fredrickson@learn.DEC (01/13/86)
Notes on Super Bowl XX from a lifelong Patriots fan: I love the matchup. Two long-suffering teams making their first trip to the Super Bowl. Two dominating, physical defenses. Two offenses which like to run the ball. Two of the game's best young head coaches. Veterans on both sides who have played long careers to reach this game, like Walter Payton, Dan Hampton, Gary Fencik, Steve Nelson, Julius Adams, John Hannah -- the list goes on. I have tremendous respect, almost awe, for the Bears. Particularly their defense. If you Chicago fans are confident, I can certainly see why. I have never seen a defense, including the great Pittsburgh teams, like the Bears'. But still, the Pats continue to be understimated. I loved hearing Pete Axthelm and Jimmy the Greek pick Miami. I have never been more certain about a game before it was played than I was Sunday. Even though it's impossible to KNOW, I felt I KNEW the Patriots would win. The spread I saw this morning (Bears by 9-1/2) reflects a lack of respect, and that is what the Patriots thrive on. They want you to take them lightly, to explain away their success to lucky bounces and turnovers. They'd love to see everyone concede the Super Bowl to the Bears. Make no mistake about one thing. New England is the best team in the AFC. Those who choose to call their success flukey because of the incredible number of turnovers they have "received" (caused is the proper word) are ignoring reality. When your playoff opponents, all very good teams playing at home in the most important games of their seasons, commit four, six and six turnovers, there is more than coincidence or luck involved. The other reason the Pats are underestimated by the general public is their wild-card status. Their road to New Orleans was a lot tougher than Chicago's. But they could easily have been 12-4 or 13-3 in the regular season. Of their five losses, three (Cleveland, Jets, Miami) were last-minute jobs. Of course, we have reason to doubt whether the Pats can beat the Bears. Although their Sept. 15 game (Bears 20, N.E. 7) was affected by a turnover ratio (N.E. had 4, Chi. 2) that seems unlikely to repeat itself, the fact remains that the Patriot offense spent exactly 21 seconds in Chicago territory all day. But bear this in mind, if you'll pardon the pun: The team the Bears beat September 15 does not even resemble the team they will try and beat January 26. Their offense was a mess. The early-season Eason would make Marc Wilson look like Roger Staubach. They were on their way to a 2-3 start, and Raymond Berry was being called "the Gerry Faust of the NFL" by one TV analyst. They have clearly come a long way, and nobody has come further since that day than Eason and Berry. So, never mind the September 15 game. That's ancient history. Ask the Raiders, who beat the Pats in Foxboro, 35-20, in September, what such comparisons are worth. What worries me is that New England is very similar in makeup to the two teams Chicago wailed on to reach the Super Bowl. Like the Giants and Rams, the Pats are built around a strong defense and an offense which loves to run. I don't think Craig James is as good a back as Eric Dickerson or Joe Morris, but the Pats do have more depth in the backfield and a stronger offensive line than NY or LA. As for the QB comparison, Eason is much better than the pitiful Dieter Brock, and although he has nowhere near the stats Simms does, Eason has not thrown an interception in the playoffs; I doubt Simms will ever make that claim. The only team to beat Chicago (Miami) did it through the air, and the Pats do not have a great passing game. Remember this: Miami beat the Bears convincingly December 2. I don't buy the theory that the game meant nothing because Chicago had already clinched everything is wrong. The Bears wanted to win that game badly. They knew they were facing a possible Super Bowl opponent, they were on national TV, and they wanted an unbeaten season. And the Dolphins were a far superior team. Miami was better than Chicago, and I'm sure they would have entered the Super Bowl with a good deal of well-founded confidence. New England is better than Miami. Much better. They should have been 3-0 against them this year. If you don't think all that gives the Patriots reason to think they can beat the Bears, think again. This is not a prediction of a New England upset. I still haven't decided about that. It is merely a statement that the Pats do belong in New Orleans, and a warning to anyone planning on wagering their grocery money on Chicago giving 9 or 10 points: Be careful. The Pats have covered the spread 14 weeks in a row. You liked Squish the Fish? How about Berry the Bears! Trash the Teddies! (I heard both on the radio this morning.) Mark Fredrickson
billm@haddock.UUCP (01/14/86)
Yes, I agree with your feelings about the New England Patriots.
While I am not a long-suffering Pats fan (I'm from Northern N.J., a long
suffering Giant/Jets fan), I can certainly see why Pats Hysteria has hit
this region, almost like Bear Hysteria has hit the Windy City and its
environs. All loyal (and necessarily long-suffering) fans deserve a winner
every now and again; the end to the 18 game draught in the Orange Bowl would
have almost sufficed. Earning that first trip to the Super Bowl and ending
the Miami jinx as a result of winnning the same game almost cheats the fans !!!
Anyway, some more comments:
-->Make no mistake about one thing. New England is the best team in
-->the AFC.
Only a true, loyal Patriots fan would write something like that.
The best team in the AFC this year is the Los Angeles Raiders. The New
England Patriots have saved their best games for the playoffs and therefore
will represent the AFC in the Bowl of Super.
-->When your playoff opponents, all very good teams playing at home in the
-->most important games of their seasons, commit four, six and six
-->turnovers, there is more than coincidence or luck involved.
I totally agree. The Patriots, as luck would have it, only had to mount
one drive of greater than 40 yards. Good thing, they might not have been
able to, what with their "run-oriented" offense !!!!
--->Of course, we have reason to doubt whether the Pats can beat the
--->Bears. Although their Sept. 15 game (Bears 20, N.E. 7) was
--->affected by a turnover ratio (N.E. had 4, Chi. 2) that seems
--->unlikely to repeat itself, the fact remains that the Patriot
--->offense spent exactly 21 seconds in Chicago territory all day.
That's hard for me to believe ... 3 or 4 minutes perhaps, but
21 seconds ?????
-->What worries me is that New England is very similar in makeup to
-->the two teams Chicago wailed on to reach the Super Bowl. Like the
-->Giants and Rams, the Pats are built around a strong defense and
-->an offense which loves to run. I don't think Craig James is as
-->good a back as Eric Dickerson or Joe Morris, but the Pats do have
-->more depth in the backfield and a stronger offensive line than NY
-->or LA. As for the QB comparison, Eason is much better than the
-->pitiful Dieter Brock, and although he has nowhere near the stats
-->Simms does, Eason has not thrown an interception in the playoffs;
-->I doubt Simms will ever make that claim. The only team to beat
-->Chicago (Miami) did it through the air, and the Pats do not have
-->a great passing game.
I wonder how important those factors will be when the game is decided.
It seems to me the game will turn on whether the New England special teams
will force the Bears to leave the ball on the ground. The New England offense
hasn't shown the capability to score 3 to 4 touchdowns as a result of medium
to long drives, so they'll need help. The Jets, Raiders, and Dolphins have
provided that help. If the Bears do too, then the Patriots have a chance.
-->Remember this: Miami beat the Bears convincingly December 2.
-->I don't buy the theory that the game meant nothing because
-->Chicago had already clinched everything is wrong. The Bears
-->wanted to win that game badly. They knew they were facing a
-->possible Super Bowl opponent, they were on national TV, and they
-->wanted an unbeaten season. And the Dolphins were a far superior
-->team.
Oh really ? The Bears need no excuses. I don't believe that
any professional team can or should go unbeaten in a season of greater
than 3 contests. This game was on the road, in a stadium that is notoriously
diffucult for any visitor to win in. Plus, the home team was coached on that
night by Don Shula, one of the three best motivators in sports (incidently,
his team last Sunday looked like it was coached by someone else). Plus, the
Dolphin crowd was as supportive as I have ever seen a home crowd. The gods
were definitely against the Bears that night.
The Dolphins were not the superior team, even on that night. However,
they did execute their game plan better and wound up scoring more points than
did the Bears.
-->New England is better than Miami. Much better. They
-->should have been 3-0 against them this year. If you don't think
-->all that gives the Patriots reason to think they can beat the
-->Bears, think again.
So you say !!!!!
-->This is not a prediction of a New England upset. I still haven't
-->decided about that. It is merely a statement that the Pats do
-->belong in New Orleans, and a warning to anyone planning on
-->wagering their grocery money on Chicago giving 9 or 10 points: Be
-->careful. The Pats have covered the spread 14 weeks in a row.
Can't argue much with facts. However, the intangibles of this game
and this matchup gives this Super Bowl an extra aura. Can't wait to read some
of the stories next week (obviously, all the factual stories will be written
this week. Next week, most writers will start to manufacture them, and they
should be doozies !!!).
Bill Mathews {decvax ! cca | yale | ihnp4 | cbosgd}!ima!billm
{bbncca | harvard | zurton | cfib | mit-ems | wjh12 }!ima!billm
{uscvax | ucla-vax | vortex}!ism780!billm
Interactive Systems, 7th floor, 441 Stuart st, Boston, MA 02116; 617-247-1155jmd@mhuxl.UUCP (Joseph M. Dakes) (01/15/86)
> Make no mistake about one thing. New England is the best team in > the AFC. Those who choose to call their success flukey because of > the incredible number of turnovers they have "received" (caused > is the proper word) are ignoring reality. I don't know about the Miami game (I didn't watch it) but saying the Pats caused the turnovers is ridiculous. The play that took the steam out of the Jets was a dropped punt returned for a touchdown by the Pats. The play that won it against the Raiders was the same, a dropped punt. How did they cause that. Does the Pat punter have a trick spin or something? > So, never mind the September 15 game. That's ancient history. Ask > the Raiders, who beat the Pats in Foxboro, 35-20, in September, > what such comparisons are worth. > > Remember this: Miami beat the Bears convincingly December 2. > I don't buy the theory that the game meant nothing because > Chicago had already clinched everything is wrong. The Bears > wanted to win that game badly. They knew they were facing a > possible Super Bowl opponent, they were on national TV, and they > wanted an unbeaten season. And the Dolphins were a far superior > team. > > Miami was better than Chicago, and I'm sure they would have > entered the Super Bowl with a good deal of well-founded > confidence. New England is better than Miami. Much better. Doesn't make sense. You say games played during the regular season are of no worth when comparing teams in the playoffs then go on to compare the Patriots to the Dolphins to the Bears because of an earlier game. As I remember the Bears-Dolphins game, Chicago was down by 14 with the ball on their own 30 with about 5 minutes to play. Plenty of time to try to comeback via the pass to try and tie it but what do they do? Handoff to Payton to try and get him his 100 yards to tie a record, seems like they wanted to win that game real bad. > This is not a prediction of a New England upset. I still haven't > decided about that. It is merely a statement that the Pats do > belong in New Orleans, and a warning to anyone planning on > wagering their grocery money on Chicago giving 9 or 10 points: Be > careful. The Pats have covered the spread 14 weeks in a row. I believe you that New England belongs in SuperBowlXX but, they haven't a prayer in beating the Bears. As I posted earlier, the Pats won't be able to run, Eason will be pressured like he never has been before when he tries to pass (leading to fumbles and intercepts) and the Bears don't commit costly turnovers. The Pats are a good team but the Bears are much better. I'm betting all the money I won on the Bears' last two playoff games to cover the spread in SuperBowlXX. Even if I lose I come out even, but if I win ... Joseph M. Dakes AT&T Bell Laboratories Reading, PA mhuxl!jmd
mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) (01/15/86)
Could some prognosticator out there post the Bears' record against the spread this year? I know of a few games they beat it. The Bears were 3 point favorites over Dallas (44-0), and 8-1/2 over LA. How many games was New England the favorite to win? thanx in advance, mike schwartz @ 3Com Corp.
stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (01/15/86)
>Notes on Super Bowl XX from a lifelong Patriots fan: Although the complete text is not repeated here, I appreciate your non-flaming and well-thought-out comments. 'Tis nice to see and all-too-rare in net.sport.football. >But bear this in mind, if you'll pardon the pun: The team the >Bears beat September 15 does not even resemble the team they will >try and beat January 26. Their offense was a mess. The >early-season Eason would make Marc Wilson look like Roger >Staubach. As a Raider fan, I find it hard to believe that ANYONE could make Wilson look like Staubach. >Miami was better than Chicago, and I'm sure they would have >entered the Super Bowl with a good deal of well-founded >confidence. New England is better than Miami. Much better. They >should have been 3-0 against them this year. If you don't think >all that gives the Patriots reason to think they can beat the >Bears, think again. The good old "transitive property of football". A lot of football depends on how teams match against one another. For example, Miami could tear apart a team with lousy pass defense, while the Raiders (with Wilson) would likely not take much advantage of it. On a neutral site, I would pick the Pats over the Dolphins, the Dolphins over the Bears, but the Bears over the Pats. If I were to play against the Bears, I would want either Miami or San Diego; in other words, hope you defense manages to do OK, and hope your offense plays up to its potential and lights up the scoreboard. >This is not a prediction of a New England upset. I still haven't >decided about that. It is merely a statement that the Pats do >belong in New Orleans ... Agreed. In my opinion, the Pats, Raiders, Dolphins, Jets and Broncos are all quality football teams; none is head-and-shoulders above the others. The Pats are better balanced than most, if not all, of the others. The clearly deserve to be in the Super Bowl, having gone 3-0 ON THE ROAD against the others in this group. Steve Vegdahl Computer Research Lab. Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/16/86)
In article <417@decwrl.DEC.COM> fredrickson@learn.DEC writes: >Remember this: Miami beat the Bears convincingly December 2. > >Miami was better than Chicago, and I'm sure they would have >entered the Super Bowl with a good deal of well-founded >confidence. New England is better than Miami. Much better. They >should have been 3-0 against them this year. If you don't think >all that gives the Patriots reason to think they can beat the >Bears, think again. Miami's victory wasn't all that convincing. The Bears did gain more yardage than the Dolphins. The Dolphins did play better in the first half, but the Bears were just as much better in the second. The problem is that one half of dominance by a running and defense oriented team doesn't offset one half of dominance by a passing and offense oriented team. One might also note that Miami scored one touchdown off a blocked punt, and got another as a result of a botched on-side kick. I don't mean to say that Miami didn't deserve to win the game. They played very well, and they won fair and square. I'm just saying that the game did not really suggest that they have a better team. >This is not a prediction of a New England upset. I still haven't >decided about that. It is merely a statement that the Pats do >belong in New Orleans, and a warning to anyone planning on >wagering their grocery money on Chicago giving 9 or 10 points: Be >careful. The Pats have covered the spread 14 weeks in a row. Yes, the Patriots deserve to be in the Super Bowl. Including playoff games, they have the best record in the conference. They may well be the second best team in the league. But the Bears may well be 10 points better than the second best team in the league. I wouldn't bet any grocery money on the Patriots, either (actually, I don't recommend betting the grocery money on anything); remember "there's no way the Bears are 10 1/2 points better than the Giants"? My own prediction: Bears 20, Patriots 10. (By the way, I am Bears fan, but the Patriots are number two on my list for professional football.) Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
marc@bmcg.UUCP (Marc Lee) (01/16/86)
In article <417@decwrl.DEC.COM> fredrickson@learn.DEC writes: >Remember this: Miami beat the Bears convincingly December 2. >wanted an unbeaten season. And the Dolphins were a far superior >team. > I've seen statements to the same effect many times since that Dec 2 game, and it seems to me that those who call that game "convincing" are missing something. The Bears lost by 2 touchdowns. One was off a wildly deflected pass which was almost intercepted. Another came shortly after a blocked punt. OK, special teams' contributions count, too, but let's look at why the Bears were even punting at that point in time. The play before, 3rd and 3? 4? Fuller was in the shotgun, at the closed end of the Orange Bowl. As happened several times in that game, the home fans turned up the volume, Fuller couldn't run the designated play, returned to a normal set, and botched the first down play. Not an excuse, but it brings up 2 points: At a neutral site (e.g. New Orleans) Miami wouldn't have their "12th man" in the stands, at least not as many of them; also, everyone forgets that McMahon only played about a quarter of that game, at a point when everyone knew the Bears had to pass. Well, at least I've persuaded myself that it wasn't a convincing win. By the way, Ditka admitted that he botched the game plan by not running Payton more early in the game. I think he outsmarted himself by thinking Miami was thinking about Payton's record (9th straight 100yd game), so he intentionally limited the running plays, which Miami has since proved very vulnerable to.
paul@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (Paul Brownlow, Data I/O Redmond, WA) (01/16/86)
> > Notes on Super Bowl XX from a lifelong Patriots fan: > > > The other reason the Pats are underestimated by the general > public is their wild-card status. Their road to New Orleans was a > lot tougher than Chicago's. But they could easily have been 12-4 > or 13-3 in the regular season. Of their five losses, three > (Cleveland, Jets, Miami) were last-minute jobs. > How many of their WINS were last-minute jobs? Their defeat of Seattle (20-13) was the result of a last minute interception. Any others? > Chicago had already clinched everything is wrong. The Bears > wanted to win that game badly. They knew they were facing a > possible Super Bowl opponent, they were on national TV, and they > wanted an unbeaten season. And the Dolphins were a far superior > team. > > Miami was better than Chicago, and I'm sure they would have > entered the Super Bowl with a good deal of well-founded > confidence. New England is better than Miami. Much better. They > should have been 3-0 against them this year. If you don't think > all that gives the Patriots reason to think they can beat the > Bears, think again. > The only thing that has been proven so far is that New England matches up better against the Dolphins than Chicago. Remember, the Bears beat New England in week 2, showing that they were superior 4 months ago. The real test is January 26. I don't think any valid claims can be made until them. I don't buy this "A beat B, and B beat C, so A is better than C" logic. Last year in the NHL, Vancouver tied the season series against the Edmonton Oilers, yet the Oilers won the Stanley Cup and the Canucks never made it to the playoffs. Does this mean Vancouver was as good a team as Edmonton? NO!!! Does this mean the Canucks should have won a share of the Stanley Cup??? NO!!!! > > Mark Fredrickson -- ------- Paul Brownlow "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"
maxg@tekig4.UUCP (Max Guernsey) (01/20/86)
It seems to me that the real bet (question) is whether the Bears are going to shutout the Pats??
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (01/22/86)
When I hear "How many wins/losses were in the last minute," I wonder.
But what I wonder about is not the difference, but if these people
who ask this question want to shorten the game? If you play for an
hour, why should scoring in the last two minutes be seen any differently
than in the first 58?
--
James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
"It's a sort of mini-clone!" Who said them, what story?fredrickson@learn.DEC (01/23/86)
-->Make no mistake about one thing. New England is the best team in -->the AFC. >Only a true, loyal Patriots fan would write something like that. >The best team in the AFC this year is the Los Angeles Raiders. The >New England Patriots have saved their best games for the playoffs and >therefore will represent the AFC in the Bowl of Super. This is the same logic which would suggest that Penn State was the best college team in the nation this year, but Oklahoma just saved their best for New Year's Day. If winning the AFC playoffs -- and doing so in three road games -- does not make a team the best in the AFC, then what does? If the regular season (in which the Raiders were 12-4, the Patriots 11-5) is the best barometer for who the best team is, then why didn't they just send the Raiders or Dolphins straight to New Orleans? The true measure of the best team, my friend, is the team which is at its best when it matters most. After being thoroughly outplayed in the second half on their home turf by the Pats, the 1985 Raiders have absolutely no claim to that distinction. -->When your playoff opponents, all very good teams playing at home in -->the most important games of their seasons, commit four, six and six -->turnovers, there is more than coincidence or luck involved. >I totally agree. The Patriots, as luck would have it, only had to >mount one drive of greater than 40 yards. Good thing, they might not >have been able to, what with their "run-oriented" offense !!!! The Bears' offense has been starting its drives from midfield all season. The field position established by a great defense and the ability to force turnovers is one of football's most potent offensive weapons. During the regular season, the Patriots won several games with long fourth-quarter drives. And when your mighty Raiders took a 17-7 lead in the second quarter, Eason marched the Pats 80 yards up the field to make it 17-14, a drive which was widely credited with turning the game around. The fact that they have not been in a position to need such drives for most of the playoffs should not be confused with an inability to do so. --->Of course, we have reason to doubt whether the Pats can beat the --->Bears. Although their Sept. 15 game (Bears 20, N.E. 7) was --->affected by a turnover ratio (N.E. had 4, Chi. 2) that seems --->unlikely to repeat itself, the fact remains that the Patriot --->offense spent exactly 21 seconds in Chicago territory all day. >That's hard for me to believe ... 3 or 4 minutes perhaps, but >21 seconds ????? Believe it. They crossed the 50 for one play in the first half, and were promptly sacked in their own territory. In the second half, they scored their lone TD on a 90-yard pass play. That was it. >It seems to me the game will turn on whether the New England special >teams will force the Bears to leave the ball on the ground. The New >England offense hasn't shown the capability to score 3 to 4 >touchdowns as a result of medium to long drives, so they'll need >help. The Jets, Raiders, and Dolphins have provided that help. If >the Bears do too, then the Patriots have a chance. "That help" is hardly "provided." I find it interesting that people are nonchalantly assuming that the Patriots' turnover-causing streak will end and they will have to find another way to beat the Bears. Turnovers are no more flukey than sacks; some are caused by great hits or great coverage, others by offensive lapses like missed blocks or poorly executed plays. I don't hear anyone saying that the Bears' "luck" in sacking quarterbacks may run out. It's not luck, and neither is New England's ability to cause turnovers. The only game the Pats may not have won without the "help" of turnovers was the Raiders game, which was 20-20 before the kickoff coverage team forced and recovered a fumble in the end zone for the winning score, while the Raiders stood around and watched. Had the returner held on, who knows how the game would have gone down the stretch? But the Pats had already been outplaying LA since the second quarter. -->Remember this: Miami beat the Bears convincingly December 2. -->I don't buy the theory that the game meant nothing because -->Chicago had already clinched everything. The Bears wanted to win -->that game badly. They knew they were facing a possible Super Bowl -->opponent, they were on national TV, and they wanted an unbeaten -->season. And the Dolphins were a far superior team. >Oh really ? The Bears need no excuses. Then why are you providing them? >I don't believe that any professional team can or should go unbeaten >in a season of greater than 3 contests. A brilliant statement that can stand on its own merits without my help. >This game was on the road, in a stadium that is notoriously diffucult >for any visitor to win in. Plus, the home team was coached on that >night by Don Shula, one of the three best motivators in sports >(incidently, his team last Sunday looked like it was coached by >someone else). Plus, the Dolphin crowd was as supportive as I have >ever seen a home crowd. The gods were definitely against the Bears >that night. If so, they should have been even more against the Patriots in the AFC championship game. All the factors you cite were prevalent in even greater force. And isn't it strange that the real Shula decided not to show up. He couldn't have been out-coached, could he? Or his team out- motivated? >The Dolphins were not the superior team, even on that night. >However, they did execute their game plan better and wound up scoring >more points than did the Bears. When you come up with a more accurate way to determine who's a better team than having them play against each other, fill me in. All of organized sports will be forever in your debt. -->New England is better than Miami. Much better. They -->should have been 3-0 against them this year. If you don't think -->all that gives the Patriots reason to think they can beat the -->Bears, think again. >So you say !!!!! I am merely saying they have reason to believe they can do it. Against a team as good as Chicago, believing you can win is a major hurdle. -->This is not a prediction of a New England upset. I still haven't -->decided about that. It is merely a statement that the Pats do -->belong in New Orleans, and a warning to anyone planning on -->wagering their grocery money on Chicago giving 9 or 10 points: Be -->careful. The Pats have covered the spread 14 weeks in a row. >Can't argue much with facts. Why give up now? You were doing great! Actually, Bill, forgive me if I sound bitter. I am sick of the Bears, and like everyone, I just want the game to be played. It is beginning to remind me of last year's NCAA hoop final. There wasn't a way in the world Georgetown could lose to Villanova. But the wide-eyed kids who didn't deserve to be there went out and played a perfect game, and the arrogant, surly, cocky Hoyas were dumbfounded. After the game they said, "We know we're better even though they beat us when it mattered most." I can hear the Bears now. The more I hear guys like Otis Wilson and Dennis McKinnon talk about shutouts and blowouts, the more I like the Patriots' chances. The Bears are about to face the best team they have played this year. Bar none. If they do not believe that, they will be in trouble. Here's the prediction: Neither offense will consistently move the ball. All scores will come as a result of (a) hitting a bomb, (b) turnovers and (c) field position. The longer the game stays close, the better the Patriots' chances. McMahon will make one or two more mistakes than Eason, partially because Eason will take the sack instead of putting the ball up and partially because New England's secondary is better. We will see both Steve Grogan and Steve Fuller because of injuries, and the N.E. advantage in this matchup will be pivotal. Score: Patriots 17, Bears 13. Turnovers: Bears 4, Patriots 2. Can't wait. Mark Fredrickson
mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) (01/23/86)
Seems to me that the Pats and the Rams are very similar teams - on paper (not including the "intangibles"). Both feature strong defenses, "excellent" and big offensive lines, a running-game based attack, and statistically effective quarterbacks. The two teams have similar special teams, too. If these two teams played for the SuperBowl, I could see a close game. I understand how frustrating it must be for New England fans out there, because they are facing the best (or hottest) team in football. The Bears have demonstrated that they have the best talent in the League this year, and they have scored lots of points against everyone they have played against. Their defense has steadily improved over the last few years until it has become so good that MANY people are comparing them to the great Steeler defenses of the '70s. The Bears' biggest weakness seems to be the injuries that happen to McMahon, but even then, their backup quarterback beat Dallas (a division winner) 44-0. The Miami victory over the Bears may or may not have been a fluke, but I would have loved to have seen a rematch for the Superbowl. Given a neutral site, identical motivation factors, two weeks rest (McMahon played for the first time in Miami after being hurt for 4 games), etc., it would prove to me that Miami was a better team. Because the Bears have won all the rest of their games, including two shutouts in the playoffs, the Miami game might just have been a fluke. All the signs indicate to me that the Superbowl will be "boring" and a real let-down for anyone who thinks the Bears will lose. I have serious doubts that the Pats will be able to run against the Bears any better than the Rams did. I have serious doubts that the Pats can fill the air with footballs and be successful against the Bears. I have more confidence in the Bears' defense scoring a touchdown than I do in New England's. I have lots of doubt that Ditka will let the Bears forget the Miami game - and what losing means. I have little doubt that the Bears will score at least 20 points. By the way, a few points of interest. Walter Payton had almost as good a year as Marcus Allen this year (Allen 50+ catches 550 yards, 1700+ yards rushing; Payton 49 catches, 500+ yards, 1500+ yards rushing) - Allen was NFL MVP. The Bears were 3-point underdogs against Dallas. Otherwise, they have been beating the spread regularly (8.5 points vs. the Giants, 10 vs. the Rams) - which is REAL IMPRESSIVE! The Pats, on the other hand, have won a few games that they were underdogs, which inflates their record against the spread a bit. If the Bears shut out the Pats, Rozelle will have to do something to protect his "Parity" issue. The Bears look like they belong in a higher league. They look like they are a lot better than the 2nd best team. The 2nd best team looks like it could be any one of a number of teams, including the Dolphins, Giants, Rams, Cowboys (they had an awful good win/loss record), Pats, and Raiders. mike schwartz @ 3Com Corp. Mountain View, CA P.S. The Bears "need excuses" for only one game, how many "excuses" for how many games does your favorite team need?
fredrickson@learn.DEC (01/24/86)
>When I hear "How many wins/losses were in the last minute," I wonder. >But what I wonder about is not the difference, but if these people >who ask this question want to shorten the game? If you play for an >hour, why should scoring in the last two minutes be seen any differently >than in the first 58? >-- >James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa The point is raised not to imply that such losses should not count, but to put a team's record in the proper perspective. If it can be accurately stated that two plays were the difference between an 11-5 season and a 13-3 season -- as I believe was the case with the Patriots -- then it is a valid consideration in measuring that team's ability. I raised the matter as a way of explaining why I believe that a legitimately outstanding team is considered a Cinderella-underdog-miracle story -- because of its record and wild-card status. Had the Patriots been able to score from the one-foot line in Cleveland in the last minute, and had Eason not overthrown Ramsey at the 10-yard line in Miami in the last minute, they would have been 13-3. Had they been 13-3 they would have perhaps been favored to reach the Super Bowl, and people wouldn't be so shocked. Of course, they also won a game or two this way (Marion's interception in Seattle stands out in my memory), which one avoids to mention when it might diminish one's argument! (Selective memory is always important in building a good case.)
abbajay@oracle.UUCP (Dave Abbajay) (01/28/86)
In article <417@decwrl.DEC.COM>, fredrickson@learn.DEC writes: > ... > > But bear this in mind, if you'll pardon the pun: The team the > Bears beat September 15 does not even resemble the team they will > try and beat January 26. Their offense was a mess. You were right Mark, they we were WORSE!! Their offense non-existent!! > Berry was being called "the Gerry Faust of the NFL" Their last games of the season ended with similar scores! > Eason has not thrown an interception in the playoffs > > Mark Fredrickson Again well stated Mark. Eason kept his string going by not completing a pass to either side! Sorry, Mark. Miami and the Bears should have been in Super Bowl XX. Not the sorry Pat's!! New England will always be remembered for their Stuper Bowl. -- Dave Abbajay Senior Technical Staff ORACLE Corporation (415)854-7350 hplabs!oracle!abbajay
boucher@hsi.UUCP (Keith Boucher) (01/30/86)
> > Sorry, Mark. Miami and the Bears should have been in Super Bowl XX. > Not the sorry Pat's!! New England will always be remembered for their > Stuper Bowl. > -- > Dave Abbajay > Senior Technical Staff > ORACLE Corporation > (415)854-7350 hplabs!oracle!abbajay The rules state that the teams that win the Championship Games of each conference play each other in the Super Bowl. Miami lost to New England in the AFC Championship Game and so had no business being in the Super Bowl. Whether or not they would have given the Bears a better game is unimportant. The fact is the Patriots won the AFC Championship and deserved to be in the Super Bowl. The Bears just showed themselves to be the much superior team to the Patriots and everyone else this year. Keith Boucher HSI New Haven, CT
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (02/01/86)
In article <401@oracle.UUCP> abbajay@oracle.UUCP (Dave Abbajay) writes: >Sorry, Mark. Miami and the Bears should have been in Super Bowl XX. >Not the sorry Pat's!! New England will always be remembered for their >Stuper Bowl. If you think the Bears made the Patriots look bad, you should have seen how bad they would have made the Dolphins look in a rematch. The fact is that there is no other team in the league which belonged on the same field with the Bears last Sunday. I would say New England saved Miami some embarrassment by keeping them out of that game. (Of course, losing 31-14 at home in a critical game is embarrassing enough...) Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
bert@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/13/86)
> > If you think the Bears made the Patriots look bad, you should have seen > how bad they would have made the Dolphins look in a rematch. The fact is > that there is no other team in the league which belonged on the same field > with the Bears last Sunday. I would say New England saved Miami some > embarrassment by keeping them out of that game. (Of course, losing 31-14 > at home in a critical game is embarrassing enough...) > > Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka > Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 if the bears had beaten miami in the superbowl, the bears would have upped their record against the dolphins to 1-1. as it is, the bears were 0-1, and lucky not to be 0-2.