HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mw@col.hp.com (Mike Waughn)
Subject: Re: Predictions 
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:04:00 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

melissa@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Melissa C Merrill) writes:
> 	    In the Central, I have to wonder where all this hype is
>      coming out of Detroit? I mean, I heard all this when the Pack went
>      10-6 in 89. Detroit is not that good, they have Barry, but who else
>      is Pro Bowl calibur? Spielman? and Ball? I really do not think 

    Detroit finished 12-4, won the division and played in the NFC title
    game.  The last NFC Central team to do play in the NFC title game 
    was the 1986 Bears.  The Lions did this while sustaining major injuries:
      Starting QB: Rodney Peete
      Starting WR: Robert Clark (leading receiver in 1990)
      Starting RG: Mike Utley
      Starting RT: Eric Sanders (started a rookie in his place)
      Starting OLB: Mike Cofer (best pass rusher)
      Starting NT: Jerry Ball (3-time pro-bowler)
    None of these people were playing at the end of the season and the
    Lions still won the division.  Note, the Lions played a third place
    schedule last season, whereas the Packers in 1989 played a fifth 
    place schedule.

    The Lions placed several players in the Pro Bowl last year:
      Barry Sanders RB, Lomas Brown LT, Chris Spielman ILB, Benny Blades SS,
      Jerry Ball NT, Mel Gray KR.
    Other Lions near Pro Bowl level:
      Ray Crockett CB, George Jamison OLB, Kevin Glover C.
      
    None of this, though, means a hill of beans for this season.
    
    Plusses for this season:
    - Young players at WR and Defensive line have another year of experience.
    - Most of the players from last year are healthy again.
    - They play 9 games indoors (they were undefeated indoors last year).
    
    Minuses for this season:
    - 2 tragedies in the off-season (deaths of assistant coach Len Fontes, and
      LG Eric Andolsek)
    - Many players are holding out after the successful season.
    - Another new offense is being installed.
    - Both of last years starters at OG are out of football.
    - Unproven rookie kicker this season.
    - First place schedule.
    
    I still feel that the Lions have the best overall talent in the division,
    but without a solid offensive line, the team will not do as well this
    season.
    
    For me, the NFC Central looks like this:
    
    Detroit/Chicago         Only two teams in the division with the same
    Chicago/Detroit         head coaches as last year.

    Green Bay               Best talent of bottom 3
    Minnesota               Fifth place schedule helped them (2xPhoenix, Indy)
    Tampa Bay               This team has almost zero offense last year

> 
> 						IMHO Mark
> 						Go Vikings.
> 

Mike Waughn
Go Lions!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske)
Subject: Re: Ty Detmer and other Heisman winners
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:54:49 GMT

bokenko@CS.ColoState.EDU (jeffrey scot bokenko) writes:


>I would like a list of Heisman trophy winners and the teams they play on.
>Only active players would be nice.  All I can think of is the following:

>     Desmond Howard      Washington  (??????)
>     Hershel Walker      Philadelphia
>     Marcus Allen        Raiders
>     Ron Brown           Raiders
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     Ty Detmer           ????????


>any others you can think of ??????
>-- 
>*****************************************************************************
>Jeff Bokenko                       CONFUCIOUS SAY:  "He who fishes in another
>bokenko@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu           man's well, often catches crab."
>*****************************************************************************

I think Jeff means Tim Brown (from....of course, Notre Dame) with the Raiders
As for other active NFLers with a Heisman: Barry Sanders, currently with 
Detroit, would be an easy answer for me.  I guess that's the end of my
meager list.  Oh by the way, Detmer is with Green Bay (9th round draft
pick I believe) and apparently impressing in training camp.
Could any Wisconsinites out there give us more on Ty?


