HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bakerje@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: THIS IS WHERE I SAY "TOLD YA SO!"
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:40:26 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

Well, well, well...

WEEK 13: I said the Packers had a good chance at getting in the Playoffs...
         (Record of 6-6) And in response I got "Bullshit!", "What game are
         you watching?" and "Don't post if you have no clue what you are
         talking about"

WEEK 14: I noted that the Packers actually had a better chance than the 
         Vikings at winning the NFC Central... (Record 7-6) And in response
         I got "Packer fans have no class... Vikings don't suck" and
         "Vikings aren't just going to roll over and die!!"

WEEK 15: Packers beat the Oilers 16-14. Vikings lose 20-17. Now I would
         like to make another point that you can all jeer me for...
         The Packers will WIN the NFC Central and the Vikings will not
         make the playoffs.

	I am far from magic or anything... I am just looking at the hard-
core facts:

	A) Green Bay plays LA Rams & Minnesota
	   Minnesota plays Pittsburgh (only team who clinched their division)
		     and Green Bay

	B) Minnesota has NO Offense... not even A.C. can save the Vikings
	   from this lack of scoring ability.  Sunday, they only earned 
	   3 POINTS offensively (I don't count the TD that was scored due
	   to a sack of the punter by the DEFENSE on the ONE YARD LINE)

	C) Green Bay is very solid... they played poorly against a good
	   team on Sunday and still won. They have won 5 in a row (first
	   time since 1966), which makes them the hottest team in the NFL!

	You can laugh at me again, but I can honestly say, I don't care
what Philly or Washington does, because the Pack WILL win the NFC. All you
have to do is look at the facts.  It will be quite exciting to see the
NFC decided in the MetroDome on Week 17...

Oh yeah... score predictions: GREEN BAY: 27	LA RAMS: 10
			      MINNESOTA: 17	PITTSBURGH: 24

						|\/|
						|  |r. James Baker

						Packer fan at large...

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: marshall@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Bob Marshall)
Subject: Re: 49ers have the 'Ladies of Charity'
Reply-To: marshall@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 21:40:18 GMT

In article <BzGpB0.K6H@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mab50312@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark A. Blickhan) writes:
>Phoenix won by 10, the Saints better hope the Bucs and Lions upset the Niners
>who also have the worst punter in the NFC (former Buc 11th round pick), rookie
>"Santa" Klaus Wilmsmeyer (very Christmassy).
>
>His bonehead play nearly cost the Niners the Vikings game.  After Ralph Tamm's
>botched snap (who is now injured: some no-name backup tight end just added
>will snap) , Klaus should have downed the ball in the end-zone.  Safety.
>2 points- kick-off and a touchdown still doesn't help.

First of all, it was not Ralph Tamm who snapped it, it was Jesse Sapolu.
And the snap was not all that bad; had anyone at least touched Vencie
Glenn then Wilmsmeyer would have been able to get the kick off. Still,
you have a point that trying to run it was the worst choice; it would
have been better to at least go ahead and try to kick it; who knows,
he may have gotten it off, or it may have been blocked out of the
end zone, or he could have gotten a roughing penalty if the kick
were not blocked. Or he could have run into the end zone and gotten
tackled (I'm not even sure he had time to do that, though, since Glenn
was all over him). But in a panic situation like that it's hard to
make a quick decision.

>By the way, 49ers.  Bennie Blades has 3 blocks in 3 straight weeks (Montgomery,
>Royals, Hansen)!  Wilmsmeyer will be five after Stryzinski gets his due.

What makes you think Wilmsmeyer will even have to punt?

=============================================================================
Bob Marshall                     \\     "Women aren't as smart as they
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.     \\     think they are; they think we
Sunnyvale, CA                      \\    men know a lot more than we
marshall@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com\\   really do."
"I tell the truth 'cept when I lie"  \\     - Tim the Toolman
=============================================================================
From: lgoodfie@sobeco.com (l.goodfield)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: I'm a Vikings fan..please shoot me!!
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:14:04 GMT
Organization: Sobeco Ernst & Young

I have never been a Viking fan, and I probably never be a Viking fan. I do
have many friends that are Viking fans and I refer to them as tortured
souls. However, I can sympathize with you simply because It's tough when a
team has so much talent but can't seem to win when it matters.

Perhaps the biggest weakness on the Vikings isn't so much lack of a great
quarterback, but rather a better offensive line. Look what happened to the
Redskins this season.

BTW, I'm a diehard L.A. Raider fan, so I can really sympathize with you.

Lionel.
-- 
Lionel Goodfield
(514) 592-4204
Internet Access: lgoodfie@sobeco.sobeco.com
    UUCP Access: uunet!sobeco!lgoodfie
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: hariharn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Hariharan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: `Redskins Repeat !!!
Keywords: To all non-Redskin fans, after the Redskins beat up on the Cowboys this
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:30:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Dec12.113012.15271
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

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)
From: satish@a.chem.upenn.edu (Satish Nair)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Packers win at Houston
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:08:27 GMT
Distribution: rec.sport.football.pro
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec14.135827.457@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> pboxrud@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul D Boxrud) writes:
>Is it just me or did Terrel Buckley actually make tackles.  He even forced a 
>fumble.  Maybe not returning punts has something to do with that.  Sure did 
>feel nice not having him returning punts.

Yes indeed. He forced a Webster Slaughter fumble which resulted in a FG. Don't
knock Buckley, he's a rookie and still has a ways to go.  He did score a
TD on a return earlier this year didn't he?

>
>About the Dallas play.  I also got the impression that E. Smith tried to fumble
>the ball out of the endzone.  Strange thing to do when you're up by 4 points.  
>I'm getting a bad feeling about this having to depend on other teams to win.  
>Brings back bad memories.

Yeah I guess he was trying to prevent a safety.  Costly play!

>
>Go Pack!

Yeah, couldn't agree more.

>Go Steelers!

Bah ha ha.  Not with Bubby Booby Bruster as QB.

>Go Redskins! (at least don't tie!)
>
>Paul

satish nair
giants 5-11 in '92



Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: oconnor@i88.isc.com (Tom O'Connor(Genesis Project))
Subject: Re: Rebellion in Chicago
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:03:55 GMT


>While watching the highlights of the games yesterday. I saw Ditka go off
>on one of his famous dressdown of a player. Harbaraugh(sp) took it all
>in stride but another player did not want to hear it and told Dikta
>"F**K YOU!!"   Even though I couldn`t hear it I'm positive that is what
>he said. It was really easy to read his lips. Anybody from the Chicago know
>what Ditka was bitching about and who the player was.  Is he good enough
>to swear at the coach and be back next year? Or will It be Dikta himself
>who is gone?

If you're referring to the incident on the sideline, here's what happened.
Stan "The Human Holding Penalty Machine" Thomas had just gone into the game.
After only 1 or 2 plays, he was pulled, and another lineman went in.
Stan was upset and he and Ditka had some words, and I agree with you lip
synch analysis.

But what REALLY happened was the offensive line coach was the one that made
the substitution, not Ditka.  Thomas, who has made some REALLY bad plays
this year (see nickname above), thought it was Ditka and went at him verbally.
Stan ended up finding out what really happened, and was back in the game a few
plays later.  Ditka and Thomas ironed out the misunderstanding.

And now, you know the REST of the story.

BTW, earlier this week ex-Bear Dan Hampton was asked about Stan Thomas,
and Hampton made a remark like "Stan Thomas couldn't replace a spark plug!".
From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: The Dynasty Continues..........
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:53:31 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <1992Dec15.205834.11739@netcom.com>, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes...

>In article <1992Dec15.174724.8216@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
> 
>>ALRIGHT, NOW YOU'VE DONE IT!
>>
>>You people are nothing but a bunch of little tiny weenies.  I'm sick 
>>of this "best of all time" crap.  IF YOU THINK THE 49ERS OF THE 80S 
>>WERE A BETTER TEAM THAN THE 60S PACKERS YOUR BRAIN IS DEFECTIVE.
>>
>>I could put up with the "best QB of all time" and "best safety of all 
>>time" crap but this "best team of all time" has shoved me over the 
>>edge.  I'll bet none of you even remember the 60s Packers.
>>
>>I'm not going to say that the 60s Packers were better than the 80s 
>>49ers.  I don't want to insult you.  But you better freakin knock it 
>>off 'CUS YOU'RE REALLY PISSIN ME OFF!!!!!
> 
>Another case of what happens when one tries to substitute caffiene
>for valium...

Hmmm, if I were grading humor I'd give you a C-.

>John, if you could relax for a moment, let me play devil's advocate for
>a moment.  The Niners' period of dominance was roughly 20-25 years later
>than the Packers'.  In that interval, players have become bigger, faster
>and quicker, and stronger.  (I confess to not having statistics to back
>this up, but I think it's generally recognized.)  Training regimens have
>become much stiffer.  The game has become much more complex and more is
>demanded mentally of the players.  And because of the longer season,
>more endurance is needed.  Finally, a case could be made that the level
>of competition is higher.

Well, in that case Joe Montana and Ronnie Lott are not the best ever 
players at their positions because players today are much bigger, 
stronger, and faster than they were in the 80s.  And the game is even 
more mentally demanding now than it was then.

In fact, I'll bet the '92 Cowboys could beat the - shoot! When did the 
49ers win their 1st Superbowl - '82 49ers.

>Personal team allegiances aside, I think it's quite supportable that
>a modern "dynasty" team would be better than a latter-day counterpart.
>We'll never know, of course, but it's an interesting mental exercise
>to consider taking the 1989 Niners back in time 25 years and letting
>them play 10 games against the Pack.  For the reasons mentioned in
>the above paragraph, I'd expect the Niners to win the majority.

You'd expect, huh.  Well, that's just fine.  I suspect you have 
nothing to base your opinion on and thats *exactly* why I think it's 
an insult to say that the 80s 49ers are better than the 60s Packers.

I'm perfectly willing to settle for the teams being declared 2 of the 
best ever.  But I won't except anything saying the 49ers are *the* 
best ever.

JGH
From: ronnie@uts.amdahl.com (Ronnie Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Steve Young vs Randall Cunningham
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:40:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec10.192410.1332@oakhill.sps.mot.com> floydg@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Floyd Goodrich) writes:
>In article <1g6p3nINN76s@male.EBay.Sun.COM> 49ers@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM (Renie Maycon) writes:
>>Steve Young is a better QB than Randall Cunningham.
>Maybe.  But not because of what you have said.
>
>>Steve is more durable than Randall.
>By what criteria?  Young has started 2 seasons so far in the NFL.  He was
>injured in one of them so badly he didn't play the rest of the year ==> 1/2.
>Cunningham has started multiple seasons (5?) and has one season-ending injury.
>==> 1/5.

Actually, Young was the starter in Tampa Bay before going to the Niners. 1/3..
Well he was benched in Tampa.. but that wasn't cause he was hurt. 
>
>Which indicates more durability, a season-ending injury in 50% of your seasons
>or one in ~20% of your seasons?
>

Perhaps someone should point out that Steve (32) is older by a few years than
Randall	(28or29) and will probably check out of the NFL before Randall. I think
Steve Young players for a better team and in a better organization than does 
Cunningham. The 49ers would never have allowed a player of Keith Jackson's 
caliber to walk. Nor would they ever have hired that clown Buddy Ryan as 
coach. Kotite isn't any better either. What's even more intriguing will be to 
watch Randall Cunningham if and when he gets ahold of a good offensive system 
and some Jerry Rice/John Taylor caliber receivers. 




-- 
Ronnie
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not cynical... I just don't believe in anything....


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: fbrown@ssd.kodak.com (Frank Brown)
Subject: Re: Heisman.. what a farce.. Faulk was screwed
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:26:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.025629.16122@coe.montana.edu> icsu0182@cs.montana.edu (Sean) writes:
>In article <42494@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi) writes:
>
>Don't apologize about putting this here!  Football is football is football!  
>Besides, the Heisman is going to predict if Toretta gets drafted in the 12th
>round of next years draft, or the 8th round.  Since he won, I'll say mid 8th!
>
>>Faulk:  
>>
>>1600+ yds rushing. Granted, he played in the WAC. But look 
>>at what he did in *BIG* games.
>

I agree with you guys but you have to remember that in Heisman voting
if it is close or there is a doubt they give it to the senior figuring
the underclassman will have another chance at it. Toretta did lead his	
team to 26-1 but there was nothing special about his contribution. Faulk
is an outstanding consistent "bust a big play" type back. This sort of
reminds me when they gave the trophy to Beban over OJ. Beban never did	
anything afterwards while OJ Had his jersey in the HOF before he even
retired.

Frank

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Re: 49ers have the 'Ladies of Charity'
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 18:42:33 GMT

In article <BzGvz4.46@news.cso.uiuc.edu> glb50263@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Gary L. Blickhan) writes:
>dggok@pbhyg.PacBell.COM (4E150M) writes:
>
>You're right - you win by the score, not yards allowed.  That's why the
>Bills embarrassed the 49ers at Candlestick while giving up 600 yards in
>total offense.  

As I remember it, this was a close game that either team could have won.
I wouldn't call it an embarrassment.

>If the 49ers clinch home
>field, they might play Joe Montana, and it will be funny to see him choke.

That would be pretty funny, given that he's never been much given to choking.
Should he play, he may not prove to be as effective as he used to be, he
may be rusty, the 49ers might not win with him at quarterback, but I doubt if 
he'll do much of anything that could reasonably be called "choking".  If 
there was ever a quarterback who kept his head clear when things went bad, 
it's Montana, and I don't recall that any of the many surgeries he's had
recently were on his brain.

-- 
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu
From: sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (The Purple Bleeder )
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Vikes and the Packers ... NFC-Central race.
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:30:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: ns1.Bz8F7D.DvM
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

Green Bay is alive and kicking in the NFC-Central race.
Earlier I had said that week-15 is an acid-test week
for both GB and the Vikes. Well, the Pack passed the
test and the Vikes failed it.

