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!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-learn!fredrickson From: fredrickson@learn.DEC Newsgroups: net.sport.football Subject: Re: Super Bowl XX Message-ID: <636@decwrl.DEC.COM> Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 16:16:48 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.636 Posted: Wed Jan 22 16:16:48 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 08:31:06 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 168 -->Make no mistake about one thing. New England is the best team in -->the AFC. >Only a true, loyal Patriots fan would write something like that. >The best team in the AFC this year is the Los Angeles Raiders. The >New England Patriots have saved their best games for the playoffs and >therefore will represent the AFC in the Bowl of Super. This is the same logic which would suggest that Penn State was the best college team in the nation this year, but Oklahoma just saved their best for New Year's Day. If winning the AFC playoffs -- and doing so in three road games -- does not make a team the best in the AFC, then what does? If the regular season (in which the Raiders were 12-4, the Patriots 11-5) is the best barometer for who the best team is, then why didn't they just send the Raiders or Dolphins straight to New Orleans? The true measure of the best team, my friend, is the team which is at its best when it matters most. After being thoroughly outplayed in the second half on their home turf by the Pats, the 1985 Raiders have absolutely no claim to that distinction. -->When your playoff opponents, all very good teams playing at home in -->the most important games of their seasons, commit four, six and six -->turnovers, there is more than coincidence or luck involved. >I totally agree. The Patriots, as luck would have it, only had to >mount one drive of greater than 40 yards. Good thing, they might not >have been able to, what with their "run-oriented" offense !!!! The Bears' offense has been starting its drives from midfield all season. The field position established by a great defense and the ability to force turnovers is one of football's most potent offensive weapons. During the regular season, the Patriots won several games with long fourth-quarter drives. And when your mighty Raiders took a 17-7 lead in the second quarter, Eason marched the Pats 80 yards up the field to make it 17-14, a drive which was widely credited with turning the game around. The fact that they have not been in a position to need such drives for most of the playoffs should not be confused with an inability to do so. --->Of course, we have reason to doubt whether the Pats can beat the --->Bears. Although their Sept. 15 game (Bears 20, N.E. 7) was --->affected by a turnover ratio (N.E. had 4, Chi. 2) that seems --->unlikely to repeat itself, the fact remains that the Patriot --->offense spent exactly 21 seconds in Chicago territory all day. >That's hard for me to believe ... 3 or 4 minutes perhaps, but >21 seconds ????? Believe it. They crossed the 50 for one play in the first half, and were promptly sacked in their own territory. In the second half, they scored their lone TD on a 90-yard pass play. That was it. >It seems to me the game will turn on whether the New England special >teams will force the Bears to leave the ball on the ground. The New >England offense hasn't shown the capability to score 3 to 4 >touchdowns as a result of medium to long drives, so they'll need >help. The Jets, Raiders, and Dolphins have provided that help. If >the Bears do too, then the Patriots have a chance. "That help" is hardly "provided." I find it interesting that people are nonchalantly assuming that the Patriots' turnover-causing streak will end and they will have to find another way to beat the Bears. Turnovers are no more flukey than sacks; some are caused by great hits or great coverage, others by offensive lapses like missed blocks or poorly executed plays. I don't hear anyone saying that the Bears' "luck" in sacking quarterbacks may run out. It's not luck, and neither is New England's ability to cause turnovers. The only game the Pats may not have won without the "help" of turnovers was the Raiders game, which was 20-20 before the kickoff coverage team forced and recovered a fumble in the end zone for the winning score, while the Raiders stood around and watched. Had the returner held on, who knows how the game would have gone down the stretch? But the Pats had already been outplaying LA since the second quarter. -->Remember this: Miami beat the Bears convincingly December 2. -->I don't buy the theory that the game meant nothing because -->Chicago had already clinched everything. The Bears wanted to win -->that game badly. They knew they were facing a possible Super Bowl -->opponent, they were on national TV, and they wanted an unbeaten -->season. And the Dolphins were a far superior team. >Oh really ? The Bears need no excuses. Then why are you providing them? >I don't believe that any professional team can or should go unbeaten >in a season of greater than 3 contests. A brilliant statement that can stand on its own merits without my help. >This game was on the road, in a stadium that is notoriously diffucult >for any visitor to win in. Plus, the home team was coached on that >night by Don Shula, one of the three best motivators in sports >(incidently, his team last Sunday looked like it was coached by >someone else). Plus, the Dolphin crowd was as supportive as I have >ever seen a home crowd. The gods were definitely against the Bears >that night. If so, they should have been even more against the Patriots in the AFC championship game. All the factors you cite were prevalent in even greater force. And isn't it strange that the real Shula decided not to show up. He couldn't have been out-coached, could he? Or his team out- motivated? >The Dolphins were not the superior team, even on that night. >However, they did execute their game plan better and wound up scoring >more points than did the Bears. When you come up with a more accurate way to determine who's a better team than having them play against each other, fill me in. All of organized sports will be forever in your debt. -->New England is better than Miami. Much better. They -->should have been 3-0 against them this year. If you don't think -->all that gives the Patriots reason to think they can beat the -->Bears, think again. >So you say !!!!! I am merely saying they have reason to believe they can do it. Against a team as good as Chicago, believing you can win is a major hurdle. -->This is not a prediction of a New England upset. I still haven't -->decided about that. It is merely a statement that the Pats do -->belong in New Orleans, and a warning to anyone planning on -->wagering their grocery money on Chicago giving 9 or 10 points: Be -->careful. The Pats have covered the spread 14 weeks in a row. >Can't argue much with facts. Why give up now? You were doing great! Actually, Bill, forgive me if I sound bitter. I am sick of the Bears, and like everyone, I just want the game to be played. It is beginning to remind me of last year's NCAA hoop final. There wasn't a way in the world Georgetown could lose to Villanova. But the wide-eyed kids who didn't deserve to be there went out and played a perfect game, and the arrogant, surly, cocky Hoyas were dumbfounded. After the game they said, "We know we're better even though they beat us when it mattered most." I can hear the Bears now. The more I hear guys like Otis Wilson and Dennis McKinnon talk about shutouts and blowouts, the more I like the Patriots' chances. The Bears are about to face the best team they have played this year. Bar none. If they do not believe that, they will be in trouble. Here's the prediction: Neither offense will consistently move the ball. All scores will come as a result of (a) hitting a bomb, (b) turnovers and (c) field position. The longer the game stays close, the better the Patriots' chances. McMahon will make one or two more mistakes than Eason, partially because Eason will take the sack instead of putting the ball up and partially because New England's secondary is better. We will see both Steve Grogan and Steve Fuller because of injuries, and the N.E. advantage in this matchup will be pivotal. Score: Patriots 17, Bears 13. Turnovers: Bears 4, Patriots 2. Can't wait. Mark Fredrickson