HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johndoe@crispus.inmet (johndoe)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Patriots Poll
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:13:56 GMT
Reply-To: johndoe@inmet.com (Bus error - core dumped)
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.

In article <1ggpe1INNhr6@crcnis1.unl.edu> mgleason@cse.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes:

   QBs: Gino Toretta, Drew Bledsoe, Shane Matthews.  All votes for Rick Mirer
	    will be "accidentally" discarded ;-)

if the pats have to take a qb, it's probably a toss-up between toretta and
bledsoe.  so many people knock toretta in the same manner people knocked
testaverde, but i think there is one major difference:  toretta has proven
his intelligence off the field, whereas testaverde has not, and you really
do have to be a pretty smart guy to run an nfl offense.  toretta, like kosar
before him at miami, got his undergrad degree early, and is now working on
his masters while still playing.  toretta reminds a lot of kosar:  not known
for his mobility, but definitely has an arm and has led his team to a lot of
wins. 

btw, i think mirer would be a much better choice than matthews, for those
picking in the middle of the first round.

   OL:  Outland Trophy winner, Will Shields  (No, I'm not voting for him).

the pats line needs time to gel more than anything, i think.  shields would
not be a wasted pick, but i think the pats can do better at #1.  see below.

   RBs: Assuming Faulk and Hearst don't come out, I can't think of anyone worth
	    using our #1 pick on... We don't really need one anyway.

   WRs: None I can think of worth picking #1.

agreed.

   LBs: Marvin Jones

sounds like the next major lb.  since tippett is obviously on the downside
of his career, i think this would be by far the best choice the pats could
make.  many teams are proving this year that you can win with good defense
and average qbing (cf. chargers, steelers, saints, redskins, browns, colts);

   --mg
   --
   ___________________________________________________________________________
   mike gleason                 mgleason@cse.unl.edu          NCEMRSoft, baby!
			   Patriots:  Just win one, baby!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jbhuber@iastate.edu (Joseph B Huber)
Subject: Re: I'm a Vikings fan..please shoot me!!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:28:54 GMT

In article <Bz9Lwn.HtC@ns1.nodak.edu> sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (The Purple
Bleeder ) writes:

>Will the Vikes break my heart in 92.....

Of course. You should have listened to the veteran Viking fans who told you
that this would happen. For instance, I posted after the Washington game that
this Vike team was no different than any other Vike team of the past few
years, and you know what, I was right, Kudos to me!

We remain hopeful, but are not surprised/depressed when the Vikes fail because
we have seen it all before and are well hardened by all the Vike failures.

Dennis, get us Joe Montana, PLEASE!!!

-- 
Joe Huber 
(jbhuber@iastate.edu)        | Capt. James T. Kirk on the 2nd law of thermo: 
Dept. of Mech. Egr.          |  "It's not a hundred percent efficient,
Iowa State University        |   but nothing ever is."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: kevink@fugitive.soac.bellcore.com (Kevin Klinge)
Subject: Re: Eagles vs Redskins
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:57:47 GMT

In article <102067@netnews.upenn.edu>, nlatif@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Wolverine) writes:
|> 
|> If the Eagles win this Sunday's game, they will clinch the playoff berth 
|> (according to the Daily News) even though the 'Skins won their last game 
                                      ^^^^^^
"if", although quite probable, right?

|> against the Raiders 'cause the Eagles will have a better conference record. The

Correct.

|> Packers will need to go 2-0 and hope that the Vikes will lose both games to win
|> the Div. in order to be in the playoffs. 

Or the Pack could hope Washington goes 0-2 and Philly goes 1-1 if they go
2-0 to get a wildcard supposing Minnesota wins this weekend against Pittsburgh,
who is currently favored by 1 against the Vikings.  Considering O'Donnell
won't be playing, I'd figure this game as a toss-up.  

|>                                          They cant afford a tie with the 'Skins
|> since the 'Skins will win the tie-breaker. 

Yep.

|>                                            If however, the Eagles were to lose
|> to the 'Skins, then they must hope that the Packs will win the Div title and 
|> the Eagles will win the tie-breaker with the Vikes to grab the third spot. 

