overview part 1
Gregg M Henglein
Well, now that the SuperBowl is out of the way with my prediction
coming true almost to perfection (I said 38-17) I figure we all need some other
topics to talk about. So I figure I'll throw some opinions out and let all of
you offer your 2 cents worth.
First, and I'll get this out of the way now, you may hate them, you may
say both the JJ's are jerks and the like but you can not say that the Dallas
Cowboys are not the best all-around team in football today. Emmitt Smith is
the best running back in the game and Troy Aikman is the best quarterback.
However, (sorry my fellow Cowboy fans) I do not believe that Michael Irvin is
the best wide receiver. I put him third behind Sharpe and Rice and to be
honest I believe that if Dallas threw to Harper as much as they threw to Irvin
that he would put up better numbers. Their defense is excellent though not
what it was last season. Look for the first 3-peat in the NFL.
One last note on Dallas before moving on. My fellow Dallas fans may
wonder why so many people hate Dallas. First everyone hates a winner. It's
envy simple as that. But we must keep in mind a few things. Dallas has an
arrogant image which I believe is greatly overhyped and overstated. The owner
and coach are both jerks, there is no denying that. However, with the possible
exception of Irvin there is not a starter who is a jerk. The main jerks among
the players are on special teams. Kenneth Gant, Joe Fishback and that squad
have a cocky attitude. But think about it. Does Aikman? Does Smith? Does
Novacek? Leon Lett? Jim Jeffcoat? Tony Casillas? People often trash the
Cowboys for this without knowing what they are talking about.
O.K. now to other areas. The New York Giants were overrated and I
think that was shown. However, I also do not totally buy in to the talk of
the Giants schedule. This is a solid team but they are not in the upper
echelon yet and yes next year they will have a tough schedule. Don't bet on
11 and 5 again but don't put the money on 4 and 12 either. They are not bad
they just are not great.
The Philadelphia Eagles will have an interesting off season. They
could lose a lot of people. However, if they don't lose them look for the
Eagles to be a force next year. Keep in mind the start they were off to.
And just a side note. How great is the Mark Bavaro comeback story?
Phoenix owner Billy Bidwell may have just thrown an up and coming
team into the crapper. Firing Joe Bugel was the mistake of a lifetime. The
team loved Bugel and I don't care who replaces him they feel jobbed by the
owner and that will affect their play. With Bugel I was leaning to 9 and 7.
Now it may be back to 3 and 13 for the Cards. A good defense may be a way
to refute that arguement but the key there is young. This whole team is
young and the first coach who they really liked and who started them to
success has just been canned. Emotions play a big part on a young team.
As for the Redskins. Rebuilding may be going on until Carter gets
a second term. This team is old, riddled with injuries and in complete
turmoil. Guys are old at every position. I looked at my olf football cards
and found about 20 guys from the early 80's who are still there. It will
take 3 or 4 good drafts and some shrewd trading (which has never been necessary
before) to get this team back to respectability. Fortunately for the Skins,
their fans are generally classy people who won't tear down the building for
stinking.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... The Packers are one step
away. They are young will just enough veterans to work the young guys. Brett
Favre is good already and if he can learn to keep his head he could be great.
They have the best WR and a not too shabby counterpart (clayton) and Jackie
Harris. If the Packers get a good 4.2 avg. 700 yd. or so RB, teams will be
unable to look pass every play and Sharpe may catch 130 (don't laugh). On
defense mark these words, George Teague will be in the Hall of Fame when he
retires. He's quick with great hands and even better instincts.
The Lions need to A) stick with one QB (IMHP Kramer) and B) abandon the
run and shoot. Barry Sanders does not need the run and shoot to get 1300 yds.
Get a big tight end who can catch 30 or 40 and throw the damn ball. I like
the Lions defense probably because I like Chris Spielman so much.
The Bears. Defense can remain untouched temporarily until age gets
Dent and McMichael. On offense. People may think I'm related to him because
I talk of him so much but start Shane Matthews at QB. He's Aikman with a bit
less of an arm but a bit more mobility. Get a class 1 RB and TE and keep the
receivers healthy. Mostly get an offensive line. The defense will keep them
in games but they have to score on occasion.
The Vikings always seem to have the horses but can't do it. They
need a QB. Really I think their key next year will be the healthy return of
Terry Allen. Cris Carter does not get the recognition he should and AC and
Jordan can hold on for a couple of years. The defense is a bit overrated but
is still solid.
Tampa Bay needs a lot. They need a top Rb or for Cobb to recover from
whatever ailed him this year. I like Erickson at QB and the receivers are
adequate. THe defense needs one real pass rusher. They are young and have a
fire in their gut but that may be extinguished if they don't improve soon.
That's it for now. These are just my opinions, theories, etc. Hope
I gave you all some food for feedback. Type away guys.
"talent on loan from God"
Rush Limbaugh
Gregg Henglein
James J. Dibenedetto
>what it was last season. Look for the first 3-peat in the NFL.
Maybe. There are two big "if"s there. First is that they have to resign
their free agents, especially on the offensive line. Without all those
320+ pound monsters up front, Aikman's on a stretcher and Emmitt;s just
another very good RB. Second is staying healthy. Without Emmitt, Dallas
was what, 0-3? And their O-Line was healthy all year, as was the defense,
mostly. If they get hit with the kinds of injuries that the Redskins
and Eagles suffered this season, the Cowboys struggle to win 8 or 9
games.
> O.K. now to other areas. The New York Giants were overrated and I
>think that was shown. However, I also do not totally buy in to the talk of
>the Giants schedule. This is a solid team but they are not in the upper
>echelon yet and yes next year they will have a tough schedule. Don't bet on
>11 and 5 again but don't put the money on 4 and 12 either. They are not bad
>they just are not great.
No, they're not great. But they've got a solid O-Line (although a good
backup or two will be needed; Eric Moore was a liability in both
playoff games - hope Jumbo's surgery goes well!). The running game
is solid; that and the defense will keep the Giants in most games,
and if Phil Simms sticks around one more year, the Giants can win
10 or 11 games again (more if they invest in a pass rusher and maybe
a top-quality DB in the free agent market and if Sherrard comes back
100% and doesn't break his leg again).
> The Philadelphia Eagles will have an interesting off season. They
>could lose a lot of people. However, if they don't lose them look for the
>Eagles to be a force next year. Keep in mind the start they were off to.
>And just a side note. How great is the Mark Bavaro comeback story?
I think it's a given that they're going to lost some big players. And
how much time does Rich Kotite have left? The Eagles' owner never
stuck me as the patient type. And how will Randall come back?
> Phoenix owner Billy Bidwell may have just thrown an up and coming
>team into the crapper. Firing Joe Bugel was the mistake of a lifetime. The
>team loved Bugel and I don't care who replaces him they feel jobbed by the
>owner and that will affect their play. With Bugel I was leaning to 9 and 7.
>Now it may be back to 3 and 13 for the Cards. A good defense may be a way
>to refute that arguement but the key there is young. This whole team is
>young and the first coach who they really liked and who started them to
>success has just been canned. Emotions play a big part on a young team.
Bidwell just sentenced te Cards to another 4-12 year. Watch for lots of
free-agent defections from this team.
> As for the Redskins. Rebuilding may be going on until Carter gets
>a second term. This team is old, riddled with injuries and in complete
>turmoil. Guys are old at every position. I looked at my olf football cards
>and found about 20 guys from the early 80's who are still there. It will
>take 3 or 4 good drafts and some shrewd trading (which has never been necessary
>before) to get this team back to respectability. Fortunately for the Skins,
>their fans are generally classy people who won't tear down the building for
>stinking.
Agreed. It won't be pretty for the 'Skins in 1994. BTW, I hope you meant
Clinton, not Carter...they'll be waiting an awful long time if they're
waiting for Jimmy Carter's second term :)
> I've said it before and I'll say it again... The Packers are one step
>away. They are young will just enough veterans to work the young guys. Brett
>Favre is good already and if he can learn to keep his head he could be great.
>They have the best WR and a not too shabby counterpart (clayton) and Jackie
>Harris. If the Packers get a good 4.2 avg. 700 yd. or so RB, teams will be
>unable to look pass every play and Sharpe may catch 130 (don't laugh). On
>defense mark these words, George Teague will be in the Hall of Fame when he
>retires. He's quick with great hands and even better instincts.
>
They've been one piece away before. Remember when Majkowski was the
"next great QB"? I just don't see it happening this time, either.
The Lions need to A) stick with one QB (IMHP Kramer) and B) abandon the
>run and shoot. Barry Sanders does not need the run and shoot to get 1300 yds.
>Get a big tight end who can catch 30 or 40 and throw the damn ball. I like
>the Lions defense probably because I like Chris Spielman so much.
They're an average team. Their defense isn't great, their passing game
is below average, and they're usually horribl on the road.
> The Bears. Defense can remain untouched temporarily until age gets
>Dent and McMichael. On offense. People may think I'm related to him because
>I talk of him so much but start Shane Matthews at QB. He's Aikman with a bit
>less of an arm but a bit more mobility. Get a class 1 RB and TE and keep the
>receivers healthy. Mostly get an offensive line. The defense will keep them
>in games but they have to score on occasion.
They're a lot like the Giants but without as good a running game and a little
more age on defense. They'll win 8 or 9 games and contend for the division
title.
> The Vikings always seem to have the horses but can't do it. They
>need a QB. Really I think their key next year will be the healthy return of
>Terry Allen. Cris Carter does not get the recognition he should and AC and
>Jordan can hold on for a couple of years. The defense is a bit overrated but
>is still solid.
I think they're headed for a collapse. They need a new QB desperately.
Terry Allen isn't the answer, either. 8-8 if they're lucky.
> Tampa Bay needs a lot. They need a top Rb or for Cobb to recover from
>whatever ailed him this year. I like Erickson at QB and the receivers are
>adequate. THe defense needs one real pass rusher. They are young and have a
>fire in their gut but that may be extinguished if they don't improve soon.
When's the last time this team finished near .500? I think they're just
cursed...
As for the rest of the NFC...
New Orleans - as long as Jim MOra's in charge, 9 wins and maybe a
wild card followed by a disappointing playoff loss is the best case
scenario.
Atlanta - who knows? The gambling defense got shredded most of the time,
and there's not much of a running game.
LA Rams - horrible. TJ Rubely? Jim Everett? Chuck Knox should
bring Dr. Kevorkian to training camp.
The Niners - still the class of the West, even if their defense isn't
great anymore. They'll win 10-12 games on offense alone, especially
with the lack of competition in their divisdion...
--
James John DiBenedetto - SUNY Buffalo School of Law Class of 1994
Case Western Reserve University (Western Reserve College) '91
j...@ubunix.buffalo.edu OR jj...@po.cwru.edu
"You can really be yourself in a room full of hogs."
Peter Simko
|> > O.K. now to other areas. The New York Giants were overrated and I
|> >think that was shown. However, I also do not totally buy in to the talk of
|> >the Giants schedule. This is a solid team but they are not in the upper
|> >echelon yet and yes next year they will have a tough schedule. Don't bet on
|> >11 and 5 again but don't put the money on 4 and 12 either. They are not bad
|> >they just are not great.
|>
|> No, they're not great. But they've got a solid O-Line (although a good
|> backup or two will be needed; Eric Moore was a liability in both
|> playoff games - hope Jumbo's surgery goes well!). The running game
|> is solid; that and the defense will keep the Giants in most games,
|> and if Phil Simms sticks around one more year, the Giants can win
|> 10 or 11 games again (more if they invest in a pass rusher and maybe
|> a top-quality DB in the free agent market and if Sherrard comes back
|> 100% and doesn't break his leg again).
Pardon me for sounding like a broken record, but more than anything
you've just mentioned we need a quality WR. Mark Jackson is no better than
Baker or Ingram. I'm not optimistic about Sherrard, there has been no news
about him at all in Giants Extra (which has been having problems of its own
this year) which is usually good, but wasn't the knock on Sherrard that
he has glass bones? WE NEED THAT SPEED BURNER GEORGE! Make opposing D's
respect the pass and blah blah blah... Dump Jackson; he's too high priced
and no one cares how deep you get when they know you'll drop the ball.
Pass rush? If someone is available in either the draft or FA, sure, but
I'm pretty happy with what I saw last year. Hamilton is developing very
well and Miller shows a lot of potential, though he faded some toward the
end of the season. Now; if Fox, Armstead, or Dillard step it up a notch
next year, we'll have a killer front seven. Can we dump McGee now?
|> > I've said it before and I'll say it again... The Packers are one step
|> >away. They are young will just enough veterans to work the young guys. Brett
|> >Favre is good already and if he can learn to keep his head he could be great.
|> >They have the best WR and a not too shabby counterpart (clayton) and Jackie
|> >Harris. If the Packers get a good 4.2 avg. 700 yd. or so RB, teams will be
|> >unable to look pass every play and Sharpe may catch 130 (don't laugh). On
|> >defense mark these words, George Teague will be in the Hall of Fame when he
|> >retires. He's quick with great hands and even better instincts.
|> >
|> They've been one piece away before. Remember when Majkowski was the
|> "next great QB"? I just don't see it happening this time, either.
I agree. I only saw the Pack play a handful of times this year,
but it seemed to me that for for every good play Favre pulled out of his hat,
he'd do something really boneheaded. Still way too soon to label him the next
Majik, though.
|> The Lions need to A) stick with one QB (IMHP Kramer) and B) abandon the
|> >run and shoot. Barry Sanders does not need the run and shoot to get 1300 yds.
|> >Get a big tight end who can catch 30 or 40 and throw the damn ball. I like
|> >the Lions defense probably because I like Chris Spielman so much.
|>
Just read that Chicago may be interested in Kramer. Detroit may
have a tough time convincing Eddie to stay considering their long track
record of playing musical quaterbacks (for whatever reason).
|> Atlanta - who knows? The gambling defense got shredded most of the time,
|> and there's not much of a running game.
So what is the deal with Erric Pegram? I had him on my FFL team
and he put up some _monster_ numbers a few times, but I only saw them play
once or twice. Was he getting enough reps? Is he an every down back?
--
Pete S. You call that blocking? 'Cause I don't. I call it a
bunch of old ladies waiting for a bus. Now let's see
Go N.Y. Giants! some blocking or I'll staple you to an electric fence!
-Jon Madden
felix lee
Gregg M Henglein <v095...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, now that the SuperBowl is out of the way with my prediction
>coming true almost to perfection (I said 38-17) I figure we all need some other
>topics to talk about. So I figure I'll throw some opinions out and let all of
>you offer your 2 cents worth.
[some stuff about Dallas deleted]
>that he would put up better numbers. Their defense is excellent though not
>what it was last season. Look for the first 3-peat in the NFL.
I disagree about the defense being worse this year. Only in yardage terms
did the defense fall off this year. Only Washington, Atlanta, and the
Niners offenses were able to score more than one touchdown against the
Cowboys this year. The Cowboys set a team record for fewest points given
up in a 16 games season. They didn't allow a first half touchdown in their
last six regular season games. Last year the Dallas defense had the luxury
of facing alot of backup QB's, which doesn't necessarily diminish their
accomplishments, but it does pad the stats a bit. Remember, they gave up
27 points last year to a Denver team that was platooning Tommy Maddox and
Shawn Moore at QB. I think this years defense accomplished a lot more, and
both Siefert and Levy agree that this year they played better.
>arrogant image which I believe is greatly overhyped and overstated. The owner
>and coach are both jerks, there is no denying that. However, with the possible
>exception of Irvin there is not a starter who is a jerk. The main jerks among
>the players are on special teams. Kenneth Gant, Joe Fishback and that squad
>have a cocky attitude.
To call these guys "jerks" is a bit of a stretch. We only know about their
personalities through the media, which by nature reports outrageous behavior
before anything else. Read the SI article on Michael Irvin, and how he
supports an extended family of 17 brothers and sisters and their families,
and how he pays for their educations and any other needs that they have.
Not only that, it a certainty that public figures like these often assume
a media persona that is different from their real personalities, for
various reasons (gamesmanship, to protect privacy, etc.). You can talk
about their performance on the field, and what they say about the game,
but you can't make definitive judgements on personality based on that.
Besides, there are all kinds of cocky players in the league. Thurman "I
need more recognition" THomas. Bruce "I should be defensive MVP" Smith.
In the end, its just talk. Look at actions, both on and off the field.
> But think about it. Does Aikman? Does Smith? Does
>Novacek? Leon Lett? Jim Jeffcoat? Tony Casillas? People often trash the
>Cowboys for this without knowing what they are talking about.
> O.K. now to other areas. The New York Giants were overrated and I
>think that was shown. However, I also do not totally buy in to the talk of
>the Giants schedule. This is a solid team but they are not in the upper
>echelon yet and yes next year they will have a tough schedule. Don't bet on
>11 and 5 again but don't put the money on 4 and 12 either. They are not bad
>they just are not great.
Agreed, though I wonder how many years Simms has left in him. LT will be
missed, and Bart Oates is older than dirt. The big test will be if
Sherrard can rebound from yet another season ending injury.
> The Philadelphia Eagles will have an interesting off season. They
>could lose a lot of people. However, if they don't lose them look for the
>Eagles to be a force next year. Keep in mind the start they were off to.
>And just a side note. How great is the Mark Bavaro comeback story?
Who ever knows about the Eagles? No matter what happens to the team, they
always seem to end up being a marginal playoff team that won't get
past the first round of the playoffs. They had the talent, with Walker,
Byers, Jackson, Barnett on offense, and that defense, but they couldn't
find an O-line, and people kept getting injured. Take all those players
away, they still somehow win games, but don't get anywhere. Go figure.
> Phoenix owner Billy Bidwell may have just thrown an up and coming
>team into the crapper. Firing Joe Bugel was the mistake of a lifetime. The
>team loved Bugel and I don't care who replaces him they feel jobbed by the
>owner and that will affect their play. With Bugel I was leaning to 9 and 7.
>Now it may be back to 3 and 13 for the Cards. A good defense may be a way
>to refute that arguement but the key there is young. This whole team is
>young and the first coach who they really liked and who started them to
>success has just been canned. Emotions play a big part on a young team.
Well, Clark and Beurlein are good veterans who hopefully can lend some
stability to the team, even though they haven't been established there long.
If Garrison Heart emerges, they have a great backfield with Moore and Hearst,
a very good receiving corps, a solid QB, a very good defensive backfield
(assuming they resign their corners) and good linebackers. They need help
on the lines, but this team has talent.
> As for the Redskins. Rebuilding may be going on until Carter gets
>a second term. This team is old, riddled with injuries and in complete
>turmoil. Guys are old at every position. I looked at my olf football cards
>and found about 20 guys from the early 80's who are still there. It will
>take 3 or 4 good drafts and some shrewd trading (which has never been necessary
>before) to get this team back to respectability. Fortunately for the Skins,
>their fans are generally classy people who won't tear down the building for
>stinking.
The salary cap is the biggest problem. The offense still has weapons, but
the defense stinks. The corners are strong, but that's it. It's a good
organization, though, and I think they will rise again soon.
> I've said it before and I'll say it again... The Packers are one step
>away. They are young will just enough veterans to work the young guys. Brett
>Favre is good already and if he can learn to keep his head he could be great.
>They have the best WR and a not too shabby counterpart (clayton) and Jackie
>Harris. If the Packers get a good 4.2 avg. 700 yd. or so RB, teams will be
>unable to look pass every play and Sharpe may catch 130 (don't laugh). On
>defense mark these words, George Teague will be in the Hall of Fame when he
>retires. He's quick with great hands and even better instincts.
Robert Brooks will be more of a factor at wideout next year than Clayton.
I don't know where this running back that you're talking about will emerge.
The team is very close to contending, but the window of opportunity is
small. Reggie White will be 35 next season, and almost all of the offensive
line is over 30. Reggie White is the key to the Pack's D, and if the
O-line starts to feel its age Farve will go on another interception fest.
If they don't make it in the next couple of years, they will have major
gaps to fill.
> The Lions need to A) stick with one QB (IMHP Kramer) and B) abandon the
>run and shoot. Barry Sanders does not need the run and shoot to get 1300 yds.
>Get a big tight end who can catch 30 or 40 and throw the damn ball. I like
>the Lions defense probably because I like Chris Spielman so much.
Agreed. They have the makings of a good offense there, but the defense
is still suspect. The D-line needs to mature.
> The Bears. Defense can remain untouched temporarily until age gets
>Dent and McMichael. On offense. People may think I'm related to him because
>I talk of him so much but start Shane Matthews at QB. He's Aikman with a bit
>less of an arm but a bit more mobility. Get a class 1 RB and TE and keep the
>receivers healthy. Mostly get an offensive line. The defense will keep them
>in games but they have to score on occasion.
Dent might leave as a free agent. The O-line is key, and it will take some
time.
> The Vikings always seem to have the horses but can't do it. They
>need a QB. Really I think their key next year will be the healthy return of
>Terry Allen. Cris Carter does not get the recognition he should and AC and
>Jordan can hold on for a couple of years. The defense is a bit overrated but
>is still solid.
The defense is fierce. Robert Smith and Terry Allen will platoon and make
for a good backfield. Steve Bono would find a nice home here.
> Tampa Bay needs a lot. They need a top Rb or for Cobb to recover from
>whatever ailed him this year. I like Erickson at QB and the receivers are
>adequate. THe defense needs one real pass rusher. They are young and have a
>fire in their gut but that may be extinguished if they don't improve soon.
Haven't paid much attention here, but the Miami connection here (ERickson
to Thomas and Copeland) should flourish if Erickson gets some time. Still
too many holes, I think.
>
> Gregg Henglein
That's all for now,
Felix Lee
--
____________________________________________________________________________
| "Failing to fetch me at first keep encouraged,
Felix Lee | Missing me one place search another,
ches...@leland.stanford.edu | I stop somewhere waiting for you."
Gregg M Henglein
>
>In article <2j67om$f...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
>John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
>>In <2iuh7o$8...@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> ches...@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>
>>> >Well, he's about the same age as Novacek. DEs last longer than TEs.
>>> >So the Packers have to find a replacement for Reggie in the next 2-3 years and
>>> >the Cowboys have to find a replacement for Jay in the next 2-3 years. That
>>> >seems fair.
>>>
>>> You are probably correct. But Novacek is not the keystone of the Dallas
>>> offense. White is the keystone of the Green Bay defense. In any event,
>>> My point was that if the Pack is to contend for it all, and not just
>>> one or two playoff games, they need to do it soon, presumably before
>>> White loses too much.
>>
>>Well, that's ridiculous. I don't know where you got the idea that the
>>Packers are going to be crap when Reggie White retires but it's just
>>wrong.
>
>First of all, not in a single place did I say that the Packers will be
>"crap." Just because you can't win the SuperBowl doesn't mean that you are
>crap, Bills haters notwithstanding.
>
>The original poster was talking about the chances that the
>Packers will have to win it all. Do you honestly think that the Pack
>will have a better chance without Reggie than with him? I was talking
>about when the best opportunity for the Packers to go all the way would
>be. Reggie is still All-Pro, and if you are going to go for it all you
>obviously want to do it when one of the best defensive linemen in the
>game is on your team and still playing at his peak.
>
>>
>>Look, you didn't know Reggie White's age. You thought the Packers
>>still had Kenny O'Brien on the roster. You thought Tootie Robbins,
>>and Tunch Ilkin were starting on the OL. You thought the Packers were
>>over the salary cap. I don't think you are in any position to name
>>any one player the "keystone of the Green Bay defense".
>
>If you can name a single defensive player that you think is more
>important, go ahead. Bennett and Butler are good, but they aren't
>on Reggie's level. You were the one that made the comparison between
>Novacek and Reggie White. If you think they are comparable, that's your
>opinion.
>
>I apologized for misquoting White's age. Tootie Robbins started for most
>of the season. As for the salary cap, the San Francisco Chronicle reported
>on November 11 that Green Bay's team salary was $39,897,150. Take out
>Reggie White's signing bonus and the Pack is still over the projected
>33 million dollar salary cap. You yourself quoted a figure of 33 million
>for last year. The Chronicle figure doesn't even include Brett Farve's
>contract renegotiation.
>
>I didn't say that you were "spouting off" when you said Jim Jeffcoat was
>a starter for the Cowboys, or when you forgot that Mark Clayton starts
>for Green Bay and is over the age of 30, or when you said that the salary
>cap was going to be 36 million instead of 33 miilion (don't we all wish!).
>If you disagree with the idea that Reggie White is the best and most
>important defensive player that the Pack has, then do so.
>
>>
>>> >Every rebuilding team has this hurdle to overcome. Some make it, some
>>> >don't. You have yet to post any kind of reasonable argument as to why
>>> >the Packers can't do it. I don't know if they will or not. But they
>>> >have as good a chance as anybody.
>>>
>>> That's because I don't have any reason to believe that they can't. I was
>>> just saying that if it is going to happen, and we both believe that it
>>> can, it must happen soon.
>>[...]
>>> I didn't say that it had to happen next year. I said the window of
>>> opportunity was small. If they don't become true contenders in the
>>> next two or three years, chances are they won't make it.
>>
>>Why!?!?!?!
>>
>>The Packers have only a handful of older players. And they have only
>>1 player over 30 who has ever been in the ProBowl. With that 1 exception,
>>all the Packers best players are very young.
>>
>>This is so stupid. I've already shown that the Cowboys have more
>>older players than the Packers. If the Packers only have 2-3 years to
>>make it to the top that must mean that the Cowboys can remain at the
>>top for less than that. Are you saying that if the Cowboys don't win
>>the SB again next year they're finished?
