HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmd@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (joseph.m.dakes)
Subject: Who would you rather play in the playoffs? (Re: Jimmy Johnson)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:34:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.164528.8789@pbhyg.PacBell.COM>, dggok@pbhyg.PacBell.COM (4E150M) writes:
> I'm
> interested in knowing from other 49er fans which team they would
> like to see the 49ers play in the first round.
> 
> I know who I DON'T want to play:  New Orleans!!
> 
> Fans from other teams, feel free to express your thought as well.

As an Eagles fan, I don't want to see the Washington Redskins in the
playoffs.  Neither in Washington nor in Philly.  I remember back to the
'90 playoffs and the matchup at Philly between the two teams.  It wasn't
even close.  To this day, I believe that the Eagles could have made it to
the SuperBowl that year IF they didn't have to play the Skins.

I also wouldn't enjoy seeing the Eagles have to travel to New Orleans.
They have a great defense so you know you aren't going to put many
points on the board.  Fortunately, the Saints offense isn't going to
light up the scoreboard either.  So your team plays its heart out for
59- minutes, 50-seconds.  It's clinging to a 14-13 lead.  And it all
comes down to Morten Anderson's foot.  No thank you, I'll take my
chances against either San Francisco, Dallas, or Minnesota.


E-A-G-L-E-S

Joe Dakes
AT&T Microelectronics
555 Union Boulevard
Allentown, PA  18103
alux1!jmd
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: The Play of the Day (Skins/Dallas)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 15:25:28 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Atomic Biophysics H.H.M.I.
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu
Keywords: Lucky Break! Aikman

In article <douthit.724344638@scofflaw> douthit@convex.com (Ronnie Douthit) writes:
>merrill@hades.stsci.edu (Clark) writes:

[stuff deleted]

 >I think Emmit would have been ruled down.  Emmit also admitted he was
 >pitching the ball.  BUT I STILL DON'T WANT INSTANT REPLAY.

 >			-Ron (Not whinning) D.
 
I totaly agree, DO NOT BRING BACK REPLAY ! the calls can go either way,
you win some you lose some, we could all sit and say "the refs cost us
the Div." but thats BS. 

Go Cowboys !!!
tim
From: markl@spuddy.uucp (Mark Liversedge)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: BIlls are READY
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:18:16 GMT
Organization: Spuddy's Public Usenet Domain

In article <1992Dec14.044919.25304@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN P. GLORIA) writes:

[stuff about/against Bills ready for superbowl win deleted]

>What do you expect from the crying Jills? They have no
>idea what it is like to win a SB. They are in a fantasy
>trip, must be the those mushrooms. I kind of hope they
>do make it to the SB. The result would be a NFC
>blowout! Whether it be the Niners, Saints or Cowboys,
>the stinking Jills would be humilated on national
>T.V., in front of MILLIONS of views world-wide.

Hey dude, unless you have a ring YOU have no idea what it
is like to win a SB. 

We can all woof, the Bills fans are getting a bad reputation this
year 'cause of posts like this, remember it was the 49ers last year?

The Bills beat the 49ers in week 2 when they were  high from a killing
of the Lams, they may not have "peaked" but they could beat anyone 
right now. They could also lose to anyone -- just like every other
team in the NFL.

You big-headed fans really get up my nose. (Maybe I should get plastic surgery!)
>-- 
> ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
>	"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
>  is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain


-- 

 * Meeeow ! Call Spuddy on (0203) 638780/638693 for FREE mail & Usenet access *
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jmartin@ntmtv.UUCP (Jeff Martin)
Subject: Re: Determining Schedules (was Re: Can Eagles still win NFC East?)
Originator: jmartin@cleomed
Organization: Northern Telecom Incorporated
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:26:39 GMT

From article <1gs8ktINNocj@aludra.usc.edu>, by tehyang@aludra.usc.edu (Teh Kao Yang):
>Does anyone know how schedules for the next year are determined?
>I had thought that the strength of next year's schedule was based on your record
>If that is true then why do the Cowboys, who made the playoffs last year, play 
>Atlanta and the Rams, who are in the bottom of the NFC WEST, while the Eagles
>played San Francisco and New Orleans, the top two?
> 

In general the schedule is derived as follows:
	Each team plays each member of its divison twice.

	Each division is pitted against another divison.
	For example this year the NFC East played the 
	AFC West.

	At this point each division member has played the 
	same opponents.

	The remaining 4 games are scheduled against opponents
	with similer records from the previous year.  This
	is were the Cowboys have been extremely fortunate
	this year. For these games the Cowboys drew: Chicago,
	Detriot, Atlanta. All teams who made the playoffs
	last year and who all have loosing records this year
	(so far). The `Boys also got the Rams for reasons
	unknown to me. 

	The Eagles on the other hand got comparable machups
	against a group of teams who like them just missed
	the playoffs last year: SF, Minnisota, and the
	Saints (who I belive actually made the playoffs
	as a wild-card). I think its safe to say all these
	teams are on the upswing this year. Even the Packers,
	the Eagles other "comparable" opponent, is still
	in the playoff hunt.

At the beginning of the year Dallas "appeared" to have one
of the toughest schedules in football. In retrospect they have
been very fortunate indeed.
	
Jeff Martin
From: ronnie@uts.amdahl.com (Ronnie Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Steve Young vs Randall Cunningham
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:28:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec15.204946.6130@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> gidi@Hilbert.Stanford.EDU (Gideon Avrahami) writes:
>ronnie@uts.amdahl.com (Ronnie Townsend) writes:
>>The 49ers would never have allowed a player of Keith Jackson's 
>>caliber to walk. 
>
>Unless his name was Ronnie Lott.

No disrespect to Lott (or Craig for that matter) but there is a big difference
between a 32 year old safety with a couple of good years left in him and a 
25 year old pro-bowl tight end with conceivably 7 or 8 very productive years 
left. 
-- 
Ronnie
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not cynical... I just don't believe in anything....


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: michaelh@netcom.com (Michael Hernandez)
Subject: Re: Roger Craig on George Seifert
Summary: The Bard
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:39:35 GMT

In article <24482@galaxy.ucr.edu> walid@ucrstat4.ucr.edu (walid al-sabah) writes:
>From the L.A. Times of Thursday 12/17/92
>
>
>	Overrated? Even though San Francisco  49er Coach George   Seifert
>	has a 54-3 record, including a Super Bowl victory in 1990, former
>	running back  Roger  Craig  isn't that impressed  with  Seifert's
>	accomplishments.   "Look  at  him  with the talent he has," Craig
>	told the  San Francisco Chronicle. "Anybody can step in and do  a
>	good  job  in that system. It's not like he created  this big era
>	of what they're [49ers] doing. Bill  Walsh did that a  long  time
>	ago."

To paraphrase Old William Shakespeare "Me Thinks the(Running Back)
doth protest to loudly"!

michael
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|michaelh@netcom.com             	   At the still point....       |
|SYSTEM V - MicroUNIX   	       	   There is the dance....       |
|(408) 241-0595 Voice		       ... And there is only the dance! |
|(408) 241-0371 Fax				T.S. Elliot		|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)
Subject: Tim Harris -- Rootin' Tootin' 9'er
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:32:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Reply-To: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)

I recall Tim Harris saying that he wasn't going to perform his
gun-slinging celebrations anymore saying that he had left his "guns" in
Green Bay.  I asl recall him saying that the Packers management had
pressured him to continue the displays whenever he recorded a QB sack.
Indeed, it was not without a few pejorative hints as to the character of
Packer fans that Harris disavowed any further connection with slinging
guns.

Yet, as I watched the highlights of last Sunday's game between the 9ers and
the Vikings, what do I see but Timmy Harris slingin' the guns after a QB
sack.

Which begs the question.  Which is it, Harris?  Now that the league's
restrictions on your celebrations have been lifted (no longer enforced?),
how is it that you return to a practice which you had led us to believe was
not something you had chosen to do of your own volition?

Folks, I think I'm pleased that such hypocricy is in San Francisco where it
belongs.


-- 
Rick Schaut
UUCP:...{uunet | uw-beaver}!microsoft!richs

Microsoft doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for Microsoft.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: WASHINGTON SUCKS SHIT!!!
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 10:01:13 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:04:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.224951.7252@nmsu.edu> Wes, wlittle@dante.nmsu.edu
writes:
>I just have to get this off of my chest:  The Washington Redskins are
>the shittiest sorriest piece of shit excuse for an NFL football team I
>have ever seen.  They usually are the luckiest team who seems to get
>all the FUCKING REFS calling the game for them!!  They won yesterday
>against Dallas but everyone knows that the BEST team DID NOT win...

I hope you don't kiss your mother with that mouth....

>That was a fucking incomplete pass..Aikman's arm was going forward!!!

I'm sorry, but several people who have seen other angles have said that
he tried to pump the ball and got it dislodged by Jason Buck. That,
my friend, is a fumble. Even Aikman admitted that.

>Even if it was a fumble Emitt was fucking down on a knee!!!  AT the
>very very most it was a Safety!!!  Which means Dallas still wins...

This was admittedly a close call. Let's say it was a safety. That puts
Dallas up by only two. They have to free kick the ball from their 20.
The Redskins had been moving the ball well all half. The Redskins would
have driven the ball into Lohmiller's range and Lohmiller, a truly
great kicker, would have iced it.

The fact is that the Arkansas Razorboys did not score a single point
in the second half. They got exactly what they deserve, but a minute
earlier.

>I must say though that Aikman did throw a shitty pass to put Dallas
>in the situation to begin with.  But Dallas' Defense did as they did
>all day and stuffed those fucking Redskins at the 3 yardline!!!  So
>the Refs seeing that there favorite fucking shit team might lose
>decided to take the game into there own hands....! I know I am a
>baby!!

Whine, whine whine.... Just remember who voted against replay (not
that it would of mattered---it was a fumble).

>
>I admit it....but I just hate to see the best team lose on a fucked up
>Call.!!  Flame away all you shit head Redskin fans because you know in
>your heart who the better team is...and it will be proven in the
>Playoffs!! You also know in your heart that that call was
>BULLSHIT@!!@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know....I really love the Redskin-Cowboy games. I look forward to
them each year because I know they will be great games. Most Dallas
fans I have found to be quite reasonable (they just root for the
wrong team :-)  ). However, fans like this really put a pall on an
otherwise enjoyable event.

Wes...This was a GAME. It did not cause a drop in the stock market, cause
starvation in Somalia, start World War III, or accelerate the AIDS
epidemic. Get some perspective.

Take two vallium and a laxative and call me in the morning.

A Redskin Fan in Texas Hell

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: Steling Sharpe is NOT better than Rice
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date: 14 DEC 92 09:50:06    

In article <1992Dec11.164718.14507@seq.uncwil.edu>, rsmith@seq.uncwil.edu (Ross Smith) writes...

>heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
> 
>>>rsmith@seq.uncwil.edu (Ross Smith) writes:
>>>>         catches   yards   yards/catch   TDs
>>>>Rice       4.40    81.35      18.5      .82
>>>>Sharpe     3.39    66.88      15.2      .36
> 
>>Also, you are comparing the 1st 4 years of Sharpe's career to Rice's 
>>prime.  You could at least compare the 1st 4 years of Rice's career to 
>>Sharpe's 1st 4 years.
> 
>Oh... NOT! these numbers are from Rices first four years... 85-88. Read
>the original post if you dont believe me. Besides I checked the original posts
>numbers against those in the Football Register and made sure he used the
>1st four years of both players...

Well, something's gotta be wrong.  Sharpe had the record for most 
catches in his 1st 3 years.  Catching "only" 67 passes in his 4th year 
couldn't have hurt him that much.

Also, if the numbers are from 85-88 then Rice has an advantage in 
Yds/Catch and TDs/Catch in that the rules have been changed recently.  
Yds/Catch and TDs/Catch are down all over the league - including with 
Mr. Rice.

Finally, the argument that Rice benefitted because of the system that 
he was in is bolstered by the fact that now that the Packers are using 
the 49er offense Sharpe's numbers are way up.

