Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gymble.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!dday From: dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) Newsgroups: net.sport.football Subject: Re: PATS IN SEVEN Message-ID: <479@gymble.UUCP> Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 13:03:18 EST Article-I.D.: gymble.479 Posted: Tue Jan 28 13:03:18 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jan-86 05:58:18 EST References: <2b974567.2a75@apollo.uucp> Reply-To: dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD Lines: 62 In article <2b974567.2a75@apollo.uucp> tbg@apollo.UUCP writes: > Yesterday's first game of Superbowl XX > reminded me a lot of the first game of the last > Celtics-Lakers Championship series. In that game, > as some of you may recall, the Celtics clobbered > the Lakers and caused quite of bit of concern > among Laker fans. > Anyway, to get back to net.sport.football, in game 1 > of the series yesterday I believe that if Stanley Morgan > had not dropped Eason's second pass he would have scored on that > play and the outcome of the game might well have been > completely different: much more than just the additional > four points; I believe the psychological effect on both > teams would have been significant. Eason missing 3 consecutive > passing attempts at the start of the day did not help. > On the other hand I give credit to Jim McMahon's acupuncturist > for his unexpectedly good passing. I think Chicago's ability > to go deep was a surprise to most Patriot fans, but I equate > that with Danny Ainge's perimeter shooting in the first quarter > of game one of last year's NBA finals, i.e. an unexpected streak > of greatness from a BYU alumnus. Time will tell of course, > but I don't think the BEARS can count on that kind of performance > from McMahon throughout the series. > > Does anybody really think the Bears can beat the Patriots > in a best of seven series? Is this the same guy who said that the Pats(ies?) would win 29-12 and that "even after the Patriots beat the Bears people will say it was a fluke and that by some unwritten set of rules the Bears were the better team."? He must have been thinking about what he planned to say in this article. The Bears would win a best of seven series with this team in *three* games (the Pats would forfeit the fourth one). The Ax said it right (after Costas attempted the same sort of pitiful "what if?" you just did), "Forget it, Bob, this is men against boys." WHAT GLORIOUS, TOTAL DOMINATION IT WAS. The "much improved" Patriots offense would have totalled about 50 yards for the game if we'd left our first-string defense in. As it was our second string guys got an interception for a touchdown, another for a near touchdown, and a safety. -25 YARDS TOTAL OFFENSE AT HALFTIME??!! And you think these guys just had a run of bad luck? Hey, if Morgan catches that ball (which by the way was knocked loose by Singletary) it ends up 46-14, pal. The only psychological effect going on was in Eason's head; I think he was flashing back to the six sacks the Bears heaped on him in September. With three more in the early going Sunday, he began to resemble a deer frozen in the head- lights of oncoming trucks with license plate numbers 95 and 99 and 55 and 58. As for Jim McMahon, he didn't do anything in the Super Bowl that Bears fans haven't seen him do many times before. He's going to be (is?) a great QB if he can just stay healthy, which is by no means a certainty. Marino and Montana are the only two I would rather have. Enjoy it, Bear fans. The jinx is exploded! Next year, 19-0!! -- UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@umcp-cs University of Maryland ARPA: dday@gymble.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-6154