John Ganske -------------------------
a readheaded dad, vegetarian, cyclist, runner, volleyball player,
programmer, and all-around good guy, glad to be back in Minnesota
and soon to become small-time (very small-time) farmer 
     -----------------------------------------------------  
Unisys Corp.                            jag@unislc.slc.unisys.com 
Roseville, Minnesota                    612 635-7545  
----------------------------------------------------------------- 

 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: twolf@cs.utah.edu (Tom Wolf)
Subject: Re: POOL - Separate Newsgroup?
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:10:47 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug19.173616.26353@colorado.edu> davewood@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (David Rex Wood) writes:
>Last week, several people posted "Where are the results" messages after they
>had already been posted.  I have also had many people say that it is hard to
>find the different posts each week.
>
>As a possible solution to some of these problems, I was considering creating
>a group, "rec.sport.football.pro.pool" which would contain only my posts
>about the pool and any discussion of same.  It would also be available for
>any other pools that start up...
>
>Please let me know if you have an opinion on this idea either way.  If people
>seem to think it would be a useful thing, I'll do it.  If not, I won't.
>
>If we could keep discussion of this idea on the newsgroup, it would keep my
>mail spool to a less obnoxious size, but replies through email are also fine.
>
>-- 

Glad you have brought it up. I don't think a new group is needed. I think
a cheaper, more effective method would be to have the owner of the pool
create a mailing list. He could then mail the pool info just to the people
interested in the pool. This would facilitate the discussion in the pool,
in that only pool people would get the mail. There is no reason to distribute
to the world a message that is addressed to small group of people.

Tom Wolf

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jbhuber@iastate.edu (Joseph B Huber)
Subject: Re: Stupid rules
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 20:28:51 GMT

In article <16AUG199215432113@oppy.mit.edu> kettler@oppy.mit.edu (KETTLER,
THOMAS R.) writes:
>In article <866mrxf@lynx.unm.edu>, jawebb@hydra.unm.edu (James Webb) writes:  
>>	5) No offense gain on a fumble unless the fumbling player recovers
>>	   the fumble himself. Another nifty play that added excitement and
>>	   variety.
>
>You're wrong. The offense can gain on a fumble but can not gain on a fumble 
>unless the person who fumbled it recovers only in the final two minutes of the 
>halves. This was instituted to prevent a recurrence of the "Holy Roller" Game 
>where Ken Stabler "fumbled" the ball forward in the closing seconds and 
>eventually Cliff Branch recovered the ball in the end zone for the winning 
>touchdown. [...]

If this is the case (and I think it is), it is still a stupid rule. I thought
the Stabler play was brilliant. What was wrong, as far as the framework of
football goes, with Stabler's play? What is so special about the last 2
minutes of a game? Get rid of the rule and keep things simple: The ball
belongs to whichever team recovers the fumble; if the offense happens to
recover it in the defense's end zone, so be it. Give them 6 points and move on.
If the offense wants to risk a planned forward fumble in hopes of scoring, let
them try. It will add to the excitment of the game.

-- 
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."
From: dmercer@oracle.com (David B. Mercer)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Worst Rules in NFL
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:40:03 GMT
	<92227.111410ENVIRON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
	<Bt4uLp.Fx6@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
	<92231.140813ENVIRON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <92231.140813ENVIRON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> ENVIRON@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>In article <Bt4uLp.Fx6@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, imprint@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca
>(IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper) says:
>>
>>Sudden-death encourages caution. If you receive the opening kickoff in OT,
>>you don't want to make any turnovers BECAUSE it is sudden-death and a mistake
>>can cost you the game. Thus, you get boring, predictable, safe offence -- and
>>less aggressive defence, because the defensive team doesn't want to get burned
>>either.
>>
>>The best solution would be either the same number of possessions for each
>>team,
>>or (a solution tested in the WLAF) a team must win by six or more points, to
>>discourage safe field goal kicking. (Either a touchdown or two field goals
>>would win it.)
>
>     I'm not sure that I buy that logic.  Why would a team that gets the
>opening kickoff be any less cautious in the equal-number-of-possessions
>rule?  Either way, a turnover would probably end the game.  Suppose Team A
>receives the opening overtime kickoff and throws an interception to Team B,
>which then scores a touchdown.  Then either the game would be over anyway
>or they can go through the song and dance of Team B getting the second
>kickoff and kneeling on the ball four times...

That's why you have the onside kick....


The solution I like is that if the receiving team scores on the
opening drive, the other team is given the chance to equalize (like in
the WLAF).  If the second team scores the same number of points on its
opening drive of OT, then the first team receives and gets another
shot (still like WLAF).  Unlike the WLAF, however, if the first team
were to score on its opening drive for the second time, the second
team gets another chance to repeat the feat, and so on until one of
the teams does not score on its opening drive, and then either (1) the
team that is ahead wins (in the case of the second team turning the
ball over), or (2) the next team to score wins (in the case of the
first team turning the ball over).  This seems to me to be a fair way
of doing it.

I also can see no reason why there is a time limit on overtime.  Sure,
in theory, the game could then go on forever, but if the two teams are
so well matched in skill, the victory should go to the better team in
endurance.

What do they do in playoff games when the game is still tied at the
end of OT.  Don't tell me they do a coin-toss or something!

---DBM
From: tkelsey@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (todd.p.kelsey)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Packer Update
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:18:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbfsb.1992Aug14.171841.11491
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <55702@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> rsmith@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Russ Smith) writes:
>According to the morning paper, Mandarich is having headaches due to a 
>concussion he got in the last pre-season game, so he's not sick, just
>injured.
>
>Has there been another guy get as much hype and attention and do as little
>as Tony Mandarich in recent NFL history? 
>

There's only one I can think of:  Brian Bosworth.  


-Todd
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Washington Redskins News - 8/12/92
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:41:38 GMT
Reply-To: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center

The London Trip:
The Redskin owner Jack Kent Cooke will pay most of the bills for the London
trip, and Gibbs is the reluctant social chairperson.  The idea for this trip 
began two years when defense end Charles Mann asked Gibbs why the Redskins 
team didn't get any opportunity to go abroad.  Other NFL teams got to go to 
Japan or London over the years.

The London trip finally became a reality when the Redskins boarded a flight 
last night for London.  There will be no practice Wednesday; there will be 
one session each on Thursday and Friday with the exhibition game on Sunday.
The only Saturday activity is the normal pregame walk-through.

General Manager Charley Casserly has one regret about the trip; he says that 
the timing isn't the greatest.  The trip is in the middle of the preseason.

For the London trip, all drugs and each bit of medical equipment must be
itemized and then checked by customs officials.  The trainers must transfer
items from Washington, D.C., to London, back to Washington, and then to
Los Angeles for the game against Los Angeles Raiders on August 22, six days
after the London game.

Injury News:
The Redskins offense tackle Eric Williams's right knee injury turned out 
to be more serious than originally thought; he has a torn knee ligament 
and will be out ten weeks.  Williams suffered the knee injury during 
practice last Monday and the initial prognosis was a sprained knee.  No 
surgery is anticipated, but an arthroscopic procedure might be necessary.

Bobby Wilson, last year's first-round draft choice, will replace Williams
for Sunday's exhibition game against San Francisco in London.

Williams was acquired from the Lions two years ago for runner back James
Wilder and a fourth-round draft choice.

Guard Mark Schlereth returned to practice, although not in pads.  He suffered 
a kidney stone attack last Monday that required a trip to a nearby hospital's 
emergency room.


Source: The Washington Post, August 12, 1992

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: BUCKLEY SIGNS!!!
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:58:29 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <55799@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>, rsmith@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Russ Smith) writes...

>In article <1992Aug20.183542.5428@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>Using the Braves for 20K, after turning down 2,300K because he wanted
>>3,000K? 
> 
>Yes he's 21, with limited baseball experience, but he's a hell of an
>athlete and look what Deion is doing this year by finally concentrating
>on baseball. If the Pack wants him, sign him , if not trade his rights
>or they might just find themselves without him for a full year while
>he plays baseball(which will most likely mean a new contract worth 
>more money).

I think everyone (including me) who says he's being dumb is assuming 
2 things: (1) that he's now serious about trying baseball, that he's 
really not going to play football this year and (2) that he'll fail 
if he plays baseball.

I think he really intends to play football yet this year.  In which 
case it's kinda sleazy to take a signing bonus from the Braves.  I 
suppose that accounts for the size of the bonus (only 10-20K - the 
Braves aren't stupid).  It illustrates the kind of money we're talking 
about, the Braves can toss around 10-20K like it's nothing.

If he doesn't play football, he's passed up a sure $2.3M bonus + $1.3M/year 
today for $10-20K and a very slim chance at $3M/year later.  I'd call 
that dumb.

The thing is that all the speed in the world is not going to help you 
in MLB if you can't hit.  He'll never see that $3M if he can't hit and 
he has no way of knowing if he'll be able to hit .100 or .300.  You 
gotta figure it'll be more like .100 since he couldn't even break the 
starting line-up in college.  (He says the coach just didn't like him.  
The coach says he just wasn't good enough.)

>How can a guy be dumb for accepting money with little obligation when
>he's currently not being paid by anyone? If he wants to play football,
>he can, but he won't get paid till he signs.

He could have $2.3 million right now.  Still, I bet he signs right 
before the season starts (or shortly after) in which case all he's 
done is stick the Braves for $10-20K and they knew the risk they were 
taking.

John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: martens@python.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens)
Subject: Re: "classic" Patriots
Organization: Ohio State U. Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:22:16 GMT


Sorry to followup my own posting, but the '79 Packer Yearbook has a
little more information on the '78 Patriots.

Pats on '78 Consensus All NFL Team: T Leon Gray, G John Hannah, CB
Mike Haynes.

All-AFC:  the above.

All-NFL Rookie:  none.

-- 
"Take out the work 'Quayle' and insert the word 'Bush' wherever it
appears, and that's the crap I took for eight years.  Wimp.
Sycophant.  Lap dog.  Poop.  Lightweight.  Boob.  Squirrel.  Asshole.
George Bush."        -- George Herbert Walker Bush.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: blokhead@leland.Stanford.EDU (Darren Pakying Lum)
Subject: Re: The Trade Rumors
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 00:42:49 GMT

In article <S1b-yz+@engin.umich.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:

>Although Ware still has a lot of potential - most of his
>problems are confidence-related, due to the limited coaching and playing
>time in Detroit.  Jack Pardee, coach of the Houston Oilers, thinks that
>these are the real reasons why Ware hasn't produced, and that given a shot
>with another team, who may bring their quarterback's along a lot
>better than the Lions, he might begin to produce.  
>

How about trading Andre Ware to the Oilers?
Pardee was his coach and the Oilers play real
run and shoot.  Ware, if he is for real, could 
be groomed for a couple of years.  Cody Carlson
could take over next year if Moon retires, then
Ware could step in if he is ever ready.  Thing is
what do the oilers have to give to the Lions?
And do they want Ware?


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: rbodin@bnr.ca (Richard Bodin)
Subject: Wanted:NFL Result Spread
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, Maidenhead, UK
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:26:32 GMT

Hi there, I have two questions :

Is there anywhere (or anyone) I can get hold of the Las Vegas Spread
as early as possible each week.

Here at BNR, we will be running an NFL pool and need some kind of
database (UNIX script would be best) which will collate the results
and give a table of who has done the best. This is the sort of thing I
am after :

  ***********************************************************************
       ****** STATISTICS - END OF WEEK 17  *  denotes winner for the week
                                           () denotes number of weeks won
                                           $  denotes has won $$$s
     STANDING   LAST WEEK    NAME        #LATE  P/WEEK    WON LOST
     $  1         2   (2)    Bhupinder      0   7-7       119  77
     $  2         1   (4)    Neil H         0   4-10      117  79
     $  3         3          Kerry T        0   6-8       113  83
        4         5          Mark T         0   6-8       110  86
        5         7   (1)    Bob D          0   6-8       110  86
        6         8   (1)    Don S          0   6-8       110  86


