HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: statesse@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Scott E States)
Subject: Colts starter vs Houston
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:35:02 GMT



     There is still guarded optimism that Jeff George will be ready to go this  
Sunday, but the likely starter will be pre-season holdout Jack Trudeau.  Jack  
has been going through some intensive workouts since his signing so that he  
would be ready to go against Houston.  There were even jokes right before the  
final pre-season game that the Colts got a bigger plane for the flight to KC so  
Jack could throw during the flight!  According to the Indy Star, the decision  
to cut Herrmann was made before the Cleveland game no matter what the results  
of the game were.  The reasoning behind the decision was primarily the age  
factor.  Herrmann is 33, Tupa is 26, Trudeau is 30, George is around 25 or 26.   
Marchibroda sees Tupa as the "second string quarterback of the future,"  
George's back-up after Trudeau is gone.  I think Herrmann had reached his  
potential anyway, I think Tupa still has room to get better.  I think the Colts  
made a good decision in cutting Herrmann and keeping Tupa.  
     
     Does anyone know if the Colts actually used the no-huddle against  
Cleveland?  I follow the Colts really closely but I didn't SEE the game so I  
don't know if they used it or not...

Scott E. States
    
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: beegle@ftp.phy.uab.edu (Earthbound)
Subject: Re: Late Game Updates ...
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:20:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.163817.237@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen (nod sivad) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.225656.32005@europa.asd.contel.com> ashley@oasis.gtefsd.com writes:
>>Sunday, 13 September - LATE GAMES
>> 
>>        Buffalo         27                      New England      0
>>    4   San Francisco   31                  4   LA Rams          7
>> 
>
>Talk about a waste of bandwidth.  I can't believe you guys are
>running to your computers during the game so you can post partial
>results to the 10 or so people throughout the country sitting
>there reading rec.sport.football.pro on a Sunday afternoon.  Later,
>thousands of people return to the net only to wade through what is by 
>now old news.
>
>Maybe your heart is in the right place, but your brain isn't.  At least
>use a key word like FLOTSAM in the subject line so we can skip
                     ^^^^^^^

May be the subject line: Late Games Update was a little too vague 
for you, maybe it should be: Skip This Article Pinhead.
>this trash.

Does anyone have the ability to skip articles, or is it just too early 
in the Monday Morning Drivel to Notice the Subject Line. 

-- 
Luke
		The most romantic thing anyone ever said to me in bed was
		"Are you sure you are not a cop?"
I only drink for medicinal purposes: unfortuantly I have been sick for 5 years.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: tokuno@milton.u.washington.edu (Ken Tokuno)
Subject: Re: QB ratings, week 1
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:53:31 GMT


Thank you for the ratings.  May I suggest changing your criterion for
listing the ratings to 5 per game?  No halfback is going to throw anywhere
near that often and you'll lose a lot of solid back-up performances with a
number as high as ten.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: minor@rtsg.mot.com (Kevin Minor)
Subject: Re: Instant Replay
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:47:11 GMT

micss@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Stephen Mickio) writes:

|>Well Brian, YES the officials did make a mistake.  One that DID end up in the
|>Redskins scoring their only TD of the game, BUT wasn't it nice to see a play
|>and not worry that you would see it 10 times as the idiots in some box
|>replayed it and watched over and over again only to say "After further 
|>review, the play stands as called."??

But you watch the play 10 times anyways.
I don't remember ABC ignoring that play... I remember them showing it until
they were convinced.

Sure maybe the Replay decision wouldn't have changed but maybe it would
have. And if you get one play corrected it is worth it.
I'm much more frustrated with an obviously bad call sliding by and not even
getting looked at. 
The ones which slip past IR are worth dealing with since many are corrected.

|>I am a strong supporter against the Instant Replay.  I think the officials are
|>much happier without it and their calls show it.  The game also moved much 
|>better (or as good as it could go with the 3 stuges anouncing it) without it.

I disagree, of course... I really don't think the officials gave a damn
and it helped them out sometimes. I think those announcers against IR
drummed up this idea for the officials...

And as someone posted already, the games weren't any faster last week
than they were last year.
-- 
	/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
	|	Kevin Minor	UUCP: ...uunet!mcdchg!motcid!minor	|
	|			Mail: minor@rtsg.mot.com		|
	\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
From: mbrockma@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Matt Brockman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Steelers beat the Oilers!!
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:04:44 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Sep9.182714.11576@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> paul@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Paul Asmar) writes:

[Steeler over Oiler stuff deleted]

>And, the fake on the punt,
>there was pretty awesome!!  That's not something the Steelers normally do.
>I like the new look!  I just hope they keep it up.

I keep hearing about thi sfake punt. Can someone please describe
the situation of what happened? I'd really like to know.

>GO STEELERS!!

Ditto.


===============================================================================
Matt Brockman                   Go Steelers!            mbrockma@ecn.purdue.edu
                               Go, Go, Glory!
                              Go Thinderbolts!
===============================================================================
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Merrino Breaks Hearts in Claveland.
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:37:42 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems


>Hey, isn't Marino one of the luckiest non-contender QB's in>
>NFL history?  He is by far one of top QB's around, but sadly
>enough, he will never have a SB ring donning his hands if
>stays with the Dolphins. 
-
Didn't he play against the 49ers in the 85 game at Palo Alto?
Or am I confused with a playoff game? 	
	Dave

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: brian@intercon.com (Brian Lichorowic)
Subject: Re: Colts starter vs Houston
Reply-To: brian@intercon.com (Brian Lichorowic)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corp
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:55:24 GMT

In article <minor.716153478@coal8>, minor@rtsg.mot.com (Kevin Minor) writes:
> 
> Agreed, but has Jack Trudeau looked that good ? I never remember him
> looking that great...
> -- 

He has looked super at times he play alot like Simms,, fair arm, clear head 
and very itellegint when it comes to game situations,, He could start for at 
least 5 other NFL teams if given to chance. The Colts had several offers 
around and during the draft but refused them all maintaining he's too 
valuable to the team..... he took to Colts to the playoffs in 88 or 89 but 
soon after got a buch on injuries and was sidlined for a time....

Brian Lichorowic
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: gogo@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (donald.gogolin)
Subject: Re: Webster Slaughter holdout will be LOOOONG
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: bl
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:45:38 GMT
Summary: Slaughter on the block ... what's he worth?

In article <18oq74INNesv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, dxf12@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas Fowler) writes:
> 
>      Just in from channel 5 news - Webster Slaughter has said he doesn't
> intend to play for the Browns again, it sounds like, and he definitely won't
> play in the near future; they are really far apart.

My first thought is --- what a smuck!  The Browns made this guy.  He's a
premiere receiver on a below average team.  I would say that makes him about
a little better than average receiver.  Couple that with the fact that he's
an average runner with BAD knees and I think you'll see why the Browns are
balking at his demands.  The 850K the Browns are offering Slaughter is fair.  
He's in dream land if he thinks he's worth 1.25M
The Browns mistake was that they paid Metcalf about twice what he was worth!

>     Okay, the time has come - The Browns should come up with a good trade.
>
>     1. Miami.  Will provide a semi-low pick, especially if their defense
> gels, but perhaps we can pry an offensive lineman loose as well.  Think about
> it - their starting left tackle, a very good one, and a few draft picks for
> Slaughter and Eric Metcalf.  

No way!  If I were Miami, I MAY trade my tackle for both Slaughter and Metcalf
and even then I'd say you're pushing it!

>      2. Buccanneers:  Web can be a star on a team devoid of it & give Vinnie
> a good target he can keep going back to.  The Browns get the Bucs first
> couple picks this year and a good one next year.

> I imagine Hilgenberg's big contract contributed to Slaughter's 
> determination to hold out.

I agree with you here.  I also agree with Slaughter in principle.  I just 
don't think he's that good!  Good, BUT not that good.  I think the Browns
agree with me.


I wish I had some better ideas!  I feel fairly certain that Slaughter
will not be in a Browns uniform again.  Get what you can and hope for the best.
I'd rather see draft picks rather than players (aka The Cowboys/Vikings).
Metcalf is a more diverse player and can be used more specifically.
Besides, I don't think he's worth much on the trade block.  Keep him in
Cleveland.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: rfedkiw@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Ronald Fedkiw)
Subject: Bills Pedictions
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 01:18:29 GMT

This is actually a repeat, I posted it about a month ago....

WEEK 1   Rams @ Buf  WIN   1-0                           
WEEK 2   Buf @ SF    LOSS  1-1
WEEK 3   Ind @ Buf   WIN   2-1
WEEK 4   Buf @ NE    WIN   3-1 (Pivotal game in early season)
WEEK 5   Mia @ Buf   WIN   4-1
WEEK 6   Buf @ Rdrs  LOSS  4-2
WEEK 7   Buf Idle    BYE   4-2
WEEK 8   Buf @ NYJ   WIN   5-2 (Big game)
WEEK 9   NE @ Buf    WIN   6-2
WEEK 10  Pitt @ Buf  WIN   7-2
WEEK 11  Buf @ Mia   SPLIT 8-2  (or 7-3) (see week 16)
WEEK 12  Atl @ Buf   WIN   9-2  (or 8-3)
WEEK 13  Buf @ Ind   WIN   10-2 (or 9-3)
WEEK 14  NYJ @ Buf   WIN   11-2 (or 10-3)
WEEK 15  Den @ Buf   WIN   12-2 (or 11-3)
WEEK 16  Buf @ NO    SPLIT 12-3          (see week 11)
WEEK 17  Buf @ Hou   LOSS  12-4 (unless Buffalo NEEDS it: 13-3)

Remember these were picked around 4-6 weeks ago.
But I'll stick to them... for now.
Today's Rams game makes me want to pick a win next week, but if they
can win it, they'll probably los an easy one later like WEEK 14 Jets.

--
Ron Fedkiw (rfedkiw@redwood.math.ucla.edu)

A plan is made by someone who is sitting and thinking ...
while others are doing.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Kevin Lu)
Subject: Re: 49ers/Giants
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:42:40 GMT

Bob Marshall (marshall@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com) wrote:
> 
> There was a strange call involving Tim Harris. After each of his three
> sacks, Harris pulled out his six-guns and shot them. Nothing was said
> the first two times, but after the third time he was slapped with a
> 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. What kind of call is that? It
> was OK the first two times, but not the third time? The whole rule is
> ridiculous in the first place, but if you can't even call it
> consistently it's a real joke.
> 

Well what about Greg Jacksons penalty? All he did was gaze in Rices
direction mutter a few words (from the replay i saw) and whoops! 15 yards..

  +----------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
  |  Kevin Lu                              | Monash University             |
  |  Email: kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au  | Clayton, Victoria             |
  |                                        | Australia                     |
From: keithg@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Keith Glasson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Go Broncos
Date: 9 Sep 92 11:11:31 GMT
Organization: work

>./ hpdmd48:rec.sport.football.pro / news@news.den.mmc.com / 11:32 am  Sep  4, 1992 /
>There isn't a team in the AFC (and probably the NFC (east) )
>that has a prayer against the Broncos this year - especially
>the Raiders in the opener at Mile High Stadium!
>
>Next year is here!
>
>GO!
>
>- Bob    - Bronco Fan
>         - Raider Haider
>
>Broncos 77
>Raiders 2
>
>----------

	It is tough to win in Denver, but the Raiders are one of the
	few teams that has reasonable success there. With the schedule
	the Broncos face this season, and considering the erratic
	play of their quarterback, they'll be real lucky to win their
	division.

	p.s. Haider?

++++++++++++++++++++++
From: pyoung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Paul Young)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Dallas/Skins Wrapup + *icednotes*
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:13:13 GMT
Reply-To: pyoung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Paul Young)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.sport.football.pro, mas@aero.org (Marcus A.Shaw) writes:
>                   Next week is the Giants.  I hate
>to predict a big win, buy I don't see how that Giants
>team can hang with the Cowboys that I saw Monday night,
>that is if the rough edges are smoothed out like I
>expect them to be.....
>
>*ice*
Well the Giants will hang because
1.) Home Field
2.) Dallas Comming off Monday Night High
3.) Giants are no slouches
4.)? maybe overlooking Giants
5.) I think the Giants will be hungry (more so then Dallas).
Go Skins. Paul
From: larry@aecom.yu.edu (Larry Simmons)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Mark Bavarro
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:17:16 GMT
Organization: Albert Einstein College of Medicine

In article <sdzpb9qm@csv.warwick.ac.uk>  (~WISP at CU~) writes:
>
>This is good news. I'm sure I wasn't the only person disgusted by the way the
>Giants treated him [Mark Bavaro] ...

I disagree. 

Bavaro required multiple surgeries on that same knee. When the team doctor(s)
determined he had the same degenerative disease in his knee that Bo Jackson has
in his hip, that was it.

The Giant's front office offered Bavaro about $650,000 as a final settlement
but Mark did not accept it because he still wanted to play. Since an agreement
was not made, the Giants reduced their proposal to about $50,000 which is the
amount dictated by the players union agreement.

At this point, the media got a hold of the story and broadcasted that the
Giants wanted Bavaro out and were not paying him what he was worth. Finally,
Mark agreed to leave the Giants for about the original offer.

IHO, he was treated fairly. 
---
         Larry Simmons                           larry@aecom.yu.edu
  Research Information Technology          ...!{uunet,att}!alsys1!larry
Albert Einstein College of Medicine    ...!meadowlnds!sec_227!row_7!seat_19!me



Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Buffalo Bills are underdogs
Keywords: Niners Bills
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:16:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.161147.28749@equalizer.cray.com> mcs@fps.com (Mike Sanfratello) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.182028.8818@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>	[ ... ]
>>Point well take Russ.  However, not counting Vegas, all the sport magazines,
>>sport analyst agree that the Niner's are a better team and they SHOULD win
>>the game.  There are no guarantees in games.
>>
>HAHAHAHAHAH!!  Right, *ALL* the sport magazines agree that the Niners are
>a better team than the Bills...sorry, that is just WRONG...
>
>
>mike


                  ###
 #    #   ####    ###
 ##   #  #    #   ###
 # #  #  #    #    #
 #  # #  #    #
 #   ##  #    #   ###
 #    #   ####    ###

:-) :-) :-)

Damn! I am man enough to accept defeat as a FAN.  Everyone
who saw the game though, know they witnessed the game of
the year!  It could have gone either way.  One INT decided
the game and the Bills too advantage of it.  Both teams
played their hearts out.  IMHO, I still think Bono should
have played.  ONE NOTE:  Rice was not a factor. He was
knocked silly and never got back into the game.

Next Time!  I still support the Niners!
-- 
  ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@sysengr.pacbell.com	--------	
  "I have great faith in fools - self-confidence my
   friends call it."        Edgar Allan Poe
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: vito@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (daniel.b.vought)
Subject: Re: Browning Nagle / Ray Handley
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:50:42 GMT

    I thought Nagle looked great. It's great to have a QB that can throw
    the long ball. On Inside the NFL every time they showed him throwing
    the ball they had sound effects of a rifle shot, I thought this was
    much better sombody sitting on Kenny O's chest 10 yards behind the line
    of scrimmage!

    Daniel V                                                GO JETS!
Organization: Senior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 1992 09:52:45 -0400 
From: Vernon H Harmon <vh00+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Who's Gonna Win?
	<gee==oO00WDK4_YHFv@andrew.cmu.edu>

x	cincinnati     at	seattle
CORRECT(1-0)
	cleveland      at     x	indianapolis
CORRECT(2-0)
x       detroit        at             chicago
WRONG! detriot defense sucked eggs! they *should* have won... :\ (2-1)
x       kc             at             san diego
CORRECT, but only because of the two run-backs
if not for the INT-return and punt-return for TD's it would
have been 10-10. Respectable start for SD--bad start for KC. (3-1)
       la rams        at     x        buffalo
CORRECT, man did LA look baaaad (the ewes are back) (4-1)
x       minnesota      at             green bay
CORRECT, but it was too damn close (5-1)
       new orleans    at    x         philadelphia
CORRECT(6-1)
x       new york jets  at             atlanta
WRONG! Jets' defense still needs some work--they should have won. (6-2)
       phoenix        at    x         tampa
CORRECT, Tampa looked impressive but it *was* only Phoenix. (7-2)
       pittsburgh     at    x         houston
WRONG! Gahh! I was gonna pick Pittsburgh but lacked the guts. :\ (7-3)
x       s.f            at             ny giants
CORRECT....surprise! the Giants suck again! "Ray must go!" :) (8-3)
       la raiders     at     x        denver
CORRECT. Staubach was Capt. Comeback and Elway is the Comeback Kid (9-3)
 x      washington     at             dallas
WRONG! How *bad* can Washington be? If you saw the game--you know. (9-4)

so, then, if I had gone with my instincts (Pittsburgh) that would have
been 10 of 13 games picked. Not bad. If Detroit's and NY's defenses had
played up to par then it would have been 12 of 13--the only surprise
being Dallas crushing the Skins. I knew that Dallas *could* beat
Washington, but didn't think they would. I was quite impressed. If the
Skins lose next week (that is, if they don't rebound), then Dallas will
take second in the division this year (Philly will be first). Anybody
who thinks that the Giants are gonna finish anywhere other than fourth
or fifth (and from some posts I've seen, some people do) needs to pay
some attention! (I couldn't believe the Giants fans were chanting "Ray
must go!" I didn't think they realized that Handley was the problem--he
ain't no coach.)

I knew KC would beat SD, but as I said it was a respectable loss. I
still think SD can get a Wild Card spot this year (especially with that
easy schedule), but not the division title--I still think Denver will
take it. If KC loses next week, then they will disappoint this year.

looks to be an exciting year!!!! :D

--Vernon.
From: mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM (Ken Mann)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 14:54:41 EDT
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Player Status: Edmunds (MIA)
Reply-To: mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM
Organization: IBM
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0

What is Edmunds status?  Is he hurt?  On IR?

 Shalom!  |  INTERNET: mannk@fshvmfk1.vnet.ibm.com            Christ
   Ken    |  VNET:     FSHVMFK1(MANNK)                          is
          |  IBMnet:   mannk@saskatchewan.fishkill.ibm.com    risen!
-----------------------------------------------------------
               You can only coast downhill!
From: rfedkiw@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Ronald Fedkiw)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Buffalo Bills are underdogs
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:59:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department

In Article 28701, John P. Gloria writes
>Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!  Why is it that practically all knowledgable
>football sportcasters, Vegas, coaches, etc., have picked the
>Niner's as favorites?  Because they are a better football team,...
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Be careful here, remember home field advantage is worth 
about 3 pts in the spreads and playing two back to back
games against NFC opponents is hard for the AFC Bills to keep
the intensity up for. The NFC record doesn't count for 
much come home field advantage time.
Also, its hard to keep up intensity after a blowout.
And most importantly, the Bills have a history of not playing 
well against San Fran... ie they lost the last few.

If the game was in Buffalo, the Bills would be favorites
and it would be an upset is THEY lost. Especially since 
the Bills have won about 20 games at home in the last 2 years
and lost one? (I'm pretty sure about this)

Remember the Bills have nothing to prove this week, they were
in the Super Bowl last year. San Fran can show that their a 
playoff calibur team if they win.

I think Buffalo is the better team, but I too pick S.F. to win 
by about 3 points.... but I'll root for the Bills and wouldn't
be suprised at all if they win by 14.

--
Ron Fedkiw (rfedkiw@redwood.math.ucla.edu)

A plan is made by someone who is sitting and thinking ...
while others are doing.