>>The fact is that no matter what comparison you make you can't prove 
>>anything.  I guess I think it's rude of Packer fans to claim Sharpe is 
>>better than Rice when Rice has at least 1 NFL record and Sharpe has 
>>none.  On the other hand, I think it's rude of 49er fans to say Rice 
>>is positively the best of all time when Largent has most of the 
>>records.  
> 
>Which major record does largent hold? The TD receptions was the last one...
>Monk has catches, Lofton yards and Rice TDs... so what is left to
>Largent (except maybe games played...or consecutive game rec streak...?)

Well, held then.  So maybe Lofton is the best ever.  Or Monk.  The 
point remains that there is no "best ever" at any position.  You are 
insulting dozens of great players when you attempt to prove this.  And 
at the very least, it's really wrong to say Rice is the best ever when 
the only record he holds it most TDs.

What is really happening here is that 49er fans have a perception that 
Rice is far better than anybody else because they've watched him play 
so much.  Same for Packer fans and Sharpe.  Week in, week out you see 
your favorite player make great plays and you forget that 2000 miles 
away there's another player making plays that are just as great.

Didn't you believe Rice was better than Sharpe before you looked at 
the stats?  Then you found stats to backup your claim.  Why?  Because 
it's your perception that Rice is the best ever.  And that's all this 
really boils down to.

JGH
From: doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Dream Sunday for the Pack (almost)
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:28:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

As I was sitting watching the games late Sunday afternoon it occurred to me that
things were going perfectly for the Packers.  After all the Vikes had lost,
the Redskins were losing to the Cowboys, and the Eagles were losing to the 
Seahawks.  This would surley put the Pack into a good spot for the playoffs, I
thought.  And then....BAM!  The play (IMHO it was the wrong call, BUT a very
difficult one for the refs and I won't argue with it) and the Redskins win...
sigh.  And then the Eagles tie the game.  It looks like it will end in a tie
when Randall shovels it off to Keith Byars in desperation, setting up a Ruzek
field goal to win it for the Eagles, Eagles still one game up on the Pack.
(Q: How would a tie have affected the playoff picture)  I have to admit, I
was very depressed after these two games.  But that night the Pack came through
in glorious fashion to keep their wildcard AND division title hopes alive.

-David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: hariharn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Hariharan)
Subject: Re: `Redskins Repeat !!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: To all non-Redskin fans, after the Redskins beat up on the Cowboys this 
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:10:12 GMT

In article <XaR=Y4-@engin.umich.edu> sudhama@engin.umich.edu (Sudhama Gopalan) writes:
>In article <Bz43LI.Cuv@andy.bgsu.edu> dlingle@orchestra.bgsu.edu (Donald Lingle) writes:
>>Sunday, Beware Of The Super Bowl Champs!
>>    I will agree that the Skins are having an up and down season thus far.  But 
>>if we beat the Cowboys this Sunday, you must agree that the Redskins will look 
>>pretty good for repeating as Super Bowl Champs.
>>    The skins have had a bunch of injuries, combined with the late pre-season 
>>start of Mark Rypien.  Some of our players are now returning, (Darrell Green,
>>Jim Lachey), and Rypien's coming out of his slump.
>>    I'm happy to see the Cowboys and Redskins games now mean something.  Before
>>last year, Cowboy fans would hide the week before a Redskin vs. Cowboys game. 
>>As for the 49ers, Vikings, Eagles, Packers, & Saints, I know you would love to 
>>go get a easy Super Bowl victory against an AFC team, but you'll have to wait 
>>for Joe Gibbs to retire or better yet, coach your team.
>>    Well, good luck to all NFL fans.  I am just "touring" the user group.  This
>>id actually belongs to a Pittsburgh Steeler's Fan.
>
>
>Well, I too hope the 'Skins thrash the Cowpokes. Personally, I don't care for/
>hate either. All I'm concerned about is the 49ers - more specifically Montana.
>I'm one of those weirdos who has never seen Montana in action - here's hoping
>the 49ers secure home field advantage before their last game so that I can have
>the pleasure of watching Joe for the first time.
>

Joe who ?

