What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

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

Judge Smails said:
Like I thought. Nothin’. Just Froggy mind reading. Zero facts from the press conferences that you said were so telling and obvious. 
Click to expand...
Huh?

You didn't watch any of it.  You know why I know?  Because you went off on SVP. 

Tell us his take. (BTW, it will take him 5 mins to do so because he never did it the first time around, but claimed to do so).

Bring it.

 
belljr said:
So they dont call timeout and they still gain 10 yards on the run... what happens? 5 yards?
Click to expand...
same outcome...if the Raiders decided the risk of kicking was greater than a guaranteed playoff spot, they were gonna kick it. (It had nothing to do with LA's TO) What we don't know and never will is if the Raiders were gonna be willing to kick a 50+ yard FG vs a 47 yard FG.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cobbler1 said:
Raiders call TO with 2 seconds left, kick the fg, this thread is 5 pages shorter, and we don’t know Froggy is clueless about football.
Click to expand...


The condescending stuff is cute, you have so many friends!

So lay out your 4 seconds again, while explaining the 4th and 2 form his own 18.  Speaking of childs-play analytics, explain that one, Brandon Jr.

 
bagger said:
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.
Click to expand...
after the year we’ve had i think the Raiders needed this more than a tie to just get them in. Ruggs, Gruden and even to some extent Madden have made this a crazy year and that walk off gives us fan a bit of closure and some momentum going into Cincy.

 
Judge Smails said:
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. 
Click to expand...
you left out a Young Sheldon reference.

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


Come on, any good drunk judge should be better than trying to deflect like this.  You made the assertion, now show us.

All of you claimed so far is SVP has no idea what he's talking about (he had plenty to show, btw). 

So we'll wait for your mountain of evidence, shall we?  (We can send it to SVP and show him how wrong he was!)

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was wrong on this. For some reason I had it in my head that LA beat the Pats, but of course it was the other way around. Therefore Pats win the tiebreaker over them, and Chargers would have been the 6 seed @ Buffalo regardless of whether they had won or tied.

Does that change anything? I still think that, if they had stopped the Raiders on 3rd down, they would have used their last TO in order to prevent LV from running the clock all the way down and then attempting a 55 yarder. But I also don't think that if LA did get the ball back with 30 seconds left, they would have tried to score. Of course, if the Raiders knew they weren't going to try, they would have no reason not to attempt the FG. So honestly not sure how it would have played out. 

In any event their defense couldn't tackle Jacobs so the question became moot.

 
CGRdrJoe said:
after the year we’ve had i think the Raiders needed this more than a tie to just get them in. Ruggs, Gruden and even to some extent Madden have made this a crazy year and that walk off gives us fan a bit of closure and some momentum going into Cincy.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this and is the reason I am as happy as anyone with the way it ended, but I am also the person that will say that emotion should never play into a bad decision. I am very happy that I'm not here saying I told you so, but it doesn't change the fact that they took a calculated risk to win when the playoffs were 100% guaranteed.

 
Cobbler1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This exactly. And it’s all predicated on getting that 1st down.

If they didn’t get it, ok sure fine maybe they let the clock wind. 

But once they got the 1st down, there is zero question they were going to kick the FG. 

Either way, they weren’t in victory formation, about to take a knee when the Chargers called the TO, so people suggesting the TO changed that decision are delusional.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do have to say though...My hatred for the steelers burns deep and I could not think of a better way in the history of the NFL to knock them out of the playoffs and send Big Ben packing!!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
This exactly. And it’s all predicated on getting that 1st down.

If they didn’t get it, ok sure fine maybe they let the clock wind. 

But once they got the 1st down, there is zero question they were going to kick the FG. 

Wither way, they weren’t in victory formation, about to take a knee when the Chargers called the TO, so people suggesting the TO changed that decision are delusional.
Click to expand...
0 question? gtfo, the Raiders have already said they weren’t sure what they were gonna do. 

The Raiders had no intention of finishing with a tie, but Staley's timeout did alter whatever their plans were in the moment.

"It definitely did, obviously," Carr said in his post-game interview with NBC's Michelle Tafoya

 
CGRdrJoe said:
0 question? gtfo, the Raiders have already said they weren’t sure what they were gonna do. 

The Raiders had no intention of finishing with a tie, but Staley's timeout did alter whatever their plans were in the moment.

"It definitely did, obviously," Carr said in his post-game interview with NBC's Michelle Tafoya
Click to expand...
He was high in adrenaline & never specifically addressed her question. He rambled about how quickly things changed when they were up 15 & blah blah blah - you’re hearing what you want to hear.  

there’s no way they’re going to take a knee if they get the 1st down regardless of the TO.

For the 1000th time, in that moment the Raiders had their destiny in their hands. They could 1. Take a knee, allow a division rival into the playoffs & have to face arguably the best team in the AFC, from their own division, who crushed them both times they met this year, -or- kick the FG & face the Bengals.

Occam’s razor says to pick the simplest explanation. You are not doing that. 

so I won’t gtfo, thanks. 👍🏼

 
Harry Frogfish said:
The condescending stuff is cute, you have so many friends!

So lay out your 4 seconds again, while explaining the 4th and 2 form his own 18.  Speaking of childs-play analytics, explain that one, Brandon Jr.
Click to expand...
I don’t have any interest in defending Staley. On the 4th down play, the analytics had it even. It wasn’t for me, I would have punted and the play call itself was terrible. Also it was 4th and 1 not 2 but you’re not one to let facts get in your way. 

 
Harry Frogfish said:
WOW
Click to expand...
Yes wow. Your delusion is impressive. I also exclaimed “wow” at reading your nonsense in here.

Itsatip that if pretty much everyone is saying one thing & you’re calling them all crazy, you may just be the one who’s crazy. 👍🏼

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Harry Frogfish said:
WOW
Click to expand...
Also, there’s a very simple way to know if you’re wrong here:

Q: were the Raiders about to take a knee when the TO was called?

A: no

that’s it. No matter what was said, speculated about, pontificated by talking heads on television, that simple action tells you exactly the answer to this. 

It is an absolute fact that they were not going to take a knee. 

Ergo, you are incorrect. 

 
It’s fascinating to me that without the inane commentary from Michaels and Collinsworth about some imaginary truce, nobody would even be questioning the TO call.

It’s also fascinating that even we it can be easily deduced that the Raiders were going to try, people still cling to the initial narrative and can’t let it go. Every new fact or point is viewed through the lens of a false narrative.    

 
I don't know what the Raiders would have done if there was no Chargers timeout there, but Staley certainly fumbled the bag by calling it. They probably still call a TO and kick it if they get the same yardage. You also have to consider the Chargers were in a worse run fit after the TO. Raiders go short of the first down and they probably would kneel it out.

 
Judge Smails said:
The Raiders weren’t going to pass. That doesn’t mean they weren’t trying to bust a run. They didn’t take a knee, did they? When did they stop trying to get in better FG position?
Click to expand...
How do you think them taking a knee there looks to the rest of the league?

They were going to just run and let the clock run out

 
Flash said:
Agree 1000%. Carr all but said that in his after game interview.
Click to expand...
Yes they were fine tying. I think that’s obvious. But they were happier winning if they could safely do so. And gaining 10 yards allowed them to do that. The called TO not a factor.

 
AAABatteries said:
Yeah, we listened and Carr said they were trying to win and not settling for the tie.  I guess we should ignore that part?
Click to expand...
Carr was asked " Did that timeout at the end change your strategy?" His response " Oh absolutely it did, for sure". He the covered himself by talking about trying to win.

Lets get real here, the Raidahs were happy sending both teams to the Playoffs there.

 
Desert_Power said:
I don't know what the Raiders would have done if there was no Chargers timeout there, but Staley certainly fumbled the bag by calling it. They probably still call a TO and kick it if they get the same yardage. You also have to consider the Chargers were in a worse run fit after the TO. Raiders go short of the first down and they probably would kneel it out.
Click to expand...
How did he fumble the bag by calling TO?

 
Harry Frogfish said:
Show us your work for once. 

Is this your only reply?
Click to expand...
I’ve laid out my thoughts several times. Once the Raiders crossed midfield they were in almost complete control of the outcome and would have been happy to tie. It’s why they called only runs at that point. The Chargers were happy to tie as well. It’s why Staley let the clock run 36 seconds before calling timeout to set his defense. The TO changed nothing, as the Raiders ran the ball the very next play just as they would have before the TO. They got 10 yards which did change something. Now they were in much less risky fg range and in complete control of the clock with a fresh set of downs. They ran it down and kicked.

 
Flash said:
Carr was asked " Did that timeout at the end change your strategy?" His response " Oh absolutely it did, for sure". He the covered himself by talking about trying to win.

Lets get real here, the Raidahs were happy sending both teams to the Playoffs there.
Click to expand...
He was asked a question where the reporter assumes he is aware of an entire context that he likely is not aware of,

Any time a TO is called you change up your play a little bit because you have given the other team a “look.” 
 

vague question, vague answer with a lot of filling in the blanks.  Old sitcoms was filled with episodes like this where it led to hilarity. 

 
Cobbler1 said:
They were lining up to run the ball before the timeout. They lined up and ran the ball after the timeout. What exactly do you think changed? 
Click to expand...
They were running out the shotgun, and the two prior runs weren't all that effective.  It really did seem like they were just running the game out.  The TO changed the whole complexion of what appeared to be a gentleman's agreement to end things with a tie.  The Raiders are now thinking, "Oh ####, if we don't get a first down this guy's gonna call another time out and make us punt."  Do you think the Raiders would have tried a 57 year field goal with 30 seconds left?  No way in hell.  If they miss it the Chargers need one pass to get in field goal range.  So the Raiders come back after the TO and Carr is under center.  Less of a chance of a loss.  I don't think we'll ever know what the Raiders would have done if the timeout wasn't taken, but why give them motivation to make a more concerted effort on the 3rd down?  And why give the offense a blow?  Reminds me of the Pats Seahawks Super Bowl when Belichek didn't take the timeout.  He said afterwards that "something didn't look right.  Seattle seemed a little disorganized."  In any event, I don't like Staley at all.  He strikes me as the boy genius who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, when in reality he doesn't seem to have a very good feel for the game.

 
ekbeats said:
They were running out the shotgun, and the two prior runs weren't all that effective.  It really did seem like they were just running the game out.  The TO changed the whole complexion of what appeared to be a gentleman's agreement to end things with a tie.  The Raiders are now thinking, "Oh ####, if we don't get a first down this guy's gonna call another time out and make us punt."  Do you think the Raiders would have tried a 57 year field goal with 30 seconds left?  No way in hell.  If they miss it the Chargers need one pass to get in field goal range.  So the Raiders come back after the TO and Carr is under center.  Less of a chance of a loss.  I don't think we'll ever know what the Raiders would have done if the timeout wasn't taken, but why give them motivation to make a more concerted effort on the 3rd down?  And why give the offense a blow?  Reminds me of the Pats Seahawks Super Bowl when Belichek didn't take the timeout.  He said afterwards that "something didn't look right.  Seattle seemed a little disorganized."  In any event, I don't like Staley at all.  He strikes me as the boy genius who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, when in reality he doesn't seem to have a very good feel for the game.
Click to expand...
Why would he let the clock run 36 seconds if he was hoping for a punt to then go win it? Come on

 
Sam Quentin said:
He was asked a question where the reporter assumes he is aware of an entire context that he likely is not aware of,

Any time a TO is called you change up your play a little bit because you have given the other team a “look.” 
 

vague question, vague answer with a lot of filling in the blanks.  Old sitcoms was filled with episodes like this where it led to hilarity. 
Click to expand...
Remember that episode of Three's Company where Chrissy and Janet were talking about something in the kitchen and Jack overheard them and totally misunderstood the context, leading to humorous results?  That was a great episode.

 
I would love to rewatch the last 3 run plays for the Raiders to see if the 3rd run looked any different in terms of competitiveness.  I'll be honest, the first two runs looked very weak, to the point where I texted a friend and said "It's happening!" - meaning they were content to take the tie.  The 3rd down run looked different to me.  The linemen seemed to blow the Chargers D off the line in a way that seemed different than the prior two plays.  But once again that's just my recollection.  I'd love to look at it again.

 
Cobbler1 said:
Why would he let the clock run 36 seconds if he was hoping for a punt to then go win it? Come on
Click to expand...
It's not Staley's intent that matters.  It's what the Raiders perceived it as.  If I'm the Coach of the raiders I have to assume that Staley's not content with a tie and is out for the win, and will likely take another TO if we don't make it on 3rd and 4.  

 
ekbeats said:
I would love to rewatch the last 3 run plays for the Raiders to see if the 3rd run looked any different in terms of competitiveness.  I'll be honest, the first two runs looked very weak, to the point where I texted a friend and said "It's happening!" - meaning they were content to take the tie.  The 3rd down run looked different to me.  The linemen seemed to blow the Chargers D off the line in a way that seemed different than the prior two plays.  But once again that's just my recollection.  I'd love to look at it again.
Click to expand...
You’re letting your imagination get the best of you. It looked like the tie was happening  because they ran the ball twice indicating they weren’t going to take big risks to win. That’s why it was happening. They continued to do that after the timeout.

 
ekbeats said:
It's not Staley's intent that matters.  It's what the Raiders perceived it as.  If I'm the Coach of the raiders I have to assume that Staley's not content with a tie and is out for the win, and will likely take another TO if we don't make it on 3rd and 4.  
Click to expand...
Well if the Raiders coaches are that unintelligent then that’s a different topic. For the record, the Raiders coach said that not calling the TO right away was an indication to him that the Chargers were thinking about a tie too. But maybe the Raiders coach is unintelligent and also a liar…IDK! Him telling the truth and not being dumb seems more likely to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ekbeats said:
I would love to rewatch the last 3 run plays for the Raiders to see if the 3rd run looked any different in terms of competitiveness.  I'll be honest, the first two runs looked very weak, to the point where I texted a friend and said "It's happening!" - meaning they were content to take the tie.  The 3rd down run looked different to me.  The linemen seemed to blow the Chargers D off the line in a way that seemed different than the prior two plays.  But once again that's just my recollection.  I'd love to look at it again.
Click to expand...
C’mon. Surely you can’t be serious. 

 
Sam Quentin said:
He was asked a question where the reporter assumes he is aware of an entire context that he likely is not aware of,

Any time a TO is called you change up your play a little bit because you have given the other team a “look.” 
 

vague question, vague answer with a lot of filling in the blanks.  Old sitcoms was filled with episodes like this where it led to hilarity. 
Click to expand...
Three's Company for the win

ETA: Ivan beat me to the joke. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

barackdhouse
**SNF - Bears at Chargers** (-9, 46) 8:20
2 3 4
Replies
161
Views
2K
Statorama
Statorama
BobbyLayne
**Lions at Chargers** (+3, 48.5) 4:05
5 6 7
Replies
300
Views
4K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
Gatorman
Chargers, Texans, Cardinals wr questions this weekend…
Replies
2
Views
274
The Dude
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top