I'm depressed

[mrskippy]

Waiting so long to see my beloved Raiders back in the Super Bowl only to see them lose like this is horrible. Knowing that this may have been the best chance makes it hurt even more.

When they blocked that punt (which was the most beautiful blocked punt I've ever seen) I thought it might put wind back into the sails. When Rice got the TD, I was even more confident.

But with the play going against the Raiders about being forced out of bounds on the 2PT conversion and the horrible PI call against Charles Woodson, I knew the Raiders were damned.

This will go down as the what if Super Bowl. What if the 2PT conversion had counted? What if the Raiders didn't have the pass PI call against them? The Raiders might have narrowed it more with plenty of time left.

What if Gannon hadn't through 5 interceptions? Those picks made all the difference tonight. Without those picks, the Raiders win.

Kudos to the Bucs defense. They were on their game tonight and simply outplayed the Raiders.

Here's hoping the Raiders can cut Darrell Russell (and remove $11 million from the cap) and see if they can restructure some deals for perhaps one last run for the Vince Lombardi.

Skippy

[SackAttack]

The Bay Area Curse is a beautiful thing. Long may it live.

[mrskippy]

Hey now ... the Bay Area still has its share of championships.

[Tarkus]

They're $42 mil over the cap. They're done.

Tarkus

P.S. Sorry, I despise the Raiders.

[Braggadocioussss]

I for one was happy the Raiders lost. Rice got to pad his super bowl records, and the Raiders lost badly enough that I can rub it in if any Raider fan starts going off. Sorry Mrskippy, I'm a 49er fan, I don't know what it's like to have my team lose a Super Bowl.

No but seriously I'm sorry to see Brown lose. He has always been a classy guy.

[Easy Mac]

I think this will be the what if super bowl... as in the what if the raiders actually showed up to play for the first 40 minutes. I'd say the Bucs quit playing by the time the raiders came back.

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Hey now ... the Bay Area still has its share of championships.

Let's see...San Francisco Giants? None, unless you count a couple of NL pennants. San Jose Sharks? None. Sacramento Kings? None. Golden State Warriors? None. Oakland A's? Okay, that one in '89, and I think there were a couple in the '70s, so I'll give you that one. San Francisco 49ers? Something like 5, but none since '95, and weren't a couple of them under shady cap circumstances?

As many teams as that is, that sounds more like crumbs off the table than a glorious sporting tradition.

[SackAttack]

Oh, and there's the Raiders, but given Davis' penchant for moving, I kinda consider them more the California Raiders than the Oakland Raiders.

[JeeberD]

Ouch, my knee hurts. Guess I shouldn't have dove and tackled myt co-worker after the game.

[clintl]

Originally posted by SackAttack
Golden State Warriors? None.

The Warriors have one.

[Vince]

"San Francisco 49ers? Something like 5"

Yeah, that's only more than every team in the league except the Cowboys, and we've never, ever lost in a Superbowl. That's not impressive or anything.

[mrskippy]

The Golden State Warriors have one title:

1974-75 Golden State Warriors beat Washington Bullets 4-0, Rick Barry, G.S. was the MVP.

And I wouldn't consider Sacramento to the Bay Area. They do have one title in Rochester and they're looking to add one this year. Heck they aren't even healthy and they're winning.

As for the Raiders cap troubles. The talk is the Raiders might be able to pull it off.

Darrell Russell can ask for reinstatement to the NFL. Even if he id reinstated he may not come back as a Raider. He's due $11 million in 2003-04 and they can essentially dump him without penalty.

So that makes than $31 million over the cap. That is spread between Rice, Brown, Romo, the Woodens, and James Jett.

James Jett has pretty much been a non-factor. So he's probably gone too.

Rice still wants to play. He wants to stay in the Bay Area. Niners aren't likely to take him back. He will get a restructured contract.

I think the Raiders still will lose their share of players. But they have a few good young up and comers ---

Can you can Porter?

Buchanon will be back from the IR. The Raiders will get the bottom two picks of thiis year's first round. Perhaps they'll trade up (and free some cap room with it).

I still think the Raiders will contend and give it one more go.

[Braggadocioussss]

Originally posted by SackAttack
San Francisco 49ers? Something like 5, but none since '95, and weren't a couple of them under shady cap circumstances?

Something like 5? Nobody has more. Nobody has had as much Super Bowl success as the 49ers. Non since 95? What kind of thing is that to say? How many teams haven't won a Super Bowl since 95? The 49ers won 4 Super Bowls in the 80's and one in the 90's. If I recall correctly there was no salary cap in the 80's. When they won the super bowl after the '94 season they were totaly clear of any cap troubles/penalties. The cap penalties they had were in 1997 when they admitted to slipping Brent Jones and Jim Druckenmiller money. These penalties had nothing to do with the Super Bowl teams. Druckenmiller didn't even join the team until several years after the last Super Bowl team.

[MylesKnight]

Al "Black Sheep" Davis won't late the Raiders slip too much, regardless of cap issues.

Looks like the AARP Roster philosophy didn't work in the end though.

[kcchief19]

Originally posted by mrskippy
What if Gannon hadn't through 5 interceptions? Those picks made all the difference tonight. Without those picks, the Raiders win.

Except for WWI and WWII, Germany had a great century.

[mrskippy]

Terrell Davis said he may attempt an NFL comeback. Of course, the reporters were hinting at a comeback with the Raiders give the Al Davis reputation for signing players nobody else really wants.

Al Davis won't let the Raiders lose too much momentum. Win/Loss I believe they are the winningest AFC team in history (even since the AFL started) and they're the winningest team since the merge.

Silver and Black will be back.

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by mrskippy
[b]The Golden State Warriors have one title:

1974-75 Golden State Warriors beat Washington Bullets 4-0, Rick Barry, G.S. was the MVP.

My mistake, then. Add that one to the list.

And I wouldn't consider Sacramento to the Bay Area. They do have one title in Rochester and they're looking to add one this year. Heck they aren't even healthy and they're winning.

Talk to me after the season if they make their free throws.

Josh

[Daimyo]

The funny thing to me is that even after Oakland was soundly outplayed, kippy still hints that it was the ref's fault.

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by Vince
"San Francisco 49ers? Something like 5"

Yeah, that's only more than every team in the league except the Cowboys, and we've never, ever lost in a Superbowl. That's not impressive or anything.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying 5 isn't impressive, just that I thought I recalled that a couple of them were under shady circumstances. If not, then accept my apology on that front.

If I were talking just about football, I'd have to agree, that's impressive. When I said "Bay Area Curse," I was talking about sports as a whole, however, and was alluding to the recent Giants/Kings fiascos. Sacramento may not be strictly Bay Area, but they are Northern California, so that's close enough for me.

Josh

[TroyF]

If the Giants/Kings are cursed, may all of our cities be cursed.

TroyF

[Barkeep49]

If the bay area is cursed what geographical area isn't? New York? Seems to me that the bay area has had more than their fair share of success in sports. Perhaps they haven't won it all with all their teams but I think it's amazing that four of their teams can be solid contenders in the past few years.

[Braggadocioussss]

Originally posted by SackAttack
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying 5 isn't impressive, just that I thought I recalled that a couple of them were under shady circumstances. If not, then accept my apology on that front.

Apology accepted. As far as the other Bay area teams go I could honestly care less.

[sabotai]

Just to point out, there were NFL Championships before the Super Bowl (for those saying that no one has more than 5)....

[Braggadocioussss]

The Super Bowl signified a new era of Professional Football. Before that there were a few champions of a few different leagues, but not one that was the proven #1 in the land. The Super Bowl puts that to rest.

[sabotai]

So that means the ones that won it before the Super Bowl don't count? Simply because you don't think they should? Geez, talk about being bias with your statistics...

"No, I will not count those. Even though they were legitimate NFL champions by winning the NFL Championship, they make my Niners seem less significant. So I will not count those champions."

A few champions of a few different leagues...doesn't sound like you know much of football history there...

[Braggadocioussss]

I don't remember saying those things you had in your post sabotai. Why post those remarks if I never said them? If I had meant those things I would have come out and said it.

A few different leagues.

AFL (40-41, 60-69)
NFL
AAFC (46-49)

If I really wanted to include pre-Super Bowl championships I would have. But I didn't....I was trying to make a point and you took it the wrong way.

[sabotai]

"I don't remember saying those things you had in your post sabotai. Why post those remarks if I never said them? If I had meant those things I would have come out and said it. "

It's called sarcasm, look into it...

"AFL (60-69)
NFL
AAFC (46-49)"

Well, there were several more than that. But that's not the point. The point is that there NFL champions before the Super Bowl. And if I remember correctly, and I know I do because I just scrolled up to look, no one mentioned Super Bowls. Only "championships" were mentioned. That is until Vince said "more than anyone else".

If you want to say "49ers won 5 Super Bowls, more than any other team" go ahead. But don't act like the NFL Championship didn't mean anything before the Super Bowl just because your team never won one.

[Chief Rum]

In the interest of revealing some stats with regards to the Bay Area versus LA area "which is the best at sports" based on titles, I present the following.

The Bay Area

Using the Oakland Raiders, San Francisco Niners, Oakland Athletics, San Francisco Giants, San Jose Sharks, Golden State Warriors, Sacramento Kings, Stanford football and basketball, Cal football and basketball, and, to be kind, also the San Francisco Dons' basketball championships, the Bay Area produced:

413 team-years
17 titles
4.1% percentage of titles won
24 team-years per championship

The LA area

Using the Los Angeles Raiders, Los Angeles Rams, Los Angeles Dodgers, Anaheim Angels, Los Angeles Kings, Anaheim Mighty Ducks, Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Clippers, UCLA football and basketball, and USC football and basketball, the LA area produced:

449 team-years
30 titles
6.7% percentage of titles won
15 team-years per championship

LA Rocks! I rest my case.

Chief Rum

[Braggadocioussss]

There may have been several other leagues during that time span, but they were not recognized as professional leagues. The Leagues I listed are the only leagues that ever "merged" with the NFL, bringing teams and players from their leagues into the NFL. If you want to look at "Championships" then we will...

NFL championships

Packers 12
Bears 9
Giants 6
Skins 5
Niners 5
Cowboys 5
Lions 4
Browns 4
Steelers 4
Bulldogs 3
Eagles 3
Colts 3
Raiders 3
Rams 3
Cards 2
Dolphins 2
Broncos 2
Frankford PA 1
Providence 1
Jets 1
Chefs 1
Bucs 1

This doesn't include any AFL or AAFC championships. If it did you would have to chalk some up to the Oilers, Chargers, and Browns. I personaly, (and usualy every other person in the world nowadays), when I say "championships" regarding the NFL I am refering to Super Bowl championships. Not a game that hasn't happened in nearly 40 years. Come to think of it, when I'm talking out loud I usualy say Super Bowl. But seeing as how the Super Bowl happened today, when you hear people say the word "champion" or "championship", I would bet they are refering to the Super Bowl. Not Division championships. Not Wimbeldon championships. But NFL Championships 1966-present. I hope that clears up any previous missunderstandings.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Daimyo
The funny thing to me is that even after Oakland was soundly outplayed, kippy still hints that it was the ref's fault.

Hey I gave props to the Bucs. They brought their Killer D to the game. The ref thing was just a "what if" thought.

[sabotai]

EDIT: No interest in taking this further...

[Dutch]

But with the play going against the Raiders about being forced out of bounds on the 2PT conversion and the horrible PI call against Charles Woodson, I knew the Raiders were damned.

This will go down as the what if Super Bowl. What if the 2PT conversion had counted? What if the Raiders didn't have the pass PI call against them? The Raiders might have narrowed it more with plenty of time left.

What if Gannon hadn't through 5 interceptions? Those picks made all the difference tonight. Without those picks, the Raiders win.

First of all, "Quit yer whinin'"

Secondly, The "what if" bowl? What if Gannon hadn't of thrown 5 interceptions? The only "what if" about it was "What if the Raiders were any good."

What if Charles Woodson had done his job and stopped Keenan from scoring a huge touchdown that put us up 20-3?

And check yourself, the PI was legit. If the receiver can put his hand on the ball, he could have caught it. So "stop yer cryin'".

If you were a Titan fan, I'd be lenient and say congrats, but Raider fans can't have their cake and eat it too. You SUCKED out there Sunday. Get over it. Not ever were you even remotely playing like you deserved the title. It was absolutely embarrassing. Never did the Raiders bring it. #1 offense? Not even that....we'll take that too.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Tarkus
They're $42 mil over the cap. They're done.

Tarkus

P.S. Sorry, I despise the Raiders.

No, they're cap situation really isn't as bad as it's been made out to be. I saw a breakdown of it recently, and there is an easy 30-35 million they can lop right off the top. Guys who either haven't contributed much, or can be replaced by backups. I think realisitcally they could have another shot next year.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Braggadocioussss
There may have been several other leagues during that time span, but they were not recognized as professional leagues. The Leagues I listed are the only leagues that ever "merged" with the NFL, bringing teams and players from their leagues into the NFL. If you want to look at "Championships" then we will...

NFL championships

Packers 12
Bears 9
Giants 6
Skins 5
Niners 5
Cowboys 5
Lions 4
Browns 4
Steelers 4
Bulldogs 3
Eagles 3
Colts 3
Raiders 3
Rams 3
Cards 2
Dolphins 2
Broncos 2
Frankford PA 1
Providence 1
Jets 1
Chefs 1
Bucs 1

This doesn't include any AFL or AAFC championships. If it did you would have to chalk some up to the Oilers, Chargers, and Browns. I personaly, (and usualy every other person in the world nowadays), when I say "championships" regarding the NFL I am refering to Super Bowl championships. Not a game that hasn't happened in nearly 40 years. Come to think of it, when I'm talking out loud I usualy say Super Bowl. But seeing as how the Super Bowl happened today, when you hear people say the word "champion" or "championship", I would bet they are refering to the Super Bowl. Not Division championships. Not Wimbeldon championships. But NFL Championships 1966-present. I hope that clears up any previous missunderstandings.

I pretty much agree with sabotai that NFL championships were every bit as legitimate as super bowl championships. Why the NFL almost ignores half their history is beyond me. No-one discounts World Series' titles from pre-1969 just because they were a long time ago.

So if someone wants to make the claim that their team is the best of the last 20, 30, 40 years, go ahead. But if you're looking to say your team is the greatest of all-time, please take a look at history before doing so.

[QuikSand]

Maybe we need an asterisk by the NFL Champions from either 1999 or 2000 (whichever, I cannot remember)... after all, the XFL was playing that year and it crowned its own champion. So it's hard to say who was really the best that year.

[cincyreds]

Tarkus hit it on the head.

The Raiders are in big time salary cap T R O U B L E!!

Plus they have all those draft picks coming up that they got from the Buccaneers for Gruden. They will have to cut quite a few players to sign those draft picks.

[Braggadocioussss]

Quik, The fact that you completely missed my point doesn't in the least bit surprise me. Perhaps the real motivation behind what I was saying was my absolute hatred for gays, jews, three-legged dogs, and the color chartruese.

Dickhead.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Braggadocioussss
Quik, The fact that you completely missed my point doesn't in the least bit surprise me. Perhaps the real motivation behind what I was saying was my absolute hatred for gays, jews, three-legged dogs, and the color chartruese.

Dickhead.

I think he just used the exact logic you did to question the 2000 super bowl champions. Basically you only seem to accept "Super Bowl Champions" as true champions. You used the fact that there were "other leagues" in operation to question the champions of the pre-super bowl era. By that logic, things were just as unclear the year the XFL was in operation. I don't remember the Los Angeles Xtreme getting a shot at either the Rams or the Ravens, so therefore we don't know who was truly the better team. Therfore by your own logic, those championships were not as legitimate.

[Braggadocioussss]

Comparing the XFL with the old AFL and AAFC is idiotic and desperate. You should know better. I clearly explained why the AFL and AAFC were used in my explanation. If you missed it, then my suggestion is to go read my posts again. This is getting rediculous.

[Hands to the Face]

As is your spelling, Bragg. . .

[Braggadocioussss]

Who are you now? Your selling what?

[clintl]

I suspect that the reason the NFL tends to ignore the pre-Super Bowl history to some extent has to do with marketing the Super Bowl. Besides, baseball does the same thing, it's just that you to go back to before 1901 and the formation of the American League.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Dutch
First of all, "Quit yer whinin'"

Secondly, The "what if" bowl? What if Gannon hadn't of thrown 5 interceptions? The only "what if" about it was "What if the Raiders were any good."

What if Charles Woodson had done his job and stopped Keenan from scoring a huge touchdown that put us up 20-3?

And check yourself, the PI was legit. If the receiver can put his hand on the ball, he could have caught it. So "stop yer cryin'".

If you were a Titan fan, I'd be lenient and say congrats, but Raider fans can't have their cake and eat it too. You SUCKED out there Sunday. Get over it. Not ever were you even remotely playing like you deserved the title. It was absolutely embarrassing. Never did the Raiders bring it. #1 offense? Not even that....we'll take that too.

Without the Tampa defense, they don't win. Three picks were returned for TDs. So make it 27-24. Raiders go for the 1PT PAT, so make it 27-27.

As for PI, well I do have tape of one of the picks where the defensive player grabs the Raider as the ball was coming in and than snags the ball for himself from a hapless Raider. PI wasn't called there as it should've been.

Once again, without Tampa's D, they don't win. That's been the case all year.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Without the Tampa defense, they don't win. Three picks were returned for TDs. So make it 27-24. Raiders go for the 1PT PAT, so make it 27-27.

As for PI, well I do have tape of one of the picks where the defensive player grabs the Raider as the ball was coming in and than snags the ball for himself from a hapless Raider. PI wasn't called there as it should've been.

Once again, without Tampa's D, they don't win. That's been the case all year.

Ummmm. Yeah. And your point is?

"Without the Tampa defense, they don't win." You know, you're right. Every time Tampa lost this year, the other team scored more points. Damn that Tampa defense!

"As for PI, well I do have tape of one of the picks where the defensive player grabs the Raider as the ball was coming in and than snags the ball for himself from a hapless Raider."

I think the key here is "hapless Raider". Quit making excuses.

[Easy Mac]

I remember seeing Charles Woodson holding/interfering on numerous plays that weren't called. The calls for fair and the Raiders sucked. I'd say without Rich Gannon playing like swiss cheese the game would have been interesting.

And with post 1229, I tie ez, kind of weird.

[SplitPersonality1]

Originally posted by Braggadocioussss
Quik, The fact that you completely missed my point doesn't in the least bit surprise me. Perhaps the real motivation behind what I was saying was my absolute hatred for gays, jews, three-legged dogs, and the color chartruese.

Dickhead.

Why did you sign the post "Dickhead" Freudian slip, perhaps

- Splits

[tucker342]

Using the Los Angeles Raiders, Los Angeles Rams, Los Angeles Dodgers, Anaheim Angels, Los Angeles Kings, Anaheim Mighty Ducks, Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Clippers, UCLA football and basketball, and USC football and basketball, the LA area produced:

449 team-years
30 titles
6.7% percentage of titles won
15 team-years per championship

LA Rocks! I rest my case.


What would the total be if you didn't use UCLA basketball? That adds quite abit of titles I think.

[Daimyo]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Without the Tampa defense, they don't win. Three picks were returned for TDs. So make it 27-24. Raiders go for the 1PT PAT, so make it 27-27.

I think you're right. If the Tampa Bay defense had gotten caught in traffic or come down with food poisoning or something and didn't get to play in the game, it probably would have been pretty close.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by tucker342
Using the Los Angeles Raiders, Los Angeles Rams, Los Angeles Dodgers, Anaheim Angels, Los Angeles Kings, Anaheim Mighty Ducks, Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Clippers, UCLA football and basketball, and USC football and basketball, the LA area produced:

449 team-years
30 titles
6.7% percentage of titles won
15 team-years per championship

LA Rocks! I rest my case.


What would the total be if you didn't use UCLA basketball? That adds quite abit of titles I think.

Well, I don't really see the reason for removing UCLA's titles. If I did that, why couldn't I then remove all the Niners' titles? Or maybe I would remove all college basketball championships, including the five won by Bay Area teams?

So I don't really understand why they would need to be removed.

That said, if I were to do so (and remove UCLA's 11 championships), that would lower the LA area's championships to 19, which is still two more than the Bay Area, without removing a thing. And since I remove their championships, I would also have to remove UCLA's 64 years of play, which brings the LA area's total in team-years to just 385. So, the LA area will have won more championships in less years--without UCLA.

Defense still rests.

Chief Rum

[mrskippy]

Why not remove colleges all together, since I follow the NAIA and not the NCAA.