Onepost only
wileydog3, it doesn't sound like they tried to land back though. I don't think it was a case of not following procedure and landing back (after V1, passing V2, sub V2, or whatever speed/phase they were at!!) more than losing control after a serious failure(s). All this from reports on here though, but it doesn't sound like a re-land attempt. The talk of “rolling” and “one wing tip striking the ground” etc etc. Sure they were doing their best to follow procedure and get it into the air!
You make a point but then we have more things to explore. If there was an over-rotation, they would be getting a stick shaker normally at what? 1.15Vso? It's been a while since I had the privilege of flying the -80 so I don't remember what the shaker was calibrated for.
But again, some of the posts suggest the suspension of reality and the inherent and desire for self-preservation. The crew did not intend to crash and thus we have to begin asking why they acted/reacted as they did.
I may have posted this but I like Dekker's comment that cause is not found, it is constructed and to even construct a plausible cause, we have to get inside the 'tube' to try and ascertain what the crew was seeing, what the crew was thinking and how they were responding to the events.
No doubt, some one will come along and say they should have 'connected the dots' but that short changes the process and is afforded the bright light of hindsight. I also like the observation that during the evolution of an event, the process is fairly opaque and afterwards starkly evident.