What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Hot Sauce Guy said:
It’s not “out of spite”. It’s out of strategy. 

the Raiders had a “choose your own adventure” book & opted for the Bengals instead of the Chiefs. This ain’t rocket science. 
Click to expand...
I’m in agreement with you if it’s not clear. The “TO changed everything” crew/Derek Carr seem to think after the TO something changed that caused them to want to kick for the win. The “out of spite” is my best guess at what these people think might have changed because I don’t think it altered the strategy at all. 

 
GregR said:
"I don't think that means what you think that means"   [/Inigo Montoya]

The Raiders were not in a kneel formation. They were running a play out of shotgun before the timeout. After the timeout they ran a play from under center. The change in strategy was they changed their play call, not whether they were going to go for a tie.

If we want to say since the play they changed to succeeded and got in better FG range, it was a failed timeout. But we don't know the play they were in first wasn't going to go for even more yards. We can only speculate.

Yeah, worrying about the timeout is overblown. Didn't impact the game in a way we can say for sure.
Click to expand...
100% agree. 

 
travdogg said:
Honestly, this looks like the most static 1st round in some time. Only home team I could see losing is the Rams. 
Click to expand...
Could easily see Tampa losing to Eagles too....but yeah beyond those two I think any other game would be a significant upset

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cobbler1 said:
I’m in agreement with you if it’s not clear. The “TO changed everything” crew/Derek Carr seem to think after the TO something changed that caused them to want to kick for the win. The “out of spite” is my best guess at what these people think might have changed because I don’t think it altered the strategy at all. 
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Missed the sarcasm. Lol

:hifive:

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
As far as I can tell, the reason the TO was bad is because we have a bunch of mind readers here who knew exactly what the Raiders were about to call before the TO, and it was completely different from what they did call, which was ... a run.
Click to expand...
They lined up in I-formation and essentially ran it up the middle.  I think LAC played it a little soft and should have trusted their D to stop it with a run blitz.  If they had I assume the Raiders let the click run out over chancing something crazy with a long FG.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
As far as I can tell, the reason the TO was bad is because we have a bunch of mind readers here who knew exactly what the Raiders were about to call before the TO, and it was completely different from what they did call, which was ... a run.
Click to expand...
They think it was dumb because their TV told them it was.

They we’re always going conservative with a run and kicking if they got close enough.

 
I still say what was dumb was not taking both TOs during the 2 minutes warning and basically surrender and hope Raiders do same.

 
BigJim® said:
Blocked FG return is a lose scenario. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Yes, ok there are possibilities for disaster on any play. 

But the Raiders clearly felt the minute risk of that happening was outweighed by getting a better playoff matchup. I agree with that decision FWIW. 

 
AAABatteries said:
They lined up in I-formation and essentially ran it up the middle.  I think LAC played it a little soft and should have trusted their D to stop it with a run blitz.  If they had I assume the Raiders let the click run out over chancing something crazy with a long FG.
Click to expand...
I think they should have used their TOs with a minute still on the clock….make the Raiders really think about even trying a 40 something yarder

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Yes, ok there are possibilities for disaster on any play. 

But the Raiders clearly felt the minute risk of that happening was outweighed by getting a better playoff matchup. I agree with that decision FWIW. 
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m with that strategy. Avoid KC. Play a qb in his first playoff start, coach in his first playoff start. 

 
I'd have kicked the FG too.  But I was cheering for the Chargers to block it and run it back just to watch the media and fan meltdown that would have ensued.  :football:

 
AAABatteries said:
I still say what was dumb was not taking both TOs during the 2 minutes warning and basically surrender and hope Raiders do same.
Click to expand...
Can you do that? I thought it was a penalty if you call two TOs on the same play.

In any event, it's hard to say it was "dumb" not to send an ambiguous signal to the other team that they have no need to reciprocate. I think the way the Raiders handled the final drive was perfectly rational and perfectly predictable: play it relatively safe but try to move the ball down the field. That's consistent with trying to improve your playoff position without sacrificing your chance to make the playoffs in the first place. I fail to see how anything the Chargers could have done would change that calculus.

 
Sam Quentin said:
I think they should have used their TOs with a minute still on the clock….make the Raiders really think about even trying a 40 something yarder
Click to expand...
That’s interesting for sure. Had sort of the opposite today with the Ravens-Pitt in OT when someone HAD to win and could see it almost getting to a game of chicken with who will be the most reckless to win it. Pitt happened to be in the position and went for a 4th and 8 from just a few yards past midfield .

 
I wanted the raiders to miss and eliminate the Steelers, but then thought of the Steelers getting humiliated next week in KC crossed my mind and I liked it. 

 
renesauz said:
Could easily see Tampa losing to Eagles too....but yeah beyond those two I think any other game would be a significant upset
Click to expand...
I think that would be a huge upset. TB's defense is the worst possible matchup the Eagles could have gotten. They are gonna struggle running the ball, at least by their standards, and Hurts is gonna have to win with his arm. 

