From: un032221@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Eagles : YIKES!
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:37:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: West Virginia Network for Educational Telecomputing

In article <1992Oct7.165942.3017@PacBell.COM>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.153523.6594@seq.uncwil.edu> rsmith@seq.uncwil.edu (Ross Smith) writes:
>>jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:

I am tired of reading this shit.  Let's get a few things straight, on both
sides.
>>
>>>The Niners best will ALWAYS be beat the Eagles best. 

Pure 49er woofing.  There is NO fact in that, and the use of the wors ALWAYS
shows that it is not even an opinion worth bothering with.  You might say "The
49ers this year are much better than the Eagles are, and are likely to be so
for quite some time" and then back it up with facts.  But do you?  No.  What we
have here is pure woofing, and nothing worth commenting for all these threads.

>>>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!

What does history have to do with who's is this season's best team?  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.
>>
The 49ers have been great over the past decade, and they are used as a
measuring stick by many teams, but this really has little to do with this
season, except for maybe to establish how well they wrok together or whatever. 
The 49ers that take the field this Sunday are very different from those that
took it in January of 1990 against the Broncos.  The primary difference is Joe
Montana.  You don't know if Young can rise to the occasion in big games like
Montana, and early season indications are that he cannot.  Their loss to the
Bills shows that he is no Joe Montana.  Maybe it was a one time loss, after all
even Joe Montana, and John Elway are human, as is Young, but we won't know
until he shows us what to expect.  

>>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.

This is a rather childish response.  Let us dispel this bolonga.  Teams with
winning traditions are mor LIKELY to win a SB, but not guaranteed.  Your posts
lead me to believe that you think that the Eagles are incapable of winning the
Super Bowl because they hadn't done it in the past.  Winning traditions have to
start somewhere.  Even if the Eagles are not developing a winning tradition,
single season glories, or even flukes if you will, happen.  To say that the
Eagles don't have a losing tradition is wrong as well.  They were in the Super
Bowl in 1980, were one of the better teams during the 60s, and you saw that
they do indeed have 3 titles to their name, only one shy of the 49er team you
are praising.  Even more recently, they have been to the playoffs three times
in the last four years if I am correct.  
> 
>>>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.

I challenge you to get one first.  NO ONE can predict who the SB champion will
be.  If you say it is the 49ers, that is your best EDUCATED GUESS.  Someone
elses, mine included is the Eagles.  I, and others think this because the
Eagles this season have A:The talent level necessary, B:The (apparent) drive to
go the distance necessary, and C:have been winning steadily, and convincingly
enough to make it a safe educated guess that they will be making a run at the
Super Bowl title.  Do you deny that those things are necessary to win the
Super Bowl?  Do you deny that the Eagles are LIKELY to be at least in the final
four teams left at the end of the year?

>>>-- 
>>>  ---------  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

A nice coherent arguement, or at least I thought so.  Let's see what the
brilliant response was, shall we? 

> Yawn, Yawn, YAWN! Ross, in case in was unbeknownst to you, which is
> quite obvious, winning four games is hardly coming together. 

It is NOT just that they are 4-0 (or 4-1 now).  They have, at close inspection,
 everything that is deemed necessary to make a bid for the Super Bowl title.  
YES it is only four games, but that is what we have to look at, and from these
first four, Philadelphia is (at this point) the team that looks like the most
LIKELY to go the distance.  You keep reading into things that we are saying
that "playing the season is just a bother, hand the Eagles the crown now, and
save the owners some money."  No one is dumb enough to think that these first
games automatically put the Eagles into the Super Bowl, but again, in case you
are a bit slow, it is a good, safe educated guess that they MAY be there, and
it is AT THIS TIME more LIKELY that they will be than anyone else RIGHT NOW.
I pray that was clearly worded enough.

>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?). 

And how many times has something like that happened?  Is it not logical that
the team that dominates from start to finish is more likely to be in it?  If
you go back through the 80s, and early 90s, the more dominating teams have been
the ones to win MOST of the time.

>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.

It is called a rebuilding period.  Buddy Ryan was rebuilding the team, but his
coaching style, combined with a lack of running backs kept the team from being
able to compete for the super bowl as more than an also ran.  Now, things
APPEAR to be congealing

>  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

Very childish posts.  The worst part is you are reading things into our posts,
and not really accomplishing anything.
	-Skins fan that has one thing to say: "WAY TO GO MONK!!!"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro