Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

22 Jan 2013

Brown and Rice: Callahan Sabotaged Super Bowl XXXVII

From @MilkmanDanimal on Twitter:

I suppose no chance of a "Tim Brown goes bats@$t crazy" XP for the sole purpose of watching Raiderjoe try to explain it all?

Oh, I don't see why not. Lord knows I don't get this story at all. As Mike Florio points out, why are Jerry Rice and Tim Brown complaining that Bill Callahan threw the ball too much?

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 22 Jan 2013

66 comments, Last at 03 Feb 2013, 8:13am by Mr Shush

Comments

1
by Will Allen :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 6:43pm

I'm sorry, this is the dumbest conspiracy theory I've ever encountered, and that encompasses a lot of idiocy. Lemme get this straight. A head coach deliberately lost a Super Bowl, and all the career leverage and cash that accompanies being a Super Bowl winning coach, because he disliked the team's owner, and had a friendship with the opposing coach?

2
by Gus (not verified) :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 6:58pm

What about "we never landed on the moon"?

15
by Will Allen :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 8:26pm

Well, look, I can kinda' see how the run of the mill slack-jawed mouthbreather could, with a half dozen jello shots coursing thrugh his veins, stumbling in the parking lot of his favorite saloon, prior to his 15 minute drive of terrorizing the public on his way home, look up at this large shiny disk in the sky, and mumble to himself, "There's no way you can get up there!". I can't see said mouthbreather doing the same in the same parking lot, after his heart's favorite gets pummeled in the Super Bowl, and saying, "Gee, I think the coach of my favorite team really wanted to lose ths game, because he's BFF with the other guy who was wearing a headset on the sidelines!".

(edit) I take it back. I just went over to the comments section at PFT, to gauge the mood of the slack-jawed community. They're on board wth it.

22
by rageon :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 1:20am

Sorry Will, but using the word "mouthbreather" makes you sound like a Colin Cowherd fan.

23
by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 1:41am

Now, now, it was a term in use far before that guy was ever on the radio, and the term certainly applies to anybody who thinks that a NFL coach threw a Super Bowl, out of affection for the opposing coach, and dislike of his employer. We can't let Colin Cowherd control the language.

46
by Lance :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:44pm

Hahahahahaha!

37
by jds :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 11:35am

The comments on PFT are pretty unbelievable. They are not worth a read (except of course for humor), but I did find this gem:

I see how this lines up now, Jerry Jones heard about this so he promoted Callahan to OC so he can do the same to Garrett and then bring in Callaham’s best friend……Gruden

7
by wr (not verified) :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 7:14pm

And why did they wait 10 years to say anything? If memory
serves, Bubba Smith started right away - althoug he claimed
Shula threw SB III to give the AFL (and hence the merger)
credibility.

12
by plumpbuck (not verified) :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 8:19pm

Aw, geez, y'all must stop calling it a conspiracy. A conspiracy involves a group of people plotting.

13
by Will Allen :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 8:21pm

Well, there is apparently a group of people in Tim Brown's head, telling him all sorts of things.

21
by Lance :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:00am

Wouldn't this almost have to be, though? I won't pretend to have clear knowledge of how such game planning goes for such things, but I imagine that a HC meets with his OC and DC, as well as other positional coaches and scouts, and, based on strengths/weaknesses/tendencies/etc., develop a game plan that the staff then implements. If, just a day or two (or on game day, or whatever) a HC suddenly goes crazy with doing stupid stuff that doesn't jibe with the agreed-upon plan, wouldn't someone in the coaching staff say something? That it took a player to expose this suggests that the coaches were in on it (and keeping quiet), hence a conspiracy.

3
by coltrane23 :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 7:03pm

I am reminded of the line: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Ridiculous that Callahan didn't change up the audibles, which (combined with Gruden's knowledge of the offense) enabled the Buccaneers defense to know what was coming in many cases, but not as ridiculous as the notion that Callahan threw that game. To what end?

6
by Theo :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 7:13pm

So what you're saying is: He was coaching so badly, that 10 years later people would say he lost on purpose.

24
by Duff Soviet Union :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 2:30am

Yes, pretty much.

35
by DEW (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 11:01am

I'd buy that.

4
by D :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 7:09pm

As Mike Florio points out, why are Jerry Rice and Tim Brown complaining that Bill Callahan threw the ball too much?

Small nitpick, but the article you linked to was written by Michael David Smith not Mike Florio. (Normally I would have let this pass, but MDS is an FO alum :p)

14
by plumpbuck (not verified) :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 8:22pm

I have an additional quibble, which is that they are complaining, not that he threw the ball too much, but that he changed the gameplan at the end of the week, leading them to practice the wrong plays, etc., etc.

17
by RickD :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 8:29pm

The Pats did something similar to face the Bears, though I think it was earlier than the Friday.

No matter how you slice it, Callahan was a terrible coach in that situation.

27
by Podge (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 5:36am

They probably did something similar against the Rams too, after seeing the Rams walkthrough.

/troll

42
by Harry (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:22pm

Yeah, they probably did. So?

56
by RickD :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 3:18pm

I know you're trolling, but as many have said in the past, pretty much no value would come from videotaping a walkthrough. OTOH, if the Pats wanted to see how the Rams would play them, all they would have to do is look at the game tape of their game that season.

The Pats didn't change their offense for the Ravens' game. That's their offense. Though usually it's more successful than that.

59
by JonFrum :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 11:19pm

That feeding the troll addiction of yours isn't a life sentence - you can get help. I recommend a 12 step program.

5
by MilkmanDanimal :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 7:13pm

Yes, I asked for this, because this is just joyfully insane. A head coach is within reach of the pinnacle of his profession, the lifelong dream of uncounted men, and he throws the game for his buddy because he's having PMS. I mean, this is just the craziest news since . . . well, about a week or two ago (thank, Manti!).

Let's ignore the fact that if you add Gannon's sacks and rushes to pass attempts (I'm assuming they weren't called runs for the most part) and the Raiders had an almost 2-1 pass/run ration in the regular season, so they were clearly pass-happy. They were playing against a team who knew their play calls, and who are, by FO's metrics, the best pass defense of the last 20+ years, and Tim Brown needs a conspiracy to understand why his team got its butt kicked?

I mean, I know WRs tend towards a certain degree of megalomania, but this is a new high. Right now, even Terrell Owens is going, "Sheeeeeee-it, Tim Brown is effin' crazy."

8
by Raiderjoe :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 7:35pm

T. Brown known for a being a little loopy. Maybe drunk when make tbsj accusation? B. Callahan just crap coach. Nothing more. Nothifb less. If Raiders had better coach woild have won SB by score of 34-20 or so.

B. Robbins having mental problem flare up did not jelp matters but thag not excuse either. Tema had off game in general but also coahcsd by moron. So let's see add those 2 things together and it equal loss in super Bowl. Raiders still have equal number Super Bowl titles as Vroncos, Chiefs and Chatgers combined so things are still okay.

9
by Rocco :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 7:58pm

Just about every Raider asked agrees that the game plan was changed the Friday before the game. I tend to think it was Al Davis ordering them to throw more rather than a coach deliberately trying to lose. It also didn't help that no one bothered to change the calls/signals before they played Gruden.

11
by MilkmanDanimal :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 8:08pm

Yeah, the move seems like classic Al Davis in every way, and that is a far, far, far, far (insert many "fars") more likely explanation than OMG GRUDEN LOOKS SO DREAMY IN THE HEADSET I'LL ASK RICH TO THROW PICK-SIXES.

52
by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 2:13pm

All Davis did not change ganeplan. If did Raiders wiukd have won.

54
by Ryan D. :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 2:24pm

Al Davis's gameplan: "Just win, baby!"

39
by sundown (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:03pm

A good theory regarding Al Davis.

Bottom line is it is a LONG, LONG way from "wow, did our coach mess up the preparation for that game" to "he intentionally set out to make us lose."

For that sort of lunacy to fly there'd need to be proof he'd put millions down on the Bucs or something. And even then, he might not have come out ahead versus if they'd won. You don't hear Callahan's name much any more but you would be if he'd won a Super Bowl.

10
by Will Allen :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 8:02pm

On a semi-serious note, is Rice paid by ESPN to yap? If so, it kinda' suprises me that the legal advisors to M. Mouse, entertainment tycoon, would let someone employed by M. Mouse walk up so close to the line of legally actionable statements, even under the loose restrictions on statements pertaining to public figures. I mean, saying that your coach deliberately threw the Super Bowl is pretty damned malicious and reckless.

32
by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 10:45am

"walk up so close to the line of legally actionable statements"

That was my first thought. It's one thing to say that Callahan is stupid or a terrible coach. That's nothing new, for NFL coaches in general or Callahan in particular. It's quite another thing to say he deliberately threw the Super Bowl. That's essentially putting him in Black Sox territory. One really ought to have all the bases covered before making such a statement.

16
by RickD :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 8:27pm

Box score says that the Raiders were down by at least 17 points for more than half the game, and that their rushing attack gained 1.7 yards/attempt.

Not quite understanding how using Rich Gannon at that point was throwing the game. They couldn't run on the Bucs.

It's not like they were using Tony Eason, were a team built completely around the running game, and then decided the week before the Super Bowl that they were going to use that passing game instead because that's how the Dolphins beat them for their only loss.

Because, of course, Tony Eason is just as good as Dan Marino.

It's all clear to me now! Raymond Berry intentionally lost Super Bowl XX to his buddy Mike Ditka!!

(Seriously, I'm trying to imagine that phone call. "OK, Mike, we're going to lose to you on purpose! Wait, why are you giggling?")

18
by Marko :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 9:32pm

I have never heard that story about the Patriots before. In fairness to them, it's not as if they were going to win that game by running the ball against the Bears. I think they ended up with something like 11 rushes for 7 yards, with at least one lost fumble. Every time they tried to run, they were getting stuffed at or behind the line of scrimmage, usually by multiple defenders. They were just completely overmatched no matter how you slice it. The Patriots "sabotage" of the Super Bowl basically occurred two weeks before the Super Bowl when they beat the Dolphins in the AFC Championsip game.

As for Tim Brown, maybe he is the spokesman for a company that makes tinfoil hats and this is part of their ingenious marketing campaign.

19
by RickD :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 9:38pm

I saw the story about the Pats trying to change their attack for Super Bowl XX in a bio of John Hannah. Hannah, of course, wanted to run the ball.

It's hard to imagine that would have helped any. There was no path for victory for the Pats that day. Making the Super Bowl was a huge step forward for the franchise, esp. since they got to beat the Jets, Dolphins, and the Raiders along the way (three franchises that had historically been fierce rivals).

20
by dbostedo :: Tue, 01/22/2013 - 10:13pm

"Not quite understanding how using Rich Gannon at that point was throwing the game. They couldn't run on the Bucs."

That's not really Brown's point. His point was that they didn't prepare to throw that much until Friday, which presumably made them unprepared and drove Barret Robbins AWOL.

25
by Duff Soviet Union :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 2:34am

Brown would come off a lot better if he just said "we practiced all week to do one thing and then our coach told us to do the opposite the day before the game because he's an idiot" rather than "it's a conspiracy, he threw the game on purpose".

28
by Podge (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 5:38am

I would have thought that spending the whole season in a massively pass-happy offense would have been adequate preparation.

40
by sundown (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:06pm

This like x1000.

Always liked Brown and Callahan was horrible. But Brown's theory is just plain nuts.

26
by grady graddy (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 5:05am

In full disclosure, that Super Bowl was one of a small handful of Raiders games I mostly missed. I was flying that day. It killed me to miss most of the game, but I had no choice. The Raiders were up 3-0 when I boarded, and when I landed to make my connection I saw their comeback to draw within two scores, then the two pick sixes to end it. Missing most of the game has made me always feel a certain disconnection from it, like it was part of a dream/nightmare I ultimately am not very close to. The Tim Brown take on it, which is certainly not new, has always seemed plausible though far from definitive to me. Here are five things I'd like to contribute to the conversation, knowing full well I know next to nothing, but also helpless to stop myself from chiming in.

1) It's pretty ridiculous that people are piling on Tim Brown now. He has been saying this consistently since at least 2006. He actually did use the word "conspiracy" in a youtube clip I saw 1-2 years ago where he talks about this at a Raiders fan convention. The people who are saying Brown is an idiot for saying this now are reacting to the hype, not the substance; Brown has been saying this a long time.

2) Haven't seen any spin on Al Davis's involvement in the recent crop of commentary that makes sense. Brown's position was that Callahan made the change at a point where Al basically couldn't do anything about it. Players like Huff have given a description of Al's presence at practice leading to the team running nothing but man D, etc. I think there is some validity to the contention that Callahan had the team practice a run-focuses offense during the week - when Al would have been around - and then Callahan changed the game plan on Friday. What the people who are arguing Davis would have been the one making the switch don't account for is that Brown says in 27 years of football this was the only time a coach changed the game plan this late in the week. I don't see how he could say that if that was part of Al's MO. All of this, to me, lends validity to the contention that Callahan willfully changed the game plan as an FU to Al Davis, and while Callahan would obviously deny that to his grave, I don't see anyone claiming Callahan liked Al or appreciated him for giving him his first opportunity as a head coach.

3) This being FO, it should be noted that Oakland's run offense ranked 5th in 2000, 7th in 2001, and 4th in 2002. Tampa was 17th, 12th, and 8th in run D those seasons. No doubt, Oakland's rushing was typically set up by the pass. But there's certainly a comparative advantage to going with a run-heavy offense in this particular game.

4) Oakland rushed 4 times in 15 first quarter offensive snaps, all of which came with the score tied. They ran on 3 of 12 offensive snaps in the second quarter, trailing 6-3 and 13-3, before getting the ball back with 25 seconds at their 13 trailing 20-3. 20 passes against 7 runs in meaningful first half snaps. 2 interceptions. The 7 runs went for 12 yards.

5) Tyrone Wheatley did not have good DVOA, but it is worth noting the Raiders didn't hand him the ball in the Super Bowl. If Brown's argument, substantiated by others, is that the game plan was going to feature Wheatley to beat up on the smallish TB D, it should at least be pointed out that Wheatley's only touch was a 7-yard catch on 2nd and 1.

Okay, those are just five things I wanted to say. It really doesn't matter much what Callahan's motivation was. The game is in the past. I think Tim Brown makes good arguments for why he thinks Callahan had ulterior motivation. I think his reading of the Barrett Robbins situation makes sense. I don't know what went through Callahan's head. I think his denial does have a tinge of protesting too much - the "sum and substance" claim seems relatively easy to contest on the facts, but of course, that doesn't mean he's lying. I think Brown is probably right that Callahan made a decision to change the game plan that hurt Oakland's chances in the game. I think it probably would not have changed the outcome but, like any Raider fan, I think on some level it would be nice to imagine it could have. I think, given the circumstances in the game, the run to set up the pass would have been more effective than the pass to set up the run. Second guessing Callahan's coaching in the game is easy, just like second guessing any aspect of his tenure at Nebraska.

I do think the "should have changed the line calls" stuff might be a tad unfair to pin on Callahan. Most people don't remember that the Super Bowl used to have a one week break. This particular Super Bowl was the last such one played on short rest. The year before the NFL had to change everything because of 9/11, but the 2002-3 schedule was already set. Facing your former coach as a team, and your former mentor/boss as a coach, with only one week to prepare, is not an ideal matchup. Fate wasn't kind to the Raiders, regardless of to what extent Callahan made things worse.

I think Timmy is a little too willing to take this to the furthest step. Callahan's self-sabotage would seem a more likely culprit than malice. Still, one can see why he specifically would feel that way. As someone who has considered Brown's allegations for years, not hours or days, I think there is plenty to them, and the denials from other Raiders haven't been especially compelling. There are some Raiders fans who really care about this, I'm sure. I don't, at least in my heart of hearts. But my tragic flaw is just hoping too much that people talking about the Raiders would pay closer attention to the evidence.

Okay, hate away... just trying to be honest.

36
by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 11:28am

You have falsely concluded that if Tim Brown was an imbecile at some point in the past, someone must be reacting to hype when they note that Tim Brown was an imbecile yesterday. Noting that you have employed dubious reasoning is not an instance of hate.

(edit)If you really think that a "good argument" has been put forth as to why a NFL coach would deliberately forgo all that accrues to head coach who wins the Super Bowl, when it is said that the coach did so out of dislike for his employer, and affection for the opposing coach, I don't know what to say, except to note, non-hatefully, that it is the dumbest thing I'm likely to hear today, tomorrow, or for the year. Do you have any notion whatsoever what a guy like Callahan goes through, to get to the point where he can be the head coach for a Super Bowl victory, and what he stands to gain if his team wins? Any? Do you have any idea how much evidence one needs to accumulate, before a "good argument" can be made that someone had a motivation to engage in behavior that is so plainly at odds with what would benefit a person's finances and career, to such a huge degree, when such such a person has spent decades pursuing those career and financial goals? What constitutes a "good argument" on your planet?

48
by Lance :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:55pm

Re "You have falsely concluded that if Tim Brown was an imbecile at some point in the past, someone must be reacting to hype when they note that Tim Brown was an imbecile yesterday."

To his defense, I think he was more arguing that Brown's accusations weren't new. Put differently, a common refrain against Brown has been "If he thought this was true, why bring it up now?" The poster is simply noting that this isn't a new accusation from Brown, and it is something he's stated publicly for some time.

50
by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 1:13pm

Fair enough.

61
by vcs (not verified) :: Thu, 01/24/2013 - 12:41am

If you really think that a "good argument" has been put forth as to why a NFL coach would deliberately forgo all that accrues to head coach who wins the Super Bowl, when it is said that the coach did so out of dislike for his employer, and affection for the opposing coach, I don't know what to say
-------------------------------------

And that's exactly why this doesn't pass Conspiracy Theorist muster. For it to make any sense, one would have to make Al Davis was the instigator, and Callahan etc were just following orders. And "Mister Raider" Tim Brown would never ever come to the conclusion that Al would throw a championship for whatever reason.

From Callahan's perspective? Putting on your tinfoil hat, it's just a job for him, do whatever the boss tells you.. There's always been another position for him in the NFL.

43
by sundown (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:23pm

"Second guessing Callahan's coaching in the game is easy, just like second guessing any aspect of his tenure at Nebraska."

So, going by your theory, Callahan was also tight with Bob Stoops or Bill Snyder, causing him to sabotage the Cornhuskers?

You note Brown wasn't an imbecile but proceed with a theory assuming Callahan was. (Or, at bare minimum, so emotionally unstable he went against his clear best interests over petty things that would have been inconsequential had they won the SB.)

Maybe if there was some credible evidence he'd bet his life savings on the Bucs you'd have a legitimate theory, but the fame and glory of winning the Super Bowl means an awful lot to a coach, not just in prestige but cold hard dollars and opportunities. The man was gone from the Raiders after the verhy next season following the SB, had one head coaching gig after the Raiders (and that not even in the NFL) and is now an assistant coach, not even a coordinator. Safe to say if he had won the Super Bowl he'd have gotten more chances than that. He was a lousy coach, but not a total fool.

29
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 6:57am

Only Callahan knows what his motivation was, but I generally do not believe that people are so machiavellian as to try to bring organisations down to prove some point. If Callahan really hated the Raiders that much why would he have accepted the headcoaching job when Gruden left, or even stayed for a second year.

If Al Davis didn't like the run-heavy gameplan and ordered Callahan to change from it then why doesn't Bill say that? Al is dead so he can't defend himself on that.

Which all leads me to the conclusion that Callahan lost his nerve. Perhaps he saw something in practices he didn't like, perhaps he suddenly thought he was making an inspirational messiahlike decision to go with a pass-heavy attack led by the league's best QB.

And yes, as for the not changing audibles I'd say the Raiders got highly unlucky there. With the schedule predetermined the only chance of meeting Tampa was in the Super Bowl and really what were the odds that the Bucs and Raiders would both make it that year. Of course when they did Gruden had a season's worth of footage to know that the Raiders were still using the same audibles, Callahan probably just never thought about it or overlooked it. Because if he had, he only need to install a couple of changes to those audibles to totally break the Bucs confidence in what Gruden has told them; and potentially knock their confidence even further.

31
by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 10:02am

To say it is "machiavellian" to sabotage your own career and finances, out of affection for your opponent, and dislike for your employer, is an insult to Machiavelli.

33
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 10:47am

Machiavelli seems like the kind of guy who would maintain audible structures for the continuity of it.

58
by JIPanick :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 5:03pm

+1

62
by Mr Shush :: Thu, 01/24/2013 - 9:02pm

In fairness, it's not like Machiavelli's political career was ultimately all that successful.

63
by Will Allen :: Thu, 01/24/2013 - 11:37pm

Didn't have enough swagger.

66
by Mr Shush :: Sun, 02/03/2013 - 8:13am

That'll be it. Prato proves he couldn't win the big one.

30
by Joe T. :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 8:41am

If you want to hear conspiracy theories, just wait until after this coming SB.

38
by RW (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 11:51am

I cant speak for intentionally losing, but I will say that I always conidered that perhaps the oddest gameplan for a football game I have ever seen.

Yes Oakland was a passing team, but TB had a legendary Pass Defense and is the #1 Pass Defense in DVOA History. The book vs TB's undersized D was always to line up and run the ball down their throat. Oak's only chance was to go Ran Heavy which they never did

41
by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:08pm

If Tim Brown had said that Callahan had a panic attack late in the week, and choked away the chance to win, I would have said it was an eminenty reasonable thing to say, assuming Brown's timeline of events was confirmed by a majority of others, who were close to the situation, and subsequently asked about it. Instead, Tim Brown decided to be a moron. Hell, if it takes away some HOF votes from him, which then get switched to Cris Carter, it's fine by me.

44
by johonny (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:25pm

But Tim Brown went to Notre Dame so this story MUST BE TRUE!

45
by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:30pm

Callahan gave Tim the inside scoop on this whole episode over the last several months. On the internet. Not using Skype.

49
by sundown (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 1:08pm

Tim initially asked Callahan how come he looked like an attractive young woman in his social media pictures, but was told it was just the product of good lighting and the fact Bill had been using moisturizer since his Raider days.

51
by Ryan D. :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 1:28pm

Rumor has it that Darnell Dockett has been seen out at the King of Diamonds strip club in Miami with Lennay Kekua several nights this week.

Also, the Alabama offensive line is now asking if Manti Te'o is, in fact, a real person. They had heard a lot about him on the internet. But, when they arranged a face-to-face meeting in Miami, the guy they were expecting didn't show up. There might have been someone there impersonating him, though.

47
by Cro-Mags :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 12:52pm

When I read this stuff, it strikes me more as an attempt on Florio's part to be relevant by giving legs to a controversial story that doesn't really warrant it. I guess you have to fill all the airtime and bandwidth with something compelling, especially going into the offseason. I'm always surprised though at how a major media outlet has provided him with so much exposure.

53
by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 2:14pm

To be fair to Florio, I saw this story on the crawl on Sportscenter several times yesterday. It's not just Florio reporting on this.

And I don't think this is a non-story. Two former players have all but accused a head coach of throwing the Super Bowl. If true, it would be a scandal that would blow Spygate and Bountygate and Fake-Girlfriendgate out of the water. I don't think it's true, but that doesn't make it a non-story.

55
by Will Allen :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 2:39pm

When I heard this yesterday, my first reaction was that this was kind of a semi-humorous "Isn't Tim Brown a moron!" story. Then, when Rice joins in, and I see substantial numbers of people grant it some credibility, I started to get a little irritated, because it really exhibits a large lack of respect to the team that decisively won the game. Brown and Rice aren't just behaving stupidly, they are also behaving like stupid jackasses.

57
by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 3:39pm

Callahan probably going to take ric e and Brown to court . Two guys shoudk leave him alojgm realize b. Callahan crap hC, tema lost, move on. Show some respect to winner of game . Cannot win every yeat.

Raiders on upswing now. Will make playoffs 2013 and what do in playoffs is gravy. Then enter 2014 with greta expectations and Super Bowl title is fair expectation then. Team going to have new star WRs and move Rice and Brown further back on best ever Raiders WR lust

Currently it go like thos-
Biletnikoff
Branch
Wells
Powell
Brown
Rice
some others

64
by LionInAZ :: Fri, 01/25/2013 - 7:12pm

My problem is that particular game made Gruden a bigger deal than he should be.

60
by JonFrum :: Wed, 01/23/2013 - 11:26pm

Some guys just can't man up and take a beatin.' When you lose, keep your cake hole shut. Any time you do anything else, you're just being a pussy. It doesn't matter whether it's the officials or the weather or your own coach. You lost. A man's character isn't judged by how he behaves when he wins - it's when he loses that you see the real man.

65
by LionInAZ :: Fri, 01/25/2013 - 7:23pm

I disagree. The average football fan is a moron who will blame players for losses in big games because they don't understand game-planning or management decisions that aren't made in plain sight. The players have to defend themselves and their legacies too.