>
>Unlike the Packers, the Cowboys have already shown that they have all the
>pieces in place to win the SuperBowl. We both agree that the Packers don't
>right now. If they don't put that last piece into place, they will probably
>turn into a team like Philadelphia or New Orleans--lots of talent, but
>never quite enough to make it.
>
>You are the one who said that you don't have a crystal ball to say
>whether the Packers will be able to take the last step and make it
>to the SuperBowl. I said that if they don't make it in the next two
>or three years, chances are they won't. Are you willing to argue that
>chances are BETTER that they win it all in four or five or six years
>down the road? Do you think that Holmgren is targeting the year 1999
>as the year to win it all?
>
>What do you think the fans and press would say if the Pack made it
>to the playoffs for five or six or seven straight years but never
>got to the Super Bowl? Talk to Buddy Ryan or Dan Reeves about what it
>does to coaches.
>
>>
>>> >> If you look at the dominant teams of the last decade--the Niners, Redskins,
>>> >> Giants, now Dallas--all of them came to prominence very rapidly. The
>>> >> winning mindset I guess has to be established early. Green Bay could be
>>> >> on that road, time will tell. Hope that clarifies my arguement.
>>> >
>>> >This is a lot different from what you originally said. You implied that
>>> >the Packers were an aging team. This is not true. Now you are saying
>>>
>>> As I said in my post, I should have made my arguement clearer. But the
>>> original poster that I replied to made comments about 10 teams, and
>>> when I responded I didn't have the time to analyze every team in the same
>>> depth that I did here. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but midterms are
>>> limiting the amount of time that I can spend posting.
>>
>>This is utter BS. You were caught shooting your mouth off about
>>things you know nothing about. Now you're trying to weasle out of it.
>
>If I'm just trying to weasle out of it, then it should be really easy to
>refute my arguments, right? Why did you completely ignore my argument
>that all of the recently sucessful SuperBowl teams came to prominence
>very quickly? If you respond to it in your next post should I just
>dismiss your counterarguments as you "weasling out" because you
>you didn't talk about it initially?
>
>This isn't a high school debate round, where it's illegal to make
>new arguments in rebutals. As I said, I was just making some very
>general comments in response to a guy who posted about ten different
>teams. I didn't have time or space to elaborate, and nobody would
>have read the whole thing if I had spelled out every argument in the
>same depth that I am doing here.
>
>>
>>> >that it seems that all teams (aging or not) appear to make it to the
>>> >top very quickly. Obviously, I have no crystal ball so I can't say
>>> >whether the Packers will be able to take that final giant step forward.
>>> >However, I don't see any reason to think that they can't.
>>>
>>> I don't either. My point is that the next two or three years are key to
>>> their hopes. The Packers were very aggressive last year in their efforts
>>> to make the team better, and it paid off. That aggressiveness has to
>>> be maintained. If they had a huge number of high draft picks like Dallas
>>> did, or if they had no salary cap and a huge amount of money like
>>> the Niners and Redskins did, then maybe the urgency wouldn't be as
>>> great. God only knows what will happen when the contracts of the Packer
>>> stars start to expire. It's already happened to the Cowboys, and nobody
>>> know what will happen with that.
>>
>>Geez, this is just bizarre.
>>
>>Eventually the Cowboys are going to have *more* salary cap problems
>>than anybody. What do you think is going to happen when all those
>>guys with 2 SB rings show up for new contracts in JJs office? Do you
>>think he's going to be able to give every one of them what they want?
>>Do you think the Cowboys have some magical way of making the salary
>>cap disappear?
>
>No I don't, and that's why I said nobody knows what the end result of
>that will be for the Cowboys. Nonetheless you have to concede that the
>the Packer's team salary is higher than the Cowboys right now, and the
>Cowboys are more talented. And you are darn right when you say "eventually"
>the Cowboys will have cap problems.
>
>The point is the Packers are running
>up against such problems right now and they don't have what it takes
>yet. They have assembled a core of talent that just needs a few more
>players to be SuperBowl contenders, and they need to capitalize on it
>before it that core dissipates, either from age or free agency. This was
>much easier to do when there was no cap and players ability to move was
>severely restricted. The present system gives much more urgency.
>
>Am I going to argue that it isn't in the realm of possibility for the
>Packers to win it all in five or six years? No. Do I think it is alot
>more likely that they will win in the next few if they are going to
>do it at all? Yes.
>
>>
>>The Packers will have salary cap problems *if* they win. You can't
>>have it both ways. If the Packers win they'll have to give their good
>>players better contracts. *Every* team in the league is going to have
>>this problem and the Cowboys more than most. The only way to avoid
>>paying your good players lots of money is to not have any good
>>players!
>
>They over the cap now, and they still don't have all the players they
>need. You keep making comparison to the Cowboys, who just need to hold
>onto the players they have, and the Packers, who need to hold onto
>players and get more (and with less money). Different story.
>
>>
>>JGH
>
>One final note. In all my posts I have tried to be polite and fair. I've
>said that I believe that the Packers are a good team, and just a step
>away from contending for it all. I even apologized publically for saying
>that Reggie White was 35 instead of 32. The tone of your posts make it sound
>as if I've insulted Vince Lombardi's mother or something. I've stated
>my opinion that I think that Green Bay's best chance of winning the
>SuperBowl is in the next two or three years. Is this opinion so distateful
>to you that you start abandoning civility and start using words like
>"weasel" and "stupid" and "BS"? Save your anger for the guy who posted "Brett
>Farve must die." I know the net is a hostile place, but I didn't expect
>this type of hostility from someone like you.
>That's all for now,
>
>Felix Lee
>
>--
>____________________________________________________________________________
> | "Failing to fetch me at first keep encouraged,
> Felix Lee | Missing me one place search another,
>ches...@leland.stanford.edu | I stop somewhere waiting for you."
I just think it's weird that in my original post I just said that the
Packers need a running back. Don't hurt each other guys.
John Heim
> In article <2j67om$f...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
> John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >Well, that's ridiculous. I don't know where you got the idea that the
> >Packers are going to be crap when Reggie White retires but it's just
> >wrong.
>
> First of all, not in a single place did I say that the Packers will be
> "crap." Just because you can't win the SuperBowl doesn't mean that you are
> crap, Bills haters notwithstanding.
Alright, fair enough.
> The original poster was talking about the chances that the
> Packers will have to win it all. Do you honestly think that the Pack
> will have a better chance without Reggie than with him? I was talking
> about when the best opportunity for the Packers to go all the way would
> be. Reggie is still All-Pro, and if you are going to go for it all you
> obviously want to do it when one of the best defensive linemen in the
> game is on your team and still playing at his peak.
The point remains that it's ludicrous to say that the Packers have to
win the SB within the next 2 years because of *1* player will retire
after that.
> >Look, you didn't know Reggie White's age. You thought the Packers
> >still had Kenny O'Brien on the roster. You thought Tootie Robbins,
> >and Tunch Ilkin were starting on the OL. You thought the Packers were
> >over the salary cap. I don't think you are in any position to name
> >any one player the "keystone of the Green Bay defense".
>
> If you can name a single defensive player that you think is more
> important, go ahead. Bennett and Butler are good, but they aren't
> on Reggie's level. You were the one that made the comparison between
> Novacek and Reggie White. If you think they are comparable, that's your
> opinion.
>
> I apologized for misquoting White's age. Tootie Robbins started for most
My point is not that you have something to apologize for but rather
that you don't know what you are talking about.
> of the season. As for the salary cap, the San Francisco Chronicle reported
> on November 11 that Green Bay's team salary was $39,897,150. Take out
> Reggie White's signing bonus and the Pack is still over the projected
> 33 million dollar salary cap. You yourself quoted a figure of 33 million
> for last year. The Chronicle figure doesn't even include Brett Farve's
> contract renegotiation.
Eh... Make all the excuses you want. The fact is you've make oodles
of incorrect statements in the course of this debate. You are very
uninformed about the Packers yet you insist on sounding like an
expert on their chances.
I'm not the one who has something to prove here. You said the
Packers have to win the SB within the next couple of years or forget
it. The truth is that you have no facts on which to base that opinion.
What you do have is a lot of misconceptions about the Packers.
> If you disagree with the idea that Reggie White is the best and most
> important defensive player that the Pack has, then do so.
What difference does it make? Is your hypothesis that *any* team with
1 great but aging player is doomed to failure? If the Cowboys lose
Ken Norton are they doomed?
This is what you are saying. Reggie White will retire within 2-3
years therefore the Packers have to win the SB before then. That's
just stupid.
> >This is so stupid. I've already shown that the Cowboys have more
> >older players than the Packers. If the Packers only have 2-3 years to
> >make it to the top that must mean that the Cowboys can remain at the
> >top for less than that. Are you saying that if the Cowboys don't win
> >the SB again next year they're finished?
>
> Unlike the Packers, the Cowboys have already shown that they have all the
> pieces in place to win the SuperBowl.
Many of those pieces will be gone from the Cowboys by the time the Packers
lose Reggie White.
> We both agree that the Packers don't
> right now. If they don't put that last piece into place, they will probably
> turn into a team like Philadelphia or New Orleans--lots of talent, but
> never quite enough to make it.
First of all, you haven't proven your hypothesis that a team *has* to win
the championship within a few years of hiring a new coach. Note that
this is a lot different than showing that it is *possible* to win the
SB within a few years.
Secondly, you have no reason to think the Packers are more like
New Orleans and Philly than they are like Dallas 2 years ago. Or SF
in 1981. Or Washington 2 years after they hired Joe Gibbs (whenever
that was.)
So... *If* the Packers can't put the last few pieces together they
might not get any further than NO or Philly have (so far). The
question is not whether a team can get to the playoffs a bunch of
times and lose. It's whether that's what's in store for the Packers.
And again I'd like to point out that you have yet to post any kind of
reasonable argument for saying that the Packers are likely to end up
like NO and Philly (and not like SF, Washington, or Dallas).
> >This is utter BS. You were caught shooting your mouth off about
> >things you know nothing about. Now you're trying to weasle out of it.
>
> If I'm just trying to weasle out of it, then it should be really easy to
> refute my arguments, right?
And I have done so.
> Why did you completely ignore my argument
> that all of the recently sucessful SuperBowl teams came to prominence
> very quickly?
I didn't ignore it (and I think you know it).
What I said:
1) This is a lot different from what you said before. Before you
were saying the Packers were an aging team. I've shown that to be
untrue.
2) I don't have a crystal ball to tell if the Packers will be able
to reach the next level. Some team do, some don't. But *every*
championship team was in the Packers current position at one point.
Sound familiar? It should, part of it IS STILL IN THE QUOTED TEXT
BELOW!
> If you respond to it in your next post should I just
> dismiss your counterarguments as you "weasling out" because you
> you didn't talk about it initially?
Well, you can try. Of course, you'd be wrong since I did discuss the
issue. But even if I hadn't, it wouldn't be reasonable to call ignoring
someone's argument weasling out. On the other hand, changing the main
thrust of your argument once you find out your original assumtions
were wrong, well, that would be weasling out.
> This isn't a high school debate round, where it's illegal to make
> new arguments in rebutals.
Do you or do you not still think the Packers are an aging team? *That*
was your original point. You can concede that point at any time and
I'll let it go.
If you want to claim that a team has to win the SB within a certain
number of years of hiring a new coach of forget it forever, well, lets
see some evidence of that. (Note that this is a lot different than
showing that it is possible to win the SB within 4 years.)
> As I said, I was just making some very
> general comments in response to a guy who posted about ten different
> teams. I didn't have time or space to elaborate, and nobody would
> have read the whole thing if I had spelled out every argument in the
> same depth that I am doing here.
I'm not criticizing you for being brief. I'm criticizing you for
being wrong.
> >> >that it seems that all teams (aging or not) appear to make it to the
> >> >top very quickly. Obviously, I have no crystal ball so I can't say
> >> >whether the Packers will be able to take that final giant step forward.
> >> >However, I don't see any reason to think that they can't.
> >>
> >> I don't either. My point is that the next two or three years are key to
> >> their hopes. The Packers were very aggressive last year in their efforts
> >> to make the team better, and it paid off. That aggressiveness has to
> >> be maintained. If they had a huge number of high draft picks like Dallas
> >> did, or if they had no salary cap and a huge amount of money like
> >> the Niners and Redskins did, then maybe the urgency wouldn't be as
> >> great. God only knows what will happen when the contracts of the Packer
> >> stars start to expire. It's already happened to the Cowboys, and nobody
> >> know what will happen with that.
> >
> >Geez, this is just bizarre.
> >
> >Eventually the Cowboys are going to have *more* salary cap problems
> >than anybody. What do you think is going to happen when all those
> >guys with 2 SB rings show up for new contracts in JJs office? Do you
> >think he's going to be able to give every one of them what they want?