Ta very much!
    ___
    |  \       /      *   Richard Bodin,      GSM Product Test   *
    |__/  _   _|      *   BNR Europe,         rbodin@bnr.ca      *
    |  \ / \ / |      *   Maidenhead,         ESN 590-4402       *
    |__/ \_/ \_/      *   England.            +44 628 794402
From: v077mdph@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (John of Gaunt)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Are the Bears 2 players away from the Super Bowl?
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:06:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug10.154847.664@calmasd.prime.com>, wwr@calmasd.prime.com
writes...
>I need an impartial person's opinion on this one.
> 
>	Am I crazy, or are the Bears about 2 players away from a return to the
>Super Bowl?
>	The Bears had the #4 defense last year, followed by the #11 offense
>(6th best in the NFC) **without a rushing Bears rushing game**!!  The Bears
>finished 4th in the NFC *9th* in the NFL in rushing.  The first time in memory
>that they've been out of the top 3 in the NFL.  If Neal & Brad are healthy,
>which they should be, I think that the Bears are only missing 2 players & their
>back in the Super Bowl.  Which two?

	They need more than two more players.
	The backs are good, but need to stay healthy.  That's a major concern,
since it isn't likely that they will stay healthy enough to really dominate.
	Also, the Bears are suffering major detioration on the offensive line.
They had a starter reitre recently, if I'm not mistaken, and several starters
are getting on in years.  Their quarterback is decent, but their recievers
stink.  The defensive line and linebackers aren't very good, either.  In short,
they are several players away from being the best in the NFC Central, let alone
winning the Super Bowl.

>	A quality DB to replace Lemuel Stinson, who I like but just couldn't
>come back to speed after the knee injury --- and a threatening receiver.  Not
>necessarily a deep threat guy, but someone who's going to beat you because of
>hands, feet, or speed (but this isn't the only way).
>	Am I completely out of whack here?

	Not entirely.  Ditka always seems to get more out of his players than
he should, when his players are healthy.  The Bears have played very well
recently, but that's not an indication of future performance, especially with
the fact that they have a bunch of old players.

>	Points for;
> 
>	Washington with an explosive offense made a some Plan B defensive men
>into the third best in the league; if Chicago could get some offense, they'd be
>the second best in the league (not having to play 40 out of 60 minutes helps a
>defense quite a bit).

	Washington might be able to do that, but I don't think Chicago can.

>	I could go on, but I really want some objective viewpoints here. 
>Please post on the net, so that others can follow this.  
> 
>Thanks... walter

Snoopy
From: dkl@cs.arizona.edu (David K. Lowenthal)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Suggested trades for the Cowboys.
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:26:54 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Aug18.055542.1523@abode.ttank.com> eric@abode.ttank.com (Eric C. Bennett) writes:

>Sorry to do a repost of the entire article, but I figured some people may not
>know what the heck I was replying to if I cut it all up. After reading the
>replies from the original post I find that the person who made the replies
>basically just hates the Cowboys and figures if he trashes everything that
>someone says about the Cowboys that he will walk around with a smile on his
>face for the rest of the day.

You are talking about me?  I made the reply you mention.  And I am not
a Cowboy hater, I couldn't care less about the Cowboys.  I worry about
the Bengals, Steelers, Oilers, and Browns only.  But when I read an
article as ridiculous as that, I can't help but respond.

My point was simply that teams will not trade their superstars for 
a couple of lesser, average at best players.  Would the Cowboys be
willing to trade Michael Irvin (they have Harper to fill in, right)
to the Bengals for Rickey Dixon and Barney Bussey?  Those two are
average DB's, something the Cowboys need, right?  Well, no, of course
they wouldn't, because Irvin is really good and the other guys are
average.  If you would trade 1 really good Cowboy for 2 average Bengals,
then continue to post about how the Cowboys can trade several average
players for 1 really good player.  Otherwise my point is made.

--dave

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro