tbg@apollo.uucp (Tom Gross) (01/28/86)
Yesterday's first game of Superbowl XX
reminded me a lot of the first game of the last
Celtics-Lakers Championship series. In that game,
as some of you may recall, the Celtics clobbered
the Lakers and caused quite of bit of concern
among Laker fans. I remember this especially
because after the second game, which the
Lakers had won, a friend of mine from LA was
back east for the weekend, and he relayed to me
the shock and dismay still being experienced in
LA after the first game blow-out. At the time,
we Celtics fans were still feeling confident that
they could pretty much toy with the Lakers in spite
of the fact that LA had won the 2nd game. I graciously
pointed out to my friend that in the first game if
James Worthy hadn't missed a couple of easy shots
leading to Celtics fast breaks the game probably
wouldn't have gotten out of hand. I had examined
my video tape of the first period to see how the rout
had really come about and realized that there was
a crucial 2-minute stretch where EVERYTHING went wrong
for the LAKERS and EVERYTHING went RIGHT for the Celts.
Thus but for a few catastrophic incidents the game might
have been close; we know now that the LAKERS were hardly
overmatched in that series (for the record they won in
6 games). Nevertheless, if the Championship series
had consisted of that SINGLE game we might STILL think
that the LAKERS did not belong on the same court with the
"mighty" Celtics.
Anyway, to get back to net.sport.football, in game 1
of the series yesterday I believe that if Stanley Morgan
had not dropped Eason's second pass he would have scored on that
play and the outcome of the game might well have been
completely different: much more than just the additional
four points; I believe the psychological effect on both
teams would have been significant. Eason missing 3 consecutive
passing attempts at the start of the day did not help.
On the other hand I give credit to Jim McMahon's acupuncturist
for his unexpectedly good passing. I think Chicago's ability
to go deep was a surprise to most Patriot fans, but I equate
that with Danny Ainge's perimeter shooting in the first quarter
of game one of last year's NBA finals, i.e. an unexpected streak
of greatness from a BYU alumnus. Time will tell of course,
but I don't think the BEARS can count on that kind of performance
from McMahon throughout the series.
Does anybody really think the Bears can beat the Patriots
in a best of seven series?
Tom Gross
Apollo Computer, Inc.
P.S. Does anyone know when game 2 of Superbowl XX will be played?
Will it be on NBC? The NBC affiliate in Boston lists
"The Day the Fish Came Out" with Candice Bergen; it's a classic
film, but I'd much rather see the Bears get stomped!dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) (01/28/86)
In article <2b974567.2a75@apollo.uucp> tbg@apollo.UUCP writes: > Yesterday's first game of Superbowl XX > reminded me a lot of the first game of the last > Celtics-Lakers Championship series. In that game, > as some of you may recall, the Celtics clobbered > the Lakers and caused quite of bit of concern > among Laker fans. > Anyway, to get back to net.sport.football, in game 1 > of the series yesterday I believe that if Stanley Morgan > had not dropped Eason's second pass he would have scored on that > play and the outcome of the game might well have been > completely different: much more than just the additional > four points; I believe the psychological effect on both > teams would have been significant. Eason missing 3 consecutive > passing attempts at the start of the day did not help. > On the other hand I give credit to Jim McMahon's acupuncturist > for his unexpectedly good passing. I think Chicago's ability > to go deep was a surprise to most Patriot fans, but I equate > that with Danny Ainge's perimeter shooting in the first quarter > of game one of last year's NBA finals, i.e. an unexpected streak > of greatness from a BYU alumnus. Time will tell of course, > but I don't think the BEARS can count on that kind of performance > from McMahon throughout the series. > > Does anybody really think the Bears can beat the Patriots > in a best of seven series? Is this the same guy who said that the Pats(ies?) would win 29-12 and that "even after the Patriots beat the Bears people will say it was a fluke and that by some unwritten set of rules the Bears were the better team."? He must have been thinking about what he planned to say in this article. The Bears would win a best of seven series with this team in *three* games (the Pats would forfeit the fourth one). The Ax said it right (after Costas attempted the same sort of pitiful "what if?" you just did), "Forget it, Bob, this is men against boys." WHAT GLORIOUS, TOTAL DOMINATION IT WAS. The "much improved" Patriots offense would have totalled about 50 yards for the game if we'd left our first-string defense in. As it was our second string guys got an interception for a touchdown, another for a near touchdown, and a safety. -25 YARDS TOTAL OFFENSE AT HALFTIME??!! And you think these guys just had a run of bad luck? Hey, if Morgan catches that ball (which by the way was knocked loose by Singletary) it ends up 46-14, pal. The only psychological effect going on was in Eason's head; I think he was flashing back to the six sacks the Bears heaped on him in September. With three more in the early going Sunday, he began to resemble a deer frozen in the head- lights of oncoming trucks with license plate numbers 95 and 99 and 55 and 58. As for Jim McMahon, he didn't do anything in the Super Bowl that Bears fans haven't seen him do many times before. He's going to be (is?) a great QB if he can just stay healthy, which is by no means a certainty. Marino and Montana are the only two I would rather have. Enjoy it, Bear fans. The jinx is exploded! Next year, 19-0!! -- UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@umcp-cs University of Maryland ARPA: dday@gymble.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-6154