> >Do you think the Cowboys have some magical way of making the salary
> >cap disappear?
>
> No I don't, and that's why I said nobody knows what the end result of
> that will be for the Cowboys. Nonetheless you have to concede that the
> the Packer's team salary is higher than the Cowboys right now,
No I don't.
I may have to concede that the Packers paid more in salaries in 1993
than the Cowboys but that's all. But we all know that certain bonuses
aren't counted under the cap. And all the figures that I've seen were
from before the Cowboys re-signed Aikman and Smith. For all I know,
the Cowboys may have already committed to a higher salary total for
1994 than the Packers have.
> and the
> Cowboys are more talented. And you are darn right when you say "eventually"
> the Cowboys will have cap problems.
This is what it all comes down to, doesn't it, Felix? In your mind it
doesn't matter what any other team does -- they won't be able to touch
the Cowboys.
It's like arguing with a brick.
> "weasel" and "stupid" and "BS"? Save your anger for the guy who posted "Brett
> Farve must die." I know the net is a hostile place, but I didn't expect
> this type of hostility from someone like you.
Why don't you just go hug your teddy then, eh, Felix?
You say stupid things then refuse to back down and I'm going
not going to be all nicey nicey toward you. You are like too many
people on the net -- it doesn't matter what kind of evidence you are
presented with you never change your mind. If you don't have the
sense to realize when you are wrong then you don't deserve any
consideration from me.
Patrick Power
In article <2jbojg$6...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU (John Heim)
|> lose Reggie White.
|>
in fact. Must be catching, huh?
--
I am just a COWBOY, lonesome on the trail | Pat Power
Lord, I'm just thinking about a certain female... | My opinions only
Roll me over and turn me around, let me keep spinning |
til I hit the ground. | Da Boyz are back!!
Roll me over and let me go, running free with |
the BUFFALO. - Thin Lizzy, "The Cowboy Song" |
felix lee
John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
>In <2j7dl0$h...@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> ches...@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>> In article <2j67om$f...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
>> John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
>> >
>> >Well, that's ridiculous. I don't know where you got the idea that the
>> >Packers are going to be crap when Reggie White retires but it's just
>> >wrong.
>>
>> First of all, not in a single place did I say that the Packers will be
>> "crap." Just because you can't win the SuperBowl doesn't mean that you are
>> crap, Bills haters notwithstanding.
>
>Alright, fair enough.
>
>> The original poster was talking about the chances that the
>> Packers will have to win it all. Do you honestly think that the Pack
>> will have a better chance without Reggie than with him? I was talking
>> about when the best opportunity for the Packers to go all the way would
>> be. Reggie is still All-Pro, and if you are going to go for it all you
>> obviously want to do it when one of the best defensive linemen in the
>> game is on your team and still playing at his peak.
>
>The point remains that it's ludicrous to say that the Packers have to
>win the SB within the next 2 years because of *1* player will retire
>after that.
If the Packers are able to elevate their talent level to that of bone
fide SuperBowl contender before White leaves/begins to slip then his
loss won't hurt as much because there will be a greater talent base to
cushion the blow. If the Pack doesn't reach that level by the time
he leaves it pushes them that much farther away from their goal, and
make it that much harder to get over the hump. Are you going to deny
the impact that White has had on the team and it's level of defensive
play?
In my original post I made the following points about the Packers. First,
I said that Robert Brooks would be more of a factor next year than
Mark Clayton. I also said that I didn't know where the Packers would
get the running back that the original poster said the Packers needed. I
also said that I agreed that the Packers were close to contending for it
all. I also said that Reggie White was key to the Packers defense and that
he was aging (though I got his exact age wrong). I then also said that
most of the Packer O-line was over 30. I concluded by saying that if
the Packers don't make it to that level in the next two or three years,
that they would have some major gaps to fill.
You didn't take issue with the first three points I made. You agree that
White is aging. You've danced around the issue but you haven't disgreed
with the fact that White is the most important defensive player on
the Packers. I was wrong about the offensive line, because the Packers
took steps during the course of the season to replace the older linemen,
and I admitted I was wrong there. You were the one who was wrong about
the salary cap. What other major misconceptions are we leaving out?
If you want me to repost my original comments I will, but at no point
during the course of this discussion did I say that they HAVE to win
in the next two years or "forget it." I said in my original post that
if they didn't do it they would have major gaps to fill. My point is
that the Packers best chance is in the next two or three years. I asked
you if you thought that their chances would be better in the next
five or six years, and you didn't respond.
>
>> If you disagree with the idea that Reggie White is the best and most
>> important defensive player that the Pack has, then do so.
>
>What difference does it make? Is your hypothesis that *any* team with
>1 great but aging player is doomed to failure? If the Cowboys lose
>Ken Norton are they doomed?
Again, Norton and White are not in the same class, but if, for instance,
the Cowboys lost Haley and Norton, then they would have some difficulties.
Their chances to win the Super Bowl would be seriously damaged, and the
only reason they would still be considered even a contender would be because
of all the offensive firepower they have and because the rest of the
defense is still talented. Can you say the same about Green Bay (assuming,
as we have been, that they don't rise to the Cowboy's level in the next
few years.) Even more analagous would be to look at what the Cowboys
chances would be if they lost Aikman or Smith. They definitely wouldn't
be favored to win. Again, losing someone like White has a much bigger impact
on a team that hasn't made it to the top echelon yet, because there's not
enough talent elsewhere to make up for it.
>
>This is what you are saying. Reggie White will retire within 2-3
>years therefore the Packers have to win the SB before then. That's
>just stupid.
No I'm not, and I've stated why.
>
>> >This is so stupid. I've already shown that the Cowboys have more
>> >older players than the Packers. If the Packers only have 2-3 years to
>> >make it to the top that must mean that the Cowboys can remain at the
>> >top for less than that. Are you saying that if the Cowboys don't win
>> >the SB again next year they're finished?
>>
>> Unlike the Packers, the Cowboys have already shown that they have all the
>> pieces in place to win the SuperBowl.
>
>Many of those pieces will be gone from the Cowboys by the time the Packers
>lose Reggie White.
At what point in time did I ever make the Cowboys the centerpiece (or any
piece) of my argument. You keep drawing comparisons to them even though
I never did. I have already stated that the Cowboys aren't immune to the
effects that I am talking about here.
Read my original comments. I said Reggie White and the offensive line
was aging, not the whole team, and also that if the Packers didn't get
to the top soon they would have some gaps to fill. You keep trying to
refute this last argument by referring to the Cowboys, and I agree
that the Cowboys will face the same types of obstacles.
>
> 2) I don't have a crystal ball to tell if the Packers will be able
> to reach the next level. Some team do, some don't. But *every*
> championship team was in the Packers current position at one point.
And all of the ones who won recently did it very quickly! Why should the
Packers be an exception?
>
>Sound familiar? It should, part of it IS STILL IN THE QUOTED TEXT
>BELOW!
>
>> If you respond to it in your next post should I just
>> dismiss your counterarguments as you "weasling out" because you
>> you didn't talk about it initially?
>
>Well, you can try. Of course, you'd be wrong since I did discuss the
>issue. But even if I hadn't, it wouldn't be reasonable to call ignoring
>someone's argument weasling out. On the other hand, changing the main
>thrust of your argument once you find out your original assumtions
>were wrong, well, that would be weasling out.
>
>> This isn't a high school debate round, where it's illegal to make
>> new arguments in rebutals.
>
>Do you or do you not still think the Packers are an aging team? *That*
>was your original point. You can concede that point at any time and
>I'll let it go.
Reggie White is aging. The Offensive line was, but steps are being taken
to correct it, and I admitted that. Those were the points I made about age.
>
>If you want to claim that a team has to win the SB within a certain
>number of years of hiring a new coach of forget it forever, well, lets
>see some evidence of that. (Note that this is a lot different than
>showing that it is possible to win the SB within 4 years.)
Sigh. "Forget it forever" are your words, not mine. The recent Super
Bowl winners have been Dallas, Washington, New York, San Francisco,
the Bears (and that takes you pretty far back). All of these teams
won their first quickly. The Pack doesn't have to forget it forever,
but they are bucking the trends of history if they don't get there quick.
>
>> As I said, I was just making some very
>> general comments in response to a guy who posted about ten different
>> teams. I didn't have time or space to elaborate, and nobody would
>> have read the whole thing if I had spelled out every argument in the
>> same depth that I am doing here.
>
>I'm not criticizing you for being brief. I'm criticizing you for
>being wrong.
>[...]
>>
>> No I don't, and that's why I said nobody knows what the end result of
>> that will be for the Cowboys. Nonetheless you have to concede that the
>> the Packer's team salary is higher than the Cowboys right now,
>
>No I don't.
>
>I may have to concede that the Packers paid more in salaries in 1993
>than the Cowboys but that's all. But we all know that certain bonuses
>aren't counted under the cap. And all the figures that I've seen were
>from before the Cowboys re-signed Aikman and Smith. For all I know,
>the Cowboys may have already committed to a higher salary total for
>1994 than the Packers have.
No. The Cowboys payroll for cap purposes right now is $27 million, and
there are a HUGE number of Cowboys fans on the net that will confirm
that. That's signifigantly lower than the $33 million figure you quoted
for the Packers.
>
>> and the
>> Cowboys are more talented. And you are darn right when you say "eventually"
>> the Cowboys will have cap problems.
>
>This is what it all comes down to, doesn't it, Felix? In your mind it
>doesn't matter what any other team does -- they won't be able to touch
>the Cowboys.
I challenge you to find a single sentence in my posts that suggests that
"no one will be able to touch the Cowboys" in the coming years. I in fact
said that nobody knows what will happen to the Cowboys under the cap (You
can read it in the quoted text above) I refute the comparisons that you
make to the Cowboys because the situations are different.
>
>It's like arguing with a brick.
>
>> "weasel" and "stupid" and "BS"? Save your anger for the guy who posted "Brett
>> Farve must die." I know the net is a hostile place, but I didn't expect
>> this type of hostility from someone like you.
>
>Why don't you just go hug your teddy then, eh, Felix?
>
>You say stupid things then refuse to back down and I'm going
>not going to be all nicey nicey toward you. You are like too many
>people on the net -- it doesn't matter what kind of evidence you are
>presented with you never change your mind. If you don't have the
>sense to realize when you are wrong then you don't deserve any
>consideration from me.
>
If you can make no distinction between being "nicey nicey" and being civil
then that's fine.
That's all for now,
Felix Lee
This is going to turn into another EAGLES/BOYS II thread before we know it...
Spencer Ivery
Felix,
Hang in there, your handling this situation as well
as any other legitimate poster...
The only problem, John Heim is definitely taking this
thread the wrong way.
Also, your correct, this could be another "EAGLES/BOYS II"
saga, as Denis Hoper (sp) stated: "bad things man, bad things"
Spencer
John Heim
>
> In article <2jbojg$6...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU (John Heim)
> |> Many of those pieces will be gone from the Cowboys by the time the Packers
> |> lose Reggie White.
>
> Now you're talking about things in which you have absolutely no basis
> in fact. Must be catching, huh?
Maybe you'd like to say *why* you think I'm wrong?
Earlier in this thread I listed the number of players the Cowboys have
who are over 30 (which was Felix's own metric). Also, the Cowboys are
*sure* to lose some players to free agency. Yeah, I know the Packers
will lose some too. But first of all, the Cowboys have more to lose
(not more players, more quality) and, secondly, whether the Packers
lose some free agents is not relevant to a discussion of whether it's
correct to say that many of the SB winning pieces will be gone from the
Cowboys by the time the Packers lose Reggie White.
JGH
Skywalker
>
>Earlier in this thread I listed the number of players the Cowboys have
>who are over 30 (which was Felix's own metric). Also, the Cowboys are
>*sure* to lose some players to free agency. Yeah, I know the Packers
>will lose some too. But first of all, the Cowboys have more to lose
>(not more players, more quality) and, secondly, whether the Packers
>lose some free agents is not relevant to a discussion of whether it's
>correct to say that many of the SB winning pieces will be gone from the
>Cowboys by the time the Packers lose Reggie White.
Or look at it this way, seeing how superbowl rings are growing like weeds
in dallas now I assume there will be quite a few players that would
love to come to Dallas to replace anyone that leaves.
tim
John Heim
> fide SuperBowl contender before White leaves/begins to slip then his
> loss won't hurt as much because there will be a greater talent base to
> cushion the blow. If the Pack doesn't reach that level by the time
> he leaves it pushes them that much farther away from their goal, and
> make it that much harder to get over the hump. Are you going to deny
> the impact that White has had on the team and it's level of defensive
> play?
Big logic flaw here.
Either the Packers have made it to 'the top echelon' in say '96 when
Reggie retires or they have not.
Suppose they have. In this case then, according to you, Reggie's
retirement shouldn't make as much difference because they'll have the
talent to make up for it.
Suppose they haven't. Well, then it doesn't really matter, does it?
The point is that the hole Reggie will leave is the same size
regardless.
But it's not relevant anyway because I'm sure by the time he retires
the Packers will have an adequate replacement. *This* is the point on
which we really disagree.
The truth is that if Reggie White retired the Packers would have an
extra $4.25M of salary cap to play with. They could use that money to
go after who ever would then be the best DE in the league. And $4.5M
per year aught to about do it.
Also, I believe that you have an unrealistic idea of how important any
one player is to a team. It's like the 49er fans placing *all* the
blame for the 49ers not winning another SB on Steve Young. The fact
is that Young is a very, very good QB. Not as good as Montana,
certainly, but good enough to win the SB. The reason the 49ers
haven't won the SB in the last couple of years is that the 49ers (as a
team) aren't as good as the Cowboys.
Maybe the Packers will never be able to find a DE quite as good as
Reggie White. But there's no reason to believe that the Packer
defense as a whole can't be even better in a couple of years than it
is now.
Now, I'm not saying losing a player to injury suddenly can't be
crucial. For one thing, it depends on who the backup is. But the
Packers know Reggie White is getting old and they'll probably take
steps to compensate. If they don't and a major hole is left in
the Packer defense, well, it'll be more an indication that the Packer
coaching staff screwed up than it would be of the importance of Reggie
White.
> the salary cap. What other major misconceptions are we leaving out?
Well, how about that losing White will doom the Packers?
> If you want me to repost my original comments I will, but at no point
> during the course of this discussion did I say that they HAVE to win
> in the next two years or "forget it." I said in my original post that
> if they didn't do it they would have major gaps to fill. My point is
> that the Packers best chance is in the next two or three years. I asked
> you if you thought that their chances would be better in the next
> five or six years, and you didn't respond.
I am not required to answer *any* of your questions.
But no, I don't agree that the Packers chances are better to win the
SB in 2-3 years than the are to win it in 5-6. Almost all the Packers
best players will just about the right age in 5 years. And I'm
assuming the Packers will continue to do the good job acquiring young
players that they have been for the past 2 years.
By the way, you now have the Packers best chance being within the next
2 or 3 years? I believe it was originally 1 or 2.
> >What I said:
> >
> > 1) This is a lot different from what you said before. Before you
> > were saying the Packers were an aging team. I've shown that to be
> > untrue.
>
> Read my original comments. I said Reggie White and the offensive line
> was aging, not the whole team, and also that if the Packers didn't get
> to the top soon they would have some gaps to fill. You keep trying to
> refute this last argument by referring to the Cowboys, and I agree
> that the Cowboys will face the same types of obstacles.
Actually, I think this is the first time you agreed to that.
The thing is that when I showed you that the only significant older
player the Packers have is Reggie White you switched from saying "The
Packers will have some serious gaps [plural] to fill" to essentially
saying that Reggie White is the Packers entire team. Saying that the
Packers will never be able to replace Reggie White is *significantly*
different from saying that the Packers have too many older players to
compete for more than the next couple of years.
I interpreted what you wrote originally to be an implication that you
thought the Packers were an aging team. I've reread what you wrote
and it *still* appears to be what you were saying. I believe that
anyone would have interpreted what you said that way. And further, I
believe that that is the *correct* interpretation. In other words, I
think that's what you meant.
> > 2) I don't have a crystal ball to tell if the Packers will be able
> > to reach the next level. Some team do, some don't. But *every*
> > championship team was in the Packers current position at one point.
>
> And all of the ones who won recently did it very quickly! Why should the
> Packers be an exception?
Why can't they be? Like I said, the burden of proof is on you.
> >Do you or do you not still think the Packers are an aging team? *That*
> >was your original point. You can concede that point at any time and
> >I'll let it go.
>
> Reggie White is aging. The Offensive line was, but steps are being taken
> to correct it, and I admitted that. Those were the points I made about age.
Okay, so Reggie White is the only significant older player the Packers
have. Yet you continue to insist that the Packers must win the SB in
the next couple of years?
> Sigh. "Forget it forever" are your words, not mine.
Maybe so, but it's a resonable interpretation of what you said.
>The recent Super
> Bowl winners have been Dallas, Washington, New York, San Francisco,
> the Bears (and that takes you pretty far back). All of these teams
> won their first quickly. The Pack doesn't have to forget it forever,
> but they are bucking the trends of history if they don't get there quick.
This is entirely wrong.
It's like this... You put 10 marbles in a drawer. Some are red, some
are white. You select 4 marbles and all of them are red. At this point
you have evidence to conclude that there are *more* red marbles than
white one. (You could be wrong but it's a good conclusion.)
However, you *cannot* conclude and you have no evidence for concluding
that there are *no* white marbles in the drawer. In fact, if you know
that the marbles were placed in the drawer randomly, then the chances
that the next mable will be white is *still* 50-50.
The fact that 4 coaches got to their goal of winning the SB in the
same way in now way indicates that some coach can't come along who
does it another way.
It's also like saying no team had ever won the SB with the league leading
rusher. You want to conclude that there's some kind of connection
between having the rusher in the league somehow prevents you from
winning the SB. The truth is that the important feature is a balanced
attack. Usually a team with a balanced attack doesn't also have the
league leading rusher. The two observed effects (winning the SB and
not having the leading rusher) have the same cause but one does *not*
cause the other.
Likewise, getting to the SB quickly certainly has the same cause as
getting there at all. Both events require a coach and GM capable of
pulling it off. The reason some teams like Philly and NO haven't been
able to get to the SB in not because they didn't do it fast enough but
rather because their coaches and GM haven't done a good enough job!
> >I may have to concede that the Packers paid more in salaries in 1993
> >than the Cowboys but that's all. But we all know that certain bonuses
> >aren't counted under the cap. And all the figures that I've seen were
> >from before the Cowboys re-signed Aikman and Smith. For all I know,
> >the Cowboys may have already committed to a higher salary total for
> >1994 than the Packers have.
>
> No. The Cowboys payroll for cap purposes right now is $27 million, and
> there are a HUGE number of Cowboys fans on the net that will confirm
> that. That's signifigantly lower than the $33 million figure you quoted
> for the Packers.
Well, the *real* figures will be available in a few weeks anyway.
We'll see then. I don't believe the Packers have significantly bigger
problems with the salary cap than the Cowboys. For every Reggie White
on the Packer roster there's a Troy Aikman on the Cowboys. The
Cowboys are going to *have* to pay their players more, in general,
because they have 2 SB rings and the Packers don't. If the Packers
have a higher salary figure right now it's only because they haven't
released Mike Prior, Bill Maas, Tunch Ilkin, etc yet.
> I challenge you to find a single sentence in my posts that suggests that
> "no one will be able to touch the Cowboys" in the coming years. I in fact
I believe that this is what you think. This is an opinion on my part
based on reading lots of your posts. I don't intend to take the time
to find specific cases. So you can igore my opinion if you want to.
But my opinion remains unchanged.
Partly this is because you have no other apparent reason for your
beliefs. The reasons you've posted in this discussion are pitiful.
JGH
Patrick Power
In article <2jdlc4$3...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU (John Heim) writes:
|> In <2jbtki$o...@crchh9a6.bnr.ca> patp...@bnr.ca writes:
|>
|> >
|> > In article <2jbojg$6...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU (John Heim)
|> > |> Many of those pieces will be gone from the Cowboys by the time the Packers
|> > |> lose Reggie White.
|> >
|> > Now you're talking about things in which you have absolutely no basis
|> > in fact. Must be catching, huh?
|>
|> Maybe you'd like to say *why* you think I'm wrong?
|>
vague (how much is "many"?) it is also pure speculation. RW could be killed
rogue milk cow, or eat some bad cheese tomorrow. Or maybe, blow out a knee in
training camp. Who knows?
On the vagueness of your statement, what do you consider many? For Dallas,
a team which had 23 new faces on it this year over last years SuperBowl cast,
many must be somewhere around 30 players.
|> Earlier in this thread I listed the number of players the Cowboys have
|> who are over 30 (which was Felix's own metric). Also, the Cowboys are
|> *sure* to lose some players to free agency. Yeah, I know the Packers
|> will lose some too. But first of all, the Cowboys have more to lose
|> (not more players, more quality) and, secondly, whether the Packers
|> lose some free agents is not relevant to a discussion of whether it's
|> correct to say that many of the SB winning pieces will be gone from the
|> Cowboys by the time the Packers lose Reggie White.
|>
|> JGH
--
John Heim
> |> > In article <2jbojg$6...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU (John Heim)
> |> > |> Many of those pieces will be gone from the Cowboys by the time the Packers
> |> > |> lose Reggie White.
> |> >
> |> > Now you're talking about things in which you have absolutely no basis
> |> > in fact. Must be catching, huh?
> |>
> |> Maybe you'd like to say *why* you think I'm wrong?
> |>
> Never said you were wrong... Its just that your statement is not only
> vague (how much is "many"?)
What? I'm supposed to come up with an exact number?! Many is more
than 2, how's that?
> it is also pure speculation. RW could be killed
> rogue milk cow, or eat some bad cheese tomorrow. Or maybe, blow out a knee in
> training camp. Who knows?
Well, I'll tell you what. I'll bet you even money that the Cowboys
lose 3 of their current starters before the Packers lose Reggie White.
Okay? We got a bet?
> On the vagueness of your statement, what do you consider many? For Dallas,
> a team which had 23 new faces on it this year over last years SuperBowl cast,
> many must be somewhere around 30 players.
There you go.
If the Cowboys who didn't even have a 1st round draft choice last year
can replace 23 of the guys on their SB winning team then surely the
Packers can replace Reggie White. Maybe not with someone equally
good -- but good enough so that the Packers can still contend.
Eh?
JGH
felix lee
John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
>> If the Packers are able to elevate their talent level to that of bone
>> fide SuperBowl contender before White leaves/begins to slip then his
>> loss won't hurt as much because there will be a greater talent base to
>> cushion the blow. If the Pack doesn't reach that level by the time
>> he leaves it pushes them that much farther away from their goal, and
>> make it that much harder to get over the hump. Are you going to deny
>> the impact that White has had on the team and it's level of defensive
>> play?
>
>Big logic flaw here.
>
>Either the Packers have made it to 'the top echelon' in say '96 when
>Reggie retires or they have not.
>
>Suppose they have. In this case then, according to you, Reggie's
>retirement shouldn't make as much difference because they'll have the
>talent to make up for it.
>
>Suppose they haven't. Well, then it doesn't really matter, does it?
>
>The point is that the hole Reggie will leave is the same size
>regardless.
If the Pack was at the top echelon, losing White wouldn't hurt as much. But
it might hurt enough to take them off of top echelon status. Football is
relative, and while the Pack might still be a great team without him
someone else might move ahead.
But that's not the real thrust of the argument. We both agree that White
is the best defensive player at Green Bay, and we both also agree that
the Pack needs an upgrade (not a huge one) in talent to be true contenders.
We disagree on timing. My argument is that if that talent upgrade actually
materializes, the Pack would be that much stronger if White was on the
team as opposed to five years from now when he will not. That is, if
Green Bay goes out and gets a running back and a solid corner and Brooks
develops into a good complement to Sharpe and Farve becomes more consistent
etc., the team will be that much stronger if White is on the team as opposed
to five years from now when he will not (unless you think that they can
find someone that is just as good).
>
>But it's not relevant anyway because I'm sure by the time he retires
>the Packers will have an adequate replacement. *This* is the point on
>which we really disagree.
My point is, in the next two or three years, you won't have to settle
for a replacement, you'll have the real thing! If the final steps are
taken while he is there then so much the better, and their chances
are better, which is what I have been arguing!
>
>The truth is that if Reggie White retired the Packers would have an
>extra $4.25M of salary cap to play with. They could use that money to
>go after who ever would then be the best DE in the league. And $4.5M
>per year aught to about do it.
If I were as anal as you about Packer facts I would point out that
White's contract is front loaded and that his salary drops signifigantly
in the last year of his contract (~2 million, I think). Your scenario
counts on there being a lineman available that year even close to
White's calibre, and that Green Bay would have more money to offer than
any other team, and that this lineman would want to play in Green Bay.
Not an impossible scenario, but I'd rather take my chances while
White is on the team.
>
>Also, I believe that you have an unrealistic idea of how important any
>one player is to a team. It's like the 49er fans placing *all* the
>blame for the 49ers not winning another SB on Steve Young. The fact
>is that Young is a very, very good QB. Not as good as Montana,
>certainly, but good enough to win the SB. The reason the 49ers
>haven't won the SB in the last couple of years is that the 49ers (as a
>team) aren't as good as the Cowboys.
I agree. White is not the only reason the Packers could win a SuperBowl.
But if you are gauging the relative probabilities as to when a team's
chances would be best, White would do nothing but add to that probability.
That is why, all other things being equal, the Packers are more likely
to get there with White than without him.
>
>Maybe the Packers will never be able to find a DE quite as good as
>Reggie White. But there's no reason to believe that the Packer
>defense as a whole can't be even better in a couple of years than it
>is now.
You are absolutely correct. If they find a a good corner to replace
Mitchell, if Paup and Jurkovic and Bennett and Butler maintain and
even elevate their level of play the defense will be better, even
stellar. If this happens in the next two years while White is still
wreaking havoc the effect is magnified. If it happens after he is gone
it's still a good thing but not AS good. That's why the probabilities
with White are better.
>
>Now, I'm not saying losing a player to injury suddenly can't be
>crucial. For one thing, it depends on who the backup is. But the
>Packers know Reggie White is getting old and they'll probably take
>steps to compensate. If they don't and a major hole is left in
>the Packer defense, well, it'll be more an indication that the Packer
>coaching staff screwed up than it would be of the importance of Reggie
>White.
Again, in five years you have to worry about these things. Right now
you don't because White is on the team. Having the all-time NFL
sack leader is the ideal time to try and capitalize and go for the
Super Bowl.
>
>> the salary cap. What other major misconceptions are we leaving out?
>
>Well, how about that losing White will doom the Packers?
"Doom?" Is that the word I used? Is that the word I implied? I didn't
say they would turn into Tampa Bay.
>
>> If you want me to repost my original comments I will, but at no point
>> during the course of this discussion did I say that they HAVE to win
>> in the next two years or "forget it." I said in my original post that
>> if they didn't do it they would have major gaps to fill. My point is
>> that the Packers best chance is in the next two or three years. I asked
>> you if you thought that their chances would be better in the next
>> five or six years, and you didn't respond.
>
>I am not required to answer *any* of your questions.
I know. You have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
>
>But no, I don't agree that the Packers chances are better to win the
>SB in 2-3 years than the are to win it in 5-6. Almost all the Packers
>best players will just about the right age in 5 years. And I'm
>assuming the Packers will continue to do the good job acquiring young
>players that they have been for the past 2 years.
Really. If that's the case why did Green Bay spend tens of millions
of dollars buying pricey veteran free agent talent that will be gone by the
time that period rolls around? Why not just buy young talent that will
still be here? Why spend 17 million on Reggie White if you can win
without him in five years? The Packer GM must be thinking along
different lines than you.
>
>By the way, you now have the Packers best chance being within the next
>2 or 3 years? I believe it was originally 1 or 2.
You were the one who said that Novacek and White would slow down in 2-3
years. It's your figure.
>
>> >What I said:
>> >
>> > 1) This is a lot different from what you said before. Before you
>> > were saying the Packers were an aging team. I've shown that to be
>> > untrue.
>>
>> Read my original comments. I said Reggie White and the offensive line
>> was aging, not the whole team, and also that if the Packers didn't get
>> to the top soon they would have some gaps to fill. You keep trying to
>> refute this last argument by referring to the Cowboys, and I agree
>> that the Cowboys will face the same types of obstacles.
>
>Actually, I think this is the first time you agreed to that.
>
>The thing is that when I showed you that the only significant older
>player the Packers have is Reggie White you switched from saying "The
>Packers will have some serious gaps [plural] to fill" to essentially
>saying that Reggie White is the Packers entire team. Saying that the
>Packers will never be able to replace Reggie White is *significantly*
>different from saying that the Packers have too many older players to
>compete for more than the next couple of years.
>
>I interpreted what you wrote originally to be an implication that you
>thought the Packers were an aging team. I've reread what you wrote
>and it *still* appears to be what you were saying. I believe that
>anyone would have interpreted what you said that way. And further, I
>believe that that is the *correct* interpretation. In other words, I
>think that's what you meant.
Did you see anything other than Reggie White and the offensive line
mentioned in my original post (with reference to age)? I have no control
over what you infer.
>
>> > 2) I don't have a crystal ball to tell if the Packers will be able
>> > to reach the next level. Some team do, some don't. But *every*
>> > championship team was in the Packers current position at one point.
>>
>> And all of the ones who won recently did it very quickly! Why should the
>> Packers be an exception?
>
>Why can't they be? Like I said, the burden of proof is on you.
This isn't a court of law, and the Packers aren't SuperBowl contenders
until proven otherwise.
>
>> >Do you or do you not still think the Packers are an aging team? *That*
>> >was your original point. You can concede that point at any time and
>> >I'll let it go.
>>
>> Reggie White is aging. The Offensive line was, but steps are being taken
>> to correct it, and I admitted that. Those were the points I made about age.
>
>Okay, so Reggie White is the only significant older player the Packers
>have. Yet you continue to insist that the Packers must win the SB in
>the next couple of years?
I have NEVER used the word must. I was talking about the best opportunity.
I think their chances will be worse after that time period.
>
>> Sigh. "Forget it forever" are your words, not mine.
>
>Maybe so, but it's a resonable interpretation of what you said.
Really? Have you looked up "forever" in the dictionary lately? Do you really
think I meant to imply that in the year 3000 when we are playing the
Super Bowl on Mars that the Pack can't win because they didn't make
it by 1995? Characterizing my position in such hyperbolic terms doesn't
strengthen your own position.
>
>>The recent Super
>> Bowl winners have been Dallas, Washington, New York, San Francisco,
>> the Bears (and that takes you pretty far back). All of these teams
>> won their first quickly. The Pack doesn't have to forget it forever,
>> but they are bucking the trends of history if they don't get there quick.
>
>This is entirely wrong.
>
>It's like this... You put 10 marbles in a drawer. Some are red, some
>are white. You select 4 marbles and all of them are red. At this point
>you have evidence to conclude that there are *more* red marbles than
>white one. (You could be wrong but it's a good conclusion.)
>
>However, you *cannot* conclude and you have no evidence for concluding
>that there are *no* white marbles in the drawer. In fact, if you know
>that the marbles were placed in the drawer randomly, then the chances
>that the next mable will be white is *still* 50-50.
Your analysis would be correct if the SuperBowl winner were a truly
random variable. The SuperBowl isn't picked at random, it's determined
by talent and execution. If your analysis were correct then all historical
trends would have to be considered suspect.
>
>The fact that 4 coaches got to their goal of winning the SB in the
>same way in now way indicates that some coach can't come along who
>does it another way.
If we add Chuck Noll to the list (he did it in the same amount of time
as Johnson) then those five coaches account for more than half the
Super Bowl wins, and the last ten winners. This is not to say that it
can't be done another way, but if we are gauging probabilities, then
certainly this trend suggests that teams that do it quick are more
successful.
>
>It's also like saying no team had ever won the SB with the league leading
>rusher. You want to conclude that there's some kind of connection
>between having the rusher in the league somehow prevents you from
>winning the SB. The truth is that the important feature is a balanced
>attack. Usually a team with a balanced attack doesn't also have the
>league leading rusher. The two observed effects (winning the SB and
>not having the leading rusher) have the same cause but one does *not*
>cause the other.
>
>Likewise, getting to the SB quickly certainly has the same cause as
>getting there at all. Both events require a coach and GM capable of
>pulling it off. The reason some teams like Philly and NO haven't been
>able to get to the SB in not because they didn't do it fast enough but
>rather because their coaches and GM haven't done a good enough job!
Part of that job is to capitalize on the strengths of the team. If
Green Bay had a young Reggie White that would be in his prime for a
long time, if they had a lot of high draft picks or an unlimited
salary cap and if they didn't have to worry about free agency sapping
their corps of talent then the Green Bay GM's might have cause to target
the SuperBowl five or six years down the road. They don't have that
luxury. You never answered my question as to if you think Holmgren
is targeting the year 1999 as his best chance to win.
>
>> >I may have to concede that the Packers paid more in salaries in 1993
>> >than the Cowboys but that's all. But we all know that certain bonuses
>> >aren't counted under the cap. And all the figures that I've seen were
>> >from before the Cowboys re-signed Aikman and Smith. For all I know,
>> >the Cowboys may have already committed to a higher salary total for
>> >1994 than the Packers have.
>>
>> No. The Cowboys payroll for cap purposes right now is $27 million, and
>> there are a HUGE number of Cowboys fans on the net that will confirm
>> that. That's signifigantly lower than the $33 million figure you quoted
>> for the Packers.
>
>Well, the *real* figures will be available in a few weeks anyway.
>We'll see then. I don't believe the Packers have significantly bigger
>problems with the salary cap than the Cowboys. For every Reggie White
>on the Packer roster there's a Troy Aikman on the Cowboys. The
>Cowboys are going to *have* to pay their players more, in general,
>because they have 2 SB rings and the Packers don't. If the Packers
>have a higher salary figure right now it's only because they haven't
>released Mike Prior, Bill Maas, Tunch Ilkin, etc yet.
I didn't bring the Cowboy salaries into the discussion. We can wait and
see, but the numbers are the numbers.
>
>> I challenge you to find a single sentence in my posts that suggests that
>> "no one will be able to touch the Cowboys" in the coming years. I in fact
>
>I believe that this is what you think. This is an opinion on my part
>based on reading lots of your posts. I don't intend to take the time
>to find specific cases. So you can igore my opinion if you want to.
>But my opinion remains unchanged.
You tried to paint me as someone who blindly thinks that the Cowboys
will dominate no matter what the circumstances. You don't have to read
other posts to realize this is patently false. I have said in this thread
that I believe that the Cowboys are just as subject to the effects that
we are talking about as any other team. I also said stated that know one
knows what will happen to the Cowboys under the cap. I also said that
if they lost Emmitt or Aikman that they would no longer be the Super
Bowl favorites. From someone who lived through the 1-15 years I have
no illusions about Cowboy invinciblity.
By the way, didn't you say in your last post that you didn't need to be
civil because you can't stand people that won't change their opinion even
if confronted with evidence to the contrary? How does saying something
like "I don't intend to take time to find specific cases. So you can
ignore my opinion if you want to. But my opinion remains unchanged."
fit into your views? Sounds hypocritical to me.
>
>Partly this is because you have no other apparent reason for your
>beliefs. The reasons you've posted in this discussion are pitiful.
If you can't appreciate my reasons, hopefully the other people reading can.
>
>JGH
That's all for now,
Felix Lee
The New Packer motto--> The Pack will be back...in 99!
Michael D. Goettsche
>> On the vagueness of your statement, what do you consider many?
For >Dallas,
>> a team which had 23 new faces on it this year over last years
SuperBowl >cast,
>> many must be somewhere around 30 players.
>There you go.
>If the Cowboys who didn't even have a 1st round draft choice last year
>can replace 23 of the guys on their SB winning team then surely the
>Packers can replace Reggie White. Maybe not with someone equally
>good -- but good enough so that the Packers can still contend.
>Eh?
>JGH
Hmmm....a battle of wills. I'll agree with Heim here -- yes, the
Packers can find someone that can replace Reggie White and whoever else
leaves. But so what??? The big question is whether or not they will
have the success the Cowboys had in finding people who could more than
adequately fill in. This is the most overlooked part of the Cowboys and
the number one reason for their success: their scouting. God,
replacing 23 players on a SB championship team is unheard of, but they
came back as strong as ever. Kevin Williams stepped in for one of the
best return men in the game and did a hell of a job. Dixon Edwards and
(God, for the life of me I can't remember his name -- Darrin Smith???
{LB}) came in and actually improved the linebacker corps from the number
one ranked D in the league. I mean, that's what most of the post is all
about, comparing the Cowboys and Packers and their ability to replace
people and build a championship caliber team. Truth be told, we don't
know whether Green Bay can or not. Did they improve significantly this
year over last year??? Perhaps, but it is a close call. Dallas, on
the other hand, improved significantly each year up through last year,
no question about it. Give Green Bay one more year to see if they can
improve -- they certainly have the youth on defense and a promising(?)
QB (He needs one more year as well to see where he really stands...)
Da Flav
Patrick Power
In article <2ject9$9...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU (John Heim) writes:
|> In <2je3lb$7...@crchh9a6.bnr.ca> patp...@bnr.ca writes:
|>
|> > |> > In article <2jbojg$6...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU (John Heim)
|> > |> > |> Many of those pieces will be gone from the Cowboys by the time the Packers
|> > |> > |> lose Reggie White.
|> > |> >
|> > |> > Now you're talking about things in which you have absolutely no basis
|> > |> > in fact. Must be catching, huh?
|> > |>
|> > |> Maybe you'd like to say *why* you think I'm wrong?
|> > |>
|> > Never said you were wrong... Its just that your statement is not only
|> > vague (how much is "many"?)
|>
|> What? I'm supposed to come up with an exact number?! Many is more
|> than 2, how's that?
|>
because if Dallas lost, say 5 players, you could say that was "many".
