Sports

Auggie

(31,177 posts) Sun Sep 15, 2013, 09:28 PM Sep 2013

Okay, I know it was the Jaguars ...

but the Raiders' offense was really fun to watch today. They showed a lot of looks and their rushes included big runs that totaled 226 yards.

This is not Al Davis' Raiders any more.

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Okay, I know it was the Jaguars ... (Original Post) Auggie Sep 2013 OP

"Just win, baby!" So how did Terrell Pryor look. I bet El will change his avatar when Oakland madinmaryland Sep 2013 #1

I'd love to see Jamaal510 Sep 2013 #4

No...it was the Jags. trumad Sep 2013 #2

How did Oakland end up with a pro football team?! KamaAina Sep 2013 #3

madinmaryland

(64,933 posts)

1. "Just win, baby!" So how did Terrell Pryor look. I bet El will change his avatar when Oakland

Reply to Auggie (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 09:57 PM

Sep 2013

beats his current favourite team.

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)

4. I'd love to see

Reply to madinmaryland (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 01:00 AM

Sep 2013

the Raiders put a can of whoop-ass on Peyton Manning, but I doubt very seriously they're on his level just yet. Pryor looked okay today, though; I did see him get sacked once, but he was very agile and quick like Vick was during his prime. They even surprised me last week when they managed to at least keep it a competitive game with the Colts, and the Colts are no joke.
So I'll wait and see what happens with the Raiders. If they can at least keep things competitive with Denver by not getting blown out, and if they can beat San Diego at least once, then I'll be fairly happy. Maybe get close to 100 yards from Run DMC and get Manning down on the dirt at least once next week...

trumad

(41,692 posts)

2. No...it was the Jags.

Reply to Auggie (Original post)

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 10:02 PM

Sep 2013

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)

3. How did Oakland end up with a pro football team?!

Reply to Auggie (Original post)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:48 AM

Sep 2013

Now San Francisco will want one too.

Reply to this discussion