Raiders vs. Eagles 8pm Tonight....

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jan 4, 2003
4,549
5
0
#81
why would anyone jump on a teams bandwagon after a PRE-SEASON game???? never knew if anyone that followed a team after winning a preseason game
 
Jan 4, 2003
4,549
5
0
#82
"JUST WIN BABY"

that quote basically was the story of the game.... maybe not a pretty performance but got that WIN.... now lets keep on gettin them Ws
 

Chree

Medicated
Dec 7, 2005
32,363
13,861
113
39
#83
RAS 925 said:
funny huh? eagles kept theres in for 2 series.. raiders kept em in for 4....

whats funny was the niners last preseason haha.. u might still be able to find that thread where all the niners fans where actin all dope cus niners kept their starters in for 2-3 qtrs when Raiders basically did the same as today 4 series and outtaaaa there!

so keep on lol'n :cheeky:

Rattay was starter, he was in 1q, Alex Smith wasnt starter :dead:
 
Apr 25, 2002
3,020
2
38
#84
thascary1 said:
I wouldn't worry about your wr's it your rb's I would be concerned with. Fargas looked good but once regular seasons he disappears, and Rod Smart was well an XFL player. If Jordan goes down that will be a HUGE blow.
I agree, the running back depth is weak, Fargas disapears cuz he cant stay healthy..but I think the Oline is the #1 concern for the offense. They were a big reason why the first unit looked like crap. Gotta give props to Phillie's D tho...they were in the back field before most of the plays had any time to develope.
 
Jan 4, 2003
4,549
5
0
#86
Chree said:
Rattay was starter, he was in 1q, Alex Smith wasnt starter :dead:
yah but didnt Rattay start the season?? ok, thats old now but yah their staters where in throughout most of the game,, might still have it on the DVR doubt it tho
 
Jan 4, 2003
4,549
5
0
#87
3VID3NC3 said:
How about Loyyd and Battle?
yep LLoyd was like their #1 and he was in.. thats how they scored againt our backups...... just like our starters dominated them last time. . but aye just like we did today.. they got the win.. so who cares its done with
 
Jun 1, 2002
7,358
14
0
44
#88
THE WIN, (ALLTHOUGH UGLY,) WAS IMPORTANT FOR US TO GET AND SYMBOLIC AS HELL TO MARK THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW ART SHELL ERA. THAT BEING SAID:

WTF WAS WRONG WITH ANDREW WALTER? THAT GUY HAS ME WORRIED AS HELL. HE'S LOOKED WAY TOO INDECISIVE AND HAD HAPPY FEET IN THE POCKET. I THINK PEOPLE ARE OVERSOLD ON HIM.. HE MIGHT NOT BE THE ANSWER...OUR O LINE STILL NEEDS SOME SERIOUS WORK.. WHO SAW ROBERT GALLERY GET BURNED ON THAT SACK? OUR DEFENSE WAS DOING A VERY BAD JOB OF STOPPING THE RUN. THAT SHIT WILL JUST NOT CUT IT IN THE NFL. GOTTA STEP IT UP.

NOW FOR THE GOOD:

LAMONT JORDAN DESPITE THE O'LINE'S LACK OF COMMAND LOOKED POWERFUL.. FARGAS LOOKED DECENT AS WELL.. FABIAN WASHINGTON HAD A NICE PICK AND I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL PEOPLE TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS KID.. HE'S ONE OF THE FASTEST PLAYERS IN THE LEAGUE.. IF CAN LEARN QUICK HE WILL BE A MAJOR THREAT.GRANT IRONS AND RYAN RIDDLE BOTH LOOKED SOLID....BROOKS LOOKS TO BE ADJUSTING NICELY.. THAT PICK WAS NOT TOTALLY INDICATIVE OF HIS OVERALL SKILLS.. HIS CHEMISTRY WITH MOSS, GABRIEL, CURRY AND WHITED LOOKS TO BE GETTING BETTER.. YOU ALLREADY KNOW THE DEAL ON OUR WR CORE, AMONG THE BEST IN THE LEAGUE.. WE JUST NEED BROOKS TO BE MORE PATIENT WITH THAT BALL..

