From: rsmith@seq.uncwil.edu (Ross Smith)
Subject: Re: Eagles : YIKES!
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:42:54 GMT

jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:

>>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.

Look buddy, YOU were the one who brought up Championships and tradition.
I was merely pointing out the Eagles Championships and tradition pre-date
the Niners by over 20 years... which is more 'traditional' something that
goes back 40+ years or something that goes back only 20?

>"Victories that are easy are cheap. Those only are worth having
>which come as the result of hard fighting."  -- Henry Ward Beecher

That is a nice quote when applied to personal struggles, war and such,
but it makes no sense when applied to an athletic contest. If you can win
easily and without effort, it just means that you are that much less
exauhsted/tired/drained mentally/physically for your next opponent.

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

Ahh, but what you dont understand is that my what-ifs dont change the
outcome of the game... the Eagles won in spite of a rather rusty
offensive performance. If that rust hadnt been there, how well could
they have done? I was merely speculating that a few non-key, non-
important situations made the game seem closer than it was...

For your information (you appear to be quite short on info I might add)
the Eagles are NOTORIOUSLY pathetic starters, and NOTORIOUSLY strong
finishers. Having this good a start, and a normal STRONG finish will
put the Eagles well ahead of the the rest of league come playoff time.

Now watch closely as I again do something that you seem incapable
of doing, and that is use FACTS to back up my statements:

Eagles strong finishes: 6-1 in 1988
                        5-1 in 1989
                        8-2 in 1990
                        7-1 in 1991

you can make all the specualative remarks you want, but until you start
backing up your opinion with some facts, I dont think I will bother
dignifying your ravings with a response... 

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|rsmith@seq.uncwil.edu           Ross Smith              smith@oscar.udel.edu|
|    "I really hate that dog...." - Dr. Chase Matthews, Pet Semetary 2       |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro