Raiders vs Patriots Opening Night Thursday

[jbmagic]

Does my Raiders have a chance to upset them at home?


i hope so. I can't wait for the season to start.

[Lorena]

Should be a good one.... NOT!! J/K... I'm curious to see how Randy Moss'll perform

[Fouts]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

Does my Raiders have a chance to upset them at home?


i hope so. I can't wait for the season to start.

35-7 Patriots. Then again, I'm biased against the Raiders.

[jbmagic]

i going to predict Raiders 19-16 over the Patriots

[DaddyTorgo]

Raiders won't take it. But it won't be 35-7 either. 27-17 Pats.

[Raiders Army]

35-27 Raiders. You doubters need to recognize.

[WSUCougar]

31-24 Pats

[Raiders Army]

History says Raiders beat Pats
By Bill Soliday, STAFF WRITER

THE HOPELESSNESS of the Raiders' cause in New England tonight has been worked to death. Seems only reasonable to refer to it as The Big Lie theory.
We never lie. We may be wrong. But we're earnestly wrong. That said, here's a factoid that probably escaped your attention.

Question 1: Do you know how many times the Raiders have opened their season against a defending Super Bowl champion?

Answer: Two.

Question 2: How did they do in those games?

Answer: Won 'em both.

You could look it up (I did). On Sept. 12, 1976, Oakland opened at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (Mr. McAfee had not invented a stadium yet) against the untouchable defending champion Pittsburgh Steelers.

Make that the two-time defending champion Steelers. Sound familiar?

Anyhow, it was curtains for the Steelers. Oakland won 34-28. George Atkinson gave Lynn Swann a love pat on the head from which Swannie's ears are still ringing ... and for all we know, Chuck Noll may still be suing to have Atkinson jailed.

Derrick Gibson? Come on down.

The second time was Sept. 12, 1982, and the San Francisco 49ers were coming off the first of their Super Bowl triumphs in (sound familiar) Detroit. In a game played at Candlestick Park (monsters hadn't invented stadiums yet), the Raiders came away 23-17 victors.

So there you have it. Clearly the Raiders will beat the unbeatable Patriots and will go on and play in the Super Bowl in Detroit.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/raiders/ci_3010540

[jeff061]

42-28 Pats.

Sorry Raider Fan , the Pats are going to have an insane offense this year. I see no reason to believe the Raiders can stop an average one.

[kiwiLB57]

Can't wait for the start of the season. I have taken half the day off work as the game kicks off live here at 1pm Friday. Thats Beer Drinking time. There are half a dozen of us that are going to a bar in the CBD for the afternoon. Better go to bed as I have to do a decent days work by 1pm before the boss will let me out.

kiwiDE57

[rkmsuf]

If the Pats stop Lamont Jordan tonite they will roll. Especially with Porter dinged, you have to believe the game plan is to take away Moss.

On the other hand I can't see the Raiders playing enough defense to stop NE.

35-17 NE.

[Butter]

I've had enough of NE... it was kinda nice for a year or two to talk about someone besides Dallas, SF, and Green Bay, but now the tables have turned, and I'm tired of them.

Go Raiders, though I think NE will squeak it out.

[st.cronin]

Smart money always goes AGAINST the super bowl teams at the beginning of the season. But I would be very afraid to bet against the Pats here.

[jeff061]

I don't know if the Pats can stop a heavy dosage of Lamont Jordan, their run defense is their only suspect spot.

But I expect Raiders are going to be behind early and will be going to the air game quickly.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I've had enough of NE... it was kinda nice for a year or two to talk about someone besides Dallas, SF, and Green Bay, but now the tables have turned, and I'm tired of them.

Go Raiders, though I think NE will squeak it out.

Gotta love Americans. I used to think this phenomenon was because we love to root for underdogs, given our history, but too many times I've seen sentiments like this, so now I just assume we love to tear down successful teams just because.

Of course, with teams like the 90's Cowboys or the Yankees, it was easy to latch onto other reasons to want them to fail, but with the Pats, it's nothing more than "they've had their moment in the sun, time for someone else," or "I'm sick of Bill Simmons."

Anyway, go Pats...but only because the Raiders suck. This is one of those games where I'm just an observer and a fan of football in general.

[Lorena]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

You could look it up (I did). On Sept. 12, 1976, Oakland opened at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (Mr. McAfee had not invented a stadium yet) against the untouchable defending champion Pittsburgh Steelers.

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The second time was Sept. 12, 1982, and the San Francisco 49ers were coming off the first of their Super Bowl triumphs in (sound familiar) Detroit. In a game played at Candlestick Park (monsters hadn't invented stadiums yet), the Raiders came away 23-17 victors.

Interesting stats from 29 and 23 yrs ago... hmm.. 50 influence says the Pats beat the Raidas 28-10.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Of course, with teams like the 90's Cowboys or the Yankees, it was easy to latch onto other reasons to want them to fail, but with the Pats, it's nothing more than "they've had their moment in the sun, time for someone else," or "I'm sick of Bill Simmons."

For me, sports get stale when the same team wins over and over again. And over. And then many of their fans begin to act like they are God's gift to football.

And Bill Belichick can eat it, too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"I'm sick of Bill Simmons."

That should be plenty reason enough

[jeff061]

Hehe, I love listening to Ohio based football fans talk about Belichick. I got one sitting 4 feet behind me and he agrees with Butter's sentiment .

[Ksyrup]

Maybe it's because I'm a basball-first fan over any other sport, but I've got a "big picture" mentality that judges things on more than the last 5 years. I like to see natural peaks and valleys, periods of dominance and recession, over decades, not just "they've won for 4 years, so it's time for someone else." I guess I take more of an historical perspective on what I'm experiencing in the here-and-now.

It's why I really don't like the NFL's "anyone can win in any given year" philosophy, because I think that gives the history of the game a disjointed feel, once we look back 20 years from now. When describing football of the past 30 years, we describe it by its dominating teams - Steelers, 49'ers, Cowboys, Pats, etc. If we end up with 10 different SB winners in 12 years, and even worse, most of those SB winners have a difficult time getting back to the playoffs, I really think it hurts the nostalgia factor. But again, that's probably because I'm more used to baseball's history, where the Braves and Indians can suck for decades, then become annual playoff contenders for the next decade rather than SB team one year, miss the playoffs the next, above .500 the next, playoff team the next, SB winner the next. There's no rhyme or reason to it.

[Lorena]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

For me, sports get stale when the same team wins over and over again. And over.

Except when it's your team right?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

Except when it's your team right?

Wouldn't know. My teams are the Reds, Bengals, Ohio State and the University of Dayton in basketball. OSU is the only team that is close to long-term success, and I'm pretty sure most of America hates them. So, what's your point?

[Lorena]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Wouldn't know. My teams are the Reds, Bengals, Ohio State and the University of Dayton in basketball. OSU is the only team that is close to long-term success, and I'm pretty sure most of America hates them. So, what's your point?

If your team's winning, it never gets old. When the Lakers were at the top of their game, it never got old... GO TEAM GO!! On the other hand, when the Spurs went on their streak, it got old QUICK.

[Mo.Raider]

Suddenly everyone thinks stopping the Raiders means stopping Moss. Porter is injured but the depth behind him is as talented as he. Jordon will be the biggest difference and right after that is switching back to the 4-3. The defense will be much better this year. Jordon will keep the chains moving and the wr depth is just amazing. We have a wr named Morant that is 5th on the depth chart that could play plenty for many teams. Bottom line tonight's game will start this new football season off right.


Raiders 28
Pats 24

PS- Why do I replay those directv commercials in my head when I make a post like this? "Ricky Williams has nothing but football on his mind this year".

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

Interesting stats from 29 and 23 yrs ago... hmm.. 50 influence says the Pats beat the Raidas 28-10.

You can't beat history...regardless of when it occurred...and I'll take that bet.

[jeff061]

I'm sure some ridiculous ancient stat could be dug up for any team in any situation to support them.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Mo.Raider

Suddenly everyone thinks stopping the Raiders means stopping Moss. Porter is injured but the depth behind him is as talented as he. Jordon will be the biggest difference and right after that is switching back to the 4-3. The defense will be much better this year. Jordon will keep the chains moving and the wr depth is just amazing. We have a wr named Morant that is 5th on the depth chart that could play plenty for many teams. Bottom line tonight's game will start this new football season off right.

This is true. I think people underestimate the Raiders. The defense was so bad because they were on the field far more than they should've been. Kerry Collins took over from Rich Gannon last year and had to learn a new offense without being the number 1 guy. That's why he had so many interceptions the first part of the season when he took over.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I'm sure some ridiculous ancient stat could be dug up for any team in any situation to support them.

First of all, it's not ridiculous. Second, it's not ancient.

[FrogMan]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

First of all, it's not ridiculous. Second, it's not ancient.

not saying your stats/facts/whatever you wanna call them are ridiculous, but in the state of the NFL, 23 and 29 years ago is ancient... Heck, 4 years ago is ancient nowadays...

FM

[duckman]

Patriots, 20-16.

[jeff061]

Patriots haven't lost at home in two years. I'd take that stat .

