From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: More predictions
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:50:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.023753.6361@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1993Jan11.032702.20834@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) :

>><1993Jan11.021315.13521@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>>Review:

>>>>Predictions:  
>>>>Washington 27  SF 10

>>>Well, I was way off here.  No doubt that a good overall team can beat a
>>>so-so team even if they have some great performances.  Of course,
>>>Washington *didn't* have any great performances.  I wasn't too far off on
>>>Young's play.  I thought it might leave people wondering a bit and there
>>>were some comments in the paper.  4 turnovers, tsk, tsk.

>>Y'know, Storga, it won't kill you to admit the Niners are a great team.

>Well, I would be lying to you if I did that.

Then you're all wet (understandable in this weather).  Both the Niners
and the Bowboys are great.

>>Granted, Saturday's performance blew chow, but the Niners showed perhaps
>>the season's best defensive performance and respectable special-teams
>>play -- things that I've heard count in the post-season.  

>"best defensive performance"?  Washington racked up 323 yards against them
>and might have tied the game had Rypien not fumbled ON HIS OWN.  That's
>luck, and you can't count on it.

Washington also scored a total of 13 points, all of which were on drives
following turnovers, and ten of which were virtual gimmes.  Considering
how badly Young's leprachaun was trying to give this one back, I'd say
the Niners' defense were heroes.

And stop focusing on yardage.  It's *points* that win, son.  Yardage
is useful for some comparisons, but it's misleading when trying to
evaluate the Niners D.  They're soft against the pass, but not *that*
soft.

>>>Predictions for the championships:
>>>Dallas 31  SF 21
>>>SF doesn't appear to have the defense to stop Dallas.  The turf might be
>>>the deciding factor, but Smith has shown he can run on natural grass.

>>Get ready, football fans -- Gordon's priming us for a rejoinder of
>>"Emmitt can run on turf or grass, but not on mud.  Why play on that
>>icky green stuff in this day and age anyway?"

>There aren't too many runners who run well in mud and slop.  However, if
>any runner can it's Smith.  He's got a low center of gravity and the
>Dallas offensive line is one of the few that outweighs the SF D-line on
>average.

Too many variables.  In '81, Dorsett ran for 99 yards in the losing 
effort on a field whose condition was very similar to today's, and he
was hardly the same style runner as Smith.

>Well, "One[sic]" the Dallas side of things they have Irvin (who has
>outgained Rice the past two years), excellent backups in Harper, Martin
>(who each outgained Taylor), a STARTING Pro-bowl TE in Novacek (who had a
>third more catches and a third more TDs than Jones), a starting running
>backfield that caught more passes than the 9er starting backfield, and a
>QB who finished third to Young in the NFC standings.
>BTW, I said it fairly even, I didn't say it was dead even or that the
>Dallas passing game was better than the 9er game.  To paraphrase you, it
>wouldn't hurt you to admit that I'm right.

You're on drugs.  The Niners have the best QB of the day, the best WR
ever, very talented other WRs, an All-Pro TE and a solid OL.  There
is no way on God's green earth that the Bowboys, as good as they may
be, match up.  I once again accuse you of baiting us, since I don't
think you really believe this yourself.

>I'd appreciate it if you would call me "dear." ;-)  And I definately give

I assume you meant "wouldn't" (otherwise lunch is off).

>the edge in QB to Young.  But Dallas has been excellent in protecting the
>QB this year while the 9ers have been susceptable to the sack and haven't
>really done a good job of pressuring the QB this year.  If they don't
>rattle Aikman then Dallas shoudl win.

>>Sounds pretty even to me.  (not.)

>Take off those 9er glasses and read again.

I admit the overall game looks even.  But not the passing game.  No way.

>>>Dallas can run on anyone.  

>>That's what they were saying about the Deadskins two days ago.

>Who's "they"?

The mediots, after Washington carved Minnesota.

>>                                                  They'll also be able
>>to stuff the Dallas run, forcing air Leakman into multiple miscues and
>>rather neutralizing Dallas' offense in general.  

>I don't see why you are unable to discuss this in a civil fashion.  Did I
>use any derogatory terms to describe the 9ers in my predictions?

A little sensitive, are we?  Need I haul out postings of yours from
a while back?

>>                                                 And if the Niners have
>>gotten their quota of wierd botches out of the way, look for the offense
>>to put some numbers up.
>>Niners 23 -- Bowboys 13.

>Big 'if' there, Mike.  Because *if* they didn't they are going to get
>beat bad.  Tell you what, I don't bet money but I will bet a lunch.
>Reasonable lunch prices (no $20 lunches buddy), site to be called by
>winner.  Fair enough?

You got a net.bet.  Lunch (not to exceed $20 for both) sometime next
week.

But even if the Bowboys win, I'm not shaving a star into the back of
my head...
-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974