Not necessarily.  If the Eagles lose to the Skins this weekend (say the
birds finish 1-1), they could hope that GB goes 0-2 or 1-1 (much more likely 
than 0-2) for their final 2 games to get the wildcard.  I think having 
Minnesota lose to Pittsburgh this weekend would definately help the Eagles 
if they should fall to Washington, since that would put the GB-Minn game as 
the one for the division, and the loser would probably be out of the playoffs 
(cause Philly isn't losing at home to the Giant quitters in week 17).

If Philly loses to the Skins and Minnesota beats Pittsburgh this weekend 
(oh, and GB beats the Rams of course), then this would be a worst case
scenario for the Eagles.  Why?  Because then Minnesota clinches the Central
and Green Bay is left playing the last week for the wildcard against
Minnesota, who would probably not be anywhere near as fired up as Green Bay 
would be to win the game since the Vikes would already be in (and probably
out of reach for a 1st round bye too).  So I would predict a Green Bay win 
over Minnesota in week 17 if Minnesota wraps up the division this coming 
weekend, which would spell bad news if the Eagles finish 1-1 and Green Bay 
finishes 2-0.

|> This is what I can clearly see but correct me if Im wrong. 

A couple scenarios left out, but it looks like you know which games are
VERY important. 

|> GO EAGLES!!!

and Steelers!!!

-- 

Kevin H. Klinge
Bell Communications Research
kevink@soac.bellcore.com
From: perez@seismo.CSS.GOV (Ricardo L. Perez)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: 79 Cowboy-Skins Game
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:29:50 GMT
Distribution: rec

In article <HANS2.92Dec16163051@lib101.rpi.edu>, hans2@rpi.edu (Soo-Chul Han) writes:
> 
> 
> The Skins did get the ball back, and drove the ball to Dallas territory and
> tried to call time-out so that Mosely could attempt a 60+ yard field goal.
> But the refs ignored Theismann when he attempted to call a TO!
> The way Mosely was kicking those days, who knows...
> 

It was as if the ref was concentrating on the time and
blocking out everything around him.  I was there!  The ref
appeared to look at Joe but that was about it.
 

> Pardee was fired, and in came Gibbs :).

I loved Pardee when he was a Skin linebacker but as a
headcoach, Nah!

Rick P.
- - - -
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Wednesday, 16 Dec 1992 16:55:44 CET
From: <SLANE@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: WASHINGTON SUCKS SHIT!!!

In article <1992Dec14.224951.7252@nmsu.edu>, wlittle@dante.nmsu.edu (Wes) says:
>
>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
.
. [blah! , blah! , drivel deleted about THAT play]
.
.
>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!!1
>
>Wes

   Well now , seems it's not only the 49ers that have paid off the refs !
   I am used to seeing this sort of rubbish from bad losers after a 49er
   win , is Dallas jumping on that bandwagon already   :)
   What will those poor refs do if SF and Washington play each other -
   make sure the game is a tie !!

   So it was possibly a dubious call but what have the Cowgirls lost
   by losing this game .... they will still win the division , they would
   not have taken home field advantage from the 49ers even with a win , so
   what's all this whining about. Dallas had their chances in the game
   and if they are as good as you all make out  , should have wrapped it up
   long before THAT play. They even had time to drive downfield afterwards
   and blew it - why not whine about that instead.

   Now to go back to reading Viking excuses for sunday  :)

  steve.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: bob@msc.edu (Robert Hanson)
Subject: Questions for Viking's fans
Organization: Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Minneapolis, MN
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:24:00 GMT

1. Do you think MN will win the division?  If yes, how far do you think
   they will go in the playoffs?

2. With all of the current talk about getting a new QB, who would you  
   like to see come to MN.  A local radio announcer thought Boomer
   Esiason would be a good (and available) choice?

3. Speaking of QB, how good is Brad Johnson.  Is he just a perrenial
   backup, or does he have potential to be a good starter?

4. What positions, other than QB, do you think MN will be looking for in
   the draft?  I personally think they need to bring in a speed receiver.


				-Bob-
Xref: sparky rec.sport.football.pro:28904 dc.redskins:277
From: hunt@shy.umd.edu (Brian Hunt)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro,dc.redskins
Subject: Re: redskins' playoff chances
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:03:42 GMT

I wrote:
>Well, with the Redskins, Eagles, and Packers all winning this week,
>the picture for the Redskins is greatly simplified:  they're in the
>playoffs if they win one more game (oops--see highly unlikely
>exception below), or the Packers lose one more, or the Vikings lose to
>the Steelers next week.  If none of these things happens, they're out.

Small correction, thanks to the Washington Post:  a Vikings loss to the
Steelers doesn't quite clinch a spot for the Redskins because of the
possibility of a Packers-Vikings tie.  Ugh...

>The exception mentioned above requires the Redskins, Eagles, Packers,
>and Vikings all to finish 10-6 with the Redskins losing to the Eagles.

I went on to say how this would come down to points, whence the Eagles
and Redskins would probably go, but the Post disagrees.  They claim
that in this case the Packers would win the 1st playoff spot on the
basis of head-to-head, and then the Eagles would beat the Redskins for
the second spot on the basis of division record.

I don't buy this.  Head-to-head the Redskins would be (in this
scenario) 1-1 against the Eagles, the Packers 1-0 against the Eagles,
while the Redskins and Packers haven't played each other.
Head-to-head is supposed to apply "only if one team has defeated all
the others, or one team has lost to all others", so one interpretation
could be that head-to-head applies because the Eagles have lost one
game to each of the other teams.  However, it seems to me this should
merely eliminate the Eagles from consideration for the 1st wildcard
spot, whence the process should revert to a two-team tiebreaker
between the Redskins and Packers.  The Redskins would then win the 1st
spot (on the basis of better record against common opponents), and the
Packers and Eagles would vie for the 2nd spot, with the Packers
winning by head-to-head.

Now the Washington Post seems to imply that its article is based on
memos exchanged by the Redskins and the NFL, but I've known them to be
wrong about 3-way tiebreakers before.  Maybe I should just
relax--after all, how likely is it that the Eagles lose to the Giants?
Then again, if the Eagles know they can spite the Redskins by losing...

Brian Hunt
hunt@ipst.umd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: vallury@mesun2.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Vallury Prabhakar)
Subject: Joe Montana to start next week??
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:50:02 GMT


The SF Chronicle today had something about George Seifert's
comments on Joe Montana.  Apparently Joe seems "game-ready"
and GS said that he will almost certainly activate JM for 
next weeks' game against Tampa Bay.  Whether Joe will actually
play or not is unclear.

Comments/Questions about yesterday's 9ers game:

1) Young's early interception:  Watching it in slow motion,
   it appears as if John Taylor is running the pattern and 
   would've been IN FRONT of the defender, but for some reason
   decides to take a step, anyone else see this??  Young also
   seems to have thrown the ball to the point where JT MIGHT
   have been if he'd continued. 

2) I used to tremble everytime I saw any QB get hit or sacked, 
   but after watching Young throughout this season, I don't worry
   about him anymore.  He's VERY strong, athletic and the kind
   of hits he's taken would've put a lot of other QBs out cold.
   Especially the one hit he took close to the Vikings end-zone
   when trying to run the ball in himself.  Ouch!  Gets up and 
   walks away absolutely unflustered.  Amazing abilities!

3) Having said that, he does tend to consistently underthrow a 
   football to his receivers.  Maybe that's one (1) happened.  
   True, he's thrown some perfect timing passes, but a majority
   of them seem to force Rice, JT, Jones, etc., to wait, twist
   in the air, stutter a bit, etc.  The funny thing is, this 
   kind of a problem should be a very easy one to fix, yes??
   Hopefully, he'll get the synchronization right in Pasadena. 
   :^{o}

2) My personal opinion:  Not a very clean win, but the 9ers got the
   job done as far as the advantage is concerned.  However, it
   seems that the performance differential at home and away is 
   not all that significant to be a factor as far as the 49ers 
   are concerned.  I can think of other teams whose performance
   and motivation might be far higher when playing at home, but
   not so for the 9ers.  "Brutally methodical", was it?? I (obviously)
   don't have the numbers to back this up.  Any opinions?

Regards!

-- Vallury Prabhakar
-- rustcat@sunrise.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: Adriene_Nazaretian@QM.cis.YALE.EDU (ALN - Go Giants!)
Subject: Re: questions re: TV coverage, expansion
Organization: Yale University
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:26:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.220026.3047@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU (Vince Fuller) writes:
>From: vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU (Vince Fuller)
>Subject: Re: questions re: TV coverage, expansion
>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:00:26 GMT
>In article <1992Dec8.184423.21263@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, hall@pisces.jsc.nasa.gov (Philip Hall 283-4031) writes:
>|> >Yeah, if a home team game is sold out, and televised locally,
>|> >that area cannot have a 2nd game on the same network.  I think
>|> >its a real stupid rule.  Since the 49ers were at home yesterday,
>|> >the only NBC game they could broadcast in SF was Miami-San Francisco.
>|> >Likewise in NY, since the Giants were home and televised.
>
>Yup, this is the brain-damaged rule that means we in the Bay Area won't be able
>to see perhaps the best game of the 1992 NFL season - the Cowpies at 'Skins - on
>Sunday. Sigh. Can anyone suggest a place on the Peninsula (PA/MP/MV area) where
>one might be able to see this game?

Many of us are CHEATED by this rediculous ruling on double headers.  Here is 
some advice, since we CANT CHANGE the situation, just go to a good sports 
bar. They usually have cable/sat. connects with multiple tubes for your 
viewing pleasure.  

Ciao, .sig killed by mass destruction.  -ALN go jints (to hell and back!)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: merrill@stsci.edu (Clark Merrill)
Subject: Re: `Redskins Repeat !!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.50    
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:40:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.004738.7880@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, quangl@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Quang Le) writes...
> 
>Serious question: if the above seeding happens and Vikings meets Saints
>for the championship  where will they play? At the divisional team (MN) or
>the better record team (NO)?
> 
At the divisional team.  A divisional team is always seeded higher than a
wildcard team.
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Rice....Touchdown 49errrrrs!
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:03:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Pacific * Bell

In article <15177.2b33f8d3@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.035111.23847@PacBell.COM>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:
>> - 
>>  ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
>> "To be absolutely certain about something, one must know
>> everything or nothing about it."   Olin Miller
>
>Beware of Cajun Voodoo the fact that the Football Gods tend to frown upon
>zealous woofing. I know, I have been there many times...
>
>B R O W N S B R O W N S B R O W N S B R O W N S B R O W N S B R O W N S
>
>Geaux BROWNS!
>
>(OK, at least I have a backup team to root Feauxr :)
>
I suggest you pick a third team. :-) :-)

-- 
 ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know
everything or nothing about it."   Olin Miller
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: john@ice.stx.com (John DiMarzio)
Subject: Re: Barry Foster, rushing records
Reply-To: john@ice.stx.com
Organization: Hughes STX, Lanham, MD
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:58:59 GMT

In article <6ffS03jAc4nF00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, ronnie@uts.amdahl.com (Ronnie Townsend) writes:
}In article <1992Dec16.131046.18605@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> john@ice.stx.com writes:
}>In article <b2Y103q8c3pY00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, ronnie@uts.amdahl.com (Ronnie Townsend) writes:
}>}}>In perspective, Barry Foster has a chance to break the record but would 
}>}>have to put together some monster 200+ yard performances.  However, anything
}>}>over 1800 yards would put him in an elite club with Jim Brown, O.J Simpson,
}>}>Walter Payton, Earl Campbell, and Eric Dickerson.
}>}
}>}Foster does not belong in this club. Nor will he get there this year. 
}>}
}>}Emmitt, Barry S. .. perhaps... Foster... No... No... and No again! 
}>}
}>
}>Excuse me but the club membership is gaining 1800 yards per 1 NFL
}>season and if Foster does it then he deserves to be there.  I'd like to
}>see you run for even one yard in the NFL (in the right direction).  Keep
}>your Goddamn opinions to yourself.
}
}Don't be silly, of course I could run for yardage in the NFL. Of course at 
}5'7" 165 pounds I would not last very long doing so and in all likelihood 
}would get moved to WR before I ever took a handoff in an NFL training camp.
}At least that's what happened when I showed up at a USFL training camp. I 
}looked good, ran a few sub-4.4 40's caught the ball well and was told, 
}"don't call us we'll call you" I knew then it was time to get serious about 
}this career in computers as I would obviously never get a fair shot to play
}with the big boyz. If only I'd been born a couple of years later when the 
}"smurf" receiver came in vogue I might be out there playing with these guys
}now instead listening to your bullshit! 
}	If given some of the holes Foster has had to run through I dare 
}say I'd have close to 1000 yards too, assuming my 32 year old body didn't 
}all apart by now. The guy is having a great year .. but in my opinion... 
}WHICH I WILL SHARE WHEN I DAMN WELL PLEASE.. he has not earned the right 
}to be mentioned in the same sentence as Brown, Campbell, Dickerson, Payton 
}and Simpson.. Period. Show me a couple more years at this performance 
}level then we can talk... till then.. you and Barry F... can fuck off! 
}

If you think you could have 1000 yards in the NFL and couldn't make it
into the USFL (useless football league) you are sadly mistaken -- and
a little too proud of yourself.

