***Chargers at DaRaiders*** (+3) 48.5u (1 Viewer)

[Harry Frogfish]

The chargers coach is painfully over his head as a head NFL coach.

This was apparent throughout the game and the timeout was just the cherry on top.

Seemed desperate the entire game, could not figure out how to get Ekeler more involved, no game awareness and just baffling calls that were not just aggressive but reckless.

The chargers are a heads and shoulders more talented football team than the raiders, but we’re coached down which was a pattern throughout the season.

Thank you.

Can't wait for Judge Smails and Light Hot Sauce Guy to come at you.

Actually, they'll find ways to backtrack.  ALL day long.

 

[Cobbler1]

WRONG.  Absolutely 100% false.  The Coach and his QB have said as much.  It's all there, indisputable.

I don't ever care that much anymore, it's just funny, this legion of South Parkers that have to defend their bros here or whatever, hilarious.

You were already proven wrong about what they said earlier this thread. I’m not gonna rehash it.

 

[humpback]

I know he's wrong, at this point it's just bait.  Humpback's should know better.

Go further back in thread, I'm not wrong, I'm just having fun at this point.

This is basically South Park (gang of local long-time posters) not letting their team, whoever it is for each, Broncos / John Elway / Super Chargers / Herbert, and includes any iBuddy, they just go and the troops rally in the shark pond, right or wrong.  

Cartman is....I won't say (I'll get banned), but he came in like he was setting things straight, having not watched on second of that 2nd half, btw.

And we will combatted til the end, it's hilarious.

Not really following any of this, but Humpback's aren't a fan of trolling.

You can count the number of Chargers fans on this forum on 1 hand (I'm not on that list), so I don't think this has much/anything to do with that either.

Have fun arguing I guess?

 

[bagger]

I would assume they punt.

There is 0 chance I punt there.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

FTR: And I mainly want to do his for Hogfish because he's right on some of these key points. In fact Dan O on the ESPN morning show did a quick retraction on some of his opinions on live TV after watching the press conferences from both coaches Raiders first followed by the Chargers

-Raiders coach says they were thinking about the tie and were not likely going to run a 4th Down play or even try a FG if they didn't gain much yardage on 3rd and 4...but the Chargers did call a timeout and here is where we catch Staley in a complete bold face lie. 

-Staley claims he wanted to get his run Defense in and that would be alright if he had the 4-2-5 they roll in as their base but he pulled one of the LBs, going 4-1-6 and had the Safety fill that empty LB spot, both #44 and #24 block themselves out of the run play by Jacobs and because of the yards gained, the Raiders opted to punch the Bolts right out of the Playoffs, making the game feel like a Playoff game with elimination on the line and now the Raiders have some momentum going into Cinci next week. 

@Harry Frogfish

LOOK AT YOU, you were all over me for having that exact same take.  You jumped in bed with Judge Smails, called me names, AND I also you took Hot Sauce Guy bed, which is really something. 

But CAPELLA (who is great, btw), NOW has got you to change your tune.

This place is something else.

"I find you're lack of faith reading disturbing"

 

[humpback]

Yes I think if the Raiders don’t convert it gets even more interesting because of what you just said. Does LAC call a TO to dare LV to kick? Or do they let it run and hope LV calls a truce and doesn’t take a TO and kick with 3 seconds left? Very compelling strategies to consider.

Yep, and depending on the outcome, could you imagine the Monday Morning QBing in here after that decision? 

 

[Harry Frogfish]

I watched it several times. You’re responding to a fiction. They were going to try the FG regardless. 

Everything else is wishful thinking, lol reading & conspiracy theory. 

Non event. 

 

 

[Cobbler1]

Yep, and depending on the outcome, could you imagine the Monday Morning QBing in here after that decision? 

At least that would be a valid and fun discussion I think! This is pretty obvious that the TO wasn’t impactful on the Raiders strategy. Thinking it was impactful in the moment I totally get. But once everyone is aware of the play clock it’s obvious it didn’t do anything to the Raiders.

 

[Harry Frogfish]

You were already proven wrong about what they said earlier this thread. I’m not gonna rehash it.

Proven wrong about what?  Show us.

I maintain it was a mistake by Brandon in calling that TO.  I laid it out for you too.  Let's see yours.

Raiders were willing to just move on, which was more than corroborated in post-game comments.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

OMG, NO WAY!!  I don't know what would've happened then, I'm sorry.  Would Mariotta run around to run out the clock, or wait a squib punt?  Or just bomb one into the endzone and I think that's your 4 seconds.  So many options, so many ways to tie, I can't count them all.

You're right, the Raiders were doomed without that timeout from YOUNG SHELDON. 

Great call by Brandon, just getting the best young QB in a decade (or more) of NFL into the playoffs. 

For Staley to suck up his baby pride and ego and make sure that kind of talent gets playoff experience???

INVALUABLE.  Genius. 

Those are the kind of decisions that will get them there.  Like they've always done.

Show me on the doll where Brandon Staley hurt you. 

 

[Atomic Punk]

Why continue with the argument? Who cares, Raiders win and that is all that matters! In the immortal words of Frank Drebin, “nothing to see here, please disperse!”

 

[Harry Frogfish]

Show me on the doll where Brandon Staley hurt you. 

Oh buddy, so sorry, try and come up with your own stuff at this age.

 

[Cobbler1]

Proven wrong about what?  Show us.

I maintain it was a mistake by Brandon in calling that TO.  I laid it out for you too.  Let's see yours.

Raiders were willing to just move on, which was more than corroborated in post-game comments.

“You know we ran the ball and they didn’t call Timeout so I think they were probably kind of thinking the same thing. You know and then we had the big run that got us in advantageous fg range for us and we decided we were going to take the fg and win it.” 
 

That’s the Raiders coach saying the decision to win it was made after the 3rd down run got them into better position. Nothing about the timeout changing their plans. In fact he references a timeout NOT being called (he means right away after the 2nd down play ends at the 1:20 mark.) as an indication that he thinks the Chargers are thinking about a tie also. 
 

https://twitter.com/nflnetwork/status/1480431316579454980?s=21

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Good overview from Bill Barnwell. One point he makes is that Staley did NOT sub in a safety for a LB after the timeout, he subbed in a NT.

Here's the TLDR:

The conspiracy theory is more fun than the reality. If you spin the coachspeak and playerspeak one way, trust your eyes without skepticism in assuming that the Raiders were giving up on first and second down, and subscribe to the idea that Staley's decision-making is too aggressive for his own good, you're probably going to come out of that season-ending tilt thinking that the Chargers cost themselves a playoff berth with a horrific timeout. If the Chargers had come up with a stop for no gain or a short loss on third down, the Raiders very well might have let the clock run out and called it a day, much to the chagrin of Steelers fans.

Taking a closer look, though, what happened at the end of this game is reasonable and hardly controversial. The Raiders wanted to win given their playoff seeding possibilities, but they wanted to not lose more than anything. They got in a position in which it would have been virtually impossible to lose and then slowed things down to ensure that they would be the only team with a chance to win. The Chargers' only motivation was to avoid losing. When the game came down to one play, the Raiders overwhelmed the league's worst run defense to set up a season-ending field goal. The Chargers didn't lose because they poked the bear with a too-cute timeout. They lost because they got overpowered by a more physical team with their season on the line. For all the modern external factors surrounding this game, that's the oldest, simplest football story in the book.

 

[Sam Quentin]

If the Raiders wanted to run out the clock they would have lined up in a formation indicating such.

They we’re clearly going to try to get the first to ice at least a tie.  There is no truce or cease fire.  That is a whole narrative made up in people’s head hours before the game.

the path to victory or tying for the Chargers was to stop the third FP down play and make the Raiders not want to try a 55 yarder.  They should have stopped them and left 30 seconds on the clock.

Also, remember that LV beat the Ravens in OT by throwing a bomb when everybody expected a run up the middle to set up a FG attempt.

 

[Hatch]

1) I do not believe the TO changed any of the plans the Raiders had...

2) I believe the TO was an indication that the Chargers were more than willing to take a calculated shot at beating the Raiders if they got the ball back due to a missed long FG by the Raiders.

3) I also believe that the Raiders were gonna be content with a tie until the opportunity to win presented itself.