stuart@bcsaic.UUCP (stuart gove) (01/29/86)
In article <2b974567.2a75@apollo.uucp> tbg@apollo.uucp (Tom Gross) writes: > > P.S. Does anyone know when game 2 of Superbowl XX will be played? > Will it be on NBC? The NBC affiliate in Boston lists > "The Day the Fish Came Out" with Candice Bergen; it's a classic > film, but I'd much rather see the Bears get stomped! Tongue in cheek or not, you must have gotten you're hands on a bad stash of Arkansas Polio Weed (ala Joe Bob Briggs :-). We're not talking about a two minute lapse in the Patriots' ability to compete with the Bears on the same field. We're talking about a COMPLETE BLOWOUT! (or were you watching the same game as the rest of us? :-) One play for positive yards out of the first 16 for the Pats. Negative yards for the game until 3 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter. Naturally, football does involve momentum just like any other sport, and when I advised my friends to take the Bears and lay the points, I also stated that it could just as easily go the other way should the Pats get off to a good start. As it turned out, they simply made the Bears mad with that fumble recovery. Meanwhile, about your plea for a best of seven ... DREAM ON !!! Stuart Gove BTW, Congratulations Bears !!! (and to New England for making it to the Super Bowl -- more than I can say for my Seahawks!)
mcal@ihuxb.UUCP (Mike Clifford) (01/29/86)
> Anyway, to get back to net.sport.football, in game 1 > of the series yesterday I believe that if Stanley Morgan > had not dropped Eason's second pass he would have scored on that > play and the outcome of the game might well have been > completely different: much more than just the additional > four points; I believe the psychological effect on both > teams would have been significant. Eason missing 3 consecutive > passing attempts at the start of the day did not help. > On the other hand I give credit to Jim McMahon's acupuncturist > for his unexpectedly good passing. I think Chicago's ability > to go deep was a surprise to most Patriot fans, but I equate > that with Danny Ainge's perimeter shooting in the first quarter > of game one of last year's NBA finals, i.e. an unexpected streak > of greatness from a BYU alumnus. Time will tell of course, > but I don't think the BEARS can count on that kind of performance > from McMahon throughout the series. > > Does anybody really think the Bears can beat the Patriots > in a best of seven series? > Tom Gross Are you serious?? You couldn't get the Patriots to show up for a Game 2 after their annihilation in Game 1! If you are serious, I suggest that some drug testing is in order for you! Mike Clifford
flynn@acf2.UUCP (01/29/86)
Yes it's the same guy. Maybe you wouldn't have been so surprised about his behaviour if you had checked Apollo stock lately.
ins_asac@jhunix.UUCP (Stephan Alexa Cooper) (01/30/86)
In article <2b974567.2a75@apollo.uucp> tbg@apollo.UUCP writes: > Anyway, to get back to net.sport.football, in game 1 > of the series yesterday I believe that if Stanley Morgan > had not dropped Eason's second pass he would have scored on that > play and the outcome of the game might well have been > completely different: much more than just the additional > four points I agree However, > Does anybody really think the Bears can beat the Patriots > in a best of seven series? Yes...in four. -- Steve Cooper Johns Hopkins University Homewood Computing Center ...!seismo!umcp-cs!jhunix!ins_asac ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "But it was just fantasy "When I was a child, I had a fever The wall was too high My hands felt just like two balloons, as you can see... Now I've got that feeling once again no matter how he tried I can't explain he could not break free You would not understand and the worms ate into his brain." This is not how I am..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
maxg@tekig4.UUCP (Max Guernsey) (01/30/86)
In article <2b974567.2a75@apollo.uucp> tbg@apollo.uucp (Tom Gross) writes: > Anyway, to get back to net.sport.football, in game 1 > of the series yesterday I believe that if Stanley Morgan > had not dropped Eason's second pass he would have scored on that > play and the outcome of the game might well have been > completely different: much more than just the additional If I hada... If they hada.... BUT the Pats were thrashed. > four points; I believe the psychological effect on both > teams would have been significant. Eason missing 3 consecutive > passing attempts at the start of the day did not help. > On the other hand I give credit to Jim McMahon's acupuncturist > for his unexpectedly good passing. I think Chicago's ability > to go deep was a surprise to most Patriot fans, but I equate > that with Danny Ainge's perimeter shooting in the first quarter > of game one of last year's NBA finals, i.e. an unexpected streak > of greatness from a BYU alumnus. Time will tell of course, > but I don't think the BEARS can count on that kind of performance > from McMahon throughout the series. > > Does anybody really think the Bears can beat the Patriots > in a best of seven series? Yes! I don't think the Pats would want to play seven games and have to face Dent, Hamilton, Singeltary, Perry for seven games in a season, let alone in a row. Max Guernsey
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/30/86)
In article <2b974567.2a75@apollo.uucp> tbg@apollo.uucp (Tom Gross) writes: > > Yesterday's first game of Superbowl XX > reminded me a lot of the first game of the last > Celtics-Lakers Championship series. In that game, > as some of you may recall, the Celtics clobbered > the Lakers and caused quite of bit of concern > among Laker fans. > ...... > Nevertheless, if the Championship series > had consisted of that SINGLE game we might STILL think > that the LAKERS did not belong on the same court with the > "mighty" Celtics. Don't mistake the Laker-Celtic matchup with the Bear-Patriot matchup. The Lakers and Celtics are in the same class. Total domination in one single game has little bearing in a seven-game series. This is also true in game one of last year's Stanley Cup final, when the Oilers were completely embarrassed by the Flyers, and in the 1982 World Series, when the Cardinals were blowout 10-0 by the Brewers. As a matter of fact, even though the Lakers won last year, another 7-game series against the Celts will just be another dogfight. However, the Patriots and Bears are in different classes. Teams in the same level, like the Dolphins, Raiders, Giants, 49ers, Broncos, and Cowboys, may turn a superbowl tournament into a bloodbath. However, with the Bears, at least two classes above, the playoffs won't be that exciting. In a seven-game series, the fired-up Pats (after an embarrassing loss) may be able to beat the Bears PROVIDED the Bears also beating themselves, but one game is the most they can get. Bears in at most FIVE. However, before you Bear fans talking about dynasty, just look at the 1984 Raiders and the 1985 49ers. These teams, when sweeping the playoffs, were by no means inferior to the Bears of this year. Their defenses were just as AWESOME as the 46! What did they do for an encore? I predict a lot of injuries to the Buddy Ryan-less Bears in 1986. They will just become the 49ers of 1985. -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA
ekblaw@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (01/30/86)
You better hope that the Bears & Patriots WON"T play a best of seven series. While I am confident enough of the Patriots winning one or two of the six games remaining, there is also a good chance that they will be embarrassed even worse than during the Super Bowl! As much as I love the Patriots, my advice is to save your teams dignity - let the situation pass. Eventually people will forget the blowout. Robert A. Ekblaw
stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (01/31/86)
> On the other hand I give credit to Jim McMahon's acupuncturist > for his unexpectedly good passing. I think Chicago's ability > to go deep was a surprise to most Patriot fans, but I equate > that with Danny Ainge's perimeter shooting in the first quarter > of game one of last year's NBA finals, i.e. an unexpected streak > of greatness from a BYU alumnus. Time will tell of course, > but I don't think the BEARS can count on that kind of performance > from McMahon throughout the series. I attribute Chicago's ability to go deep to the fact that the Pats were keying on Walter Payton the whole game. How many times in the game did McMahon get one-on-one coverage for a wide receiver after a fake to Payton? One of the major reasons that the Pats beat the Raiders and Dolphins is that against the Raiders, their defense could concentrate on stopping Marcus Allen, and trust that Wilson would have a typical day. Against the Dolphins, they could concentrate on stopping Marino's passing game, with the knowledge that the Dolphins don't have much of a running attack. Against the Bears, they were forced to decide between stopping Payton and stopping the rest of the offense. They did well stopping Payton, but at the expense of doing quite poorly on many plays where Payton did not carry the ball. If they tried to play the Bears like they did the Dolphins, chances are that Payton and crew would eat them alive. Weren't the Bears the #1 rushing team in the NFL this year? > Does anybody really think the Bears can beat the Patriots > in a best of seven series? I would estimate that the probability of the Bears SWEEPING a best-of-seven series is significantly higher than the probability of the Pats winning it. Steve Vegdahl Computer Research Lab. Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (02/01/86)
In article <2b974567.2a75@apollo.uucp> tbg@apollo.uucp (Tom Gross) writes: > On the other hand I give credit to Jim McMahon's acupuncturist > for his unexpectedly good passing. I think Chicago's ability > to go deep was a surprise to most Patriot fans, but I equate > that with Danny Ainge's perimeter shooting in the first quarter > of game one of last year's NBA finals, i.e. an unexpected streak > of greatness from a BYU alumnus. Time will tell of course, > but I don't think the BEARS can count on that kind of performance > from McMahon throughout the series. Only to the Boston media was this unexpected. McMahon has done it every time this season that (1) he had to, and (2) he was healthy. He almost did it against the Dolphins, in spite of not being healthy. The Bears offense was mostly dull this season, because it rarely needed to be anything else. > Does anybody really think the Bears can beat the Patriots > in a best of seven series? I had some question about whether the Bears would beat the Patriots in a single game. In a seven game series, there was never any doubt. Does anybody really think the Patriots could win more than one game in five against the Bears? Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (02/02/86)