But, this was not the point of my post which states that this rushing 
club of elites (>1800 yards) has nothing to do with longevity.  What you
are telling me is that, if Foster went over Dickerson's high (which he won't
this year) that he wouldn't deserve to hold the record for most rushing
yards because he hasn't proven himself (to you).... I think not.

His name will be among the biggies whether you approve or not.

John DiMarzio
From: smm@rodan.UU.NET (Steve Mansfield)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: `Redskins Repeat !!!
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:21:07 -0500
Organization: UUNET Technologies Inc, Falls Church, VA
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
Keywords: To all non-Redskin fans, after the Redskins beat up on the Cowboys this

In article <1992Dec11.222313.1906@csc.ti.com> rscott@ra.csc.ti.com (Roderick Scott) writes:
>Michael Irvin Has Stated He Is After To Re-Injury Green's Broken Arm...

If this is a joke - you are one *sick* fuck.  How can you *wish* injury on
someone like that?  Go crawl back under your rock.

If it's *not* a joke, any and all respect I held for Michael Irvin is now
gone.  And I thought he was just a great receiver that was a great
challenge for Green.
>
Steve Mansfield                   Junior AlterNet Engineer 
smm@uunet.uu.net                  uunet!smm
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: nitin@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Nitin Khanna)
Subject: Re: BEST team wins Re: Dallas vs Skins
Organization: Houses of the Holy
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:43:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.004744.18311@PacBell.COM>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN P. GLORIA) writes:
> >In article: Frank Bilotti <frank@wanda.princeton.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Washington/Dallas Matchup
> In article <1992Dec11.151537.12404@PacBell.COM> JOHN P. GLORIA,
> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM writes:
> >

[much drivel deleted]

> >FRANK
> >
> >another prediction?  Hell, I'm fired up!  Dallas 42 Skins 20 (:
> 
> Okay FRANK, what happend to your almighty, too legit to
> lose 'Boys? Don't fuck with someone who is bigger than you
> and better than you and that applies to the CowPUSSIES.
> Aikman ain't no come back Roger S. And furthermore you
> dick, don't mess with the FOOTBALL GODS! :-) :-) YES!
> -- 
>  ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
> 	"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
>   is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain


This is about the fifth straight post I've read by you with
obscenities in it.  Though not agains the use of swear words
in a good joke it gets kind of old after a while.  Do you have
a problem writing a clean post?  And, oh yeah, the constant
reference to the FOOTBALL GODS (with a smiley every time) is
very annonying.  No need to reply; I think I'll put you in my
kill file.


-- 
Nitin Khanna.  I Teach Eunuchs - I mean Unix.
Go Bulls, Bears, Broncos, Blackhawks.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: nitin@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Nitin Khanna)
Subject: Re: Christmans is approaching
Organization: Houses of the Holy
Distribution: rec.sport.football.pro
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:57:44 GMT

In article <101916@netnews.upenn.edu>, satish@a.chem.upenn.edu (Satish Nair) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Said the north wind to the little lamb,
> Do you hear what I hear:
> 	"The Cowpussies suck"
> 	"The Whiners are just lucky"
> 	
> 
> Ahh... the lovely sounds of approaching playoffs!!
> 
> satish nair
> go giants (5-11 in '92!)
> 


Flexing my poetic muscles I will try to improve the rhyme inthe
above ditty just a little bit.


> Said the north wind to the little lamb,
> Do you hear what I hear:
> 	"The Cowpussies suck"
> 	"The Whiners win by luck"


Hmm...

-- 
Nitin Khanna.  I Teach Eunuchs - I mean Unix.
Go Bulls, Bears, Broncos, Blackhawks.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro