
   >Eric
   >
   >-- 
   >
   >		Internet: eric@abode.ttank.com
   >		    uucp: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!eric
   >

		   I completely agree with you.  I felt that they should of 
	   by all accounts had atleast one chap  on  D going to the PB. But
	   deep down I knew this in all likelyhood  would occur.


The pro-bowl is a recognition for individual play, not team play.  You've got
to make a case for why one of the Dallas chaps specifically should have been
chosen ahead of one of the chaps who did make the team.  So which of the guys
on the pb roster do you think don't belong?

This reminds me a bit of the Chicago Bulls outrage last year when Grant
didn't make the all-star team.  They some how felt that the defending champs
are automatically entitled to have at least 3 players on the team.  You could
make a good case in favor of grant, but that wasn't one of them.  You can
probably make a good case in favor of one or more of the Dallas players, but
the #1 ranking isn't one of them either.

Bill
--
-------------------------------
	Bill Mangione-Smith
	billms@eecs.umich.edu
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: 'Twas NBC Re: Raiders vs. Redskins (CBS' unprofessionalism)
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:32:21 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <Bzw5B5.33n@acsu.buffalo.edu> kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
|After Washington's touchdown that put them in the lead 20-14 in the fourth
|quarter, CBS displayed the words to "Hail to the Redskins" while the
|Redskins' marching band played the song. I thought that NFL football
|coverage was supposed to be unbiased. I guess I was wrong. This was a very
|unprofessional move by CBS.

I disagree.  In virtually every broadcast the network will try to find
something about the game to feature to add interest about the game.  In
one case we've seen highlights about the retirement of Singleterry, in 
another the comeback of Joe Montana.  In this instance it was a feature
on the only marching band in NFL football and the college like atmosphere
in the stadium.  In some cases these features may be distracting and some
"sensitive" fans might find them annoying but they're going to happen whether
you like it or not.  In this case the game was quite entertaining in of itself.
-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: It wasn't Pretty (49ers WON)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 19:54:26 GMT

<1992Dec21.181830.17006@hellgate.utah.edu> twolf@cs.utah.edu (Tom Wolf) said:
>In article <1h5f36INN4u5@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>> >Young is OK! Incredulous! Are we a bit jealous Steve? Check out the 
>> >stats Steve, re: Highest rated QB in the NFL. Bono, in your eyes might 
>> >be a wannabe, but Bono is a BONOfide QB in the NFL and could easily be 
>> >a starting QB anywhere else.  Your response is typical of certain
>> >net.whiners. :-)
>>
>>Danny White was the top rated QB in the league in 86, SO WHAT !
>>(until he broke his wrist)week 8
>>
>>There are lies, damn lies 
>>and quarterback ratings......
>
>True, but putting it in Cowboy terms. Which would you rather have, Steve
>Young, or Troy Aikman? I think most people, excluding Cowboy fans, would
>chose Young. And not just because of statistics.

If I read this right the people doing the choosing here word not be Cowboy
fans, therefore they would be opponents fans.  If I could choose a QB for
an opposing team I'd choose the lesser of the two also.


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: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Forget Reeves What about the Broncos
Date: 30 Dec 1992 22:29:54 GMT
Organization: NASA - Langley Research Center
Distribution: world
Reply-To: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
NNTP-Posting-Host: jpmac.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Dec30.172817.14870@netcom.com>, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael 
Zimmers) writes:
> >
> >Sheila Cobb
> 
> Sigh.  If we have to let women back into this newsgroup, can't we
> do better than this?
> 
> -- 
> Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984

Isn't that a bit sexist? Have you forgotten ALN? You know, the fiesty Giants
fan continually at odds with JPG? That's Adriene L. Narazetian and John P. 
Gloria if you're as clueless as your post indicates. 

           John Paul Phillips
                  "Azjohn"
NASA - Langley Research Center
        Hampton, Virginia, USA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jjungbau@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (Jim Jungbauer)
Subject: Vikes-Pack (was Re: Green to go full strength against the Pack.)
Organization: Washington State University, Pullman
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 04:53:50 GMT

In article <Bzn6vL.Hup@ns1.nodak.edu> sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (The Purple Bleeder ) writes:

>Secondly, Green would like to establish who is the real
>boss in the NFC-Central. A lot of people might get the
>feeling that the best team in the NFC-Central is the
>Pack eventhough the Vikes have the Division title, going
>by the Pack's recent performances and also the lack luster
>show of the Viking O.  Green would like to put that
>to rest by a Viking victory.
>
>Any comments on this from other Vike-fans???

Well, since you asked... :-)  I agree.  A win by the Vikes over the Pack
would make it clear that they are the best in the Central.  There's no
question that they deserve the division title, but there's still some 
question among a lot of people about who is the best team.  It would be nice
if the Vikes could come away with a win and put these questions to rest.
It will be tough, because the Pack is definitely playing better football
right now.  I just hope that this is the game where the Vikes iron out their
offensive problems, and in the process gain some confidence for the playoffs.
Incidentally, I don't think they will ever completely solve their offensive
problems until they get a real QB, but I'm hoping against hope that Gannon or
Salisbury can get hot and we can make the most of this postseason.

>Vikings: 1992-NFC-Central Champs !!!!

I love how that sounds!


Jim
-- 
Jim Jungbauer               | Go Vikings, North Stars, Twins, Cougars!
jjungbau@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu  | 
EECS Department             | "Nice move by Bellows... big drive... SCORES!"
Washington State University |    -- Mike Emrick, 1991 Norris Division Finals
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: It wasn't Pretty (49ers WON)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 16:20:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.082049.23606@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>>How many playoff victories does Young have?  
>
>At least one, possibly more.  He beat the Vikes back in '87, 
1987 playoffs (Jan. 1988) at Candlestick:

    Minnesota 36  San Francisco 24

The 49ers got blown out in the 1st half, 20-3. Young came in for the 2nd
half to make the score respectable.  I don't realize that 49ers fans have 
to resort to MORAL victory. 

>and there was a lot of "quarterback controversy" talk at the beginning 
>of the '88 season.  
Yes, and that's because Young did well in a mop-up game, and the whiners
thought that productive garbage time is actually a good indicator of a QB's 
ability.

And BTW, Zimmers, Young's NFL career is not just starting. His record was
1-4 in 1985, 2-14 in 1986. Doesn't look like he could have done better with
the Seahawks either.

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