Good catch but did you notice after the play when he slaps 5 to the ballboy their hands stick together due to the amount of stickum on his hand? Sticky fingers is right!
in challengin plays in todays game - the ball was caught out of bounds. he did not have control when he went out of bounds and his knees did not get in! and I am damn raider fan
lol stop crying about the Stick-em, it has nothing to do with it. The gloves that the NFL allows WR's to use now are way worse that Stick-em, and balls are lost all the time none the less. It's not Stick-em, its being an amazing WR
This was the best game I had ever seen at that point in my life. It still may be. Incredible game. Hated that they lost to the Steelers the following week. But, so glad they won it all 2 yrs later. RIP Al Davis.
This is the game that made me a Raider fan for life. Amazing thing is, after this catch, the game even got better. Dolphins went a great time consuming drive for the go ahead touchdown they thought gave them the victory. But the Raiders struck back with a frantic drive in the waning moments and won the game on Clarence Davis' "sea of Hands" Catch. In the first 20 years of the Superbowl Era (1966-1985) the Raiders were the most exciting and consistently best team.
Once again Stabler and Biletnifoff use telepathy to hook up for another TD. I seem to remember Fred making an identical catch to this one in the end zone earlier in the game, only to be ruled out of bounds, and Fred being mad as hell at the offical and his call. After 37 years I don't know if I imagined the earlier play, or if it really happened. Somebody help me out!
Let's point out for Mr. Centvrio that while Miami had lost a couple of defensive backs in this game , Steve Foley , an all pro cornerback , was not one of them . He is infact , the guy hanging onto Fred's right arm ( which is illegal ) while Biletnikoff hauls the ball in with his left , mind you , while keeping BOTH feet in bounds . Biletnikoff did this to the top cornerbacks in the NFL for about 13 years . Those numbers don't lie .
Never mind. I got it now. thought u were referring to this video. Either way, these old time games are classics and the teams were all crazy good. Not like today. The Raiders were great throughout the entire decade and only got one ring because Miami and Pittsburgh were great too. We will never see that again. It was like SF and Dallas in the 90's. You knew the NFC title game was the super bowl
What kind of cheese goes with a Miami whine? Three decades and Dullfans are still whining about losing that playoff game? Then again, your players are still whining about it, so I guess it's all good. Lose one playoff games and your fins are bent out of shape for life?
Go see how many Raider fans are still bitching about the "Immaculate Reception"! Not to mention Rob Lyttle's did he/didn't he cross the goal line in the 77 AFC Title Game. Like you said, do the math....and I hear all about that California Whine country...
Point is, YOU guys regard them as travesties. Sounds like whining to me. And now...about the travesty that was the false roughing the passer penalty against Sugar Bear Hamilton vs. the Pats in the 76 post season...Don't hear too much about that one.
The difference being, both the Immaculate Reception and the Snow Job involved blown referee calls (if you want to add the roughing the passer call to that list, that's fine, too)...while the Miami loss involved nothing but their own failure to close the deal. After 54 minutes of being "the better team" -- as least in your view -- they couldn't keep it together for six minutes? Pathetic.
The only thing that's pathetic is the pot calling the kettle black...As well as the failure to understand the basics of cause and effect...and what's now become of the Oakland Raiders organization. Might that you want me to elaborate?
Elaborate all you care to; I know more about the malaise of the Raiders' present state than you EVER will. It doesn't stop me from remaining a fan, nor calling out the hypocrites like yourself. So if you think you've got it, bring it.
Hypocrite? Where are you coming from? I've been going to Dolphin games since 1970 at the age of six, including 6-8 in 76, 6-10 in 88, 4-12 in 04, 6-10 in 06, and 1-15 in 07. YOU sound like the real deal as a fan, I give you your props for that. But... can't say the same for a LOTof your bretheren out there, nor are a lot of your arguments particularly cogent: you STILL can't put forth a convincing case that the Raiders would have won had Miami's secondary remained at full strength.
Every team has its real fans and its sunshine patriots, whiners and wannabes. I guess we can agree on that much.
I've been a Raider fan since 1960 -- before the shield, before they had a home field in Oakland, before Al Davis.
Nothing is permanent. Teams go up and down, and back. We've been down for six seasons. That's a fact. We've seen some real silliness in that time. That too is a fact. But the ship is being righted. And all will see the proof of that soon enough.
Your best players are Asumugha, and arguably, Lechler. They both want out, particularly the former. Likely they'll have to slap the franchise tag on him (again) in order to keep him. "Ship being righted?" Like the Titanic? Doesn't seem likely, but I could be wrong and the jury's still out in any case. Like you said, we'll see....
This is why it's dicey for fans to talk too much about opposing teams. Embarrassment usually follows.
Nnamdi Asomugha and Shane Lechler both signed new deals making them the highest-paid players at their positions. No franchise tags on either. Nnamdi has already made Darrius Heyward-Bey his personal project and is working with him in camp. Hardly the moves of players who "wanted out."
Derrick Burgess, on the other hand, DID want out, and as you can see, he is.
Was making them the HIGHEST paid players at their positions the ONLY way to avert discordant postures on their part, or were they going to be content merely by looking to sign long term deals? You also stated that "The ship is being righted" and " we will all see that soon enough". It's only preseason so far, but I await your propensity for measured and erudite commentary on this matter so far...
Al made them offers they couldn't refuse, so they stayed. End of story. As for the rest, I believe Tom Cable has this club headed in the right direction. The last preseason game wasn't pretty, but we've seen the Raiders implode in the preseason before and have winning seasons. Then again, Art Shell went undefeated in the preseason...and we know how that ended up. So the first few games of the regular season should give us an idea of where we're at.
"....you STILL can't put forth a convincing case that the Raiders would have won had Miami's secondary remained at full strength..."
"What if" gets no play on the football field, nor from me. Every team has injuries, and every team has a bench. The proverbial playing field is level. You go to war with the force you have. If you can't win with that force, that's your problem.
Astute gamblers pay attention to a phenomena called "cluster injuries", i.e. 2 or more injuries to a particular unit's starters; be it in the secondary, LB's, DL's, what have you. This is because it has RELEVANCE. I agree that Babb and Stuckey didn't get the job done. Obviously. But Johnson and Scott would have. Just as Bleier and Harris would have made a difference in 76. From 40 points against the Colts to all of 7 against the Raiders? You still avoid the central premise. Case closed indeed.
Maybe if lightning had struck Clarence Davis in the fourth quarter, the outcome would've been different. The "central premise" is a "coulda woulda shoulda." It's meaningless.
Can you guarantee that the injured defensive starters would've had any more success containing Fred Biletnikoff or Cliff Branch than your scrubs did? No, you cannot, anymore than I could guarantee that they'd both score RDs.
Sept 73: Fred B: 3 rec, 36 yds. lamonica:7/10/ 63 yds, 1 int (by Scott). Dec 73: Fred B: 2 rec,15 yds. Stabler: 15/23/129 yds, 1 TD 1 INT.Sept 75: Fred B:1 rec,5 yds. Cliff B: 1 rec, 15 yds.Stabler:8/15/108 yds, 0 TD 3 INT. Johnson AND Scott started and finished all three of those games. Now tell me again how those two guys wouldn't have made the difference between winning and losing a two point game lost with half a minute remaining.
I can't tell you absolutely they wouldn't have made a difference. I can't tell you they would have, either...and neither can you. I can tell you that NFL history is full of playoff games in which the so-called "superior' team lost, despite being at full strength. So you keep consoling yourself over the absence of Johnson and Scott....and I'll keep reminding you of the fundamental truth:
We Raider fans know all about tough losses. Even in our recent six years in the wilderness, most of those losses were anything but blowouts. It happens. But non-stop mourning over a 1974 playoff game? Nah.
catch being entrapment., the ball may have touched the ground as did Snake's knee appear to when he shot putted to Clarence. Miami was CLASS all the way back then; they won with humility & lost with dignity. The sum of the WHOLE was not equal to the sum of the PARTS. What a fine roll model they were for young people regarding hard work, discipline, fair play, integrity & TEAM-work.
"...the ball may have touched the ground as did Snake's knee appear to when he shot putted to Clarence..." It didn't.
"...Miami was CLASS all the way back then; they won with humility & lost with dignity. ..." Until they lost that game. Whining like little bitches for three decades and change is not classy.
"whining little bitches"?...LOL! Your "commitment to excrement" crew has been whining more about the Franco TD in '72 & the frozen sidelines in '75 & the '01 tuck rule than any teams on any game of any era.
I understand about the Franco Harris carom, which was a rule violation the refs didn't catch. That's life. The whining about the frozen sidelines I thought was a bit much, but you scarcely hear Raider fans mention that game. The "snow job," was another blown call, but that was a LOT more recent than 1974.
In your game, you just lost. End of story. You fans are still whining about that. That's bad enough. But the players are still whining about it? That's just sad.
"BULL" is exactly right, but not in the way you think. I've seen that replay a thousand times and we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. It still doesn't let Dolphin fans (and PLAYERS?) off the hook for whining about a play they just straight up LOST 35 years ago.
And then the Raiders beat the Phins in the playoffs the next year, ending the Dolphins dynasty. Dolphins have back to back SB titles, but haven't won one in 37 years. And the Raiders have THREE rings
LOL. And what have the Dolphins been since....forever? Even when you HAD Marino! The Raiders won 2 Super Bowls with a beat up, broken down, has-been of a QB, while the Dolphins couldn't t win with greatest passer in NFL history
"The typical dillusional paranoia "everybody's out to get us" "
Oh, come now. If you know anything about the NFL for the last 45 years you know its no delusion. The battles between Al Davis and the league are legendary. He and Pete Roselle were mortal enemies, going back to Davis's time as AFL commissioner. The NFL has tried to undermine the Raiders on numerous occasions in the past, as has been well documented
The Phins defended their title, once, 37 years ago. And never won again. And give me an f'in break. The Fish were as dirty as anybody. The Raiders have won more titles, and won more games in the 70s. 9 Championship games in 11 years. The Fish never had a run like that.
Miami had 104 wins in the 70s. Oakland had 100. And a winning head to head record against the Dolphins, Cowboys, and Steelers.
Oakland 1967-1969, 37-4-1. That's 4 losses in 3 years.
By the way, Super Bowl losses or not, 4 straight AFC titles sure as hell IS something to brag about. Where were the Dolphins when the Bills were in the SB? They still dominated the AFC, didn't they? And big difference is, Raiders won a Super Bowl in that stretch, then 2 more in the next 7 years. They aint the Bills
The Dolphins have some great history, but I dont know how you can dismiss 4 straight AFC title for the Bills, which is an unmatched feat in itself even if they never won a Super Bowl. 9 championship games in 11 years is also unmatched in NFL history, and they did win a title on that run, then 2 more within 7 years
Raiders the Fish in the first game game Miami ever played. And beat them in their first ever playoff game in '70. Raiders ended their winning streak in '73. after the perfect season. Raiders ended their Super Bowl run in '74, beat them in Dan Marino's first game, and were 1 of only 2 teams to beat them in the '84 season.
Raiders are 3-1 vs Fish in the playoffs. Last time was in 2000, 27-0 Raiders.
Raiders & Dolphins for years were neck and neck for best lifetime winning % in all American pro team sports. But for years, into the 90s, Raiders had best winning percentage vs Dolphins of any head-to-head matchup in the NFL. In other words, for years no NFL team owned another NFL team as much as the Raiders owned the Dolphins.
End of story.
Enjoy the Dolphins glory but have some respect for other traditions, lady
No, "most" of those wins were not in the 60s. And expansion in 1966 is not an excuse vs a team that was only founded in 1960 and did not have a winning season until 1963.
And again, for years Raiders had best win % vs Dolphins that any team had vs any other team, even though 'Phins had one of best win percentages in all sports. Including some big games like this one. Raiders tortured the Fish for years
And I dont care about the Bills. You can diss them all you like. This is a Raiders page
Miami played Oakland six times from '66 -'69, losing 5 & a tie in the 6th game. '70- '79 : Oak. went 5-3 vs Mia. All but one of these losses in the 70's were close. Oak could'nt score a TD against the No-Namers in '73 reg. seas. loss (12-7). In 1975 season opener on MNF Miami lost 30-20 & without Csonka, Kiick, Warfield, plus Manny Fernandez DE, Bob Hienz DT, Nick Buoniconti LB, & Dick Anderson S... all missed game due to injuries. This "domination" you alude to is slightly skewed.
Again, I am talking about lifetime head to head winning percentage. As of the mid-nineties, Raiders had best LIFETIME winning percentage vs Dolphins of any NFL head to head matchup, That is a statistical fact.
"Oak could'nt score a TD against the No-Namers in '73 reg. seas. loss (12-7)"
So what? Oak
could'nt score a TD against the No-Namers in '73 reg. seas. loss (12-7). But the Raiders won the game. Just win, baby. Dolphins couldn't muster more than 7 points. That wont win too many games.
You're full of excuses for Dolphins losses, as if no one else has injuries. You act as if 1972-74 are the only years that count. Whose fault is it they lost Csonka, etc? He wanted to get paid
Madden watched Lombardi up close & personal when the Packers destroyed the Raiders in SB2. But just because he admired him doesn't mean he sought to emulate him. He's John Madden, not Vince Lombardi. Madden's coaching style was the perfect fit for the Raiders. A disciplinarian like Shula or Lombardi would have been a disaster with the Oakland crew. That's why half of them came to Oakland to begin with. The Raiders had their own unique recipe, and it worked astoundingly well for a very long time
What does Lombardi have to do with it? I dont share your fetish for him. There is no one-size-fits-all style of coaching. You really understand little about the Raiders. The Raiders have their own way of doing things, and it made them one of the most successful franchises in the NFL for a long time. They worked as hard as hell, which showed on the field. But a disciplinarian would NOT have worked. The Raiders thrived precisely because they did not have a leash on their necks.
Madden's approach is the Raiders approach, and it continued under Flores for 2 more SB titles. Madden only got 1 in 10 years, while Shula only had 2 in 32 years, and they came early. You are clueless about the Raiders if you think a disciplinarian approach would have made them better. They were NOT the Dolphins. Their approach made them the most desirable destination for players in the NFL. Everyone wanted to be a Raider. They treated men like men, not boys with a stern father figure
They were every bit as loved as they were hated. They were HUGELY popular, to the point of becoming iconic. Many people said they, not the Cowboys, were truly America's team of that era, and far more suited to the mood of the country at the time. It was the age of the anti-hero. And a Lombardi-style approach would have ruined them. Their chemistry was unique
They had still not even made it to the playoffs in '66.1960-2 they were worst team in AFL. 6 years is not a lot of time to create a contender from scratch. It took Oakland 7 to make the playoffs. The 'Phins rise to a title was one of the fastest in sports history. Did the rest of the AFL go 5-0-1 vs Miami before Shula? No. They lost 5 times to the Raiders in the late 60s because Oakland was the better team, period.
"your error in claiming Oakland's had best win % vs
another team"
Headed into 1992 season, Raiders vs Dolphins all-time regular season head-to head record was 14-3-1, Raiders. That's 3 wins in 18 games for the "Phins. That's win percentage of over 77% for the Raiders. In late 80s it was 13-2-1, win % of over 81%. That was the highest in the league in both cases. Of course, Dolphins have turned it around since then. It is currently 16-12, Raiders. 3-1 in postseason
But no one denies how great the Steelers Super Bowl run was. Even sports historians think the Immaculate Reception was one of the most controversial plays of all time, by any standard. But there was no such controversial play in this game. The Dolphins lost fair and square, and the Raiders won in typical fashion.
And the Dolphins would not have gotten past the Steelers either. It was their year
Even in the sports world people talked about how many bad breaks the Raiders had in that era. If a play or 2 and a couple of calls went differently, they easily could have been the dynasty of that era. They were arguably the most feared team in the NFL during the 70s
Raiders beat the Fish in the first game game Miami ever played. And beat them in their first ever playoff game in '70. Raiders ended their winning streak in '73. after the perfect season. Raiders ended their Super Bowl run in '74, beat them in Dan Marino's first game, and were 1 of only 2 teams to beat them in the '84 season.
Wake me when you have something to tell me that I DON'T already know. And considering that at least one of the wins in those single-digit winning seasons was over your Dolphins, in your own house, are you SURE that's something you want to bring up?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
he never did anything illegal and he wasnt the only one using stick em. hes a hall of famer because of his toughness to not just because he had great hands.
cryin about Scott? The Raiders were without Hall of Famer Willie Brown that game - but Raider fans don't cry about it cause one player does not make a team or lose a game. The Raiders won the game- period. The Raiders lost alot of great games too - but thats football.
I stand by what I said before - both teams had key injuries - it's part of the game - and we must have had a better "Bench" than the Miami - cause the guys they replaced Scott with did not do the job... our bench filled in and helped to win the game.
Raiders won the game - AND were the better team that day.
Agreed in part. Putting in Henry Stuckey instead of Lloyd Mumphord was a HUGE mistake. Mumphord was a better cover corner AND more physical. But the fact of the matter is that the Dolphins were either tied or ahead for all but 6 minutes and change for that game. For the most part, THEY were the better team.
And the supposedly superior Dolphins couldn't hang for those last six minutes? I really don't need you to make my case for me, but it's fun watching you do it, anyway.
That and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. No wait...it won't even get you that much.
Only whiny, embittered Dolphin players...and their fans...would give a fat rat's bladder about 54 minutes of success in a 60-minute game. You lost. Deal with it.
A loss is a loss; regardless of whether being down to key injuries OR blown calls. Go see how many Chokeland Raider fans are still pissing and moaning about the Immaculate Reception. Do not speak to me about whiny, embittered Dolphin fans
"A loss is a loss" and "key injuries" together doesn't wash. That's what you have a bench for, is it not? You don't want to be spoken of as a whiny, embittered Dolphin fan? Then stop whining, embittered Dolphin fan. Until then, get used to being called on it.
And if Stabler went out in the first quarter? Some losses can be overcome, some not so. NO team has a bench so deep that any first-teamer can seamlessly be filled in for. Just one of many, many examples: Thanksgiving 1977: The Cardinals, a team that each of the three prior years posted 10 or more wins, lose TWO starters in their secondary the week before playing Miami. Result? Griese, never a prolific passer, throws for SIX td's. Rationale sound familiar? You'll have to start making more sense.
"We didn't have all our starters playing...we didn't have this one...we didn't have that one." Boo-frickin'-hoo. Bottom line: If your bench can't hang, that's on you.
The numbers speak for themselves, and they don't lie: not hard to figure out how (and why) the Raiders moved the ball in this one. I won't dispute that the subs the fish brought in didn't get it done. But the point made for this one was simply that the Dolphin starting group was superior to that of the Raiders, and the depleted secondary was why Miami got beat.
@MrCentvrio "But the point made for this one was simply that the Dolphin starting group was superior to that of the Raiders". This is just an excuse. The Raiders were a better team.
they shouldn't have even counted that shit on account of almost every CB and WR on the Raiders during that tiome used stick 'em so that the ball would automatically stick to them no matter what.....
Yeah but look who made it to the playoffs this year? Raiders?..... No I don't think it was. Who made the bigger improvement overall? Raiders?.... No. Ya'll still haven't even made it passed the .500 mark yet and ya'll record is like 24-72 since ya'll lost to my Bucs in Superbowl XXXVII? Get the fuck outta here!!!!
Yo, where the fuck did you come from??? If you was from the south you would know that "Ya'll" is an abbreviation for "You All". You All = Ya'll. And I was talking about obrien4ever and his sorry ass Raiders. You must like 'em to since you offended by my words....
Wow! You really need to educate yourself, and also stop getting so offensive that your team just sucks balls.
You say that I am the reason people make fun of the south just 'cause I'm saying "ya'll"? Yeah that's a damn good excuse. Not to mention how many successful people from the south becoming millionaires and such? Not to mention one of the greatest QB's playing right now, Peyton Manning, from Louisiana is still kicking your teams ass every season.
Not to mention the best player on your team, Nnamdi Asomugha is from the South as well? Yeah saying "ya'll" is the reason why people make fun the south alright.
You're really on some pussy caliber right now by just saying anything you think is offensive just 'cause I made a remark about your sorry ass team.
Raiders still suck, you're still a sorry ass faggot getting offensive about his team, and I'm done with you 'cause you just failed big time!
Dude seriously you're starting a pointless argument over the way someone talks and about nothing that is actually relevant to the video. Your aimless comebacks are nothing short of an attempt to vent your feeling of me insulting your team, which you claim not be, but most senseless arguments start because of a statement someone finds offensive and feels the compulsion to retaliate. You're not even mentioning anything relevant to the video.
You're nothing but a troll, because he knows that the team that he is rooting for cannot even make it past the .500 mark. And just because I type like I am from the south, does not mean that I sound like I am from the south. And btw, I find compelling that most people who actually use the term 'kid' on this site, are usually the ones who are not even old enough themselves to buy a pack of cigarettes legally without their mom being on their asses. Good day....
Good catch but did you notice after the play when he slaps 5 to the ballboy their hands stick together due to the amount of stickum on his hand? Sticky fingers is right!
71billyboi 1 month ago
The guy in the black leather jacket was james garner the actor after Fred catches the ball in the endzone
vfigueroa1 1 month ago
this is a great catch, but the tyree helmet grab in sb XLII blows this one away
ImShorry 1 month ago
in challengin plays in todays game - the ball was caught out of bounds. he did not have control when he went out of bounds and his knees did not get in! and I am damn raider fan
06frankee 2 months ago
lol stop crying about the Stick-em, it has nothing to do with it. The gloves that the NFL allows WR's to use now are way worse that Stick-em, and balls are lost all the time none the less. It's not Stick-em, its being an amazing WR
DIGITX92 2 months ago
not to good
robwil9 2 months ago
STICK-EM
87shadowfox 2 months ago
he didn't even have possession when he went to the ground
xaqshuna2003 2 months ago
amazing what that stickum can do
4736dmr 2 months ago
great game but coming from a miami fan fuck you oakland
TheJoec2005 3 months ago
This was the best game I had ever seen at that point in my life. It still may be. Incredible game. Hated that they lost to the Steelers the following week. But, so glad they won it all 2 yrs later. RIP Al Davis.
youngman44 4 months ago 3
This is the game that made me a Raider fan for life. Amazing thing is, after this catch, the game even got better. Dolphins went a great time consuming drive for the go ahead touchdown they thought gave them the victory. But the Raiders struck back with a frantic drive in the waning moments and won the game on Clarence Davis' "sea of Hands" Catch. In the first 20 years of the Superbowl Era (1966-1985) the Raiders were the most exciting and consistently best team.
Elvislivzon 5 months ago 4
At 0:44 Notice how their hands stick when Biletnikof gives 5 to the ball guy !!
6400az 6 months ago
Apparently the 3 dislikes never learned how to catch!
ianhated 9 months ago
In 74' the Dolphin where a better team than the Raiders, the year before they crushed them in the AFC Title Game.
6400az 10 months ago
Great catch, but Raiders ended up losing the following week to the Steelers.
Navdan87 10 months ago
this was the greatest game in NFL playoff history!!
don shula actually cried after it because his 2 year run was over!
TheTzdope 11 months ago
Once again Stabler and Biletnifoff use telepathy to hook up for another TD. I seem to remember Fred making an identical catch to this one in the end zone earlier in the game, only to be ruled out of bounds, and Fred being mad as hell at the offical and his call. After 37 years I don't know if I imagined the earlier play, or if it really happened. Somebody help me out!
radar0412 11 months ago
if that guy spiked the ball infront of the Dolphins guy and the ref like that today he'd get fined a hecka lot of money..hahaha. Amazing catch though
imnislander2 11 months ago
check out AFL catches
TheDukeOfNormandy 1 year ago
That was a great catch but why do 2 players have to spike it
rlawry100 1 year ago
@rlawry100 Why not? :)
CPGKILLS 8 months ago
That was the best catch I've ever seen
shawn23841 1 year ago
gay
619valenzuela 1 year ago
best catch ever
fundough721 1 year ago
Let's point out for Mr. Centvrio that while Miami had lost a couple of defensive backs in this game , Steve Foley , an all pro cornerback , was not one of them . He is infact , the guy hanging onto Fred's right arm ( which is illegal ) while Biletnikoff hauls the ball in with his left , mind you , while keeping BOTH feet in bounds . Biletnikoff did this to the top cornerbacks in the NFL for about 13 years . Those numbers don't lie .
MAJORDRUMMER 1 year ago
@MAJORDRUMMER The pulling on his arm by the defender happens after the ball arrives. The clip clearly show it. It's not illegal.
nyykrmv 1 year ago
0:22 "TAKE THAT AND SUPER SIZE IT BITCH!" Lol!!
juanros71 1 year ago
"The had come for Belitnicoft (if thats how its spelt idk) to show off his fingers..." THATS WHAT SHE SAID! haha
Thumbs up if you laughed at this....
DJLAKIPRODUCTIONS 1 year ago
@DJLAKIPRODUCTIONS WAH WAH WAAAAH...
gerLd 1 year ago
"the dolphins belong in a fishbowl not a superbowl" hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahazhahahahha
shehab2012 1 year ago
lol @ the sign at 1:33
Oaktownraider13 1 year ago
the frst and only emulate reception
FRAULEIN37 1 year ago
momentum works sometimes, lol
MoveOnDotOrgg 1 year ago
Clarence Davis caught the winning TD pass, not Fred.
emcderm 2 years ago
that wouldve been nice if that was the final play
The360Films 2 years ago
i thought cliff branch's touchdown in this game was so much cooler
SportsandRock4Life 2 years ago
That is the best catch I have ever seen. Ps raiders rule
alejandroliera123 2 years ago
RAIDER NATION
adamsbomb97 2 years ago
lol their celebration is so weak
j4w7 2 years ago
Raiders didn't need to celebrate. They were the greatest team of that time.
xThunderxWolfx 2 years ago 7
im saying that football period . pple didnt celebrate crazy as todays
j4w7 2 years ago
@xThunderxWolfx The Steel Curtain would kick their ass in the 74 AFC Championship game
MrTennesseeVols 9 months ago
@MrTennesseeVols true alot of people forget that
brucedavis76 7 months ago
Never mind. I got it now. thought u were referring to this video. Either way, these old time games are classics and the teams were all crazy good. Not like today. The Raiders were great throughout the entire decade and only got one ring because Miami and Pittsburgh were great too. We will never see that again. It was like SF and Dallas in the 90's. You knew the NFC title game was the super bowl
OakRaiders1224 2 years ago
Except that this game was in 74 so I don't know what afc championship Miami won that year or the next year
OakRaiders1224 2 years ago
It was in reference to the 1973 season
when Miami avenged a 12-7 loss to Oak
in week 2 by crushing them 27-10 in the
AFC Championship.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
What kind of cheese goes with a Miami whine? Three decades and Dullfans are still whining about losing that playoff game? Then again, your players are still whining about it, so I guess it's all good. Lose one playoff games and your fins are bent out of shape for life?
Whatever.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
And you guys aren't still carping about Biekert's fumble recovery nullified by the infamous "tuck rule?" GIVE ME A BREAK.
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 6
The "snow job" was in 2002. You Dolphin types are whining about a game played THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO.
Do the math...then go sit down.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
Go see how many Raider fans are still bitching about the "Immaculate Reception"! Not to mention Rob Lyttle's did he/didn't he cross the goal line in the 77 AFC Title Game. Like you said, do the math....and I hear all about that California Whine country...
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 5
We got over both those travesties in subsequent Super Bowls. Please try and keep up.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
Point is, YOU guys regard them as travesties. Sounds like whining to me. And now...about the travesty that was the false roughing the passer penalty against Sugar Bear Hamilton vs. the Pats in the 76 post season...Don't hear too much about that one.
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 6
The difference being, both the Immaculate Reception and the Snow Job involved blown referee calls (if you want to add the roughing the passer call to that list, that's fine, too)...while the Miami loss involved nothing but their own failure to close the deal. After 54 minutes of being "the better team" -- as least in your view -- they couldn't keep it together for six minutes? Pathetic.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
The only thing that's pathetic is the pot calling the kettle black...As well as the failure to understand the basics of cause and effect...and what's now become of the Oakland Raiders organization. Might that you want me to elaborate?
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 6
Elaborate all you care to; I know more about the malaise of the Raiders' present state than you EVER will. It doesn't stop me from remaining a fan, nor calling out the hypocrites like yourself. So if you think you've got it, bring it.
I'll be right here.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
Hypocrite? Where are you coming from? I've been going to Dolphin games since 1970 at the age of six, including 6-8 in 76, 6-10 in 88, 4-12 in 04, 6-10 in 06, and 1-15 in 07. YOU sound like the real deal as a fan, I give you your props for that. But... can't say the same for a LOTof your bretheren out there, nor are a lot of your arguments particularly cogent: you STILL can't put forth a convincing case that the Raiders would have won had Miami's secondary remained at full strength.
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 4
Every team has its real fans and its sunshine patriots, whiners and wannabes. I guess we can agree on that much.
I've been a Raider fan since 1960 -- before the shield, before they had a home field in Oakland, before Al Davis.
Nothing is permanent. Teams go up and down, and back. We've been down for six seasons. That's a fact. We've seen some real silliness in that time. That too is a fact. But the ship is being righted. And all will see the proof of that soon enough.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
Your best players are Asumugha, and arguably, Lechler. They both want out, particularly the former. Likely they'll have to slap the franchise tag on him (again) in order to keep him. "Ship being righted?" Like the Titanic? Doesn't seem likely, but I could be wrong and the jury's still out in any case. Like you said, we'll see....
MrCentvrio 2 years ago
This is why it's dicey for fans to talk too much about opposing teams. Embarrassment usually follows.
Nnamdi Asomugha and Shane Lechler both signed new deals making them the highest-paid players at their positions. No franchise tags on either. Nnamdi has already made Darrius Heyward-Bey his personal project and is working with him in camp. Hardly the moves of players who "wanted out."
Derrick Burgess, on the other hand, DID want out, and as you can see, he is.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
Was making them the HIGHEST paid players at their positions the ONLY way to avert discordant postures on their part, or were they going to be content merely by looking to sign long term deals? You also stated that "The ship is being righted" and " we will all see that soon enough". It's only preseason so far, but I await your propensity for measured and erudite commentary on this matter so far...
MrCentvrio 2 years ago
Al made them offers they couldn't refuse, so they stayed. End of story. As for the rest, I believe Tom Cable has this club headed in the right direction. The last preseason game wasn't pretty, but we've seen the Raiders implode in the preseason before and have winning seasons. Then again, Art Shell went undefeated in the preseason...and we know how that ended up. So the first few games of the regular season should give us an idea of where we're at.
galan98 2 years ago
you must really regret saying "tom cable has em goin in the right direction"
ampz22 2 years ago
@ampz22 Not a bit.
galan98 1 year ago
"....you STILL can't put forth a convincing case that the Raiders would have won had Miami's secondary remained at full strength..."
"What if" gets no play on the football field, nor from me. Every team has injuries, and every team has a bench. The proverbial playing field is level. You go to war with the force you have. If you can't win with that force, that's your problem.
"Case" closed.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
Astute gamblers pay attention to a phenomena called "cluster injuries", i.e. 2 or more injuries to a particular unit's starters; be it in the secondary, LB's, DL's, what have you. This is because it has RELEVANCE. I agree that Babb and Stuckey didn't get the job done. Obviously. But Johnson and Scott would have. Just as Bleier and Harris would have made a difference in 76. From 40 points against the Colts to all of 7 against the Raiders? You still avoid the central premise. Case closed indeed.
MrCentvrio 2 years ago
I'm not a gambler. I'm a fan.
Maybe if lightning had struck Clarence Davis in the fourth quarter, the outcome would've been different. The "central premise" is a "coulda woulda shoulda." It's meaningless.
Can you guarantee that the injured defensive starters would've had any more success containing Fred Biletnikoff or Cliff Branch than your scrubs did? No, you cannot, anymore than I could guarantee that they'd both score RDs.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
Sept 73: Fred B: 3 rec, 36 yds. lamonica:7/10/ 63 yds, 1 int (by Scott). Dec 73: Fred B: 2 rec,15 yds. Stabler: 15/23/129 yds, 1 TD 1 INT.Sept 75: Fred B:1 rec,5 yds. Cliff B: 1 rec, 15 yds.Stabler:8/15/108 yds, 0 TD 3 INT. Johnson AND Scott started and finished all three of those games. Now tell me again how those two guys wouldn't have made the difference between winning and losing a two point game lost with half a minute remaining.
MrCentvrio 2 years ago
I can't tell you absolutely they wouldn't have made a difference. I can't tell you they would have, either...and neither can you. I can tell you that NFL history is full of playoff games in which the so-called "superior' team lost, despite being at full strength. So you keep consoling yourself over the absence of Johnson and Scott....and I'll keep reminding you of the fundamental truth:
It changes nothing, therefore it means nothing.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
That game was tough for us Miami fans,
because we knew this was it for 3 marquee players (Csonka, Kiick, &Warfield). Also, the opportunity to win 3
SBs & appear in 4 SBs in a row + our Perfect Season. Miami went 10-4 in 1975
despite losing these 3 players. Could Pitt
have done that without Franco, Rocky & Lynn?...NO WAY!
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
We Raider fans know all about tough losses. Even in our recent six years in the wilderness, most of those losses were anything but blowouts. It happens. But non-stop mourning over a 1974 playoff game? Nah.
galan98 2 years ago
Blown referee calls?...how 'bout Branch's
catch being entrapment., the ball may have touched the ground as did Snake's knee appear to when he shot putted to Clarence. Miami was CLASS all the way back then; they won with humility & lost with dignity. The sum of the WHOLE was not equal to the sum of the PARTS. What a fine roll model they were for young people regarding hard work, discipline, fair play, integrity & TEAM-work.
1972 DOLPHINS=BEST EVER!!!!
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
"...Blown referee calls?...how 'bout Branch's
catch being entrapment...." It wasn't.
"...the ball may have touched the ground as did Snake's knee appear to when he shot putted to Clarence..." It didn't.
"...Miami was CLASS all the way back then; they won with humility & lost with dignity. ..." Until they lost that game. Whining like little bitches for three decades and change is not classy.
galan98 2 years ago
"whining little bitches"?...LOL! Your "commitment to excrement" crew has been whining more about the Franco TD in '72 & the frozen sidelines in '75 & the '01 tuck rule than any teams on any game of any era.
1972 DOLPHINS=BEST EVER!!!!
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
I understand about the Franco Harris carom, which was a rule violation the refs didn't catch. That's life. The whining about the frozen sidelines I thought was a bit much, but you scarcely hear Raider fans mention that game. The "snow job," was another blown call, but that was a LOT more recent than 1974.
In your game, you just lost. End of story. You fans are still whining about that. That's bad enough. But the players are still whining about it? That's just sad.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
There was no rules violation commited in
Franco's catch. If the Assassin had simply
swated the ball instead of trying to level
Fuqua, the ball never would of shot over
to Harris. Madden, Villapiano & co. cry
about this to this day. They try to console
themselves that they were "robbed" by the
refs. The sea of hands represented much
more than a simple playoff game to Miami.
1972 DOLPHINS=BEST EVER!!!!
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
That may be so, but the fact remains that it bounced off Frenchy Fuqua, which at that time was illegal. And so it goes.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
BULL!...it was Tatum that drove that ball
into Franco's eager hands. Sheesh!...talk
about total denial. I've got a friend who's
been a Raider fan since 1960 & he tells
his fellow Raider fans all the time that
the ball bounced off Tatum.
1972 DOLPHINS=BEST EVER!!!!
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
"BULL" is exactly right, but not in the way you think. I've seen that replay a thousand times and we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. It still doesn't let Dolphin fans (and PLAYERS?) off the hook for whining about a play they just straight up LOST 35 years ago.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
yeah but that was some "good excrement" when the Raiders ended the Dolphins 17 game win streak in 1973 at Berkeley, 12-7.........just win baby!!!!
bubbabubbabooba 2 years ago
Yeah & then Miami's 27-10 route later
that year over "just whine baby" in the AFC
Championship enroute to a 2nd consecu-
tive SB Title...something the Raiders have
never been able to accomplish.
1972 DOLPHINS=BEST EVER
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
Dolphins suck. Jets FTW
DannyVRT 2 years ago
My son is a Jets fan, but that's better than
being a Raider or Cowboy fan.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
And then the Raiders beat the Phins in the playoffs the next year, ending the Dolphins dynasty. Dolphins have back to back SB titles, but haven't won one in 37 years. And the Raiders have THREE rings
Rikkangel 2 years ago
The raiders have never defended a Super
Bowl Title...not once. Oakland has 7-straight seasons of 11 losses or more...6
was a NFL record...that's pathetic. I'll stick
with Miami...at least they could win without
cheating back in the 70's.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
@dolfangirl1 atleast the raiders can get 3 Sbs with the League and Refs Agenst them
raidhanna1234 2 years ago
The typical dillusional paranoia "everybody's out to get us" excuse. Give me a break. Those Raider
teams from the late 60's through the mid
80's were tough & played dirty, but they
have been neither for 20+ seasons.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
LOL. And what have the Dolphins been since....forever? Even when you HAD Marino! The Raiders won 2 Super Bowls with a beat up, broken down, has-been of a QB, while the Dolphins couldn't t win with greatest passer in NFL history
Rikkangel 2 years ago
"The typical dillusional paranoia "everybody's out to get us" "
Oh, come now. If you know anything about the NFL for the last 45 years you know its no delusion. The battles between Al Davis and the league are legendary. He and Pete Roselle were mortal enemies, going back to Davis's time as AFL commissioner. The NFL has tried to undermine the Raiders on numerous occasions in the past, as has been well documented
Rikkangel 2 years ago
The Phins defended their title, once, 37 years ago. And never won again. And give me an f'in break. The Fish were as dirty as anybody. The Raiders have won more titles, and won more games in the 70s. 9 Championship games in 11 years. The Fish never had a run like that.
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Dallas had the most wins during the 70's
...Miami had the 2nd most, trailing Dallas
by 1 measley win. 32-2 from '72-'73...Oak.
never had a run like that. Btw. Oakland
lost 7 of those 9 AFC Championships...kinda like a Bills fan
bragging about their 4 straight Super Bowl
appearances...all losses.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
Miami had 104 wins in the 70s. Oakland had 100. And a winning head to head record against the Dolphins, Cowboys, and Steelers.
Oakland 1967-1969, 37-4-1. That's 4 losses in 3 years.
By the way, Super Bowl losses or not, 4 straight AFC titles sure as hell IS something to brag about. Where were the Dolphins when the Bills were in the SB? They still dominated the AFC, didn't they? And big difference is, Raiders won a Super Bowl in that stretch, then 2 more in the next 7 years. They aint the Bills
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Actually, Oakland had 7 losses from '67-
'69. Including post-season they were
40-7-1. Miami was 44-5-1 from '71-'73
which included merger games with the
NFC during the reg. season, unlike Oak's
AFL only games from '67-'69. (except for
Green Bay in SB II of course.).
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
The Dolphins have some great history, but I dont know how you can dismiss 4 straight AFC title for the Bills, which is an unmatched feat in itself even if they never won a Super Bowl. 9 championship games in 11 years is also unmatched in NFL history, and they did win a title on that run, then 2 more within 7 years
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Yeah, the Raiders are pretty pathetic now. But weren't the Fish just 1-15 a couiple of years ago? And in serious danger of gong 0-for the season?
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Raiders the Fish in the first game game Miami ever played. And beat them in their first ever playoff game in '70. Raiders ended their winning streak in '73. after the perfect season. Raiders ended their Super Bowl run in '74, beat them in Dan Marino's first game, and were 1 of only 2 teams to beat them in the '84 season.
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Raiders are 3-1 vs Fish in the playoffs. Last time was in 2000, 27-0 Raiders.
Raiders & Dolphins for years were neck and neck for best lifetime winning % in all American pro team sports. But for years, into the 90s, Raiders had best winning percentage vs Dolphins of any head-to-head matchup in the NFL. In other words, for years no NFL team owned another NFL team as much as the Raiders owned the Dolphins.
End of story.
Enjoy the Dolphins glory but have some respect for other traditions, lady
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Most of those wins came in the 60's during Miami's expansion, pre-Shula years...they would play twice a year before
the 1970 AFL-NFL merger. Miami had a 20 game win streak vs Buffalo that ended
in early 80's...that was "ownership".
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
No, "most" of those wins were not in the 60s. And expansion in 1966 is not an excuse vs a team that was only founded in 1960 and did not have a winning season until 1963.
And again, for years Raiders had best win % vs Dolphins that any team had vs any other team, even though 'Phins had one of best win percentages in all sports. Including some big games like this one. Raiders tortured the Fish for years
And I dont care about the Bills. You can diss them all you like. This is a Raiders page
Rikkangel 2 years ago
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
Again, I am talking about lifetime head to head winning percentage. As of the mid-nineties, Raiders had best LIFETIME winning percentage vs Dolphins of any NFL head to head matchup, That is a statistical fact.
Rikkangel 2 years ago
"Oak could'nt score a TD against the No-Namers in '73 reg. seas. loss (12-7)"
So what? Oak
could'nt score a TD against the No-Namers in '73 reg. seas. loss (12-7). But the Raiders won the game. Just win, baby. Dolphins couldn't muster more than 7 points. That wont win too many games.
You're full of excuses for Dolphins losses, as if no one else has injuries. You act as if 1972-74 are the only years that count. Whose fault is it they lost Csonka, etc? He wanted to get paid
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Missing 7 of your best starters is signific-
ant went you're playing one of the league's
best teams. Miami still finished 10-4 that
year (1975)...a credit to Coach Shula.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
Indeed it is. It was also only one game
Rikkangel 2 years ago
I've always wondered why Madden is such
a huge Vince Lombardi fan, when his
coaching style wasn't even remotely close
to Lombardi's. I think Lombardi would have admired Csonka's hard-nosed rushing style, as well as Miami's well
disciplined, work ethic. Off the topic comment I know, but always wondered.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
Madden watched Lombardi up close & personal when the Packers destroyed the Raiders in SB2. But just because he admired him doesn't mean he sought to emulate him. He's John Madden, not Vince Lombardi. Madden's coaching style was the perfect fit for the Raiders. A disciplinarian like Shula or Lombardi would have been a disaster with the Oakland crew. That's why half of them came to Oakland to begin with. The Raiders had their own unique recipe, and it worked astoundingly well for a very long time
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Paul Brown influenced many coaches, as
did Lombardi & Walsh.,,and what I mean
by "influenced", is that they adopted many
of these coaches' techniques to their
own coaching methodology. Although,
Madden's system yielded a high win %,
it only yeilded 1 SB trophy. Much of the hate Oakland experienced (aside from
Rozelle) was because of this style of play.
Lombardi & most others respect hard work & discipline which results in character, not only for players, but youngsters who emulate them.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
What does Lombardi have to do with it? I dont share your fetish for him. There is no one-size-fits-all style of coaching. You really understand little about the Raiders. The Raiders have their own way of doing things, and it made them one of the most successful franchises in the NFL for a long time. They worked as hard as hell, which showed on the field. But a disciplinarian would NOT have worked. The Raiders thrived precisely because they did not have a leash on their necks.
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Yeah, I understand the "old" Raiders...basically the Raiders are extinct.
The modern Raiders play like a perpetual
expansion team. Btw, I have a lot of respect for Ken Stabler. He was one of the
best QBs ever & was fun to watch...he belongs in the HOF. I know their old system worked for many of those players,
but the way to build dynasties is through
discipline like Lombardi, Shula, Noll, Walsh, & Johnson. All but Walsh emphas-
ised the run.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
Madden's approach is the Raiders approach, and it continued under Flores for 2 more SB titles. Madden only got 1 in 10 years, while Shula only had 2 in 32 years, and they came early. You are clueless about the Raiders if you think a disciplinarian approach would have made them better. They were NOT the Dolphins. Their approach made them the most desirable destination for players in the NFL. Everyone wanted to be a Raider. They treated men like men, not boys with a stern father figure
Rikkangel 2 years ago
"Much of the hate Oakland experienced (aside from
Rozelle) was because of this style of play."
They were every bit as loved as they were hated. They were HUGELY popular, to the point of becoming iconic. Many people said they, not the Cowboys, were truly America's team of that era, and far more suited to the mood of the country at the time. It was the age of the anti-hero. And a Lombardi-style approach would have ruined them. Their chemistry was unique
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Oakland has a cool logo & colors, they left
NFL fans with many unforgettable games,
plays, & personalaties (some of them
fans), but their old sytem was unstable.
Grudden was Oakland's big chance for a
dynasty, but it wasn't the "Raider way".
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
Oakland was a well-oiled machine by '66
...Miami was heading toward their 2nd
straight Super Bowl by their 7th season...
yeah, six seasons can make a BIG difference. Btw, my reference to the Bills
was meant to illustrate your error in claiming Oakland's had best win % vs
another team. Miami had 20 straight wins
vs Buffalo throughout the 1970's, plus the
Bills went from 1966-1983 before they
finally managed to win their 2nd ever game at the Orange Bowl.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
I am talking about lifetime head-to-head series, not just one decade.
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Well, they only lead Miami by a few games
in their head to head series...or does football stop counting after the mid-90's?
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
I did say "at one point" repeatedly, did i not?
Rikkangel 2 years ago
"Oakland was a well-oiled machine by '66"
They had still not even made it to the playoffs in '66.1960-2 they were worst team in AFL. 6 years is not a lot of time to create a contender from scratch. It took Oakland 7 to make the playoffs. The 'Phins rise to a title was one of the fastest in sports history. Did the rest of the AFL go 5-0-1 vs Miami before Shula? No. They lost 5 times to the Raiders in the late 60s because Oakland was the better team, period.
Rikkangel 2 years ago
And by coincidence beat the Raiders for
the 1st time ever in 1970, Shula's 1st yr.
in Miami. hmmmm
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
They also lost their very first playoff game in 1970, to the Raiders
Rikkangel 2 years ago
The Jets went 8-0 vs Miami from '66-'69,
Kansas City went 6-0 vs Mia. during that
span. However, Miami swept NY in 1970
& beat KC in '71 playoffs. Also beat Oak
1st time ever in 1970. Miami was a vastly
improved team under Shula...period.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
Of course they were improved under Shula. But ALL of the AFL were young teams. Like I said, the Raiders first made the playoffs in 1967.
Rikkangel 2 years ago
The Jets and the Chiefs were the other dominant teams of the AFL in the late 60s. They bet MOST teams
Rikkangel 2 years ago
yep.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"your error in claiming Oakland's had best win % vs
another team"
Headed into 1992 season, Raiders vs Dolphins all-time regular season head-to head record was 14-3-1, Raiders. That's 3 wins in 18 games for the "Phins. That's win percentage of over 77% for the Raiders. In late 80s it was 13-2-1, win % of over 81%. That was the highest in the league in both cases. Of course, Dolphins have turned it around since then. It is currently 16-12, Raiders. 3-1 in postseason
Rikkangel 2 years ago
This is considered one of the greatest NFL games ever played, and all you can do is whine 35 years later. Pretty sad.
Rikkangel 2 years ago
The "Immaculate Reception" happened
2 yrs earlier & raider-nation, Big Al, Madden & co. still cry about it. Miami was
going for a 4th straight Super Bowl appearance & 3rd straight SB win...that was pretty significant. All of that & knowing
that 3 of your best offensive players will
not be back in '75. This loss hurt worse
than losing to Joe Montana in SB XIX for
many Dolphin fans.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
But no one denies how great the Steelers Super Bowl run was. Even sports historians think the Immaculate Reception was one of the most controversial plays of all time, by any standard. But there was no such controversial play in this game. The Dolphins lost fair and square, and the Raiders won in typical fashion.
And the Dolphins would not have gotten past the Steelers either. It was their year
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Even in the sports world people talked about how many bad breaks the Raiders had in that era. If a play or 2 and a couple of calls went differently, they easily could have been the dynasty of that era. They were arguably the most feared team in the NFL during the 70s
Rikkangel 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Raiders beat the Fish in the first game game Miami ever played. And beat them in their first ever playoff game in '70. Raiders ended their winning streak in '73. after the perfect season. Raiders ended their Super Bowl run in '74, beat them in Dan Marino's first game, and were 1 of only 2 teams to beat them in the '84 season.
Rikkangel 2 years ago
Raiders=SIX-Straight seasons with at
least 11 games lost per year...an NFL
Record.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
Wake me when you have something to tell me that I DON'T already know. And considering that at least one of the wins in those single-digit winning seasons was over your Dolphins, in your own house, are you SURE that's something you want to bring up?
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
And the Fins handed the Bears their ONLY loss in 85 and the Broncos one of their only 2 defeats in 98....your point being?
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 4
The Immaculate Reception was 37 yrs
ago & THAT is the MOST whined over
game of ALL TIME.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
ever heard of "stick em"? hard for me to believe this guy is in th hall of fame.
kinovl 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he never did anything illegal and he wasnt the only one using stick em. hes a hall of famer because of his toughness to not just because he had great hands.
bubbagump1332 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
number 25 didnt seem to happy
TarheelCrazyFan 2 years ago
Miami was a better team. Losing safety
Jake Scott (SB VII MVP) early in the 1st
QT. opened things up for Stabler. This
game allowed the Steelers to become team of the '70s.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
cryin about Scott? The Raiders were without Hall of Famer Willie Brown that game - but Raider fans don't cry about it cause one player does not make a team or lose a game. The Raiders won the game- period. The Raiders lost alot of great games too - but thats football.
obrien4ever 2 years ago
"one player does not make a team or lose
a game" Scott's freakish knee injury, which followed Dick Anderson's INT of
Stabler hurt Miami much more than Brown's absence for Oak. Miami was
a power-running team & when you see that 4th QT slip & run TD by Branch, well
that alone would never have happened
with Scott's presence.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
I stand by what I said before - both teams had key injuries - it's part of the game - and we must have had a better "Bench" than the Miami - cause the guys they replaced Scott with did not do the job... our bench filled in and helped to win the game.
Raiders won the game - AND were the better team that day.
obrien4ever 2 years ago
"better Bench"? Miami also lost CB Curtis
Johnson & HB Mercury Morris did'nt play
at all. All that & Oak still only won with 35
ticks remaining & at home to boot. Take
Freddy Stickumnokoff out instead of
Willie Brown & there goes the "one guy
does'nt make a diff." theory.
dolfangirl1 2 years ago
Agreed in part. Putting in Henry Stuckey instead of Lloyd Mumphord was a HUGE mistake. Mumphord was a better cover corner AND more physical. But the fact of the matter is that the Dolphins were either tied or ahead for all but 6 minutes and change for that game. For the most part, THEY were the better team.
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 6
Were the Dolphins unaware in 1974 that NFL football is played for 60 minutes? More cheese for the whine!
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
You're right! For the other 6 minutes the Raiders were better.
MrCentvrio 2 years ago
And the supposedly superior Dolphins couldn't hang for those last six minutes? I really don't need you to make my case for me, but it's fun watching you do it, anyway.
RAIDERS for life
galan98 2 years ago
The Dolphins only trailed for six minutes the ENTIRE game.
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 4
That and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. No wait...it won't even get you that much.
Only whiny, embittered Dolphin players...and their fans...would give a fat rat's bladder about 54 minutes of success in a 60-minute game. You lost. Deal with it.
galan98 2 years ago
A loss is a loss; regardless of whether being down to key injuries OR blown calls. Go see how many Chokeland Raider fans are still pissing and moaning about the Immaculate Reception. Do not speak to me about whiny, embittered Dolphin fans
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 6
"A loss is a loss" and "key injuries" together doesn't wash. That's what you have a bench for, is it not? You don't want to be spoken of as a whiny, embittered Dolphin fan? Then stop whining, embittered Dolphin fan. Until then, get used to being called on it.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
And if Stabler went out in the first quarter? Some losses can be overcome, some not so. NO team has a bench so deep that any first-teamer can seamlessly be filled in for. Just one of many, many examples: Thanksgiving 1977: The Cardinals, a team that each of the three prior years posted 10 or more wins, lose TWO starters in their secondary the week before playing Miami. Result? Griese, never a prolific passer, throws for SIX td's. Rationale sound familiar? You'll have to start making more sense.
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 5
"We didn't have all our starters playing...we didn't have this one...we didn't have that one." Boo-frickin'-hoo. Bottom line: If your bench can't hang, that's on you.
Next.
RAIDERS for life!
galan98 2 years ago
The numbers speak for themselves, and they don't lie: not hard to figure out how (and why) the Raiders moved the ball in this one. I won't dispute that the subs the fish brought in didn't get it done. But the point made for this one was simply that the Dolphin starting group was superior to that of the Raiders, and the depleted secondary was why Miami got beat.
MrCentvrio 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrCentvrio "But the point made for this one was simply that the Dolphin starting group was superior to that of the Raiders". This is just an excuse. The Raiders were a better team.
fxtrader92 10 months ago
wow that was a good catch but
shouldnt be considered best of all time
plus the raiders fuckin suck
Cawrestlermoto101 2 years ago 6
Wow I guess stick em can do beautiful things.
TheGreatRL 2 years ago 5
fuckin beautiful catch right there
ss5aztecwarrior 2 years ago
they shouldn't have even counted that shit on account of almost every CB and WR on the Raiders during that tiome used stick 'em so that the ball would automatically stick to them no matter what.....
smbplibra93 2 years ago 6
Sounds like a a Dolphin fan - always crying about something!!!
obrien4ever 2 years ago
Yeah but look who made it to the playoffs this year? Raiders?..... No I don't think it was. Who made the bigger improvement overall? Raiders?.... No. Ya'll still haven't even made it passed the .500 mark yet and ya'll record is like 24-72 since ya'll lost to my Bucs in Superbowl XXXVII? Get the fuck outta here!!!!
smbplibra93 2 years ago 4
Ya'll? What the fuck is a Ya'll?
Seastorm21 2 years ago
Yo, where the fuck did you come from??? If you was from the south you would know that "Ya'll" is an abbreviation for "You All". You All = Ya'll. And I was talking about obrien4ever and his sorry ass Raiders. You must like 'em to since you offended by my words....
smbplibra93 2 years ago 3
You are the reason they make fun of people in the south.
Seastorm21 2 years ago
Wow! You really need to educate yourself, and also stop getting so offensive that your team just sucks balls.
You say that I am the reason people make fun of the south just 'cause I'm saying "ya'll"? Yeah that's a damn good excuse. Not to mention how many successful people from the south becoming millionaires and such? Not to mention one of the greatest QB's playing right now, Peyton Manning, from Louisiana is still kicking your teams ass every season.
smbplibra93 2 years ago
Not to mention the best player on your team, Nnamdi Asomugha is from the South as well? Yeah saying "ya'll" is the reason why people make fun the south alright.
You're really on some pussy caliber right now by just saying anything you think is offensive just 'cause I made a remark about your sorry ass team.
Raiders still suck, you're still a sorry ass faggot getting offensive about his team, and I'm done with you 'cause you just failed big time!
smbplibra93 2 years ago
smbplibra93: The Raiders are not my team. All that southern inbreeding is stunting your mental growth. The moral of the story...Stay in school kid.
Seastorm21 2 years ago
Dude seriously you're starting a pointless argument over the way someone talks and about nothing that is actually relevant to the video. Your aimless comebacks are nothing short of an attempt to vent your feeling of me insulting your team, which you claim not be, but most senseless arguments start because of a statement someone finds offensive and feels the compulsion to retaliate. You're not even mentioning anything relevant to the video.
smbplibra93 2 years ago
You're nothing but a troll, because he knows that the team that he is rooting for cannot even make it past the .500 mark. And just because I type like I am from the south, does not mean that I sound like I am from the south. And btw, I find compelling that most people who actually use the term 'kid' on this site, are usually the ones who are not even old enough themselves to buy a pack of cigarettes legally without their mom being on their asses. Good day....
smbplibra93 2 years ago