Now the Vikes go in a *must-win* situation in Pittsburg
next week to avoid the last game of the season with the
Pack at the Metro-Dome to be of any significance to them.
Actually they could use that week to rest many of their
starters for the playoffs.  However the Pack meet the Rams
at home next week and they should have no problems in
disposing them.

Well well well, the horror scenerio that I am dreading
is for the Vikes to lose the next two and for GB to
win their last two and Vikes will not even be a wild
card team and that will be devastating.

S.H
From: satish@a.chem.upenn.edu (Satish Nair)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: WILDCARDS, READ THIS!
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:32:08 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

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

NO NO NO!!  If Washington beats Philly, Green Bay gets in as a wild card
provided that they and Philly have the same record because they beat
Philly head to head.

satish nair
bitter & twisted giants fan
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 15:49:07 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 <1992Dec14.153358.12033@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN P. GLORIA) writes:
>In article <douthit.724344638@scofflaw> douthit@convex.com (Ronnie Douthit) writes:
 >>merrill@hades.stsci.edu (Clark) writes:
 >>
 >> [ text deleted ]
 >>>3.  Why did Aikman not try to get rid of it!  Throw it quick and long out of
 >>
 >>Why ! Why ! Why !  Panic overcomes logic unless you've been in the situation
 >>before.  Hopefully this is merely a learning experience for both Aikman and
 >>Emmit.
 >>
 >>			-Ron (Not whinning) D.
 >>
 >
 >Panic comes from not having discipline or you are scared shitless.
 >In this case, Aikman performed just as expected, i.e., no discipline,
 >and scared shitless. Sorry but the BOY does not have what it takes
 >to be REAL QB. He ought to take lessons from Roger S. and then
 >maybe Aikman can learn something. Homey don't think so. Some aspects
 >of the game you can learn, e.g., drop back three steps throw,
 >drop back five steps and read the defense, or find your receivers.
 >Aikman knows the mechanics of the game, but the nuances/intricacies
 >of game are unatainable by Aikman.  That is what separates a Montana 
 >or a Unitas from a wanna be. Yeah, I know. You Cowboys fans will
 >not realize this or admit it. You are too consumed by your false
 >hope of grandeur. Face it, As good as you think the 'Boys are,
 > despite their record, when your 'Boys are facing the firing
 > squad, they will close their eyes and flinch. Exhibit A: Dallas
 > vs Washington.
 >-- 
 > ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 >	"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
 >  is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain

The FOOTBALL GODS are watching, and reading as high and mighty
JPG slowly but surely starts to let his mouth write checks 
his 9ers may not be able to cash :-).

The Cowboys are the youngest team in the NFL today, you might as 
well get use to it, we gonna be here a long time. At this rate
JPG will have ulcers in another six months. 

So with no discipline and in a total state of panic facing the firing 
squad with a QB that cant win a game we are 11-3,
damn I can't wait till we get good !!!!

Go Cowboys !!!
tim
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: bonvicin@vxcrna.cern.ch
Subject: Re:Ho Home field in the NFC
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:27:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.002038.3238@netcom.com> Michael Zimmers writes:

>In article <1992Dec13.235928.1@vxcrna.cern.ch> bonvicin@vxcrna.cern.ch writes:

>>It is possible that the 9ers are not much better this year than last year,

>Are you nuts?  Ricky Watters by himself makes this a better team.
  
Not really. An All-Pro RB is just as valuable as an All-Pro safety
(like that old Raider guy...). Do you think a team ranked 27th against the
pass (last time I saw rankings) can win the SB? Defense is what will make or
break the 9ers playoffs.

> The OL is playing better. 

The OL without Barton is worse. Young was sacked ten times in MN.

>The offensive squad had adapted to Young and is the
>best in the game.  Special teams is better.  The fans are noisier.  The
>beer is colder and the cheerleaders are hotter -- oops, got carried 
>away.

The offense has always been great. Special teams are mediocre as always. 
They gave up the ball at the goal line. The other statements are certainly 
true and important...

>The Niners are much better than either of the last two seasons' versions,
>mostly due to a credible running game.

The 9ers were 2-6 last year in games decided by less than a TD. This year
they are 6-1 or 7-1 (don't remember the score @Jets). This is the difference
between a 10-6 and a 12-2 team. The defense is worse, and that is more
important than the running game. Most other numbers (PF/PA, Yds, QB ratings,
etc.) are similar. We have had help from turnovers in the last minutes to
beat LA and NE, smart decision making by Hebert twice, a first down short
by 2 inches, and Gannon playing a' la Hebert. Last year, one would get Hail
Marys instead. Last year, we were really the only team that could stop
the 'skins. This year, we are the best of a well balanced lot. A bad 
break (like 1983) or bad game (1987, 1990) in the playoffs can easily happen
with this team, unlike other 9ers teams of recent past. Let's just keep 
our finger crossed and hope that Dallas and NO beat each other senseless.

Cheers, Giovanni