Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!tims From: tims@shark.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) Newsgroups: net.sport.football Subject: Re: Some thoughts on Superbowl XVIII. Message-ID: <257@shark.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Jan-84 13:40:40 EST Article-I.D.: shark.257 Posted: Mon Jan 30 13:40:40 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 7-Feb-84 13:10:51 EST Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR. Lines: 27 I do believe that the Raiders did "completely dominate" the Redskins. Granted, the Raider offense wasn't extremely impressive or nearly unstoppable, but they did more than they had to. The Raiders had a comfortable lead most of the time and the Redskin offense was doing nothing. Under those circumstances, almost any offense is going to be more conservative and less productive. Allen's 74 yard run was not a "broken play." It was just a matter of running the ball away from the tacklers, which is what any ball carrier does. I've watched Allen do more radical turnarounds at least this year for 20+ yard touchdown runs. I didn't see J. Riggins breaking away. Sure, if you nullify the Raiders' seven biggest plays, there may not be much left, but they still would have won without them, they just would have done something else. Also, if you similarly take only TWO plays away from Washington, one being the punt recovery turnover, you could argue that the Redskins wouldn't have scored at all. Questions: Why did Sports Illustrated put the Redskins on their cover two weeks in a row, the second being after the Redskins looked mediocre in barely beating the 49'ers, while the Raiders had just finished pounding the Seahawks. What also made me wonder is why on that same cover they printed "Bring On The Raiders,", when it was apparent that the Raiders were on such a high, ready to serve up the Redskins. They also predicted a Redskin victory at that point, despite all logic. Explanations or comments requested, please.