HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chf0@roger.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Dolphins vs Falcons Statistics
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:41:31 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories

Reprinted without permission from USA Today:

Final Score:  Miami 21 - Atlanta 17

Scoring by Quarters

Atlanta	    0	10   7   0  --  17
Miami	    7    0   7   7  --  21

                     Atlanta   Miami
First Downs		20	23
Rushing			 4	 7
Passing			13	13
Penalty			 3	 3

3d down efficiency	4-11	8-14
4th down efficiency	0-1     0-1

Total Net Yards		323	346
Total Plays		57	63
Average Gain		5.7	5.5

Net Yards Rushing	69	98
Rushes			16	22
Average Per Rush	4.3	4.5

Net Yards Passing	254	248
Completed-Attempted	26-41	20-40
Yards per Pass		6.2	6.0
Sacked-yards lost	0-0	1-2
Had intercepted		1	0

Punts-Average		4-40	3-38
Return Yardage		43	76
Punts-Returns		1-1	2-14
Kickoffs-Returns	2-42	3-32
Interceptions-Yards	0-0	1-30

Penalties-Yards		5-62	9-69
Fumbles-Lost		1-1	2-1

Time of Possession	29:00	31:00

Individual Stats

Miami Rushing		No	Yds	Avg	TDs
	Higgs		13	58	4.5	2
	Humphrey	7	42	6.0	0
	Marino		2	-2	-1	0

Falcons Rushing	
	K.Jones		12	55	4.6	0
	Broussard	2	9	4.5	0
	Miller		2	5	2.5	0

Passing		     Comp-Att-Yds-Td-Int
	Marino	       20-40-250-0-0
	C.Miller       26-41-254-2-1

Miami Receiving		No	Yds	TD
	Clayton		4	45	
	K.Jackson	3	43
	Paige		3	27
	Duper		3	27
	Martin		2	54
	Humphrey	2	33
	Higgs		2	11
	Banks		1	10

Falcons Receiving
	Rison		7	101
	Hill		7	57	1
	Pritchard	7	46	1
	Haynes		3	29
	K.Jones		1	12
	Sanders		1 	9
	
Miami Defense	Tackles-Assists-Sacks
	V.Jackson	7-1-0
	Oliver		5-2-0
	Offerdahl	4-1-0
	Klingbeil	3-0-0
	JB Brown	3-0-0
	Vincent		2-0-0
	J.Williams	2-0-0
	Cox		1-1-0
	Coleman		1-1-0
	Griggs		1-1-0
	Oglesby		1-1-0
	Cross		1-0-0
	Craver		1-0-0
	Hobley		1-0-0
	Alexander	0-1-0
	Hollier		0-1-0

Falcons Defense	Tackles-Assists-Sacks
	Green 		6-1-1
	Riddick		4-1-1
	Tuggle		3-4-0
	Conner		3-1-0
	Ray		3-0-0
	Sanders		3-0-0
	Donaldson	2-2-0
	McKyer		2-1-0
	Pickens		2-1-0
	Soloman		2-1-0
	Epps		2-0-0
	Gann		2-0-0
	Tippins		1-3-0
	Washington	1-1-0
	LeBel		1-0-0
	Gardner		0-1-0
	Butler		0-1-0
	Mitchell	0-1-0
	Reid		0-1-0

Interceptions
	Miami		Jackson		1-30  1 TD
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: Adriene_Nazaretian@QM.YCC.YALE.EDU (Go GIANTS!)
Subject: Re: MNF announcers
Organization: Yale University Computing & Information Systems
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:35:56 GMT

In article <platkus.718574723@todd.ecn.purdue.edu> platkus@todd.ecn.purdue.edu (Shawn W Platkus) writes:
>From: platkus@todd.ecn.purdue.edu (Shawn W Platkus)
>Subject: Re: MNF announcers
>Date:  8 Oct 92 20:05:23 GMT

>I just have to say my peice about the Monday night team on ABC.  I know I may
>be in the minority here, but I like the guys on Monday night.  Now I can't

You're not the only one, my friends and I also enjoy their style.

>argue with what all you guys are saying about them making some stupid comments,
>and going overboard on some things, and sometimes totally ingnoring the game,
>but I like what they do and I like their style.  In my opinion, most all
>anouncers are pretty bad.  But these guys are not as bad as most becuase of
>all of these things the rest of you complain about.

[more stuff deleted]
>Just an aside here, the only announcer that I think actually knows what he is
>talking about is John Madden.  Now, I'm not a Madden fan, and I used to hate him
>becuase I couldn't stand his rambling on etc. etc.  But one day I started filtering out his ramblings and started paying attention to what he was saying, and
>it not only made since, but was informative.  So, what I'm saying is that 
>most announcers are not nearly as knowledgable about the game as maybe Madden
>is, so I'd rather the talk about things other than the game so as not to 
>insult my intelligence.  

Madden is also one of my favorites, I like him because he takes in all 
aspects of whats happening at the stadium, including the tailgate parties 
etc... He also gives interesting personal information on players.

We used to watch football with the sound muted and play the radio in the 
background, and whenever there was a contraversy I'd click the sound back on.
But then as we started listening to some of the things Madden was saying we 
started leaving the sound on more and more.

I think we have been through this thread a few times already though, no????

Adriene L. Nazaretian        
Yale University              
ADRIENE@YALEADS.BITNET        
ADRIENE@YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU  
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Super Bowl as Alpha and Omega, again (was Re: Eagles : YIKES!)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:29:27 GMT

jg> John P. Gloria
gs> Gary Strand

gs> Of course, I wouldn't expect a Forty-Whiner fan to understand. Living off
    *past* glory makes it easier to rationalize away the 49ers poorer perform-
    ance of the last couple of seasons. Just as Packer fans, Dolphin fans, Cow-
    boys fans, and Steeler fans have learned, a team cannot be "the Greatest" 
    forever. However, John just doesn't seem to realize that.

jg> Gary, I thought you were only allowed to get out of your straight jacket
    on weekends? 

  That's *all* you have to say?

  Why not try supporting your argument that the SB is the *only* means to de-
  termine a team's "greatness", and how past SB wins mean anything for this
  season, or for any season except the one in which they took place. Also,
  why not take the argument back a step and say that those teams that have a
  tradition of winning their conference championships means that those teams
  are the best of the given conference. I'm sure that the Broncos 5-11 record
  in 1990 (despite their 4-0 record in the AFC championship until that point)
  doesn't mean that the Broncos were amongst the worst AFC teams in 1990. They
  did have a great tradition in the AFC, heck, that means that they're among
  the best in the AFC, regardless of the specific season involved. That's what
  I understand your argument to be, lamebrained as it is.

  I bet if you think *real* hard, you can support your opinions. Repeating
  them over and over again doesn't count as support, btw.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: O1DOUG@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Doug Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Rypien
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:07:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Akron

Does anybody have Rypien's stats for tonight. They would be appreciated!
From: erickson@lclark.edu (Scott Erickson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: The New Dawn of the Raiders
Date: 12 Oct 92 03:58:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

Ha!  All of you football fans out there who are under the mistaken
impression that the Bills' 20-3 loss to the Raiders is only a sign
of ineptitude on the part of the Bills, beware!

That's right, the Raiders are going to march straight on through the
rest of the season undefeated, finish 12-4 (AFC West champs, BTW), beat
the Dolphins in the AFC championship game, and then emerge victorious
over. . .whatever NFC team ends up in the Super Bowl (I don't EVEN wanna
get involved in that argument).

Yes, the mighty days of the Feared Silver and Black have returned. . .
once more will all other teams (not just the Patriots) quake before the 
mighty Raider team. . .blah blah blah. . .more blindly jingoistic
rambling. . .


Hey, it _could_ happen.  (And Bush _could_ win in November.)  It's just
that I've been so starved for any sign of the Raiders I knew and loved
in the '70s/early '80s that I'll spring at any chance to gloat.  Forgive
me.


--Scott Erickson
Lewis and Clark College

P.S.  This post is meant in an entirely lighthearted sense, not intended
to be taken as a slam against any team since I'm quite sure that the Raiders
will be lucky to win as many games as they lose this season.
From: mark@totaltec.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Useless Cowboys Fans Mindless Ramblings
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:57:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Total Tec Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.052422.24288@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, jacklord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Albert Chu) writes:
> In article <6OCT199223451157@rigel.tamu.edu> c1h3384@rigel.tamu.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.212447.1@wharton.upenn.edu>, reille85@wharton.upenn.edu writes...
>>>The Eagles did not play very well offensively and still scored 31 pts. on MNF,
>>>all I have to say is watch out NFL.  By the way, the Eagles will also win on
>>>November 1 in Dallas.
>>> 
>>
>>Remember, 1) They can NOT play better offensively. That is it. Take out
>>             their QB's run, what do you have? Does Cunningham know how to
>>             hit a reciever in game time?
Take out RC runs and you have Herchell Walker walking all over the weak Dallas
Defense, and yes RC does know how to hit a reciever. How do you think he
became the TOP RATED PASSER in the NFL you dimwit!
>>
>>          2) You are going to lose a bunch of games this year. The first one
>>             should be in KC. KC is going to beat you really bad.
The Eagles may lose to KC but with the GANG GREEN DEFENSE it will be close.
>>
>>	  3) Coming in November, the two teams are going in opposite directions.
>>             Dallas is young, and always goes up. You guys are too old to make
>>             a run that time. So Dallas is going to pay you back then. 
How do you figure? It's only 4 weeks away, do you really think that much
is going to happen in 4 weeks ??
>>
>>Bob

Hows this for a prediction Bob, Seattle 24 Cowboys 10 !!!!

Mark Remeta
GO EAGLES!!!
From: un032221@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: shortest player?
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:34:08 GMT
Organization: West Virginia Network for Educational Telecomputing

In article <1992Oct12.233528.21806@ms.uky.edu>, thomasc@ms.uky.edu (Thomas Campbell) writes:
> In article <718930919snx@smok.demon.co.uk> richard@smok.demon.co.uk (Richard Clyne) writes:
>>
>>In article <BvMutF.9st@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> bubba@mace.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>>
>>>
>>>Who is the current Shortest Man in the NFL?  I think we should salute
> 
> I'd say it would be Jimmy Breech for the Bengals... it says 5'8" but,
> I've heard *everyone* say that's a stretch for the man who's scored 
> in more consecutive games than anyone in the history of the game.. ;)
> 
> alex

Either last year, or the year before, I saw an Oiler game on MNF where dierdork
and co.'s stat groupies came up with the fact that Tony Jones, WR, then with
Oilers, now with Falcons was the NFL's shortest guy.  Perhaps this has changed
(rookies coming in, free agents coming in, Jones taking growth hormones :"))
but I doubt if Breech shrank, and Jones grew over the off-season.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: martens@python.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens)
Subject: Re: Packers starting QB - Majik or Favre
Organization: Ohio State U. Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:16:18 GMT


Based on what I've seen, I'd say Favre is the better QB and I'd
start him.  The argument for starting Majkowski, as I see it, is
twofold:

(1) The "you don't lose your job due to an injury" argument.

(2) If we don't give Majkowski a chance now, we may never know if
he can recapture his old form.

(1) is a crock.  Players lose their jobs all the time due to
injury, and (as Todd pointed out) Holmgren has already said that
this isn't a solid policy.

(2) is maybe worth some consideration.  But Majkowski looks lost
on the field, and wasn't performing.  How many chances do you give
him?

Humorous aside:  last week's "Sporting News" says that Favre is
more elusive than Majkowski.  Favre is certainly sufficiently
mobile, but I think the perception that he's more elusive than
Majkowski may come from the fact that he really unloads the ball
quickly (and on target) when under a heavy rush.  Majkowski (and
Tomczak and Kiel) hold it until just after the last second.

Prediction #1:  Favre starts Sunday and Green Bay squeaks out a
win in Cleveland.

Prediction #2:  Majkowski starts Sunday and the Browns blow the
Packers off the field, Tomczak being the winning QB.  Expect
fumbles at key moments by Majkowski.

-- 
	Don't waste your time waving your hands
	and hoping when a rock or a club will do.

-- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu)
From: currie@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Currie)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: JGH computer rankings - week 7
Date: 16 Oct 92 11:38:31 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <ldlp28INNik5@cronkite> andy@misha.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>

John Heim's computer list deleted.

>I did notice Da Bearz are missing from the top 10.   Packer envy....
>
Packer Envy?  More like realism.  Look for the Bears down around no. 27
or 28. :)

Kim
From: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Vikings vs Bears
Date: 7 Oct 1992 16:00:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM) says:

>In article <1asnh3INN540@uwm.edu> caeser@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Robert Michael Trotter) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.182852.735@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>>>In article <1aq239INNiu9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes...
>>>
>>>[Deletions]
>>>
>>>>Gannon then came through with some
>>>>crisp passing  (I really think with more exp, this
>>>>lad will be a premier quarterback) and Roger Craig and Chris Carter
>>>>also stepped up.  
>>>
>>>The only problem I have with what you've said so far is about Gannon 
>>>being a premere QB if he gets more experience.  Gannon already has 6 
>>>years of NFL experience and lots of playing time.  I don't think more 
>>>experience is going to make much difference.
>>>
>>	Well, most of this time, he was a backup behind Kramer and
>>	Wilson. Gannon really has only been a "true" starter for about
>>	one full season. Dont forget, Wilson was the starter at the
>>	beginning of last year. Gannon really hasnt gotten FULL playing
>>	time, and I agree with the above poster, with a year or two
>>	more as the full starter, Gannon will be a good QB.
>
>I don't know, it's hard for me to believe that after 5 years as a 
>backup and 1 as a starter he can possibly be in need of more 
>experience.  I sure all QBs learn more and more each year but it's not 
>going to be like the improvement you sometimes see in the first 1-2 
>years of a QBs career.  Maybe if we say 'seasoning' rather than 
>'experience' I'd be okay with it.

All I am saying is that it wasn't really until last year
that Gannon was given the nod (after FINALLY dumping Wilson who
had one lucky year).  And last year, the offense was in shambles
since no one knew what to do with Walker.  They dumped Walker,
and got a new coach and offensive coordinator who seems to
be using an offense which takes advantage of Gannon's (and
others) skills.  What great quarterbacks need is confidence.
Confidence comes through experience (leading a team to 
victory when you are behind, overcoming mistakes, etc).
And for all practical purposes, this is Gannon's "2nd" year.

(Another test case is Vinny in Tampa Bay).
-- 
Michael
From: a750288@pan.mc.ti.com (John E. Brennan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Patriots News 10/8
Keywords: Jets game, trivia question
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:58:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: pan.a750288.31
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group

In article <a750288.30@pan.mc.ti.com> a750288@pan.mc.ti.com (John E. 
Brennan) writes

>Trivia Question (answer tomorrow)

>When was the last time the Patriots went 0-5?

            
And the answer is...................














1969.  The Patriots started at 0-7 that year.  Sure hope it doesn't happen
again.



Take Care,
 
John 



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            
John Brennan 

a750288@pan.mc.ti.com 
From: ashton@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ashton Delahoussaye)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:04:12 GMT
Subject: Re: EAGLES WHIP DALLAS; my 0.02cents worth
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro

In rec.sport.football.pro, sajja@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (Rajeev  Sajja) writes:

> 
> A quote by the minister of defense REGGIE WHITE before the season started
> 
> 	"IT IS NOW OR NEVER FOR THE EAGLES"
> 
> the way they are going, it sure looks like now....
> 
> -Rajeev
> 
> GO EAGLES....

The Eagles undoubtedly are a very good team, but I expect their winning streak
to end this weekend in KC.  The KC style of play matches up very well with the
Eagles style; they pound the ball at you with either Barry Word, Okoye, or
Williams, and then rely on the play action pass.  K.C. will have to do a good
job of protecting Krieg, but I think Barry Words outsided sweeps will tend
to slow the Eagles pass rush.  K.C. has one of the better defenses in the
NFL, and dominant pass rushers in Derrick Thomas and Neil Smith.  Randall may
feel as though he's playing against his own defense.

K.C. should be pretty pissed off after their loss to the Broncos, and they'll
be looking to take it out on someone.  Right now the Eagles are on cloud nine
and possibly over-confident.  Also the Eagles won't have the support of
their fans; whereas, the Chiefs have been known to go into a feeding frenzy
if their fans are really into the game.


Ashton

Bronco Zealot

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jmd@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (joseph.m.dakes)
Subject: Re: Wild cards
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:47:50 GMT
Summary: Conference Playoffs

In article <1bkoleINNhpu@agate.berkeley.edu>, rege@bongo.Berkeley.EDU (Ashutosh G. Rege) writes:
>  Your counter-whining aside, the argument is not that the Falcons 
>  didn't deserve to be in the playoffs, it was that the 8-8 Jets and the
>  9-7 Raiders (or was it the Chiefs ?) didn't. The Eagles and Niners 
>  should have replaced both these teams, it certainly would have made
>  for a better caliber of game. Now, as for a better system, it is simple :

Look, I'm the biggest Eagles fan around, but there is no way they, nor
the 49ers, deserved to make the playoffs last season.  Each conference
takes the top six teams.  If you can't be one of the top six teams out
of fourteen then you simply aren't good enough to represent your
conference.  Both teams knew the rules about how to make the playoffs
going into the season.  You beat the teams within your division first
and foremost.  Then make sure you take care of business against teams
within the conference.  Both teams failed within their division.  Case
closed.  Better luck next year.

>  Have 2 wildcards for each conference instead of the present 3 and have
>  two "floating" wildcards for the best teams of the remainder in the league.  
>  These will be determined by criteria similar to those used presently
>  (i.e record, head-to-head ,common opponents etc.).

No offense, but this is pretty lame.  If the battle for the last playoff
spot is between two teams from different conferences, the first few tie
breaker criteria would be non-existent.  It would end up being decided
by points scored or a coin toss.  Then we'd have another debate on how
to better select playoff teams.  And even if it could be decided, which
conference would these floating wildcards compete against?

>  This prevents total domination by one conference (which is unlikely in
>  any event) and also prevents crappy teams like the Jets from being
>  in the playoffs (c'mon, 8-8 gets you into the playoffs? Give me a break!)

If 8-8 is sixth best in your particular conference, so be it.  Again,
if you can't be one of the top six teams in your conference, despite
your record, you don't belong in the playoffs.


E-A-G-L-E-S

Joe Dakes
AT&T Microelectronics
555 Union Boulevard
Allentown, PA  18103
alux2!jmd

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: The Alltime Greats needed.
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:31:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.223648.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> d_jackson@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au writes:
			.
			.
			.
>other teams to send me a roster of what u would consider your teams alltime 
>great players (all positons if possible) i.e best running backs ,for Bears I 
>have Sayers,Payton and Anderson. If u could send the name and numbers,it would
			.
			.
			.
Is there anyone else who puts Nagurski
ahead of Anderson?
-- 

Cameron Laird
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net)  	+1 713 996 8546
From: martens@laurel.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: HAIL THE BROWNS
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:19:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: cis.1992Oct13.211921.21650
Organization: Ohio State U. Dept. of Computer Science

In article <1992Oct13.205658.1600@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>In article <dn2001-131092152526@m248-103.bgsu.edu>, dn2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Dan Nolan) writes...

>>THE BROWNS RULE!!!!!!!!!!

>>THAT'S ALL AND NOTHING ELSE.

>>GREENBAY DOESN'T STAND A CHANCE AGAINST US.

>Green Bay is 2 words.

What do you expect from someone who hasn't found the caps lock
key?  He kinda reminds me of the idiotic Steeler woofers from last
week. 
-- 
	Don't waste your time waving your hands
	and hoping when a rock or a club will do.

-- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu)
From: martens@python.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Browns News - 1st qtr review - Steeler preview
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:40:19 GMT
Organization: Ohio State U. Dept. of Computer Science

In article <1992Oct9.105248.9055@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> mocnik@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:

	[ ... ]

>   The Browns are hinting they may activate Kevin Mack and Frank Stamms
>   from the IR. This has not happened yet. I think Kevin will be activated.

This morning's Columbus Dispatch reports that both have been
activated.

	[ ... ]

>3. Predictions:
>   - Pittsburgh has a strong defense and they should be able to stop the
>     Browns running game.  Thus the Browns will try a couple of trick
>     plays (ie end-arounds or halfback option passes.) A couple of 
>     successful trick plays will keep the defense guessing.

Green Bay ran well against Pitt, and passed at will.  Cleveland
will run ok.  How's Tomczak looking?  As a Packer fan, I think
he's an adequate, but not great, QB.  Strock was probably a bit
better, Pagel a wee bit worse.

>   - The Browns will need to go deep a couple of times so as to get the
>     safeties and cornerbacks away from the line of scrimmage.

Yes.

>   - The defense MUST stop the running game and MUST pressure the QB.
>     O'Donnell must be forced to pass.

O'Donnell is easily rattled and his receivers stink.  If Cowher
abandons the running game prematurely (as he did when GB got a
small lead), the Browns will win.

-- 
	Don't waste your time waving your hands
	and hoping when a rock or a club will do.

-- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro