Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Let's say the Raiders play the Eagles in SB 37 at San Diego.

The Eagles defense was no slouch that year- #2 overall- so how would they have fared against Oakland's #1 offense?

While Andy Reid/Jim Johnson were a tremendous defensive tandem, the lack of knowledge about Gannon and the Oakland offense Gruden had would have made it somewhat different. Reid would have not known anything to the degree Jon did.

And Philly's offense didn't even have the offensive weapons to exploit the Oakland defense (they would have killed to have Keyshawn/McCardell on offense, which sunk them in the playoffs outside the T.O year).

And let's say Oakland still goes into their decade of decline- would it have been more or less bitter if they salvaged a SB title before sinking into the abyss?

Hell, what if Green Bay doesn't blow the 1 seed with a decent offense/defense combo that year (if anything, they likely avoid Atlanta/Vick)

In my humble opinion, if the Buccaneers hadn't had John Gruden as their coach the Raiders would've beat them not to mention any other team in the NFC.

Having Gruden as coach of the Bucs (having just been the coach of the Raiders) may not have been an "unfair" advantage but it was the deciding factor.

The Raiders center Barret Robbins, who was arguably their best o-lineman that year, had a meltdown and missed the Super Bowl. That's not going to help.

CSKreager wrote:Let's say the Raiders play the Eagles in SB 37 at San Diego.

The Eagles defense was no slouch that year- #2 overall- so how would they have fared against Oakland's #1 offense?

While Andy Reid/Jim Johnson were a tremendous defensive tandem, the lack of knowledge about Gannon and the Oakland offense Gruden had would have made it somewhat different. Reid would have not known anything to the degree Jon did.

And Philly's offense didn't even have the offensive weapons to exploit the Oakland defense (they would have killed to have Keyshawn/McCardell on offense, which sunk them in the playoffs outside the T.O year).

And let's say Oakland still goes into their decade of decline- would it have been more or less bitter if they salvaged a SB title before sinking into the abyss?

Hell, what if Green Bay doesn't blow the 1 seed with a decent offense/defense combo that year (if anything, they likely avoid Atlanta/Vick)

I am a believer that good (or great) defense beats good (or great) offense, in the postseason. There are exceptions, of course, but at least 80 percent of the time, the defense wins the big game. That's why I think that Gruden or no Gruden, the Bucs were going to win Super Bowl XXXVII because they had a great defense, the best defense I saw between the 2000 Ravens/Titans and the 2013-14 Seahawks. I don't know if Tom Brady would have been able to beat that defense in a Super Bowl.

Even if Philly beats Tampa in the NFCCG, and you cancel out Philly's defense against Oakland's offense, I think the Eagles offense still have an edge over the Raiders defense, and I believe the Eagles would have beaten the Raiders. It would have been close, I predict a 24-21 score, but I think the Eagles would have had about a 60 percent chance of winning the game.

Philly's offense was a joke.

It was Staley, Westbrook, McNabb and pray for rain.