No need to be exact, just more specific.
|> > it is also pure speculation. RW could be killed
|> > rogue milk cow, or eat some bad cheese tomorrow. Or maybe, blow out a knee in
|> > training camp. Who knows?
|>
|> Well, I'll tell you what. I'll bet you even money that the Cowboys
|> lose 3 of their current starters before the Packers lose Reggie White.
|> Okay? We got a bet?
|>
Wow. You're really putting yourself out on a limb again, huh? Considering
that Dallas has 7 starters on the UFA list this year alone, that's a pretty
safe bet on your behalf. Naw, I'll skip this one. You might try posting to
alt.gambling.sucker_bets, you never know, someone might bite on it.
Sorry, but you made a proclamation and not a hypothesis. If you would have
said, "Many of those pieces are not likely to be on the Cowboys roster...", I
would have no qualms about it. You were simply stating something that you
do not and could not know. Yeah, the odds are on your side, but its still
pure speculation.
|> > On the vagueness of your statement, what do you consider many? For Dallas,
|> > a team which had 23 new faces on it this year over last years SuperBowl cast,
|> > many must be somewhere around 30 players.
|>
|> There you go.
|>
|> If the Cowboys who didn't even have a 1st round draft choice last year
|> can replace 23 of the guys on their SB winning team then surely the
|> Packers can replace Reggie White. Maybe not with someone equally
|> good -- but good enough so that the Packers can still contend.
I think the possibility of finding an adequate replacement exists and
is quite likely. Especially with the advent of free agency. I suspect
what will happen with the Pack when they lose RW, will be very similar to
what happened with the 'Boys this year. Dallas traded away Vinson Smith,
and moved Woodson to starting FS. Woodson proved better deep coverage
but wasn't nearly as aggressive as Washington. Darrin Smith, who replaced
Vinson, proved more speed but weaker run support. All in all, their stats
suffered in some areas, and improved in others, yet the defense remained sound.
|>
|> Eh?
John Heim
!!!!!!!
I don't get this. Certainly you must know that you aren't certain
about the details of White's contract, right? (How do I know this?
Because you are wrong.) So why are you doubting what I'm telling you?
To be so bold as to tell me I'm wrong about White's salary and in such
an insulting manner when you aren't sure of the facts yourself is
really stupid.
White's salary for salary cap purposes is around $4.25M this year.
> counts on there being a lineman available that year even close to
> White's calibre, and that Green Bay would have more money to offer than
> any other team, and that this lineman would want to play in Green Bay.
> Not an impossible scenario, but I'd rather take my chances while
> White is on the team.
<<chuckle>>
Pretty funny in light of the fact that your premise is wrong.
> I agree. White is not the only reason the Packers could win a SuperBowl.
> But if you are gauging the relative probabilities as to when a team's
> chances would be best, White would do nothing but add to that probability.
> That is why, all other things being equal, the Packers are more likely
> to get there with White than without him.
This is true as far as it goes. But what you said is that the Packers
have to win within the next couple of years. That isn't true and no
matter how important White is at this point can't change that.
> Really. If that's the case why did Green Bay spend tens of millions
> of dollars buying pricey veteran free agent talent that will be gone by the
> time that period rolls around? Why not just buy young talent that will
> still be here? Why spend 17 million on Reggie White if you can win
> without him in five years? The Packer GM must be thinking along
> different lines than you.
Not exactly, they're thinking it would be good to do both. Win now,
and win later.
> >By the way, you now have the Packers best chance being within the next
> >2 or 3 years? I believe it was originally 1 or 2.
>
> You were the one who said that Novacek and White would slow down in 2-3
> years. It's your figure.
Sheesh.
Did you or did you *not* say in your original post that the Packers
had to win in a 'couple' of years?
> >> And all of the ones who won recently did it very quickly! Why should the
> >> Packers be an exception?
> >
> >Why can't they be? Like I said, the burden of proof is on you.
>
> This isn't a court of law, and the Packers aren't SuperBowl contenders
> until proven otherwise.
Who said the Packers are SB contenders. Does the phrase "Nobody in
their right mind would deny that the Packers have a lot of work to
do" ring a bell?
The topic under discussion is not whether the Packers *are* SB
contenders but whether the *can* be.
This is the 3rd time I've had to remind you of things I've already
said. One of us is not paying attention.
> >> >Do you or do you not still think the Packers are an aging team? *That*
> >> >was your original point. You can concede that point at any time and
> >> >I'll let it go.
> >>
> >> Reggie White is aging. The Offensive line was, but steps are being taken
> >> to correct it, and I admitted that. Those were the points I made about age.
> >
> >Okay, so Reggie White is the only significant older player the Packers
> >have. Yet you continue to insist that the Packers must win the SB in
> >the next couple of years?
>
> I have NEVER used the word must. I was talking about the best opportunity.
> I think their chances will be worse after that time period.
Well, of course you've used the word 'must' and I do mean in the
context I mentioned above.
In <2iuh7o$8...@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> ches...@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
> >Every rebuilding team has this hurdle to overcome. Some make it, some
> >don't. You have yet to post any kind of reasonable argument as to why
> >the Packers can't do it. I don't know if they will or not. But they
> >have as good a chance as anybody.
>
> That's because I don't have any reason to believe that they can't. I was
> just saying that if it is going to happen, and we both believe that it
> can, it must happen soon.
^^^^
And this is not a small point. Earlier you were saying that the
Packers *must* win it soon and now you're saying their chances are
better sooner than later. In fact, you've been hedging on that
lately to make it sound like you think the chances are only *slightly*
better now than in 5 years.
Again and again I've proven unequivocally that things that you've said
in this thread are wrong. You have yet to win a single point. The
closest you've come is to point out that Jim Jeffcoat isn't a starter.
[More on this later.]
> Your analysis would be correct if the SuperBowl winner were a truly
> random variable. The SuperBowl isn't picked at random, it's determined
> by talent and execution. If your analysis were correct then all historical
> trends would have to be considered suspect.
Explain why the SB not being a truly random event makes my analysis
wrong. (I know you can't do that because my analysis *is* correct.)
What we have here is a classic case of 'false cause'. If you had ever
taken a logic course you'd know what I'm talking about.
> >The fact that 4 coaches got to their goal of winning the SB in the
> >same way in now way indicates that some coach can't come along who
> >does it another way.
>
> If we add Chuck Noll to the list (he did it in the same amount of time
> as Johnson) then those five coaches account for more than half the
> Super Bowl wins, and the last ten winners. This is not to say that it
> can't be done another way, but if we are gauging probabilities, then
> certainly this trend suggests that teams that do it quick are more
> successful.
First of all, you haven't looked for counter examples. Second, I
would like to see the actual data you have to support your hypothesis.
When did each coach become coach and when did they first win the SB.
Your opinion that each coach has won the thing within 3 or 4 years
isn't evidence of anything.
> >It's also like saying no team had ever won the SB with the league leading
> >rusher. You want to conclude that there's some kind of connection
> >between having the rusher in the league somehow prevents you from
> >winning the SB. The truth is that the important feature is a balanced
> >attack. Usually a team with a balanced attack doesn't also have the
> >league leading rusher. The two observed effects (winning the SB and
> >not having the leading rusher) have the same cause but one does *not*
> >cause the other.
> >
> >Likewise, getting to the SB quickly certainly has the same cause as
> >getting there at all. Both events require a coach and GM capable of
> >pulling it off. The reason some teams like Philly and NO haven't been
> >able to get to the SB in not because they didn't do it fast enough but
> >rather because their coaches and GM haven't done a good enough job!
>
> Part of that job is to capitalize on the strengths of the team. If
> Green Bay had a young Reggie White that would be in his prime for a
> long time, if they had a lot of high draft picks or an unlimited
> salary cap and if they didn't have to worry about free agency sapping
> their corps of talent then the Green Bay GM's might have cause to target
> the SuperBowl five or six years down the road.
This is *not* evidence that supports your so called "historical
trend".
> They don't have that
> luxury. You never answered my question as to if you think Holmgren
> is targeting the year 1999 as his best chance to win.
Well, you didn't ask that question until earlier in this message!
> >> I challenge you to find a single sentence in my posts that suggests that
> >> "no one will be able to touch the Cowboys" in the coming years. I in fact
> >
> >I believe that this is what you think. This is an opinion on my part
> >based on reading lots of your posts. I don't intend to take the time
> >to find specific cases. So you can igore my opinion if you want to.
> >But my opinion remains unchanged.
>
> You tried to paint me as someone who blindly thinks that the Cowboys
> will dominate no matter what the circumstances.
Na, you're doing a fine job of that yourself.
> You don't have to read
> other posts to realize this is patently false. I have said in this thread
> that I believe that the Cowboys are just as subject to the effects that
> we are talking about as any other team. I also said stated that know one
Ya, now, because I've backed you into a corner.
In your original response to "overview part 1" you found reason to
question the chances of *every* other team.
> By the way, didn't you say in your last post that you didn't need to be
> civil because you can't stand people that won't change their opinion even
> if confronted with evidence to the contrary? How does saying something
> like "I don't intend to take time to find specific cases. So you can
> ignore my opinion if you want to. But my opinion remains unchanged."
> fit into your views? Sounds hypocritical to me.
So present some evidence!
I'll change my mind if you can come up with any kind of reasonable
proof that I'm wrong about the meaning of your comments in the
original post.
> >Partly this is because you have no other apparent reason for your
> >beliefs. The reasons you've posted in this discussion are pitiful.
>
> If you can't appreciate my reasons, hopefully the other people reading can.
What makes you think anybody but us is still reading this thread?
> The New Packer motto--> The Pack will be back...in 99!
Not so, Felix. The new Packer motto is "The Pack will be back in
'94 through '99!"
Look, you've been buried here. This debate isn't even close. You've
made half a dozen statements that I've shown to be clearly wrong and
there are about a dozen other points that can't be proven but which
clearly are going my way. [An example of this is whether the Packers
can replace Reggie. With the $4.25M salary they aught to be able to
find a pretty good FA replacement. Or else they won't have salary cap
problems.]
I think I've proven my point. I'm not going to post any more messages
in this thread. You may now procede to make any ridiculous counter
arguments you want to.
JGH
felix lee
and Felix (also know as: overview part 1)
In article <2jh2ol$a...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
>In <2jem64$l...@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> ches...@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>> In article <2jdsld$4...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
>> John Heim <HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU> wrote:
>>
[...]
>> >The truth is that if Reggie White retired the Packers would have an
>> >extra $4.25M of salary cap to play with. They could use that money to
>> >go after who ever would then be the best DE in the league. And $4.5M
>> >per year aught to about do it.
>>
>> If I were as anal as you about Packer facts I would point out that
>> White's contract is front loaded and that his salary drops signifigantly
>> in the last year of his contract (~2 million, I think). Your scenario
>
>!!!!!!!
>
>I don't get this. Certainly you must know that you aren't certain
>about the details of White's contract, right? (How do I know this?
>Because you are wrong.) So why are you doubting what I'm telling you?
>
>To be so bold as to tell me I'm wrong about White's salary and in such
>an insulting manner when you aren't sure of the facts yourself is
>really stupid.
>
>White's salary for salary cap purposes is around $4.25M this year.
You said when White retires the Packers will have $4.5 million to pay his
replacement. You are wrong. White signed a
17 million dollar frontloaded contract which pays him a $4.5 million
signing bonus, 4.5 million the first year, 3.15 million the second,
2.85 million the third, and 2 million the fourth. When White retires,
(presuming it's after his contract runs out) the salary slot that
opens up will be 2 million dollars, like I posted. You're slipping John.
Since when do you need a Cowboy fan to educate you on Packer facts?
(Look it up in the New York Times, April 6 1993)
As for being insulting, does the phrase "Why don't you just go hug your
teddy?" sound familiar? You were the one who said that we have no
obligation to be "nicey nicey" to each other. I said that we should
try to engage in a civil discussion, and you told me blow off.
>
>> counts on there being a lineman available that year even close to
>> White's calibre, and that Green Bay would have more money to offer than
>> any other team, and that this lineman would want to play in Green Bay.
>> Not an impossible scenario, but I'd rather take my chances while
>> White is on the team.
>
><<chuckle>>
>
>Pretty funny in light of the fact that your premise is wrong.
My premise is correct, and you didn't answer the argument.
[...]
>
>> Really. If that's the case why did Green Bay spend tens of millions
>> of dollars buying pricey veteran free agent talent that will be gone by the
>> time that period rolls around? Why not just buy young talent that will
>> still be here? Why spend 17 million on Reggie White if you can win
>> without him in five years? The Packer GM must be thinking along
>> different lines than you.
>
>Not exactly, they're thinking it would be good to do both. Win now,
>and win later.
That doesn't follow. You said that you think the Packers chances of
winning it all are better in five or six years than in the next two or three.
If that is correct, and your above statement is correct, then the
Packer GM's would be thinking that they would win the Super Bowl
with all that high priced veteran talent, and then their chances
would *improve* after the talent that won it for them retired.
Doesn't make sense.
>
>> >By the way, you now have the Packers best chance being within the next
>> >2 or 3 years? I believe it was originally 1 or 2.
>>
>> You were the one who said that Novacek and White would slow down in 2-3
>> years. It's your figure.
>
>Sheesh.
>
>Did you or did you *not* say in your original post that the Packers
>had to win in a 'couple' of years?
Sheesh.
Is that last year really all that important to you? If it is, then here,
you can have it. It's yours now.
[...]
>
>And this is not a small point. Earlier you were saying that the
>Packers *must* win it soon and now you're saying their chances are
>better sooner than later. In fact, you've been hedging on that
>lately to make it sound like you think the chances are only *slightly*
>better now than in 5 years.
If the Packers don't do it soon, I don't think that they will. This
statement, however, does not exclude the possibility, nor does it
mean that they have to "forget it forever." I appraise the probability
that they Packers will win the SuperBowl after a few years to be
pretty small, but this is not deterministic, we both agree that there
are no crystal balls that can support our predictions with any
certainty. We both agree that a team like the Packers can't *count* on
winning the SUperBowl at all in the next two or three or five or six
years (no team can), so if they're going to do it they better do it
when all the factors are in their favor. Is my position clear?
>
>Again and again I've proven unequivocally that things that you've said
>in this thread are wrong. You have yet to win a single point. The
>closest you've come is to point out that Jim Jeffcoat isn't a starter.
>[More on this later.]
You're moving into your high school debater mode again. You seem to
have a persistent need to declare yourself the "winner" at periodic
intervals throughout your post. Whatever. Just as a matter of record,
you were wrong about the salary cap, you were wrong about Reggie White's
salary, you called me blind Cowboys fan and when I called you on that
point you said it was just your opinion (and you weren't going to
change it). You tried to characterize my position as one in which the
Packers would be "crap" and would be "doomed" if they didn't win in
the next two years, which is wrong. Jim Jeffcoat is the least of your
worries.
>
>> Your analysis would be correct if the SuperBowl winner were a truly
>> random variable. The SuperBowl isn't picked at random, it's determined
>> by talent and execution. If your analysis were correct then all historical
>> trends would have to be considered suspect.
>
>Explain why the SB not being a truly random event makes my analysis
>wrong. (I know you can't do that because my analysis *is* correct.)
>What we have here is a classic case of 'false cause'. If you had ever
>taken a logic course you'd know what I'm talking about.
Pulling marbles out of a box, which was your analogy, is determined
purely by chance, thus if you end up pulling four marbles of the same
color in a row you may not be that far off base in saying that it's
just coincidence. The SuperBowl, however, is not random, and if
we perceive trends they can be supportive evidence that there are
substantive reasons beside chance that determine why the trend
persists. It doe not rule out exceptions, but we can be much more
comfortable with trying to extrapolate from the perceived trend
precisely because we know that it is not being determined at random.
>
>> >The fact that 4 coaches got to their goal of winning the SB in the
>> >same way in now way indicates that some coach can't come along who
>> >does it another way.
>>
>> If we add Chuck Noll to the list (he did it in the same amount of time
>> as Johnson) then those five coaches account for more than half the
>> Super Bowl wins, and the last ten winners. This is not to say that it
>> can't be done another way, but if we are gauging probabilities, then
>> certainly this trend suggests that teams that do it quick are more
>> successful.
>
>First of all, you haven't looked for counter examples. Second, I
>would like to see the actual data you have to support your hypothesis.
>When did each coach become coach and when did they first win the SB.
>Your opinion that each coach has won the thing within 3 or 4 years
>isn't evidence of anything.
There are *no* counter examples in the last decade. Jimmy Johnson and
the Cowboys are well chronicled. Parcells took over in 1983 and won
in 1987. Gibbs took over in 1981 and won in 1983. Walsh took over in
1979 and won in 1982. Noll took over in 1970 and won in 1975. If you
count Tom Flores and the Raiders (Flores won a year after taking over,
though in fairness he took over for Madden, and I don't think they were
rebuilding) then you have to go all the way back to Landry in 1978 to
find a break in the trend. (Oops, forgot Ditka--took over in 1982, won
in 1986). Next question.
>
>>
>> Part of that job is to capitalize on the strengths of the team. If
>> Green Bay had a young Reggie White that would be in his prime for a
>> long time, if they had a lot of high draft picks or an unlimited
>> salary cap and if they didn't have to worry about free agency sapping
>> their corps of talent then the Green Bay GM's might have cause to target
>> the SuperBowl five or six years down the road.
>
>This is *not* evidence that supports your so called "historical
>trend".
I don't understand what you are saying here.
>
>> They don't have that
>> luxury. You never answered my question as to if you think Holmgren
>> is targeting the year 1999 as his best chance to win.
>
>Well, you didn't ask that question until earlier in this message!
I asked it two posts ago. I'll repost it if you want.
>
>> >> I challenge you to find a single sentence in my posts that suggests that
>> >> "no one will be able to touch the Cowboys" in the coming years. I in fact
>> >
>> >I believe that this is what you think. This is an opinion on my part
>> >based on reading lots of your posts. I don't intend to take the time
>> >to find specific cases. So you can igore my opinion if you want to.
>> >But my opinion remains unchanged.
>>
>> You tried to paint me as someone who blindly thinks that the Cowboys
>> will dominate no matter what the circumstances.
>
>Na, you're doing a fine job of that yourself.
>
>> You don't have to read
>> other posts to realize this is patently false. I have said in this thread
>> that I believe that the Cowboys are just as subject to the effects that
>> we are talking about as any other team. I also said stated that know one
>
>Ya, now, because I've backed you into a corner.
Really? You asked me if I thought the Cowboys had some magical way
of getting around the salary cap. I said no. If I believed "nobody
will be able to touch the Cowboys no matter what" I would say something
like Jimmy and Jerry are smarter than the other owners and coaches,
other players will want to play for the Superbowl winners, Emmitt and
Troy are gods, etc. But I didn't.
I even went so far as to volunteer that if Troy or Emmitt were gone the
Cowboys would no longer be the SuperBowl favorites. You certainly did
not coerce this from me because your point was that one player, ie.,
Reggie White, does not make a team, and that losing one player doesn't
necessarily doom their chances.
>
>In your original response to "overview part 1" you found reason to
>question the chances of *every* other team.
Is this the best you can do? The teams that were mentioned in the original
post were Philadelphia, Phoenix, Washington, Green Bay, Detroit, Chicago,
Minnesota, and Tampa Bay (in that order). Which one of these teams doesn't
have a big question mark attached to their chances, in *your* opinion?
>> By the way, didn't you say in your last post that you didn't need to be
>> civil because you can't stand people that won't change their opinion even
>> if confronted with evidence to the contrary? How does saying something
>> like "I don't intend to take time to find specific cases. So you can
>> ignore my opinion if you want to. But my opinion remains unchanged."
>> fit into your views? Sounds hypocritical to me.
>
>So present some evidence!
>
>I'll change my mind if you can come up with any kind of reasonable
>proof that I'm wrong about the meaning of your comments in the
>original post.
The issue was that we are talking about is whether I am a someone
who believes that the Cowboys will dominate no matter what. You said,
without a single piece of supporting evidence, that this is a reasonable
depiction of my views. I asked to to come up with a single statement
that would support that view. You came up with none, said you didn't
intend on finding any, and then said you wouldn't change your opinion.
I gave you evidence from this thread that refuted your position. You
ignored it. That is hypocritical given the statements you made in earlier
posts (which I quoted).
>
>> >Partly this is because you have no other apparent reason for your
>> >beliefs. The reasons you've posted in this discussion are pitiful.
>>
>> If you can't appreciate my reasons, hopefully the other people reading can.
>
>What makes you think anybody but us is still reading this thread?
Because several people have written follow-ups asking you to support
you contentions. And if you think that nobody else is reading, why do
you feel the incessant need to talk about how you are "winning"? Is it
to convince *me*?
>
>> The New Packer motto--> The Pack will be back...in 99!
>
>Not so, Felix. The new Packer motto is "The Pack will be back in
>'94 through '99!"
>
>Look, you've been buried here. This debate isn't even close. You've
>made half a dozen statements that I've shown to be clearly wrong and
>there are about a dozen other points that can't be proven but which
>clearly are going my way. [An example of this is whether the Packers
>can replace Reggie. With the $4.25M salary they aught to be able to
>find a pretty good FA replacement. Or else they won't have salary cap
>problems.]
Once again, you feel the need to reassure yourself that you are "winning."
I think it's indicative of this debate that the one example
that you give is so clearly and concretely wrong.
>
>I think I've proven my point. I'm not going to post any more messages
>in this thread.
After this many posts our positions are nothing if not clear, so I have
no problem with that. No hard feelings, either, at least on my part.
> You may now procede to make any ridiculous counter
>arguments you want to.
>
>JGH
That's all for now, (That's all forever, I hope, on this topic)
Felix Lee
John Heim
> |> Well, I'll tell you what. I'll bet you even money that the Cowboys
> |> lose 3 of their current starters before the Packers lose Reggie White.
> |> Okay? We got a bet?
> |>
> Wow. You're really putting yourself out on a limb again, huh? Considering
> that Dallas has 7 starters on the UFA list this year alone, that's a pretty
> safe bet on your behalf. Naw, I'll skip this one. You might try posting to
> alt.gambling.sucker_bets, you never know, someone might bite on it.
>
> Sorry, but you made a proclamation and not a hypothesis. If you would have
> said, "Many of those pieces are not likely to be on the Cowboys roster...", I
> would have no qualms about it. You were simply stating something that you
> do not and could not know. Yeah, the odds are on your side, but its still
> pure speculation.
You though maybe that I *do*, in fact, have a crystal ball so I *do*
know the future with complete certainty?
This entire thread is speculation. It started with someone's
predictions about how good each team will be next year.
Maybe we should make a new rule for r.s.f.p so that everytime you post
speculation you are required to include a warning such as this...
DANGER! A SPECULATIVE PARAGRAPH FOLLOWS THIS WARNING. THE READER
IS ADVISED THAT THE STATEMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH ARE
CONJECTURAL AND ARE, IN FACT, NOT KNOWN TO BE TRUE AT THIS TIME.
THE READER MAY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE OR DISBELIEVE THESE STATEMENTS AT HIS
OWN RISK. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS ACCOMPANIES THIS
MESSAGE. THE WRITER AND REC.SPORT.FOOTBALL.PRO SHALL NOT BE HELD
LIABLE FOR DAMAGES RESULTING TO THE READER'S HARDWARE, SOFTWARE,
FINANCES, OR MENTAL STABILITY RESULTING FORM EITHER THE READER'S
BELIEF OR DISBELIEF OF THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH.
Patrick Power
In article <2jobeh$n...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, HE...@MACC.WISC.EDU (John Heim) writes:
|> In <2jgk0g$8...@crchh9a6.bnr.ca> patp...@bnr.ca writes:
|>
|> > |> Well, I'll tell you what. I'll bet you even money that the Cowboys
|> > |> lose 3 of their current starters before the Packers lose Reggie White.
|> > |> Okay? We got a bet?
|> > |>
|> > Wow. You're really putting yourself out on a limb again, huh? Considering
|> > that Dallas has 7 starters on the UFA list this year alone, that's a pretty
|> > safe bet on your behalf. Naw, I'll skip this one. You might try posting to
|> > alt.gambling.sucker_bets, you never know, someone might bite on it.
|> >
|> > Sorry, but you made a proclamation and not a hypothesis. If you would have
|> > said, "Many of those pieces are not likely to be on the Cowboys roster...", I
|> > would have no qualms about it. You were simply stating something that you
|> > do not and could not know. Yeah, the odds are on your side, but its still
|> > pure speculation.
|>
|> You though maybe that I *do*, in fact, have a crystal ball so I *do*
|> know the future with complete certainty?
|>
|> This entire thread is speculation. It started with someone's
|> predictions about how good each team will be next year.
|>
|> Maybe we should make a new rule for r.s.f.p so that everytime you post
|> speculation you are required to include a warning such as this...
|>
|> DANGER! A SPECULATIVE PARAGRAPH FOLLOWS THIS WARNING. THE READER
|> IS ADVISED THAT THE STATEMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH ARE
|> CONJECTURAL AND ARE, IN FACT, NOT KNOWN TO BE TRUE AT THIS TIME.
|> THE READER MAY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE OR DISBELIEVE THESE STATEMENTS AT HIS
|> OWN RISK. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS ACCOMPANIES THIS
|> MESSAGE. THE WRITER AND REC.SPORT.FOOTBALL.PRO SHALL NOT BE HELD
|> LIABLE FOR DAMAGES RESULTING TO THE READER'S HARDWARE, SOFTWARE,
|> FINANCES, OR MENTAL STABILITY RESULTING FORM EITHER THE READER'S
|> BELIEF OR DISBELIEF OF THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH.
Cute.