Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decwrl.DEC.COM
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-learn!fredrickson
From: fredrickson@learn.DEC
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Super Bowl XX
Message-ID: <417@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 14:11:18 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.417
Posted: Mon Jan 13 14:11:18 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jan-86 07:57:11 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 99


Notes on Super Bowl XX from a lifelong Patriots fan:

I love the matchup. Two long-suffering teams making their first 
trip to the Super Bowl. Two dominating, physical defenses. Two 
offenses which like to run the ball. Two of the game's best young 
head coaches. Veterans on both sides who have played long careers 
to reach this game, like Walter Payton, Dan Hampton, Gary Fencik, 
Steve Nelson, Julius Adams, John Hannah -- the list goes on. 

I have tremendous respect, almost awe, for the Bears. 
Particularly their defense. If you Chicago fans are confident, I 
can certainly see why. I have never seen a defense, including the 
great Pittsburgh teams, like the Bears'. 

But still, the Pats continue to be understimated. I loved hearing 
Pete Axthelm and Jimmy the Greek pick Miami. I have never been 
more certain about a game before it was played than I was Sunday. 
Even though it's impossible to KNOW, I felt I KNEW the Patriots 
would win. 

The spread I saw this morning (Bears by 9-1/2) reflects a lack of 
respect, and that is what the Patriots thrive on. They want you 
to take them lightly, to explain away their success to lucky 
bounces and turnovers. They'd love to see everyone concede the 
Super Bowl to the Bears.

Make no mistake about one thing. New England is the best team in 
the AFC. Those who choose to call their success flukey because of 
the incredible number of turnovers they have "received" (caused 
is the proper word) are ignoring reality. When your playoff 
opponents, all very good teams playing at home in the most 
important games of their seasons, commit four, six and six 
turnovers, there is more than coincidence or luck involved. 

The other reason the Pats are underestimated by the general 
public is their wild-card status. Their road to New Orleans was a 
lot tougher than Chicago's. But they could easily have been 12-4 
or 13-3 in the regular season. Of their five losses, three 
(Cleveland, Jets, Miami) were last-minute jobs. 

Of course, we have reason to doubt whether the Pats can beat the 
Bears. Although their Sept. 15 game (Bears 20, N.E. 7) was 
affected by a turnover ratio (N.E. had 4, Chi. 2) that seems 
unlikely to repeat itself, the fact remains that the Patriot 
offense spent exactly 21 seconds in Chicago territory all day. 

But bear this in mind, if you'll pardon the pun: The team the 
Bears beat September 15 does not even resemble the team they will 
try and beat January 26. Their offense was a mess. The 
early-season Eason would make Marc Wilson look like Roger 
Staubach. They were on their way to a 2-3 start, and Raymond 
Berry was being called "the Gerry Faust of the NFL" by one TV 
analyst. They have clearly come a long way, and nobody has come 
further since that day than Eason and Berry. 

So, never mind the September 15 game. That's ancient history. Ask 
the Raiders, who beat the Pats in Foxboro, 35-20, in September, 
what such comparisons are worth. 

What worries me is that New England is very similar in makeup to 
the two teams Chicago wailed on to reach the Super Bowl. Like the 
Giants and Rams, the Pats are built around a strong defense and 
an offense which loves to run. I don't think Craig James is as 
good a back as Eric Dickerson or Joe Morris, but the Pats do have 
more depth in the backfield and a stronger offensive line than NY 
or LA. As for the QB comparison, Eason is much better than the 
pitiful Dieter Brock, and although he has nowhere near the stats 
Simms does, Eason has not thrown an interception in the playoffs; 
I doubt Simms will ever make that claim. The only team to beat 
Chicago (Miami) did it through the air, and the Pats do not have 
a great passing game. 

Remember this: Miami beat the Bears convincingly December 2. 
I don't buy the theory that the game meant nothing because 
Chicago had already clinched everything is wrong. The Bears 
wanted to win that game badly. They knew they were facing a 
possible Super Bowl opponent, they were on national TV, and they 
wanted an unbeaten season. And the Dolphins were a far superior 
team. 

Miami was better than Chicago, and I'm sure they would have 
entered the Super Bowl with a good deal of well-founded 
confidence. New England is better than Miami. Much better. They 
should have been 3-0 against them this year. If you don't think 
all that gives the Patriots reason to think they can beat the 
Bears, think again. 

This is not a prediction of a New England upset. I still haven't 
decided about that. It is merely a statement that the Pats do 
belong in New Orleans, and a warning to anyone planning on 
wagering their grocery money on Chicago giving 9 or 10 points: Be 
careful. The Pats have covered the spread 14 weeks in a row. 

You liked Squish the Fish? How about Berry the Bears! Trash the 
Teddies! (I heard both on the radio this morning.)

Mark Fredrickson