From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: More predictions
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:37:53 GMT

<1993Jan11.032702.20834@netcom.com> mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) :
><1993Jan11.021315.13521@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>What a weekend.  I went 2-2 on predictions for a playoff total of 5-3.
>
>2-2 sounds about right for you, dear Gordon.  After all, even a stopped
>clock is right twice a day.

Ah Michael, your wit is sharp as a marble I see.

>>Review:
>>>Predictions:  
>>>Washington 27  SF 10
>>>
>>>Washington is hot with impressive individual performances as well as team
>>>efforts.  SF had a week off and may be distracted by the Montana issue.
>>>Close first half with second half special team play that breaks it open
>>>for Washington.  SF goes with Young the whole way leaving fans to question
>>>Seifert and starting an off-season qb controversy.
>
>>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.

>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.

>                                                          As for Young --
>you screwed the pooch.  His day as QB was fantastic; his day as a runner
>was marked with flukes and sillies for which there is no reason to assume
>will repeat next week.

He nearly handed the game to Washington as a player.  Near as I can tell,
the fumbles "as a runner" counted.

>As far as "4 turnovers, tsk, tsk" goes, I remember a Niners game about
>11 years ago that featured *six* SF turnovers.  They still won.  Care
>to guess what game that was?

Why?  Did you forget?

>>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.

>>Passing games are farely even with the advantage in TE production going to
>>Dallas.  
>
>"Farely [sic] even" -- yeah, right.  One the Niners side, they have the
>QB that led the league in passing the last two years.  They have the
>best WR in history (those who disagree can cheerfully stuff it).  They
>have John Taylor and two great backups.  They have three backs who are
>very good receivers.  They have a healthy, veteran OL that's optimized
>for pass protection.  Oh -- and they're disadvantaged to have an All-Pro
>TE in Brett Jones.

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.

>Dallas has -- er, Troy Aikman, the QB whom dear Gordon claimed the Bowboys
>would win in spite of, rather than because of.  None of the receiving
>weapons matter if the QB can't haul the mail.

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

>>SF has to face the #1 defense, Dallas doesn't.  
>
>Funny how Gordon didn't point out that Dallas has to face the #1 offense.

Yeah, they face it with the #1 defense.  SF faces the #4 offense with the
#15 defense.

>>Dallas can run on anyone.  
>
>That's what they were saying about the Deadskins two days ago.

Who's "they"?

>>Buffalo 35  Miami 17
>>Buffalo has too much offense for Miami's defense, and just enough
>>defense for Miami's O.  Miami has been inconsistent at times.  I
>>shouldn't go against Shula, and I'd like to see the rematch with the
>>Cowboys, but I'm taking Buffalo for a record tying 3rd consecutive SB
>>appearance.
>
>Contrast with above remark about betting against Miami at home.

Yeah, I qualified it and said I probably shouldn't bet against Miami at
home, but I did anyway.  Go figure.

>                                                                 Well,
>what more can be expected from a Texan?

I don't know, what more *can* be expected from a Texan?  And who are you
talking about?

>>Interesting aspects to next week:
>>If Miami wins it sets up a definate rematch SB against Dallas or SF,
>>both Miami losses.  Miami would also set the record with 6 SB
>>appearances.  This record would be tied if Dallas beats SF, which would
>>also give Dallas a 4-1 record against SF in NFC championships.  If SF
>
>Oh?
>'70 - Dallas wins
>'71 - Dallas wins
>'81 - Niners win
>
>You're going to give the Bowboys credit for two victories if they knock
>off the Niners this week?  In your words, "tsk, tsk."  Better wind that
>clock; you've used up your allotment of correctness for the postseason.

Oops.  I meant 4-1 against them in the playoffs.  The other Dallas win was
a division win against Frisco.

>All seriousness aside:
>I fully recognize that the Bowboys are formidable opposition to the Niners
>this weekend.  As was the case in '81, this game is the unofficial Super
>Bowl.  (Screw you AFC weenies who disagree -- win the Big Dance once,
>then we'll talk.)  The right two teams made it to the title game and both
>have a fair chance at winning it.

I agree.

>BUT:
>Gordon's above arguments are full of holes and I wouldn't be a proper
>card-carrying Niners fan without debunking them.  After Saturday's fiasco,
>the Niners are going to come out breathing fire.  

Gee, if they had played great on Saturday what would you have said?
(Hint: probably the same thing so this is just more 9er hype).

>                                                  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?

>                                                 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?


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