4) I do not believe the Raiders would have tried a 55+ yard FG if LA stopped them and used their last TO.

5) Lastly, I will argue with anyone that it was a mistake for the Raiders to kick that FG. The clock was gonna run out and they were in the playoffs, 100% for sure... Adding any risk of screwing that up was a mistake(however small the chance was) that worked out.

These were my observations as a football fan and a Raiders fan. The only point I would argue vehemently is point #5. Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

 

[Harry Frogfish]

“You know we ran the ball and they didn’t call Timeout so I think they were probably kind of thinking the same thing. You know and then we had the big run that got us in advantageous fg range for us and we decided we were going to take the fg and win it.” 
 

That’s the Raiders coach saying the decision to win it was made after the 3rd down run got them into better position. Nothing about the timeout changing their plans. In fact he references a timeout NOT being called (he means right away after the 2nd down play ends at the 1:20 mark.) as an indication that he thinks the Chargers are thinking about a tie also. 
 

https://twitter.com/nflnetwork/status/1480431316579454980?s=21

After 1st and 2nd down runs up the middle, while bleeding the clock from the 2 minute warning down to 38 seconds, and with the Raiders still in long 56 yard field goal range, what was the reason for Brandon's TO?

And don't give us the "need to set his D" excuse, this wasn't a no-huddle situation, there was plenty of time.  On top of that, more than enough time the last two plays to realize the Raiders were fine with running it out.

BTW, there are Raiders on record as saying that changed what they ended up doing.

 

[humpback]

At least that would be a valid and fun discussion I think! This is pretty obvious that the TO wasn’t impactful on the Raiders strategy. Thinking it was impactful in the moment I totally get. But once everyone is aware of the play clock it’s obvious it didn’t do anything to the Raiders.

Oh I know. Just saying that if people are going down swinging about things that are factually incorrect I can't imagine what would have happened with something that is legit debatable.

I honestly don't know what I would have done in that scenario. Absent a waiving of the white flag or some kind of confirmation from the Raiders that they would have let the clock run out I think I would have called a TO. Would have given some time for the players to communicate, and I would have had my d-line stand up to signal that they weren't trying to block the punt and not set up a return for the same reason.

Of course, the distance would have depended on where they were stopped, but the Raiders still had some incentive to win over tie, and Carlson's a really good kicker, so with no time left I'm guessing they would have tried the FG if it was from the mid-50's. Having to make that decision while the clock is winding down is really tough though for sure without knowing what the Raiders are thinking.

 

[bagger]

1) I do not believe the TO changed any of the plans the Raiders had...

2) I believe the TO was an indication that the Chargers were more than willing to take a calculated shot at beating the Raiders if they got the ball back due to a missed long FG by the Raiders.

3) I also believe that the Raiders were gonna be content with a tie until the opportunity to win presented itself.

4) I do not believe the Raiders would have tried a 55+ yard FG if LA stopped them and used their last TO.

5) Lastly, I will argue with anyone that it was a mistake for the Raiders to kick that FG. The clock was gonna run out and they were in the playoffs, 100% for sure... Adding any risk of screwing that up was a mistake(however small the chance was) that worked out.

These were my observations as a football fan and a Raiders fan. The only point I would argue vehemently is point #5. Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

Agree with #5.  From a game theory standpoint it was incredibly dumb to do anything that gave any likelihood you may lose.

Both teams tried to win all game long, once it got to under two minutes I would have shut it down and kneeled.  It worked out from the raiders but if there’s a blocked kick and return for TD then the raiders get eviscerated for not kneeling.

 

[Sam Quentin]

1) I do not believe the TO changed any of the plans the Raiders had...

2) I believe the TO was an indication that the Chargers were more than willing to take a calculated shot at beating the Raiders if they got the ball back due to a missed long FG by the Raiders.

3) I also believe that the Raiders were gonna be content with a tie until the opportunity to win presented itself.

4) I do not believe the Raiders would have tried a 55+ yard FG if LA stopped them and used their last TO.

5) Lastly, I will argue with anyone that it was a mistake for the Raiders to kick that FG. The clock was gonna run out and they were in the playoffs, 100% for sure... Adding any risk of screwing that up was a mistake(however small the chance was) that worked out.