ALL IN ALL.. WE WILL AT LEAST HAVE AN IMPROVED RECORD OVER LAST YEAR AND MOST DEFINITELY HAVE BETTER A RECORD THAN YOU DIVE ASS NINERS..
 
Jan 12, 2006
13,259
1,117
0
#89
lol what happened to your new and improved raider defense? lol McNabb was picking you chumps apart LOL. if that was a real game you guys wouldve got fucked up. the eagles first team defense and offense was handling you fools.
 
Feb 10, 2006
679
5
0
37
#90
Raiders Sucks Dick.

Eagles are pimps. McNabb & WestBrook raped them on their first drive. And thats a FACT!

Plus the Eagles D shut them down on the Raiders first Drive.


If that was a real normal season game the score would of been 45-3 with the Eagles getting the WIN.
 

Stealth

Join date: May '98
May 8, 2002
7,137
1,177
113
40
#92
^^ Umm...no offense to your team but the Eagles won that game.

Before you get mad...the starters for the Eagles won 7-0. The Raiders were never winning the game until the 2nd stringers were in. A preseason win means nothing. If it makes you happy that you guys had the most points at the end of the game, then that's cool. But the Eagles definately had the better game. Their defensive line was absolutely nasty, and I'm sure if Jeff Garcia wasn't the back up things would have been different. McNabb only had one series, and he went 3 for 3. Brooks look awful but still better than the rest of your QBs. Against the starters, the Eagles D-Line was nasty as fuck and Brooks didn't have nearly enough time to get a pass off. If the line doesn't hold a little bit more than that, there will never be time for a 7-step drop pass to Moss to develop. And Gallery looked awful. Plus the fact that the Eagles had a running game at all, and the fact that they were getting the ball to their shitty ass receivers outside of the hash mark should worry you.

Your younger players look good, especially in the secondary, and I'm sure eventually Washington is gonna be great. But the Eagles didn't even have all their starters in at WR. They had Reggie Brown and some guy named Baskett. Todd Pinkston didn't even play, and Jabar Gaffney was catching passes from Garcia. Still, with those shitty receivers in, McNabb tore it the fuck up.

I hope the Raiders do well this season with all the talent that you guys have...but that game was piss poor unless you really like rooting for the second stringers.
 
Apr 20, 2003
4,132
1,767
113
43
#93
^^^ I gotta agree with you on your observation! Westbrook was doing very good yesterday as well... He was hitting the gaps with force and getting some good catches in the backfield from McNabb....
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
47
#94
Here's what I think: The Raiders up front (o-line and d-line) were getting handled when the first stringers were in. The Raiders o-line didn't open any holes for Jordan against Philly's 1st stringers. And Gallery doesn't look too good. His man beat him and sacked Aaron Brooks. Gallery needs to step up. Also, on Brooks' pick... it was a poorly thrown ball by Brooks and if he continues to throw fade routes like that, most of the time they're going to get picked. But then if you look at that TD pass he threw.... that shit was on the money! The TE went up and snatched it! So Brooks looked ok to me. Don't get too excited haters (Chree, Lee) because he didn't even attempt to throw to Moss... just trying to get familiar with the other receivers since Porter is acting like a woman. The Raiders back-up QB's look like garbage. One quarterback was getting his receivers killed. But the D didn't look too good because Philly just marched down the field like nothing.

At least the Raiders won and that's all that counts. We'll see how the Niners look next. So get ready!!
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
47
#95
I agree with Stealth's observation except the part where he said Brooks looked awful. I don't think he looked good and I don't think he looked awful. He threw a poor pass that got picked off but then he came back and threw a nice TD pass to the tight end.
 

ESCOBAR 92113

BARRIO LOGAN
Oct 31, 2003
4,485
824
0
47
SAN DIEGO
SOUTHEASTSANDIEGO.COM
#96
THIS FROM PETER KING ON SI:

The Raiders' first drive under Aaron Brooks on Sunday night: three plays, minus-two yards. Second drive under Brooks: three plays, minus-one yard. Third drive under Brooks: three plays, 12 yards, then an interception ... with the Eagles' second defensive unit on the field. Nice debut in silver-and-black

TO ME PRESEASON AINT ABOUT WINNING OR LOSING, ITS ABOUT HOW YOUR FIRST UNIT DOES AGAINST THE OTHER TEAMS FIRST UNIT....
 

Stealth

Join date: May '98
May 8, 2002
7,137
1,177
113
40
#97
Tony said:
I agree with Stealth's observation except the part where he said Brooks looked awful. I don't think he looked good and I don't think he looked awful. He threw a poor pass that got picked off but then he came back and threw a nice TD pass to the tight end.
I'm gonna hold true to the fact that Brooks looked awful based on his stats, interception against the 2nd team D, minus 3 yards againts the first team D, and the fact that the touchdown pass was (as far as I remember, I was on a lot of schedule I and II drugs last night) thrown at the TE's back, who turned around and made a sick catch.

But let me clarify - he didn't look awful because he is an awful quarterback. He looked awful because of the line. Hopefully Art Shell will make the line work, considering you guys have a few hall of fame linemen coaching them, but with how bad Gallery was blocking, I'm not sure. Gallery is singlehandedly responsible for that sack. But as of right now I'm not gonna blame Brooks' bad playing, I'm gonna blame the offensive line, and say that the lack of pressure put Brooks in a position where he had to force plays and improvise, which he is unable to do.
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
47
#98
ESCOBAR 92113 said:
THIS FROM PETER KING ON SI:

The Raiders' first drive under Aaron Brooks on Sunday night: three plays, minus-two yards. Second drive under Brooks: three plays, minus-one yard. Third drive under Brooks: three plays, 12 yards, then an interception ... with the Eagles' second defensive unit on the field. Nice debut in silver-and-black

TO ME PRESEASON AINT ABOUT WINNING OR LOSING, ITS ABOUT HOW YOUR FIRST UNIT DOES AGAINST THE OTHER TEAMS FIRST UNIT....
Peter King can't stand Brooks. He's one of Brooks' main critics.
 

Chree

Medicated
Dec 7, 2005
32,363
13,861
113
39
#99
ESCOBAR 92113 said:
THIS FROM PETER KING ON SI:

The Raiders' first drive under Aaron Brooks on Sunday night: three plays, minus-two yards. Second drive under Brooks: three plays, minus-one yard. Third drive under Brooks: three plays, 12 yards, then an interception ... with the Eagles' second defensive unit on the field. Nice debut in silver-and-black

lol i told u ras it was against the 2nd team
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
47
Stealth said:
I'm gonna hold true to the fact that Brooks looked awful based on his stats, interception against the 2nd team D, minus 3 yards againts the first team D, and the fact that the touchdown pass was (as far as I remember, I was on a lot of schedule I and II drugs last night) thrown at the TE's back, who turned around and made a sick catch.

But let me clarify - he didn't look awful because he is an awful quarterback. He looked awful because of the line. Hopefully Art Shell will make the line work, considering you guys have a few hall of fame linemen coaching them, but with how bad Gallery was blocking, I'm not sure. Gallery is singlehandedly responsible for that sack. But as of right now I'm not gonna blame Brooks' bad playing, I'm gonna blame the offensive line, and say that the lack of pressure put Brooks in a position where he had to force plays and improvise, which he is unable to do.
I hear you stealth. I think the bottom line is.... Brooks threw a bad pass that was picked off and then made up for it by throwing a strike to the TE for the TD. The pass wasn't to the TE's back, Brooks threw a high bullet to where the tight end went up in the air and snatched it. It was a good pass by Brooks and that's why the Raiders scored. Their 1st teamers againts Philly's 1st teamers didn't look good for the Raiders, especially the blocking. But don't forget that they didn't even throw one pass to Moss. Just trying to get familiar and develop some kind of chemistry with the other receivers. But make no mistake about it, that was a poorly thrown ball by Brooks on the INT.

So far it looks like Brooks is being singled out by Peter King for the Raiders looking bad when the 1st stringers came out.