Super Bowl XX
fredr...@learn.dec
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
bi...@haddock.uucp
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; 617-247-1155
Joseph M. Dakes
> 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
Mike Schwartz
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.
Frank Adams
>Remember this: Miami beat the Bears convincingly December 2.
>
>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 Lee
>team.
>
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 Brownlow, Data I/O Redmond, WA
> Notes on Super Bowl XX from a lifelong Patriots fan:
>
>
> 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.
>
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.
>
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?"
Max Guernsey
to shutout the Pats??
nyssa of traken
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?
fredr...@learn.dec
-->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.
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
Mike Schwartz
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?
fredr...@learn.dec
>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.)
Dave Abbajay
> ...
> 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
Keith Boucher
> 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
Frank Adams
>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...)
be...@ucla-cs.uucp
> 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.