What team has been royally screwed in the NFL the 1st 3 weeks?

[Ishoutandscream2]

Without a doubt, the Oakland Raiders. Paul Tagliabue has two renegade nemeses; Jerry Jones is one, and the original outlaw, Al Davis, is the other. Now maybe the ol' tin foil hat is screwed on rather tightly, but it seems someone wasn't looking out for the poor Raiders the first three weeks.

I have been fortunate enough to have viewed all three Raider games. In each one, they hung tough and look pretty good. Granted, they are still the Raiders of old, committing dumb penalties at the most inopportune moments.

But think about the scheduling. Week one against New England on the road. Week two, at home to a much improved and super bowl contending Kansas City. And week 3, on the road at Philly. Two of their first three games were on the road - against the two super bowl contenders from last year. You think ol' Al is scratching his head over this one?

Well, you say, Al's team does have a mediocre Dallas team at home next week. But guess what? Dallas played at San Fran yesterday, and is staying in the Bay area all week. No plane travel or jet lag. The scheduling helped out Dallas by giving them two back-to-back road games in the same general vicinity. Would the NFL office intentionally do this to Al? Probably not, when Jerry Jones is enemy number two. Still, the tin foil hat is seeming to fit a little more. Just enough to make me think Oakland is a much better team than their 0 and 3 mark states.

[trotsky]

1. They should have won the Chiefs game at least.

But being a Vikings fan, I know all about the "pushoff" penalties that Moss has been called for. Thing is, he makes DBs look totally inept, and as long as they can *act* like he pushed off, the refs will assume that he did, and throw the flag.

As far as a league-wide conspiracy, no, I don't buy into that. Why did they let the Raiders into the Super Bowl a few years ago, then? And it was no conspiracy that made them lose that game, it was the stupidity of the coaching staff not to change the audibles or playcalls when the former head coach is on the other sideline.

[Ishoutandscream2]

4. True. But remember what got the Patriots roll going

The so called "no fumble" in the snow at Foxboro. That right there got me to thinking about conspiracies against Oakland.

By the way, I'm not an Oakland fan. Just putting all this out there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Have you SEEN the Patriots' schedule??

Elias Sports Bureau has deemed this the toughest opening schedule in NFL history. Just look at this treachery:

vs Oakland (which isn't THAT bad)
at Carolina
at Pittsburgh
vs San Diego
at Atlanta
at Denver

After the bye, it doesn't get much better for them, with Buffalo and Indy coming to town. Hell this schedule would be tough even if you ignored who they're actually playing against. 4 of their first 6 on the road? Insane.

[Ishoutandscream2]

3. I have seen scheduling like that for Super Bowl champs before

In the 94 season, Dallas was looking to three peat. On a Monday night, they played a tough home game against Philly, which they won. Then, the next Sunday, they were scheduled to play San Fran in San Fran. And that was the year after they met in the NFC championship game. I still suspect the NFL did this intentionally, because again, Jerry Jones is not well liked by the league office. And 2, no matter how much the 49ers broke all sorts of salary cap rules and finagled the true intentions of the cap, they were still the darlings of the league office.

[Arkana]

6. I saw SD play last night, and they played remarkably well.

But if Drew Brees reverts back to Week 1 & 2 form, that could spell trouble for the Chargers. Atlanta will be difficult--containing Vick is never easy--and Denver? I'm not exactly sure about them...never a way to tell exactly what you'll get from week to week with the Broncos.

[bookman]

5. Bye in Week Three

The teams that got a bye in Week Three. How stupid can that be?

[Ishoutandscream2]

13. Yep, good point. The NFL has done that the last few years

Not right at all. These guys will need a break later on. Very, very stupid.

[WilliamPitt]

7. You want to complain about scheduling?

The Pats: Oakland, and then away at Carolina, and then away at Pittsburg, and then San Diego (that's three playoff teams in a row, two on the road), then away at Atlanta, then away at Denver, then a bye, then Buffalo, and then Indy.

