Early Canidate for Jackass of the Year

[Guest Vern Gagne]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs02/s/2003/0...28/1499962.html

 

One day after his team got buried in Super Bowl XXXVII, Raiders wide receiver Jerry Porter took some shots at the Bucs' defense.

 

The timing might be a little strange, considering the Bucs shut down Oakland's high-powered offense in an impressive 48-21 rout. Oakland scored most of its points after Tampa built a 31-point lead.

 

Porter had four receptions for 62 yards and a touchdown in the loss. Porter also injured his left knee during the game, and will have an MRI later this week.

 

Despite the Bucs' impressive play in the secondary -- safety Dexter Jackson was named MVP of the game -- Porter had some choice words for the Bucs' defensive backfield.

 

"I'm not going to sit here and say they're great. I'm not impressed. Their DBs ----," Porter told reporters on Monday. "Across the board, they're awful, but they apply enough pressure up front to where you can't expose them.

 

"Let me tell you, if Ronde Barber had to cover all day, he'd be living with his brother (Tiki)," Porter added.

 

Ronde Barber did have a strong postseason for the Bucs, including a game-sealing interception return for a touchdown in the NFC title game against the Eagles.

 

Porter said the Bucs' cornerbacks are ideal for their cover-2 system, where they aren't required to play much man-to-man.

 

"Man-to-man, they're not (great)," said Porter. "The only guy who can play man-to-man is Brian Kelly and he's only decent. They're a team that thrives off their pressure."

 

Ronde Barber, appearing Tuesday on The Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio said Porter "is a loser, period."

 

Oakland quarterback Rich Gannon, under pressure much of the game, threw a Super Bowl-record five interceptions. Jackson picked off two in the first half. Nickel back Dwight Smith also had a pair of interceptions (both for touchdowns), and linebacker Derrick Brooks also scored on an interception return.

 

It was the pressure on Gannon that led to the picks, Porter says.

 

"It was astounding," Porter said. "Them boys got it going up front."

 

After the game, the Bucs compared themselves to the best defensive teams in history. Porter disagrees.

 

"Hell, no. Hell, no," he told reporters. "The Ravens' defense (in 2000), they were hell against the run. You can run on the Bucs. We just didn't. We didn't because that's not our structure this year. You couldn't run on the Ravens. ... But (against the Bucs), all you have to do is -- it's pretty easy to say now because the game is over -- run the ball."

 

Sore loser is right.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Oy vey.

 

Not to mention being up by 20+ points tends to result in soft coverage.

 

Oh well, I'm sure Porter will live to regret those words in the seasons ahead, so there's no need for me to call him an idiot, although I will anyway.

 

IDIOT...

[Guest Kinetic]

It's awfully easy to talk shit after the game. McNabb did it, too. Someone asked him "Is the Tampa defense really that good?" to which he replied, "No, they're not." Then why'd your offense score all ten points on a short field and look like shit for the rest of the game? And Jerry Porter, well...fuck him.

[Guest jimmy no nose]

Jerry Porter isn't someone who should talk about guys only looking good because of their teammates.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

You know, I don't get the big deal regarding the question of is one team's offense/defense better than *insert name of other team*.

 

Is Tampa Defense better than the Ravens of '00, the Bears of '85 or the Steelers of '76? Who knows and who cares?

 

They were good enough to win a Super Bowl. People like Porter/McNabb need to grow up...

[Guest Sassquatch]

They were good enough to win a Super Bowl. People like Porter/McNabb need to grow up...

 

You could say that about nearly the entire league kkk.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I'm really suprised McNabb shut his off mouth. He never struck me has being the sore loser type.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I guess I can put Porter on the "Raiders I specifically hate" list

[Guest Kinetic]

All right, I guess I should take preventative measures against soiling the good name of Donovan McNabb on this board. It was on a Fox Sports Net thing and, like I said above, he basically just said that Tampa's defense wasn't that good and could be conquered with the proper offensive scheme and execution thereof. It just struck me--as a Bucs fan--as a weird thing for him to say after getting his ass handed to him a few days prior by that defense. It was nowhere near the level of Jerry Porter's comments.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Well, sifting through the bile, they both did make a couple of valid points, IMO.

[Guest Flyboy]

Valid points, yes.

 

But not valid enough to help either of them win a Super Bowl.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Well, I wasn't disputing that because, hell, they blew it, plain and simple.

 

Something that made me think was what Porter said...

 

"The Ravens' defense (in 2000), they were hell against the run. You can run on the Bucs. We just didn't. We didn't because that's not our structure this year."

 

A friend of mine actually taped the game and I watched it eariler today and saw the Jerry Rice "Miked Up" segment where he and Porter were chatting and he said they should run the ball more. I may sound naive, but I'd be willing to bet he saw something that they could have exploited, but didn't(they had what? 11 carries?) because Callahan didn't listen or something.

 

Of course it doesn't mean anything anyway considering that the game is over with, but I've always liked breaking down game plans.

 

 

Is Tampa Defense better than the Ravens of '00, the Bears of '85 or the Steelers of '76? Who knows and who cares?

 

They were good enough to win a Super Bowl. People like Porter/McNabb need to grow up...

While true, the Bucs themselves said that, so they should expect to take some heat for it. If they want to brag about being the best defense ever, they should be concerned with backing it up on the field.

[Guest Kinetic]

Well, I thought that intercepting the league MVP 5 times (3 for touchdowns) and basically just handing the #1 offense in the NFL a brutal ass-whipping in the Super Bowl went some way towards backing it up on the field.

[Guest El Satanico]

I don't think running would've helped the Raiders much either.

 

Their offensive line was just getting trashed by the Bucs Dline. Garner would've had a tough time just getting pass the line of scrimmage. Then if he got past that he'd been getting killed by linebackers who were unblocked because the line was getting blown up by Tampa's front four.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Well, I thought that intercepting the league MVP 5 times (3 for touchdowns) and basically just handing the #1 offense in the NFL a brutal ass-whipping in the Super Bowl went some way towards backing it up on the field.

Maybe, but they still aren't as great as the other defenses listed that they compared themselves to, which was my whole point. If they hadn't had some games during the season where they just got manhandled(like the Pittsburgh game), then yeah, they backed it up, but they didn't and should save it for when they actually have a season like those listed.

[Guest Kinetic]

Pittsburgh scored all seventeen of their points in that game in the first quarter, seven of them on defense. I'm not sure what Dictionary of Exaggerated Terms you're culling your definition of "manhandled" from, but ten points does not equal a manhandling.

[Guest El Satanico]

They allowed Pittsburge's OFFENSE 10 points for the entire game and all 10 came early in the first quarter. I'd hardly call that being manhandled. And hell if Brad Johnson was playing they would've likely won it.

 

I see that kinetic grabbed this one before i could

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Okay, I had the wrong game in mind(I meant the New Orleans games where they dropped 20+ both times).

 

Also, I guess "manhandled" isn't the word I was looking for, but when you give up 20 points to friggin' DETROIT, then you need to watch what you compare yourself to.

[Guest Flyboy]

(I meant the New Orleans games where they dropped 20+ both times)

All on offense, I may add.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

I meant the Bucs D/Special Teams allowed 20+ both times...

[Guest Flyboy]

APO, I knew what you meant.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Damn... I forgot to put the emoticon in to show I was fucking around...

 

Goddamn flu medicine.

[Guest Flyboy]

Or as I like to say,

 

"Goddamn weed."

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Hahahaha!

 

I'd have to agree. I feel like I'm friggin' stoned... and watching the PPG waiting for Futurama.

[Guest DrTom]

The Raiders have done this kind of thing before. After the 2000 AFC Championship game, in which the Raiders were beaten 16-3 by the Ravens, Tyrone Wheatley said of the Ravens' defense: "I wasn't impressed." This is after he swore all week they could run on the Ravens, then prompty went out and averaged 1.8 FEET per carry (18 rushes, 10 yards). Obviously, it's hard for an offensive player to judge the strength of a defense when he spends the majority of the game on his backside. Porter's childish attempts to save face ring the same. You lost; get over it, move on, and try to come back stronger next season.

 

I watched it eariler today and saw the Jerry Rice "Miked Up" segment where he and Porter were chatting and he said they should run the ball more. I may sound naive, but I'd be willing to bet he saw something that they could have exploited, but didn't(they had what? 11 carries?) because Callahan didn't listen or something.

The problem is, their offensive line played like shit. Of course, run blocking is different from pass blocking, so they have done better that way. Tampa's front 4, while quick, give away a lot of size, and a big offensive line executing a power running game should be able to grind them down. (The main difference between Tampa and the 2000 Ravens is right there: no one could run on the Ravens, while the Bucs can be exploited on the ground.) I would have started by pounding Tyrone Wheatley at then, then using Charlie Garner once the defense has worn down a bit.

 

As for Callahan, he stuck with what got the team there: a dedicated passing attack. The problem is, the Raiders' offensive scheme isn't good at overcoming three-score deficits. I thought his worst decision came early in the second half, when he punted on 4th-and-2 while down 21-3. Sure, they were on their own 40 yard line, but you HAVE to make something happen there. You have the #1 offense in the league, for chrissakes. If you can't gain two fucking yards when you need them, you should pull your team off the field and pack it in. I'm generally not a fan of going for it on 4th down in your own territory, but it's the Super Bowl. There's no tomorrow. Win or go home. Callahan packed it in right there, and the Bucs nailed the coffin shut with their next drive. I remember shouting, "WHY are you punting!?" when that happened (keep in mind I was rooting for the Bucs), and at least my roommate had the sense to agree with me.

 

Then again, no one ever beat a Cover-2 by having two Hall of Fame receivers run seven-yard out patterns and short routes across the middle. The touchdowns by Porter and Rice showed the kinds of plays the Raiders should have been running. Granted, Rice's touchdown came at garbage time, but deep posts are an excellent strategy against the Cover-2. It's a shame for the Raiders and their fans that their strategy was so lacking the rest of the day.