:-) 
-- 
**************************************************************************
Ramesh Hariharan , Chem Engg. Dept., Princeton Univ. 
Research topic : Stabilization of Colloids using diblock copolymers.
Research baap : Bill Russel (no ! not the Celtic legend)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: hariharn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Hariharan)
Subject: Re: `Redskins Repeat !!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: To all non-Redskin fans, after the Redskins beat up on the Cowboys this 
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:20:07 GMT

In article <XaR=Y4-@engin.umich.edu> sudhama@engin.umich.edu (Sudhama Gopalan) writes:
>In article <Bz43LI.Cuv@andy.bgsu.edu> dlingle@orchestra.bgsu.edu (Donald Lingle) writes:
>>Sunday, Beware Of The Super Bowl Champs!
>>    I will agree that the Skins are having an up and down season thus far.  But 
>>if we beat the Cowboys this Sunday, you must agree that the Redskins will look 
>>pretty good for repeating as Super Bowl Champs.
>>    The skins have had a bunch of injuries, combined with the late pre-season 
>>start of Mark Rypien.  Some of our players are now returning, (Darrell Green,
>>Jim Lachey), and Rypien's coming out of his slump.
>>    I'm happy to see the Cowboys and Redskins games now mean something.  Before
>>last year, Cowboy fans would hide the week before a Redskin vs. Cowboys game. 
>>As for the 49ers, Vikings, Eagles, Packers, & Saints, I know you would love to 
>>go get a easy Super Bowl victory against an AFC team, but you'll have to wait 
>>for Joe Gibbs to retire or better yet, coach your team.
>>    Well, good luck to all NFL fans.  I am just "touring" the user group.  This
>>id actually belongs to a Pittsburgh Steeler's Fan.
>
>
>Well, I too hope the 'Skins thrash the Cowpokes. Personally, I don't care for/
>hate either. All I'm concerned about is the 49ers - more specifically Montana.
>I'm one of those weirdos who has never seen Montana in action - here's hoping
>the 49ers secure home field advantage before their last game so that I can have
>the pleasure of watching Joe for the first time.
>

Joe who ?

:-) 
-- 
**************************************************************************
Ramesh Hariharan , Chem Engg. Dept., Princeton Univ. 
Research topic : Stabilization of Colloids using diblock copolymers.
Research baap : Bill Russel (no ! not the Celtic legend)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: pboxrud@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul D Boxrud)
Subject: Re: WILDCARDS, READ THIS!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:20:13 GMT

In article <28559@oasys.dt.navy.mil> pacyna@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Pacyna)
writes:
>
>If Washington and Green Bay are tied at the end of the season, Washington
>wins the tiebreaker according to what I've read.  Green Bay's only hope
>is to win the division.
>
>                          Mike

Absolutely false.  The Pack's best chance for a wildcard is Philly losing to 
Wash next week.  If the Pack wins out, they're in no matter what Philly does 
against the Giants.  Wash. may also lose two games (Philly and the Raiders)

Paul
From: mcelha@david.wheaton.edu (Geoff McElhanon)
Subject: Re: Was Dallas screwed? You make the call....
Organization: Wheaton College
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:56:56 GMT

>>
>>[2] Was Smith down? It seemed as though he was not, though again, several
>>    replays suggest otherwise. I was at the game on the 40-yd line, and to
>>    me it looked like Smith was down.
>
>I think what tipped the officials towards the fumble idea is that Smith was, in
>my opinion, deliberately fumbling the ball (more on that below...).  Obviously,
>if he were trying to fumble, he would have gotten rid of it before he was
>brought down.  The lone replay also is unclear as to exactly when Smith lost
>control of the ball.
>
Well, even if he had gotten a successful forward lateral off, it would have
been a safety, or the result of the play, Washington's choice.  At that point
his options weren't exactly numerous.  If he had sucked up, and taken the
safety, Dallas would have had to punt from the 20, giving Washington the ball
trailing 17-16, and in decent field position.  It is possible that they could
have gotten enough out of their offense to get within field goal range, and at
the same time chewing up the clock.  I think I actually like Dallas' chances
better if it's a TD instead of a safety.  That way they have time to work and
drive like they did (at least to the Washington 40).  All they needed was about
10 more yards and they would have had a shot at a relatively long field goal
for the tie and overtime...

Anyway, I've said enough on the subject...

  Geoff.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro