Guest Redhawk Report post Posted January 25, 2003 For me it's the whole, "Gruden Bowl" nonsense. First of all, Gruden hasn't even been in the league long enough for that type of treatment. He was only with the Raiders for a few years, so it's not like the team is ingrained with his philosophy. Now if it were like, Don Shula facing the Dolphins in the Super Bowl the year after he left, fine. But this is stupid. Secondly, I think this whole, "He knows their tendencies" stuff is WAY overrated. It's not like the Raiders kept calling the exact same plays in the exact same situations this year that they did under Gruden. And anyone who watched the Raiders this season more than twice can know their tendencies. It's not that hard. A defense can know what an offense is going to do all they want, but Gruden's not going to be tackling anybody, is he? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest imajackoff? Report post Posted January 25, 2003 The major reason I didnt want to see Oakland in "THE BIG GAME" (please dont sue, Tags.), is all the airtime that would be given to the douche bag Raider fans that dress up like 3rd rate Indy wrestlers and think that they are intimidating. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted January 25, 2003 I haven't heard much talk about Raider Nation since early Monday. Gruden isn't annoying. The Hype is. U GOTTA LOVE Jon "Chucky" Gruden. What is annoying? The Old Man bullshit with Rice. Enuff with it please! Here is my disapointment...Al Davis and Warren Sapp aupicious silence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted January 25, 2003 Well a coach taking his new team into the Super Bowl against the team he left earlier that year he is an interesting storyline on the game so i don't have any problem with that being a point of discussion. I've kept my exposure to a minimum to avoid the oversaturation. I've watched NFL 2nite and nothing else each day this week and have all the info without the oversaturation of info. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted January 25, 2003 Yeah, I've watched and listened about this game and ya know...Im losing the want to watch this game...It looks like a Train Wreck waiting to happen. Of course ESPN, FOX and All the others are PROMISING A CLASSIC. Please. 41-17. Who wins? Dunno. Doesn't matter... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Redhawk Report post Posted January 25, 2003 The major reason I didnt want to see Oakland in "THE BIG GAME" (please dont sue, Tags.), is all the airtime that would be given to the douche bag Raider fans that dress up like 3rd rate Indy wrestlers and think that they are intimidating. Just what is the deal with that anyway? I've noticed that some local radio ads and some TV ads never say "Super Bowl," they're always just saying "the big game on Jan. 26" or something like that. What's up with that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted January 25, 2003 *Don Chedle Mode On* They took the big game and made it, the big game. *Don Chedle mode off* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted January 25, 2003 Redhawk, I am guessing here but it probably has something to do with the prize being endorsed by the NFL or something. BTW: Why is the "big game" only one week removed from the conference finals this year? Is this the start of something new?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted January 25, 2003 It was this way last season (For obvious) reasons and a couple of times before that...I like it...Who needs mindless hype about a game that will in all liklihood be a blowout. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted January 25, 2003 I like the shortened SB festivities, but I'm just wondering if it will become a regular event. I knew it was one week last year (9/11), and I think the SB with the Rams winning being one week. What were the other ones?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted January 25, 2003 Denver-Atlanta? It seemed like only week between the Conference Championships, and Eugene Robertson trying to pick up a hooker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted January 25, 2003 They go back to 2 weeks next year. I wish they'd keep it at one week. It's much more enjoyable that way. 2 weeks is just too much of a wait and the teams get cold. Every single Superbowl that has had only one week has kicked ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted January 25, 2003 Fuck Tagliabue. 2 weeks will be torture. Ron Jaworski, and the other experts saying the same thing over and over again is bad enough for 1 week. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted January 25, 2003 I remember Phil Simms whining about the one week break during the Raider game. He said something to the effect of how this doesn't enable players to enjoy the experience, and that extra week gives teams a chance to heal up their injured players and for them to better prepare. Wait a second here. "Enjoy the experience?" Everybody bitches about the 10 daily press conferences for that fortnight, and just about every Super Bowl is anti-climatic anyway, with the game usually resulting in a blowout. Whatever Phil... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MarvinisaLunatic Report post Posted January 25, 2003 I think the term "Super Bowl" is copyrighted and cannot be used without permission of the National Football League.. Personally I could care less who wins (Id rather see Tampa win, but then the talk would be about how their defense was better than the 2000 Ravens and I wouldn't like that..) Somehow, I think its gonna be a close game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