Four away games against excellent teams in the first six games.

Look, by comparison, at the Colts first nine games.

Away at Baltimore, then home against Jacksonville and Cleveland, away to Tennessee and San Francisco, home against St. Louis, away to Houston, bye, then away against the Pats. Five of those teams won't win eight games this year.

I'm not complaining. We're the champs and so we have to do it. But methinks the league wants Manning to hoist the trophy this year.

[Tafiti]

9. Give me a break.

Newsflash: The NFL schedule is pre-determined through 2009. Before the 2003 season, you could've gone "Hmmm, I wonder who the Pats play in the 2005 season?" Simple research would've revealed that they play the NFC South and the AFC West, plus 6 intradivision games. That's 14 out of 16. So they give 'em Pittsburgh and Indy. They're last year's playoff teams that theoretically promise good, exciting football. Case in point, NE v. Pit yesterday. Great game.

The Colts got NFC West and AFC North. Then they throw 'em NE and San Diego - again two playoff teams from the year before. Seems perfectly fair to me.

My Bengals got KC and Buffalo - two teams that barely missed the playoffs, like the Bengals.

The only thing that the NFL controls (besides those 2 games) is home and away scheduling. So the Pats got 4 of their first 6 on the road. Guess what? So did the Bengals. Does Tagliabue have it in for the Bengals?

[Awsi Dooger]

29. That's the version I agree with

Excellent points, Tafiti.

I'm a Dolphin fan. In our message boards everyone is screaming we had the toughest schedule especially at the beginning. Then I look at this thread and Raider, Patriot and other schedules are deemed unfair.

Like you wrote, it's pre-determined years in advance. The teams in each division are assigned specific divisions to play against, so that basically balances it among division rivals. I don't get the beefs, other than the Saints who obviously were screwed by playing at New York on Monday night and then shipped to face a non-division opponent six days later.

Scheduling is something I've studied since the late '90s, via Excel. Many of the unfair assignments have been eliminated, via the switch to 4 team divisions. When it was 5 teams divisions you had strings or 3, 4, 5 or even more consecutive division games for a given team, and nothing more than 2 for others. That was blatantly unfair. It's difficult to maintain intensity over a stretch like that vs. foes who know your personnel and tendencies. Then invariably the team coming off a string of division games would flop one week after the stretch ended.

Now you've got short weeks and little else. Going on the road after Monday night is a negative assignment, especially if the opponent is non-division. Then you've got Thanksgiving. Road the week before and road Thanksgiving is brutal but seldom asked. The Saturday games late in the season are less impactful but it's still disadvantageous if you're asked to play a non-division game on the road on Saturday.

The equalizer is you never know what the status of a team will be the week you're asked to play them. Like the year when Michael Vick missed all but the final month.

[deebo550]

36. You hit the nail on the head

NFL schedules are pre-determined. You said it all perfectly! Patriots fans are so whiney, sheesh...

[sniffa]

37. *snort*

who's the whiney fans?

i weLcome the toughest scheduLe possibLe. more ammo when the pats win another super bowL.

the point that the scheduLe is predertimed years in advance, is onLy partiaLLy true - the scheduLe is set based on where each team finishes in their respective divisions. (ie: 1st pLace AFC east pLays 3rd pLace NFC centraL in 2008, etc)

so yes, the theoreticaL scheduLe is determined years in advance, but a team Like the atLanta faLcons, couLd Lose michaeL vick for a season, finish Last, and then get an easier scheduLe the foLLowing season for his return, etc...

[deebo550]

38. I do think Patriots fans are whiney, yes.

Just look at some of the recent posts from Patriots fans. In my experience, their fans have been overly pompous and rude. They are not the only excellent team in the NFL, nor are they anywhere near a shoe-in for Detroit (particularly given the way they have been playing lately). I do not think they will win another Super Bowl given the way they have been playing lately, nor do I think they will even play in the Super Bowl. They have been consistently sloppy and disorganized. They are still a great team of course, but I do not feel they are on the level they were in previous years. There are other teams who want it more and are playing better football this season.

[sniffa]

39. i obviousLy disagree with your view of the whiny fans

the most obnoxious and whiny fans are the steeLers' fans.

though, oakLand gives them a good run.

[deebo550]

40. Hmm.

I will have to agree with Oakland fans being whiney. They are certainly in a class all their own.

[Tafiti]

44. Not true.

It's a fixed, rotating cycle - next year they play AFC South and NFC North.

For 2006, to use the Patriots as an example, here are 14 of their 16 games:

Jets
Dolphins
Bills
Jets
Dolphins
Bills
Colts
Texans
Jaguars
Titans
Bears
Vikings
Lions
Packers

The remaining two games is actually somewhat formulaic, though based on the prior year's standings. Again using the Patriots, since they play the AFC South next year, next year's remaining two games will be against a team from AFC North and AFC West, and will correspond according to how they placed in their division. For exmaple, if the Patriots win the division, they'll play the division winners of the AFC North and AFC West next year.

[bmbmd]

8. You bet your hat there is a conspiracy

against Oakland and Dallas. Drew Pearson? Not in the Hall of Fame with better stats than the next governor of Pennsylvania. Michael Irvin? Not a chance to be selected to the HOF. Rayfield Wright? Never heard of him. Plus, the scheduling of back-to-back west coast games was probably deliberate-Jerry just outsmarted the NFL. (again)

[Ishoutandscream2]

11. And Cliff Harris and Bob Hayes

Even some national sportswriters (Zimmerman, for one) has stated that their is an obvious bias against the cowboys from the voters. He even resigned from the committee for old timers when they once again voted against Hayes, who revolutionized the vertical game with his speed.

There should be just as many Cowboys in the hall as the Steelers, Raiders, and Packers. There is definitely a bias.

[northzax]

17. Irvin would be a first ballot guy

if it wasn't for that little cocaine problem...

[Ishoutandscream2]

19. True, but a guy named Lawrence Taylor really had a problem

and still does, but yet.......

[northzax]

22. but LT got busted after his trip to Canton

not before.

[getmeouttahere]

31. I wonder if this is why Oakland and Dallas always play in the preseason...

Jerry and Al have something in common.

[Ravenseye]

10. New Orleans

To even think that any other team has had it harder than them is just nuts.

First, they lost their city and their home field. Living on the road at all times, always in hotels, never going home.

Second, they play an extra road game. You think the NFL screwed the Raiders by giving them a string of tough games? What about giving the Saints a 'home' game against the Giants in New York? They could have put the game in San Antonio, or Houston, or Dallas, or at LSU. Hell even putting it in Los Angeles would have been better than giving the Giants an extra home game.

Case Closed.

[Ishoutandscream2]

12. Good point. I really counted them out before it even started

They got screwed especially with the scheduling of a "home game" in New York. A royal screwing.

On another note, wonder if NFC East teams will complain about New York's extra home game.

[Ravenseye]

14. They already have

At least to my understanding, and Tagliabue basically said "hey these guys are competetors they like a challenge" or some crap. When San Diego had to reschedule their game against the Dolphins because of those forest fires they put the game in Arizona so that people had a chance to get out there, and they sold out. They didn't reschedule the game in Miami.

Putting it in New York was a very very bad decision for a number of reasons, not only because it was unfair to the SAints, but it's unfair to the NFC and all teams in the NFC who might be competeing against the Giants for home field advantage or a wild card berth or some such.

Why they didn't put it in San Antonio or Houston (which they could have. Reliant Stadium in Houston was available and offered to host the game) I don't know.

My tin foil hat though thinks it's more to do with them not being happy enough with Eli Manning and they want him to be the next big star, so giving him an extra home game might help him make the playoffs.

[Ishoutandscream2]

15. I say your hat fits quite nicely. It was a big stage for Eli, wasn't it?

The next superstar, and he's in the city of New York, to boot.

[Ravenseye]

16. I'll never understand the belief that stars need to be in NYC

Whenever a new star hits the scene you inevitably hear that they belong in a big market. That they should play for New York. That it'd be good for the league.

The NBA does quite well with stars in other places besides NY. There were people from the NHL that thought they'd be better off with Sidney Crosby with the Rangers because he'd have more visibility. How? It didn't seem to hurt Gretzky to be in Edmonton, Lemieux to be in Pittsburgh, Jordan to be in Chicago, Lebron to be in Cleveland...

or even some guy named Peyton in Indianapolis.

[northzax]

18. of course is matters

it might not have hurt Gretzky and Messier to be in Edmonton, but how much bigger were the ratings, and therefore the revenues, when they were in LA and New York, respectively? How much bigger were the ratings for Shaq in LA than Orlando or Miami? Players may do well in smaller markets, but the league as a whole, and therefore everyone's salary, goes up when they are in big markets.

Put it this way, there are more people in New York City, alone, than in Indiana. And more money. You want a big star, on a big stage to pump viewship and sponsorships. It's why Tiger Woods only plays big tournaments, why smaller leagues, like MLS, put their starts in big markets.

[Ishoutandscream2]

20. Agree to an extent, which begs the question about LA

Los Angeles doesn't even have an NFL franchise. That's something you would think the league would once again look at. I could possibly see a New Orleans move to LA. However, I don't wish that on New Orleans fans.

[northzax]

24. with a presence in LA

the NFL would make even more money, but the city won't play ball on giving away the store to get a team.

[getmeouttahere]

33. Damn right, and I applaud our local politicians....

for saying no to building a stadium with public funds. Particularly given the fact that the NFL's gargantuan TV contract pays the salaries of the league's players all by itself, it shouldn't make any difference where an L.A. team plays. And the Coliseum, while old, is a perfectly good facility, with tons of history and tons of seats!

[Ravenseye]

21. For every case there are a number that don't

What does it matter for there to be a big star in New York? The games are all sellouts simply because of how many people are there. The Rangers have been sold out consistently for how many years? Moving a star there didn't increase attendance.

Did the Lakers ratings go up when they got Shaq? No they didn't. They were already through the roof.

Messier did nothing to increase ratings or revenue in New York. Gretzky's impact on the Kings was high for a short period, but didn't really get him the big money. When Gretzky was with the Kings in the early nineties, who spent the most money in the NHL on salary? The Penguins.

You could argue that a player moving to a larger market will pull in more revenue from jersey sales, etc, but you'd be wrong. In most leagues that sort of material is shared under a salary cap evenly between teams. Even so, the number one best selling jersey the past couple of years has been Randy Moss with Minnesota and Oakland. Number two this year is Roethlesberger in Pittsburgh.

Your argument just doesn't hold water. Golf is a completely separate situation, and MLS chose it's markets not because of size but because of the cultural makeup of the area's populations (hispanic areas with lots of soccer fans) and sports marketing share availability (Columbus was a huge market, larger than Cleveland and Cinncinati yet had no professional teams when they came there).

The only thing it seems to affect are national sports writers who are located or from New York.

[northzax]

23. ticket sales are meaningless

to the major professional sports, as a general rule. The money is in TV. There are more TV viewers in New York or LA than Indianapolis, which is why the Knicks and the Lakers can spend more on players than the Pacers. Plus the local sponsorship opportunities for the players is better. More people watch the Lakers than the Timberwolves, no matter how good the two teams may be. Why did more people watch the Championship series, on a game by game basis, between the Red Sox and the Yankees than the World Series? Why are the lowest rated NBA series between teams like San Antonio and the Pistons, as opposed to any time the Lakers are in it? more people in LA. You could have every single TV set in San Antionio and Detroit tuned in, and it still not half the number in LA. Having the good teams in big markets is, in the long run, the best thing for the financial health of the game.

The effect may have been more pronounced in the past, but it still exists. Do you think Jordan would have been the same superstar, across the culture, had he played his entire career in Portland instead of Chicago?

The NFL has been an abberation to this rule, with the lack of LA presence and a bigger national fan base,

Golf is the same situtation, to be successful, you put your biggest stars on the biggest stages. MLS puts their most attractive players in the areas where they will generate the most revenue for the league, but they're still dependant on selling tickets, instead of TV, so they have the luxury of filling in niche markets.

[Ravenseye]

25. Your point is flawed

Yes ticket sales are meaningless, you are right that the money is in television, but as far as ratings go, you're off base. The biggest markets aren't always the biggest ratings machines on television for sports. When a league has an effective salary cap all those additional revenues do is is fill the coffers of the owner, unless there is progressive revenue sharing, in which case all owners gain.

The ratings for the Steelers nationwide far outstrips that of the Giants. The ratings for the Blue Jackets in Columbus exceeds that of Los Angeles.

You point out the Red Sox and Yankees. You're right when it comes to Baseball, and slightly less about Basketball. Baseball is skewed. The Red Sox and Yankees are in a different league the the rest. Their ratings are high because both teams spend so much on so many stars that people expect the games to be good, which they usually are. If the Kansas City Royals and the Milwaukee Brewers were that dominant for so long, and the Red Sox and the Yankees basement dwellers, I guarnatee you the ratings would be higher for them. Heck, just think back to the 80's. It's not hard. You have to look at the big picture, not just now.

AS far as Jordan, if the Trailblazers had been as dominant as the Bulls for so long and won so many titles, and had the same players, and led by Jordan being just the same....Yes. He would have been the same level superstar.

Hell his jersey is worn by people around the world who have no real idea what Chicago's standing is like in the world.

Just look at the current superstars in sports. Even in Baseball which is the worst offender there are stars everywhere. The biggest bestest stars don't always go to New York or LA, in fact usually they don't. Just because the Yankees have a huge revenue stream right now from television doesn't mean that NY has a better revenue stream over a smaller city, it just means the team has been good for a long time now, and each year they get better, and more dominant. If there were a hard cap in Baseball, and the same financial setup as the NFL I guarantee you the Yankee ratings, and attendance, would disappear.

Still even if you were 100% right on television ratings being the key indicator it still doesn't matter. That's just within the market itself. All a bigger ratings draw in New York means that more new yorkers will see him and he'll be more famous in new york.

[northzax]

26. ok, I'll accept your point

by the way, can you please let me know the most profitable franchises in the major sports?

1: Yankees.
2: Redskins
3. Cowboys
4. Braves (abberant TV with TBS)
5. Red Sox
6. Lakers
7. Knicks


with the exception of Atlanta, which had Ted Turner's TBS to nationalize the fan base, they are all large market teams. over 5 million people in a metro area. Of them, the Redskins are the smallest market, but the wealthiest, per capita. Basketball has a strong salary cap, and the best team in a small market (San Antonio) but the highest ratings are when the big city teams play, why do the Lakers and Knicks get national TV time when they aren't making the playoffs?

you are right that if Milwaukee had been dominant for the past 20 years, they'd be stars, the fact is that, in any sport, they simply can't be, since they don't have the revenue. The Packers got lucky with Brett Favre, an easily marketable, popular QB that people wanted to play with, but without him, they will slide back to obscurity, until the next one comes along. The Cavaliers got lucky with Lebron James (perhaps) when's the last time the Cavs won a playoff game again? even with him?

You make the connection between fame and success as if the success breeds the fame, as opposed to the other way round. Why are the Jets, hardly a successful franchise, worth more than the Rams? check out this Forbes valuation of NFL teams: http://football.about.com/cs/news/a/bl_2003values.htm teams with new stadiums out rank teams with old ones, teams in bigger markets outrank teams with same age stadiums in smaller markets, for the most part. as a general rule, teams in larger markets out perform, over time, teams in smaller markets, both on the field and as a valuation process.

name one single sports league in the US in which the national championship has been won, over 50% of the time, in the past decade, by teams from outside the top 30% market size. oh wait, there is one league...the NHL how're they doing these days, anyway? good TV deal?

[Ravenseye]

27. I think we have a disconnect

I agree with most of what you say here. You're right about the profitable teams being what is considered 'large market'. The Lakers are getting exposure now because of their past success. Again, if they had sucked for the past 10 years, they wouldn't be on national television very much. Just look at the Clippers. You dont' see the Bulls on national television much anymore. Number 3 market.

Why are the Jets worth more than the Rams? Why are the Texans worth more than all but 2? Yeah the stadium. And the Jets are worth more simply because they are in New York. Rich people would prefer a team in New York City to one in St. Louis.

It's not the market. The least valuable team? The Arizona Cardinals. When exactly were they last good? Large Market. 16th in fact.

As far as a league from teams outside the top 30% market size, what's that 30% based on. Most 'market's don't have any teams in this country. Still lets count it based on the markets which have baseball, football, basketball or hockey teams...Here are the markets

1-10
21,199,865 New York City
16,373,645 Lost Angeles
9,157,540 Chicago
7,608,070 Baltimore
7,039,362 Bay Area (Oakland / San Francisco)
6,188,463 Philadelphia
5,819,100 Boston
5,456,428 Detroit
5,221,801 Dallas
4,682,897 Toronto

11-20
4,669,571 Houston
4,112,198 Atlanta
3,878,380 Miami
3,554,760 Seattle
3,426,350 Montréal
3,251,876 Phoenix
2,968,806 Minneapolis/St. Paul
2,945,831 Cleveland
2,813,833 San Diego
2,603,607 St Louis

21-30
2,581,506 Denver
2,395,997 Tampa Bay
2,358,695 Pittsburgh
2,265,223 Portland
1,986,965 Vancouver
1,979,202 Cincinnati
1,796,857 Sacramento
1,776,062 Kansas City
1,689,572 Milwaukee
1,644,561 Orlando

31-40
1,607,486 Indianapolis
1,592,383 San Antonio
1,540,157 Columbus
1,499,293 Charlotte
1,337,726 New Orleans
1,333,914 Salt Lake City
1,231,311 Nashville
1,187,941 Raleigh
1,170,111 Buffalo
1,135.614 Memphis

41-45
1,100,491 Jacksonville
1,063,664 Ottawa
951,395 Calgary
937,845 Edmonton
599,671 Green Bay

To be out of the top 30% of all sports markets in the U.S. and Canada with a pro team you'd have to not be in one of the top 13 markets. Lets look at the NFL and the last 10 winners.

Five teams from the top 13 markets. Patriots 2005, Patriots 2004, Patriots 2002, Baltimore 2001, Dallas 1996

Five teams from outside the top 30% of all sports market. Tampa Bay 2003, St. Louis 2000, Denver 1999, Denver 1998, Green Bay 1997

So Name one single sports league in the US in which the national championship has been won, over 50% of the time in the past decade by teams from outside the top 30% market size. I can't. The NFL is exactly at 50%. The NBA Is at 70% for top 13 markets. MLB is 90%, with only the Diamondbacks winning outside the top 13 markets, and that was the top 14th.

It's actually kind of interesting. MLB has the worst competitive balance and the top 13 markets dominate 90% of the past 10 championships. the NBA has a slightly more competitive balance, though it's still skewed and is at 70%. The NFL is highly balanced and even with the Patriot's run is at 50% even.

Anyway. The whole thing misses my entire point, hence my subject line. I never argued that the larger market teams didn't win more. I never argued about franchise profitability.

All I'm saying is that a star doesn't necessarily have to be in a big market to be a star. You pointed out Favre. Perfect example. There are plenty in the NFL. Who is a bigger star in the NFL? Peyton Manning or Chad Pennington?

What I was saying is that you don't have to be in a big market to be a marketable star. Randy Moss was one of the biggest stars in the league and lead with jersey sales and he was in #17 Minneapolis. Why is Lebron James misplaced at #18 Cleveland? Michael Jordan may have worked his magic in #3 Chicago, but what does that say about the Mailman in #36 Salt Lake City?

The big market teams tend to win more, they tend to earn more, and in unbalanced leagues like MLB with essentially no salary cap, and low age free agency, most of the stars will graviate to the larger markets simply for money.

My point is that when people bemoan a new 'major' prospect going to a smaller market instead of one of the top 10, it's ridiculous. There are plenty of stars in EVERY sport on teams that aren't in the 'big markets'.

[northzax]

28. indeed, there is a disconnect

I was responding to the question of why the league would want a star in a big market, not why it might be better for that player to be there.

[getmeouttahere]

32. This article might make your point about ticket sales....

or maybe not

http://bengals.enquirer.com/2004/11/09/ben2nte.html

The one sport where ticket sales ARE NOT meaningless is hockey. The TV money is miniscule compared to football. The most interesting part of the above article is that the NFL TV contract pays the player salaries, which means all other revenues are gravy! This article also spells out why the NHL had to change the way it did business in a radical way. A salary cap was absolutely essential to the NHL, because ticket prices were sky high and still couldn't make a difference.

[getmeouttahere]

34. Case closed my ass!

A natural disaster caused the Saints to have to alter their schedule. A man-made disaster caused the scheduling of a previously 5-11 team to have to play the two super bowl entrants in one season.

I'll agree that the Saints should be able to play either close to home (Baton Rouge, or Ole Miss perhaps) or in a neutral site like L.A., but this is an apples and oranges situation.

[Ravenseye]

42. Not by the NFL, in the NFL

"What team has been royally screwed in the NFL the 1st 3 weeks?"

a natural disaster destroying their stadium and turning it into a place filled with horrors, followed by the league intentionally scheduling a game giving them one less home game, and their opponent an extra home game...

That's way more than having to play back to back super bowl entrants.

[getmeouttahere]

30. Oakland's sched isn't even close to being a last place sched....

and that's what they were last year, last place in their division. The league (i.e. Tagliabue) has no business scheduling the two super bowl teams for the Raiders, at all, let alone the first 3 weeks.

That said, what do Stabler, Plunkett, Gannon, Hostetler and Lamonica have in common? They are among the best clutch performers and winning QB's of all time, and they all played for the Raiders. What does Kerry Collins have in common with them? Not much. He's another Jeff George for the Raiders. Oakland either needs to give Tuiasosopo a shot or look for another Plunkett/Gannon/Hostetler. With the league taking touchdowns away from them left and right, the Raiders need a winner at QB, one that can overcome those stolen touchdowns and penalties.

[tjwash]

35. *LOL*

No matter what forum you go to, you will find a raider fan whining like a little baby about something.

For corns sake, will you wimps knock it off? Jeebus Harold Christ get a flipping grip. Stabler, Biletnikoff, Casper, hell NONE of the old great Raider teams of old never whined or sniveled about scheduling, or officiating, or (in every raider fans opinion) bad calls in the snow.

They just won baby.

But, I guess this latest generation of raider fans doesn't remember any of that.

Keep it up though, nothing breaks my heart like watching a grown raider fan cry...:nopity:

[Ishoutandscream2]

43. Uh, I'm not a Raider fan

Not even close to one. Just making an observation.

[bamacrat]

41. VIKINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!