Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I’m not the one claiming post game interviews mean anything - you are. And you are picking and choosing which parts are meaningful.
I'm talking about the Chargers taking a TO when the Raiders, of all teams btw, were willing to let this thing go, and both move on.
I definitely agree their D play call was dumb. There was almost zero chance Raiders were passing the ball there.
Bull Honkey Frogsbreath, lots of folks calling for Staley to be fired after he called timeout.
The Raiders had to run a play, call a TO, or take a penalty in 4 seconds. Because of the play clock. Therefore the TO by LAC saved a maximum of 4 seconds. You get that right? Those 4 seconds saved did not impact the Raiders ability or inability to run out the clock. This isn’t hard.
Could. But it’s much less likely than a missed 55+ yard fg as you say. Especially since the Chargers have little incentive to block it.
You mean if the Raiders hadn’t converted the first down? The timeout didn’t (or shouldn’t have) had any bearing on the Raiders mindset. And I don’t see any scenario where the Raiders give the ball back to the Chargers at the 35 with time left.
THERE WAS FOUR SECONDS ON THE PLAY CLOCK. For the love of God please acknowledge this and that you understand how the play clock matters in a football game. No the game was not over if he doesn’t take a timeout. The Raiders still run their 3rd down play. Or call their own TO. Or take a delay of game penalty. Due to the rules of football TO conclusively 1000% did not stop the Raiders from running out the game prior to that 3rd down play or any play after. Try to understand that.
And try to understand there is a one in a thousand chance of the Chargers winning that thing with some seconds left. And beyond that, when you consider the Raiders saying let's call it, buy a lottery ticket Young Sheldon defender.
Risk a blocked punt when the game was going to be over? I feel like the Raiders coach pretty much said as much in the press conference that they were content to running it out.
Why on earth would they have done that? They wouldn't have had to run another play (unless the Chargers called another TO
).I cannot fathom being this clueless and/or stubborn about something so blatantly incorrect. You are to this thread what you think Brandon Staley is to coaching. I think you’re beyond help.
They would have had to at least snap it on 4th downWhy on earth would they have done that? They wouldn't have had to run another play (unless the Chargers called another TO
Get over your 4 seconds, that's not even close to any difference or the point at hand.
Yes, you're right. It was late when I posted and I was having trouble thinking it all through.
Huh? There was 38 seconds on the clock when they snapped it on 3rd down, the play clock is 40 seconds.
The 4 seconds was the impact of the timeout which is what this entire thing is about. And yes I agree the 4 seconds are negligible as was the calling of the timeout. That’s the point.
Yes, this is what everyone should be talking about. Maybe their atrocious run D. Or their terrible penalties. Or terrible drops. Or Herbert's heroics.
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.
If they had tied, Raiders would have played the Chiefs and Chargers would have played the Bills. Whichever team won was going to play the Bengals.
He's wrong. You're wrong. The 4 seconds is a non-factor.
I know he's wrong, at this point it's just bait. Humpback's should know better.
Ok, the above is what I was missing reading the initial quote only - which seemed to give a timing-based rationale for calling time out. If that was secondary to an actual defensive formation motive, I understand.
By “He’s wrong” humpback means that the guy who said that the Raiders would have to snap it on 4th down is wrong about that. By “you’re wrong” he means you’re wrong about pretty much everything. Except that the 4 seconds don’t matter. Which is the point. The TO that saved 4 secs didn’t matter. Humpback correct me if I’m wrong about what you meant.
This is you saying the timeout impacted the Raiders ability to run out the clock. Which is blatantly untrue. You’ve said so yourself in a variety of creative (and unnecessary) ways that the Raiders could have ran out the 4 seconds that the timeout saved. So do you now agree that the timeout didn’t matter?
Run out the clock, technically, to zero? LOL, no. But if you think they weren't willing to say, let's call this and move on, explain how those last two minutes were about winning and not tying.
Well they kicked a fg for the win so that’s a pretty decent clue for you. I think they were perfectly content to tie once they crossed midfield and established complete control, as in highly unlikely to lose. But if there was a super low risk way to win they would take it. Which happened and they took it. The timeout wasn’t a factor in any of that process.
Yes, this is one criticism of Staley that seems plausible to me: he got psyched out by the Raiders' initial shotgun formation and subbed in a safety instead of a LB, and as a result the Chargers were less positioned to stop the Jacobs run. So it wasn't so much calling the TO as what he did after calling it.
Staley thinking the Raiders were going to pass is a realllllllly bad assessment by him if true and if thats the formation they were in then it does seem to be true. Unless the Raiders also added to their formation with more wrs or speed.
Some guy was linked thru twitter earlier in the thread and breaks down the play, shows that 1 LB was missing that was on the field when it was initially 3rd and 4, after the timeout he isn't on the field and the Chargers pretty much run into the line and block themselves out of the tackle, pretty good breakdown by whoever had the video clip.
Firing a coach after one year is almost always a mistake, unless he is a complete disaster and/or really horribly mismanages relationships with the owner, assistants and team.
