hash@inuxg.UUCP (01/17/84)
as a hole.
1. Raiders and rookies, the two go together like bread and butter. Of course
thats what got them were they are with this game. Give the rooky the ball
and go man go! Raiders and Rookies, not good at all.
2. Big John, Yes sir ladys and gentailmen step right up and see the human
battering ram "Big John Riggins !". Heavy duty runner, you can put your
money down that Big John will get his yards with ease.
3. Little Joe, COULD have real big problems. Every west coast football team
has a very tuff secondary, as compaired with the secondarys of the east-
sea board. Little Joe had a very tuff day last weekend with the San Fran
secondary, remember?
4. Defence: Oakland/LA Raiders
Offence: BIG Bad John
Spc Teams: Raider defence (2 bloted field goals in game)
Coaching Staff: Joe Gibbs is running like a little bitty bunny rabbit
running through a FOX'S den, during a cold winter day.
Turn Overs: rookies will fumable, no way around it people.
12'th Man Advantage: Washington has a lot of money, but LA has a lot
moeny its self.
5. Winner: I will have to givbe it the those boys from the only city in
United State that has a booth for the President of the United
States. Washington by a very impressive 14 points.
49'ERS !!!
- tims@shark.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (01/24/84)
The Raider offense wasn't particularly impressive, although it did produce a few big plays. The Raider offense might have been more productive had there been a need for it, but since the Skins were all but helpless against the Raider defense, the Raiders needed only to produce a mediocre offensive effort. When leading the game, offenses tend to be more conservative. But let's hear it for the Raiders, beating the crap out of the east coast favorite. As a Raider fan for 11 years, the playoffs couldn't have gone any better. I wonder why the Redskins were favored to win the superbowl? Especially after looking at the AFC and NFC championship games, one had to suspect the Raiders were ready to smash the Redskins.
stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (01/30/84)
I must take issue with Ken Kaufman's statement that the Super Bowl was evenly played except for six big plays. First, the average team only gets the ball 13 times per game, so hypothetically taking away the six most productive plays from a team and assuming zero yards and zero points is unsound. They well may have scored on some of those possesions anyway. In order to make the comparison fair, one must, at the very least, take away the Redskins' six biggest plays. (E.g., the sixty-yard pass to Brown, the two fumble recoveries, a pass or two to Didier.) Take away those plays and see if the game is even. The Redskins got where they did this season by making the big play--their turnover difference was ~ +43 (roughly three per game). If you take away 43 turnovers from Skins during the regular season, they would, by Ken's arguments, probably be in under .500 on the season. Why do people say that the Raiders domimated? It's because the Redskins had gotten to the Super Bowl primarily by dominating other teams in these areas: 1. Forcing turnovers and capitalizing on them, and minimizing their own turnovers. 2. Riggins dominant running behind the Hogs. 3. Theismann's passing to Brown and Monk. 4. Stopping the run on defense. In the Super Bowl, the Raider basically nullified these Redskin strengths: 1. Forced four Redskin turnovers (if you include the blocked punt as a turnover), two resulting directly in TD's, while giving up only two. 2. Stopped Riggins for under 2.5 yards/per carry. 15 of 26 of his carries were for 2 yards or less. Only 3 were for 5 yards or greater (5, 6, and 8). (Yes, I know that one of his 1-yarders was a TD, but he was also stopped on a 4th-and-1 play.) Clearly the Raider defense dominated the Skins' running game. 3. Skins' wide receivers caught only 5 passes all day (6 if you count pass interference as a completion), while Theismann was sacked 6 times. Altogether, Theismann was 5 for 17 on passes to wide receivers, with one interception. If you assume that the sacks were on pass plays that were meant to go to wide receivers, one could argue that the Skins collectively were 6 for 24 on pass plays to wide receivers. (The Raiders were 7 for 11 on pass plays to wide receivers, including sacks and pass interference.) Clearly, the Raiders defense dominated the Skins WR passing game. About the only thing the Skins did at all well was on passes to backs and tight ends, where they were 10 for 16 with one interception, averaging 6.2 yards/play. (The Raider offense was 10 for 16 with no interceptions, for an average of 4.9 yards/play.) 4. The Redskins did not contain Allen's running all that well, period. Only 7 of his 20 carries were for two yards or less, while 9 were for 5 yards or more. He averaged a very respectable 4.3 yards per carry even when his two long-gainers are not counted. The Raiders remaining running backs averaged 3.5 yards on 12 carries. The reason that the Washington defense did not give up as many yards as they might have is that the Raider offense effectively had three fewer possessions than did the Redskins, due to turnovers: 1. Raiders lose one offensive possession because blocked punt is recovered for TD. 2. Raiders lose another possession due to Watts' "fumble" of a punt. 3. Raiders lose another possession because interception of screen pass is returned for TD. Rather than looking at total yardage, a statistic such as "number of times punted", or "average number of yards per offensive possession" might be more appropriate. A similar argument can be made against an insinuation that the Redskins' offense was as effective the Raiders' because they got more first downs. (Its hard to chalk up lots of first downs with 74-yard runs.) Another indication of the Raiders domination is the average number of yards gained on first down. I don't have the figures on me, but they were impressive. I agree with Ken that it was the Raider defense (not the offense, or Marcus) that was the most outstanding aspect of in the game, and that a strong case can be made for Hayes, Haynes, Long or someone on the defense to have gotten the MVP. Steve Vegdahl
tims@shark.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (02/01/84)
__---------__
_~ ~_
/ \
~ ~
/_____________________\
| | | XXXX |
| | | XXXX |
| \__/ XXX |
\ * /
--\ *** /--
| | *** | |
| | | |
| vvVvvvvvvvVvv |
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ |
\_ _/
~---------~
Raiders 38
Redskins 9
Largest margin of victory and most points scored in any superbowl.tims@shark.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (02/06/84)
Path: shark!orca!tektronix!decvax!linus!philabs!seismo!carey > To Tim Stoehr, I just want to say that my original article (with > the tee-hee's and ha-ha's) was meant to be humorous, most certainly > not serious. What makes you think my reply was any different? I'll tell you why, it's because you're on the losing end now. 49'er fans were offended at your article, I remember one person posting an article saying that your comments were offensive and inappropriate. It follows that Redskin fans would feel the same way about my article, which was very similar to your original article, with Redskins substituted for 49'ers, and Raiders substituted for Redskins. It seems you weren't prepared for a turnaround. Turnabout is fair play, you should take my article in the same light as you meant yours in, mine was no more serious or offensive. As for the Skins losing because they were so overconfident that they failed to prepare for the game. How could this be? They only managed a last second defeat over the Raiders earlier in the season, and the week before, the 49'ers gave them quit a run. What on earth would give them cause not to prepare for the game? Could it have been the fact that the Raiders had crushed the Steelers and Seahawks in the two preceeding weeks? Maybe they knew they couldn't possibly win.
stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (01/21/85)
Here's my quick analysis of the '85 Super Bowl, a game which, as 49er fan, I very much enjoyed. Miami's defense (ranked LAST against the run this season in yards allowed per carry) allowed quite a few points to the Niner's offense, as could have been expected. For the Dolphins to win, they need another outstanding day from Marino and company; they didn't get it, and hence lost the game. San Francisco put excellent pressure on Marino, especially in the second half when he had no choice but to throw the ball. Even in the first half when the pass rush wasn't as pronounced, Marino seemed to be having an "off" day. I haven't seen any stats of the game, but my impression was that there were very few penalties during the game. Might this have been a Super Bowl record? Steve Vegdahl Computer Research Lab. Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon
wbs@cybvax0.UUCP (William B. Solomon) (01/20/86)
To all you out there predicting a Chicago blowout: You Know Nothing about the Patriots! Normally the pointspread for this game would be 4-6 points, but it is not the oddsmakers responsibility to predict the outcome. The oddsmakers responsibility is to predict the publics perception of the game, and if this group is a good representation of that, they're doing allright. The oddsmaker puts up a number that will hopefully divide the money of the public in half. I think the the over-exposure of the bears (commercials, music videos, interviews, etc) has contributed to the increase in the line. The key to New England is balance. The Patriots have the ability to do all things well. Yet, their only national exposure has come recently and all that the public sees is run, run, run and turnovers. Hence, the public thinks that this is the Patriots, and that this plays right into the Bears hands. The pats have had little need to pass recently, especially against Miami. At LA against the Raiders it was essential for the Patriots to establish and after being down 17-7 re-establish the run. This is what they did, They did not want to be put in obvious passing situations. What needs to be understood is that they stayed out of circumstances which would have tested the teams balance. Thus the public concludes that they can't pass. The public is dead wrong. This game against the bears will provide such a test. Raymond Berry Does what is necessary to win games. You can expect the Patriots to show balance and have enough success to keep the game close, and possibly win outright. William Solomon Brighton, Ma.
paul@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (Paul Brownlow, Data I/O Redmond, WA) (01/27/86)
> > To all you out there predicting a Chicago blowout: > You Know Nothing about the Patriots! > > > William Solomon > Brighton, Ma. Or is it that Patriot fans know nothing about the Bears? 46-10. I suppose you will say that New England just had a bad day and that the Patsies would win if they played again. ONE first down in 30 minutes???!!!!! Enough slander. -- ------- Paul Brownlow Data I/O Corp. Redmond, WA ..uw-beaver!teltone!dataio!pilchuck!paul "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"