Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!3comvax!mykes From: mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) Newsgroups: net.sport.football Subject: Re: Super Bowl XX Message-ID: <378@3comvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 13:50:22 EST Article-I.D.: 3comvax.378 Posted: Thu Jan 23 13:50:22 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 08:31:57 EST References: <636@decwrl.DEC.COM> Reply-To: mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA Lines: 57 Seems to me that the Pats and the Rams are very similar teams - on paper (not including the "intangibles"). Both feature strong defenses, "excellent" and big offensive lines, a running-game based attack, and statistically effective quarterbacks. The two teams have similar special teams, too. If these two teams played for the SuperBowl, I could see a close game. I understand how frustrating it must be for New England fans out there, because they are facing the best (or hottest) team in football. The Bears have demonstrated that they have the best talent in the League this year, and they have scored lots of points against everyone they have played against. Their defense has steadily improved over the last few years until it has become so good that MANY people are comparing them to the great Steeler defenses of the '70s. The Bears' biggest weakness seems to be the injuries that happen to McMahon, but even then, their backup quarterback beat Dallas (a division winner) 44-0. The Miami victory over the Bears may or may not have been a fluke, but I would have loved to have seen a rematch for the Superbowl. Given a neutral site, identical motivation factors, two weeks rest (McMahon played for the first time in Miami after being hurt for 4 games), etc., it would prove to me that Miami was a better team. Because the Bears have won all the rest of their games, including two shutouts in the playoffs, the Miami game might just have been a fluke. All the signs indicate to me that the Superbowl will be "boring" and a real let-down for anyone who thinks the Bears will lose. I have serious doubts that the Pats will be able to run against the Bears any better than the Rams did. I have serious doubts that the Pats can fill the air with footballs and be successful against the Bears. I have more confidence in the Bears' defense scoring a touchdown than I do in New England's. I have lots of doubt that Ditka will let the Bears forget the Miami game - and what losing means. I have little doubt that the Bears will score at least 20 points. By the way, a few points of interest. Walter Payton had almost as good a year as Marcus Allen this year (Allen 50+ catches 550 yards, 1700+ yards rushing; Payton 49 catches, 500+ yards, 1500+ yards rushing) - Allen was NFL MVP. The Bears were 3-point underdogs against Dallas. Otherwise, they have been beating the spread regularly (8.5 points vs. the Giants, 10 vs. the Rams) - which is REAL IMPRESSIVE! The Pats, on the other hand, have won a few games that they were underdogs, which inflates their record against the spread a bit. If the Bears shut out the Pats, Rozelle will have to do something to protect his "Parity" issue. The Bears look like they belong in a higher league. They look like they are a lot better than the 2nd best team. The 2nd best team looks like it could be any one of a number of teams, including the Dolphins, Giants, Rams, Cowboys (they had an awful good win/loss record), Pats, and Raiders. mike schwartz @ 3Com Corp. Mountain View, CA P.S. The Bears "need excuses" for only one game, how many "excuses" for how many games does your favorite team need?