These were my observations as a football fan and a Raiders fan. The only point I would argue vehemently is point #5. Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

1-4 agree

5 at Bengals vs at Chiefs…worth it

 

[Hatch]

Agree with #5.  From a game theory standpoint it was incredibly dumb to do anything that gave any likelihood you may lose.

Both teams tried to win all game long, once it got to under two minutes I would have shut it down and kneeled.  It worked out from the raiders but if there’s a blocked kick and return for TD then the raiders get eviscerated for not kneeling.

They didn't have to kneel... when they got the first down the clock was gonna run out... the Raiders called TO to stop it.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Agree with #5.  From a game theory standpoint it was incredibly dumb to do anything that gave any likelihood you may lose.

Both teams tried to win all game long, once it got to under two minutes I would have shut it down and kneeled.  It worked out from the raiders but if there’s a blocked kick and return for TD then the raiders get eviscerated for not kneeling.

Agree about # 5 as well.  Only thing I can think of is that it comes down to gamesmanship and competitive spirit to always try to win.  Still stupid though.  The other factor that may have come into play is looking ahead at the playoff opponent (which would have been KC had that game ended in a tie).  None of this justifies introducing even a small chance of losing that game.

 

[Hatch]

1-4 agree

5 at Bengals vs at Chiefs…worth it

My argument stands that a 100% chance of the playoffs vs anything less than 100% is not worth the price. If you told me right now that the Raiders are 100% in the playoffs next year but they have to be the 7 seed., I would take that deal 10/10 times even if I think they can finish higher.

 

[TampaMike19]

I don’t think it’s a significant difference between on road to Kc or to CIN. They are both red hot teams right now and at least you can dance with the devil you know in playing kc.

the raiders were gonna let the clock run down. They even ran the ball with 1 minute left and didn’t even show any urgency on the field. No timeouts called nothin. One more run play and it could’ve even game over or at least a field goal attempt from further out, but the way the raiders were moving yesterday was giving off the appearance of trying to win while also holding onto the ball so they don’t put their fate into the chargers hands. Think they were gonna show mercy to LAC but the coach had a stupid timeout giving the perception that he wanted to give his own team time in case the field goal was missed? Either way it’s a bone headed timeout that never happens ever. LAC had plenty of time for substitutes 

If I were the raiders coach and I saw my opponent call a timeout at that moment, I too would’ve been “wtf” and “#### this guy”

 

[Judge Smails]

Not buying a word of it, but some might.  Raiders were going to call it a game, and they showed as much after (although they're obviously not going to directly admit as much), and when Staley pulled that ####, they changed direction.  That much cannot be denied.  The Coach, Carr, etc. it's obvious.

The bolded is simply a coach deflecting, making excuses for a bad decision.  Not the first or last time but he ####ed up.  Smart not to admit this one, though.

They did not “show as much”. They were not going to pass. They were going to run to keep the clock going. But still tried to get in the best FG range they could. Jacobs gashed them the entire drive. Your “cannot be denied” and “changed direction” is fantasy. They were going to run the ball on 3rd down no matter what. Nothing changed. Happened to get enough for easy FG range. Kicked it. So they weren’t afraid to risk the FG attempt. End of story 

 

[Cobbler1]

After 1st and 2nd down runs up the middle, while bleeding the clock from the 2 minute warning down to 38 seconds, and with the Raiders still in long 56 yard field goal range, what was the reason for Brandon's TO?

And don't give us the "need to set his D" excuse, this wasn't a no-huddle situation, there was plenty of time.  On top of that, more than enough time the last two plays to realize the Raiders were fine with running it out.

BTW, there are Raiders on record as saying that changed what they ended up doing.

This is where it landed last time you were faced with direct quotes from the coaches. You don’t believe the Chargers coach saying he called TO to figure out his defense. You don’t believe the Raiders coach saying the successful run was what made him decide it was it was worth kicking. But you do believe Derek Carr’s quote and I guess probably the lip reading from the long snapper? Are those the Raiders on record you reference?
 

So you’re picking and choosing who to believe, which included ignoring the 2 guys who would know the most (that’s the coaches), and laughing in the face of logic. All options were on the table for the Raiders after the TO. They chose to run. So again what was changed by the timeout? Last time I asked you that you said the Raiders ability to run out the clock changed which you later agreed wasn’t true. So try again, what did the timeout change?

 

[Judge Smails]

WRONG.  Absolutely 100% false.  The Coach and his QB have said as much.  It's all there, indisputable.

I don't ever care that much anymore, it's just funny, this legion of South Parkers that have to defend their bros here or whatever, hilarious.

I watched the Raiders HC press conference. Tell me what he said specifically. Time for facts froggy. Not rhetoric  All he said when asked about the tie scenario is “we were talking about it”. That’s it. Never said he wasn’t going for the win, that he was happy with the tie, afraid of the risk of a FG. As for the timeout he only said “they didn’t call a timeout early” so he kept running the clock. That’s it. Now is the time for you to respond with quotes in the the Raiders HC press conference that back your claim. Go. (I expect nothing)

 

[Harry Frogfish]

1) I do not believe the TO changed any of the plans the Raiders had...

5) Lastly, I will argue with anyone that it was a mistake for the Raiders to kick that FG. The clock was gonna run out and they were in the playoffs, 100% for sure... Adding any risk of screwing that up was a mistake(however small the chance was) that worked out.

These were my observations as a football fan and a Raiders fan. The only point I would argue vehemently is point #5. Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

Love how you laid it out.

1) No idea how you believe this when both coach and QB have insinuated otherwise (and even their PR was bad about it).  Go watch them answer those questions and I really don't see how you can say that, but whatever.

I can agree on the other stuff, more or less.

5) Agree, he was pissed and I don't blame him for it (which proves my point of that they were fine letting it go).  But yeah, if some punk tried to out-smart or play some game with me like I think Brandon did, I kick that ball and his ### right out of the playoffs.

Most importantly, CONGRATS!

 

[Cobbler1]

Oh I know. Just saying that if people are going down swinging about things that are factually incorrect I can't imagine what would have happened with something that is legit debatable.

I honestly don't know what I would have done in that scenario. Absent a waiving of the white flag or some kind of confirmation from the Raiders that they would have let the clock run out I think I would have called a TO. Would have given some time for the players to communicate, and I would have had my d-line stand up to signal that they weren't trying to block the punt and not set up a return for the same reason.

Of course, the distance would have depended on where they were stopped, but the Raiders still had some incentive to win over tie, and Carlson's a really good kicker, so with no time left I'm guessing they would have tried the FG if it was from the mid-50's. Having to make that decision while the clock is winding down is really tough though for sure without knowing what the Raiders are thinking.

Yeah I think that’s right. You dare them to kick it from really long and miss leaving open the possibility that if they miss you can end their season. Highly likely they will punt in that scenario.

 

[Cobbler1]

Love how you laid it out.

1) No idea how you believe this when both coach and QB have insinuated otherwise (and even their PR was bad about it).  Go watch them answer those questions and I really don't see how you can say that, but whatever.

I can agree on the other stuff, more or less.

5) Agree, he was pissed and I don't blame him for it (which proves my point of that they were fine letting it go).  But yeah, if some punk tried to out-smart or play some game with me like I think Brandon did, I kick that ball and his ### right out of the playoffs.

Most importantly, CONGRATS!

Jesus holy fantasy land…

 

[Harry Frogfish]

This is where it landed last time you were faced with direct quotes from the coaches. You don’t believe the Chargers coach saying he called TO to figure out his defense.

No, I don't for a minute.  It's coach-speak.  You know better, it's what they do, part of the job, hello?

 

[Cobbler1]

No, I don't for a minute.  It's coach-speak.  You know better, it's what they do, part of the job, hello?

So if he was trying to win why wait until :38 secs for the timeout. Why not call it at 1:20? 

 

[Harry Frogfish]

Jesus holy fantasy land…

Gotta know when to read between the lines, kiddo, it's life.

 

[humpback]

I don’t think it’s a significant difference between on road to Kc or to CIN. They are both red hot teams right now and at least you can dance with the devil you know in playing kc.

the raiders were gonna let the clock run down. They even ran the ball with 1 minute left and didn’t even show any urgency on the field. No timeouts called nothin. One more run play and it could’ve even game over or at least a field goal attempt from further out, but the way the raiders were moving yesterday was giving off the appearance of trying to win while also holding onto the ball so they don’t put their fate into the chargers hands. Think they were gonna show mercy to LAC but the coach had a stupid timeout giving the perception that he wanted to give his own team time in case the field goal was missed? Either way it’s a bone headed timeout that never happens ever. LAC had plenty of time for substitutes 

They know both devils. They were within 3 in the 4th qtr vs Cincy (went on to turn the ball over twice late and get blown out) and lost both games vs. KC by a combined 89-23. They're underdogs either way, but I think there's a fairly significant difference.

 

[Cobbler1]

Gotta know when to read between the lines, kiddo, it's life.

Reality matters too though. A lot actually.

 

[Zow]

So after sleeping on it, I willing to step back from my "malpractice" assertion against Staley. I do kind of see what he was doing there. It just seemed like in the moment that the Raiders were going to let the clock run out. I suppose Staley couldn't safely assume that, but I still think the TO was a mistake (although not as egregious as I initially thought) in the moment because I think it inadvertently did change the Raiders' intentions (which some post-game commentary seems to support). 

 

[Judge Smails]

Kermit’s whole argument is based on either a) the Raiders were deeply hurt and offended that the Chargers would dare call a timeout, so they changed their minds and decided to go for the win to stick it to them, or b) the timeout changed the play call on 3rd down (a run). Not a single shred of evidence for either. But that’s how he rolls. 

 

[Harry Frogfish]

I watched the Raiders HC press conference. Tell me what he said specifically. Time for facts froggy. Not rhetoric  All he said when asked about the tie scenario is “we were talking about it”. That’s it. Never said he wasn’t going for the win, that he was happy with the tie, afraid of the risk of a FG. As for the timeout he only said “they didn’t call a timeout early” so he kept running the clock. That’s it. Now is the time for you to respond with quotes in the the Raiders HC press conference that back your claim. Go. (I expect nothing)

Dude, this isn't a courtroom, go with your gut, you're good at it.

You're a salesman, a good one at that, any smart drunk knows how to read what these schlubs are actually saying.

"We were talking about it".  You don't realize that means he was down with it???  Come on, how long you been in the game?

What he was saying was they were fine with laying down (although they can't say/admit that, obviously).  But the punk challenged him and he taught him a lesson.  You would do the same.

You should know this #### by now.

 

[TampaMike19]

My bullish reason why the raiders were going for the win anyways is that imagine improbable odds of both raiders and chargers run the table, meet each other in afc championship, and raiders lose? They had a chance to end their opponents season only to have them get the last laugh? Super improbable but anything can happen 

 

[Hatch]

Love how you laid it out.

1) No idea how you believe this when both coach and QB have insinuated otherwise (and even their PR was bad about it).  Go watch them answer those questions and I really don't see how you can say that, but whatever.

I can agree on the other stuff, more or less.

5) Agree, he was pissed and I don't blame him for it (which proves my point of that they were fine letting it go).  But yeah, if some punk tried to out-smart or play some game with me like I think Brandon did, I kick that ball and his ### right out of the playoffs.

Most importantly, CONGRATS!

In point 1, I just meant it didn't change the Raiders plan to run the ball... (This is speculation) They were gonna run the ball before and after the TO. It may have ruffled the coaches feathers that Staley opened the door for the Chargers to take a calculated shot at winning the game with the TO, but it should have been expected.

 

[Harry Frogfish]

So after sleeping on it, I willing to step back from my "malpractice" assertion against Staley. I do kind of see what he was doing there. It just seemed like in the moment that the Raiders were going to let the clock run out. I suppose Staley couldn't safely assume that, but I still think the TO was a mistake (although not as egregious as I initially thought) in the moment because I think it inadvertently did change the Raiders' intentions (which some post-game commentary seems to support). 

Rational.  Correct.

The board has not read or seen barely any of it, guaranteed.  And that's okay.  But fun none the less.

 

[Cobbler1]

In point 1, I just meant it didn't change the Raiders plan to run the ball... (This is speculation) They were gonna run the ball before and after the TO. It may have ruffled the coaches feathers that Staley opened the door for the Chargers to take a calculated shot at winning the game with the TO, but it should have been expected.

Why would a timeout to set your defense ruffle feathers?

 

[Hatch]

5) Lastly, I will argue with anyone that it was a mistake for the Raiders to kick that FG. The clock was gonna run out and they were in the playoffs, 100% for sure... Adding any risk of screwing that up was a mistake(however small the chance was) that worked out.

My only thoughts on why they would let that minimal chance of losing in by kicking and winning is that there could have been ALOT of bonus or incentive money to be made by players and coaches for # of wins or playoff seeding, etc.(Once again this is speculation)

 

[Cobbler1]

Rational.  Correct.

The board has not read or seen barely any of it, guaranteed.  And that's okay.  But fun none the less.

Literally posted the link to the Raiders coach and wrote out most of it. The quote where he specifically mentions he thinks the Chargers were ok with a tie. And that the running play gaining the yardage is what made them decide to kick. I’ll ask again. If the Chargers coach called the TO because he wanted to win the game, why did he wait until the play clock was at 4?

 

[Marauder]

In point 1, I just meant it didn't change the Raiders plan to run the ball... (This is speculation) They were gonna run the ball before and after the TO. It may have ruffled the coaches feathers that Staley opened the door for the Chargers to take a calculated shot at winning the game with the TO, but it should have been expected.

I don't believe Staley was thinking at all about the Chargers winning the game.  He was playing for the tie.  The problem was that he knew the Raiders had an incentive to win the game (avoiding playing KC in round 1) and the Chargers pathetic run defense had not been able to stop Jacobs.   If they had been able to stop them from getting the first down I don't believe the Raiders would have tried a long field goal but I think Staley was guessing (correctly) that if they got close enough for an easy field goal they would take it.  I still think calling the TO was a mistake but in the end I don't think it was the difference in the game.

 

[Hatch]

Why would a timeout to set your defense ruffle feathers?

personally I don't think it did, but Carr's comments did elude to it. I also personally believe that stuff gets said post-game to help build the lore of the game (take veiled shots at the opposing team), whether it is/was factual or not.

 

[Judge Smails]

Dude, this isn't a courtroom, go with your gut, you're good at it.

You're a salesman, a good one at that, any smart drunk knows how to read what these schlubs are actually saying.

"We were talking about it".  You don't realize that means he was down with it???  Come on, how long you been in the game?

What he was saying was they were fine with laying down (although they can't say/admit that, obviously).  But the punk challenged him and he taught him a lesson.  You would do the same.

You should know this #### by now.

Like I thought. Nothin’. Just Froggy mind reading. Zero facts from the press conferences that you said were so telling and obvious. 

 

[Cobbler1]

personally I don't think it did, but Carr's comments did elude to it. I also personally believe that stuff gets said post-game to help build the lore of the game (take veiled shots at the opposing team), whether it is/was factual or not.

Yeah I’ll take what the coach said about his line of thinking over Carr saying something. Especially since it lines up with the reality of what happened. If Carr felt slighted then that’s his misunderstanding of what the TO meant but the coaches quote and the run play called indicate the strategy didn’t change.

 

[belljr]

So they dont call timeout and they still gain 10 yards on the run... what happens? 5 yards?

 

[Hatch]

I don't believe Staley was thinking at all about the Chargers winning the game.  He was playing for the tie.  The problem was that he knew the Raiders had an incentive to win the game (avoiding playing KC in round 1) and the Chargers pathetic run defense had not been able to stop Jacobs.   If they had been able to stop them from getting the first down I don't believe the Raiders would have tried a long field goal but I think Staley was guessing (correctly) that if they got close enough for an easy field goal they would take it.  I still think calling the TO was a mistake but in the end I don't think it was the difference in the game.

and you could be 100% correct...These points are gonna be a fun argument for years to come as this game will probably be worthy of remembering like the heidi game, holy roller, immaculate reception... and in all those games the stories told enhance and twist the truth of what actually happened and why. Only the people making the decisions will know the truth and not everyone is honest after the fact!!