 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Top Ten reasons why the Raiders lost by Bill Dungsroman 01/28/2003, 6:22pm PST | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| TMQ on espn.com pretty much summed it up, but here's the gist:
1. The Raiders decided not to ever change their audible codes. I guess they figured they'd never face the Bucs, and it was too late by the time they played the Superbowl (Hey, it's a 1-16^2 chance, right?) So every time Gannon called an audible, Derrick Brooks told his guys what the play was going to be, and they nuked them. 2. The Raiders punted on fourth and two, when they were down three scores. You guys can't get two yards (apparently not - see #8) with your complement of RBs and FBs? You won't try? Look at it this way: if they had gone for it, converted, and scored a TD, then they might not have gone for 2 on three other scores, and the game would have, at one point in the fourth quarter, been TIED. 3. The Bucs rarely blitzed (they didn't need to - their front four got all the the penetration they needed), and when they did, it was on first and ten, not third and whatever. Ronde Barber comes flying in on first and ten, the dumbstruck Raiders were caught flat-footed every time. 4. The Raiders O line played the worst they ever have. 5. They Raiders played not to lose, the Bucs played to win. I seem to recall a similar situation with the Rams and Pats last year, and the Bucs were only 4 point dogs this year. #3 and #6 are playing to win; #2 and #9 are playing not to lose. 6. Gruden went with the no-huddle early in the game to get the Raiders thinking pass, pass, pass. Then, he switched to run and the Raiders' D never seemed to compensate for the rest of the first half. A waiver-wire fruit like Micheal Pittman got about 70 in the first half, fourth or fifth all-time or something. 7. On every deuce attempt - EVERY ONE - the Raiders called a conventional pass play. No run, no fake. This against the BEST pass defense in the league, which was clearly playing up to its potential that day. The Raiders couldn't pass when they had the whole field to work with until garbage time, what makes them think they can pass on the Bucs in the crowded end zone when going for two? As events bore out, they couldn't, except once, sort of. 8. The Raiders got 19 on the ground. 19! And as I said, couldn't or wouldn't convert and-2's. They have Charlie Garner, Tyrone Wheatley, and their goal-line ace, Zack Crockett. They were criminally underused. 9. Speaking of criminally underused, Jerry Rice's TD was off a pattern he's been running for well over a decade now. It's what he killed the Chargers with in the Niners last Superbowl. He almost never got to run it until then. He was running the usual Raiders dink-and-dunk routes, flying out of bounds short of the first and so forth. Which leads to #10. 10. Tampa DBs commented after the game: "They didn't run one play we hadn't seen before." The Raiders played a team with a #1 D - arguably one of the top three ever - coached by their former coach, and not only did they not change their audibles, THEY DIDN'T WRITE ANY NEW PLAYS. If I had known this before the game, I'd have bet the farm on the Bucs to win outright. I though Mike Martz was dumb, but Bill Callahan is giving Mike a run for his money. I predict woe and loss for the Raiders next year, the Curse of the Superbowl Losers will strike again. BDR |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
From the sideline at the half... by 01/26/2003, 8:05pm PST  BUUUUUuuuull sheeeeeee-iitttt by 01/26/2003, 8:34pm PST Re: BUUUUUuuuull sheeeeeee-iitttt by 01/26/2003, 10:31pm PST Re: BUUUUUuuuull sheeeeeee-iitttt by 01/27/2003, 12:20am PST What a great Super Bowl by 01/27/2003, 11:06am PST Re: What a great Super Bowl by 01/27/2003, 12:33pm PST Re: What a great Super Bowl by 01/27/2003, 1:09pm PST Let me be perfectly clear: you're an idiot fag. by 01/27/2003, 1:24pm PST Agreeing with laudablepuss by 01/27/2003, 7:49pm PST Re: Agreeing with laudablepuss by 01/27/2003, 8:34pm PST Re: Agreeing with laudablepuss by 01/27/2003, 10:58pm PST Re: Agreeing with laudablepuss by 01/28/2003, 12:01pm PST Re: Agreeing with laudablepuss by 01/28/2003, 5:04pm PST Top Ten reasons why the Raiders lost by 01/28/2003, 6:22pm PST Re: Top Ten reasons why the Raiders lost by 01/28/2003, 7:02pm PST Is this an argument? I'm confused. by 01/28/2003, 6:30pm PST |