> However, before you Bear fans talking about dynasty, > just look at the 1984 Raiders and the 1985 49ers. These > teams, when sweeping the playoffs, were by no means inferior > to the Bears of this year. Their defenses were just as AWESOME as > the 46! What did they do for an encore? > > I predict a lot of injuries to the Buddy Ryan-less > Bears in 1986. They will just become the 49ers of 1985. Although I'm a Raider/Niner fan, I must disagree with the statement that their defenses were as awesome as this year's Bears. Two shutouts in the playoffs and holding a team to negative yardage into the 3rd quarter of the Super Bowl, along with their general play all year (e.g., 44-0 against Dallas) was a better performance than either the '83 Raiders or the '84 Niners. Your point is well taken, however, that funny things can happen to a team (especially a Super Bowl winner) in one year, especially now that Ryan is off to Philadelphia. Steve Vegdahl Computer Research Lab. Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon
dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (02/03/86)
> > However, before you Bear fans talking about dynasty, > > just look at the 1984 Raiders and the 1985 49ers. These > > teams, when sweeping the playoffs, were by no means inferior > > to the Bears of this year. Their defenses were just as AWESOME as > > the 46! What did they do for an encore? > > > > I predict a lot of injuries to the Buddy Ryan-less > > Bears in 1986. They will just become the 49ers of 1985. > > Although I'm a Raider/Niner fan, I must disagree with the statement > that their defenses were as awesome as this year's Bears. Two > shutouts in the playoffs and holding a team to negative yardage into > the 3rd quarter of the Super Bowl, along with their general play all > year (e.g., 44-0 against Dallas) was a better performance than either > the '83 Raiders or the '84 Niners. Your point is well taken, however, > that funny things can happen to a team (especially a Super Bowl winner) > in one year, especially now that Ryan is off to Philadelphia. > > Steve Vegdahl It's curious that all discussion seems to assume that football did not exist before Superbowl I. Just because they didn't call their championship game "Superbowl" does not mean that it was inferior. If we want to see a great romp, and a defensive gem, how about the '62 Packers over the NY Giants by 37-0? That's a bigger margin than this year's Bears, and a shutout, too. Of course, that WAS a dynasty, so maybe the Bears are going to be one, too. But it's awfully tough to repeat. This isn't hockey, where everybody who wins a Stanley Cup repeats for a few years. This is the NPL (National Parity League), and next year EVERYBODY will have a version of the 46 defense (two linebackers on one side, etc.) and every offensive coach is spending the off-season designing schemes to deal with such defenses. Things always even out. And it's difficult to imagine the Bears winning several Superbowls in a row, unless Payton plays until he is 40. Paul Benjamin
gjl@ihwpt.UUCP (g licitis) (02/06/86)
> It's curious that all discussion seems to assume that football did > not exist before Superbowl I. Just because they didn't call their > championship game "Superbowl" does not mean that it was inferior. > If we want to see a great romp, and a defensive gem, how about the > '62 Packers over the NY Giants by 37-0? That's a bigger margin than > this year's Bears, and a shutout, too. How about the Bears great romp over Washington 72-0. I believe that was the biggest margin ever.
nsfadm@ihuxa.UUCP (B A Carpenter) (02/06/86)
> > It's curious that all discussion seems to assume that football did > not exist before Superbowl I. Just because they didn't call their > championship game "Superbowl" does not mean that it was inferior. > If we want to see a great romp, and a defensive gem, how about the > '62 Packers over the NY Giants by 37-0? That's a bigger margin than > this year's Bears, and a shutout, too. > > Of course, that WAS a dynasty, so maybe the Bears are going to be one, > too. But it's awfully tough to repeat. This isn't hockey, where > everybody who wins a Stanley Cup repeats for a few years. This is > the NPL (National Parity League), and next year EVERYBODY will have > a version of the 46 defense (two linebackers on one side, etc.) > and every offensive coach is spending the off-season designing > schemes to deal with such defenses. Things always even out. > And it's difficult to imagine the Bears winning several Superbowls > in a row, unless Payton plays until he is 40. > > Paul Benjamin *** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR BEST *** I think championship games prior to the super bowls are less significant. Its hard to compare the `86 Bears to the `62 Packers because their were only 12 teams in the league in `62. The Bears had to get by 28 teams! I do agree that the Packers did look unbeatable between 62-67,,, But was their competition comparable to the teams today... I guess in the Packers case, proved they were that good since they won the 1st two super bowls... Brian Carpenter