[Ksyrup]

When the "stat" (and I use that term loosely; that's not a stat so much as it is an anecdote) has no meaningful correlation to the situation it is being compared to...yes, that is a ridiculous stat. What possible connection could there be between those scenarios and this one? Even if the Raiders win the game, what possible correlation is there to suggest this stat had anything to do with why the Raiders won? This stat scientifically proves that Al Davis has instilled his will to win and determination to overcome underdog status on every Raiders team since he's owned them?

[SirFozzie]

28-17, Pats.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

When the "stat" (and I use that term loosely; that's not a stat so much as it is an anecdote) has no meaningful correlation to the situation it is being compared to...yes, that is a ridiculous stat. What possible connection could there be between those scenarios and this one? Even if the Raiders win the game, what possible correlation is there to suggest this stat had anything to do with why the Raiders won? This stat scientifically proves that Al Davis has instilled his will to win and determination to overcome underdog status on every Raiders team since he's owned them?

I shall accept all of your apologies when the drunkard Nittany Lion Kerry Collins is hoisting the Lombardi Trophy.

[VPI97]

Pats secondary isn't as good as the last few years. If Collins isn't pressured he should have a big game going to Moss and Curry.

Raiders - 27
Patriots - 20

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I shall accept all of your apologies when the drunkard Nittany Lion Kerry Collins is hoisting the Lombardi Trophy.

And since that has nothing to do with my point/question, I'll accept THAT as a "you were right, I was wrong" answer.

Seriously, what's that got to do with why they may or may not beat the Patriots? Hell, the Pats may very well come out as flat as they did a couple of years ago against the Bills. But the Bills didn't get very far that year, did they? But I guess that's because they had a crappy record when opening the season against defending SB champs 25 years ago.

[Super Ugly]

The game's on at 2am here, but I dislike both teams so I'll watch the first quarter and then go to bed.

24-3 Pats.

[Scarecrow]

42-14 Pats

Collins will throw 4 interceptions.
Moss will walk off the field early, and demand to be traded by the end of the game.
Jordan will prove why he was a backup all these years.

[sachmo71]

FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FrogMan]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that, I agree completely. Yeah, it doesn't hurt that I'm a Pats fan, but dear lord, finally, football is back...

FM

[jeff061]

All the jokers and jackasses that are on the Red Sox makes me appreciate the Patriots even more.

[pennywisesb]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

42-14 Pats

Collins will throw 4 interceptions.
Moss will walk off the field early, and demand to be traded by the end of the game.
Jordan will prove why he was a backup all these years.

Get ready to be surprised. 28-21 Raiders. The Patriots defensive backs aren't nearly as good as they have been in the past and Porter and Moss aren't our only weapons. Doug Gabriel came on strong last year at the end of the season and Curry will be good too. Plus, at least with a competent starting RB this year we might just be able to establish a running game. If anyone got a chance to see the Patriots play this pre-seaon, they probably noticed their LBs are in disarray and I look for alot of mistakes to be made. I don't think their defense will be nearly as dominating as it has been recently. Just my $.02

[jeff061]

The Patriots defensive backs aren't nearly as good as they have been in the past and Porter and Moss aren't our only weapons

Right, I guess you weren't following the pats secondary situation last year. The guys starting last year are backing up this year.

The doubt about the Pats linebackers are equal to doubts about every single portion on the Raiders defense. You're confident moving to a 4-3 is going to solve everything?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Pats secondary isn't as good as the last few years. If Collins isn't pressured he should have a big game going to Moss and Curry.

Raiders - 27
Patriots - 20

It's all scheme. They'll take away Moss, or at least that will be the focus. It's up to the Raider running game to generate offense.

Pats have had awhile to think about the approach to this game. Stadium will be nuts. And I don't think the secondary is worse at all. If anything they are better.

I've seen Moss do some unreal stuff but not tonite. Pats roll.

[jeff061]

The Pats are going to knock the shit out of Moss. Don't know if that will stop him or not, but it'll be fun to watch.

[pennywisesb]

Originally Posted by jeff061

The doubt about the Pats linebackers are equal to doubts about every single portion on the Raiders defense. You're confident moving to a 4-3 is going to solve everything?

Not quite sure I follow you here. The Raiders have some of the best corners in the game, even without Phillip Buchanon.

[Lathum]

When did Lamont Jordan become such a difference maker?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by pennywisesb

Not quite sure I follow you here. The Raiders have some of the best corners in the game, even without Phillip Buchanon.

They were pathetic last year.

Charles Woodson is teh overrrated.

Fabian Washinton? Namdi Alskhjoihgioauh? Denard Walker?

Surely you jest.

[jeff061]

Woodson's a cripple and their defense sucked last year, Raiders fans seem to be hedging their bets on the 4-3 change. I don't get it.

[Ksyrup]

Teh is teh overused. It's becoming teh more cowbell.