I'd say Patriots over Bills is probably the 2nd most likely, since it already happened once. Gonna need another snowstorm though, which could certainly happen.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Yes, ok there are possibilities for disaster on any play. 

But the Raiders clearly felt the minute risk of that happening was outweighed by getting a better playoff matchup. I agree with that decision FWIW. 
Click to expand...
Agree with all of that. My comment was on the words no-lose scenario, followed up with statement that you knew of no reason they wouldn't. That's a reason. It's the only way they miss the playoffs.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Can you do that? I thought it was a penalty if you call two TOs on the same play.

In any event, it's hard to say it was "dumb" not to send an ambiguous signal to the other team that they have no need to reciprocate. I think the way the Raiders handled the final drive was perfectly rational and perfectly predictable: play it relatively safe but try to move the ball down the field. That's consistent with trying to improve your playoff position without sacrificing your chance to make the playoffs in the first place. I fail to see how anything the Chargers could have done would change that calculus.
Click to expand...
Not sure but he could have burned one there and then the other after the first play at the end of the clock.  I basically agree with you but think there’s a small chance Raiders take a knee once they were assured they could run out the clock and avoid a fumble. 

 
travdogg said:
I'd fire Staley tonight. Single handedly cost them a playoff spot. Dumbest HC in the NFL. The Raiders were giving them a playoff spot. 
Click to expand...


I think it was a mistake, but this is way overboard.  I’d rather have Staley than all but 3-4 coaches in the NFL.  Firing him because of 1 bad decision in the heat of the moment in his first year would be a worst decision than the timeout.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
I think it was a mistake, but this is way overboard.  I’d rather have Staley than all but 3-4 coaches in the NFL.  Firing him because of 1 bad decision in the heat of the moment in his first year would be a worst decision than the timeout.  
Click to expand...
I think folks saying it was a mistake are assuming the Raiders were playing for a tie.  They were being cautious but once they were in range I’m not sure there’s anything they did which makes you think they wouldn’t always try and kick it.  I think the Raiders would have settled for the tie but Chargers run D just couldn’t stop them.

 
tommyGunZ said:
I think it was a mistake, but this is way overboard.  I’d rather have Staley than all but 3-4 coaches in the NFL.  Firing him because of 1 bad decision in the heat of the moment in his first year would be a worst decision than the timeout.  
Click to expand...
I haven’t watched many of their games but I’m sure it’s shown itself before and will again. The going for it on his own 19 was bad too and the ending was horrible. 

 
I was thinking it would have been painfully humorous if he called time out to make sure the defense was protecting against pass, and possibly softened the middle.

 
https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/1480409105210695681

Do we think Bisaccia was going to run the ball on third down and kick a field goal on the next play regardless of the timeout?

It was third-and-4 from the 39. If the Raiders get two yards and it’s a 55-yard field goal … I think they still kick, to be honest
Click to expand...
What would be the downside of a 55 yarder? Maybe slightly higher chance that it gets blocked (and returned), but that's still extremely unlikely

 
tommyGunZ said:
I think it was a mistake, but this is way overboard.  I’d rather have Staley than all but 3-4 coaches in the NFL.  Firing him because of 1 bad decision in the heat of the moment in his first year would be a worst decision than the timeout.  
Click to expand...
Wasn’t even a bad decision! Unless we’re talking about the 4th down call. The TO changed nothing unless the Raiders coaching staff is really clueless enough to think that a TO with 3 seconds left on the play clock was a shot fired by the Chargers and changed their strategy because of that. Raiders still went conservative just like they would have pre TO.

 
AAABatteries said:
I think folks saying it was a mistake are assuming the Raiders were playing for a tie.  They were being cautious but once they were in range I’m not sure there’s anything they did which makes you think they wouldn’t always try and kick it.  I think the Raiders would have settled for the tie but Chargers run D just couldn’t stop them.
Click to expand...


The raiders were not playing for the tie if they had a chance to win.  
 

the chargers should have called a TO with over a minute left and pressured them to do something….maybe make a mistake.  

 
I still don't know why Staley called the TO, but this seems like a good explanation for why he called it at the exact moment he did:

Chargers waited until there was :38 on the clock to take a timeout, deliberately. Now the clock runs out if the Raiders don't score or go out of bounds.
Click to expand...

 
If you are the Raiders, why would you kill the clock and let a team like SD into the playoffs who has just shown they can keep coming back on you instead of knocking them out for Pitt?

 
To think, in all these years of watching football I thought the purpose of TOs was to stop the clock, set formations, etc. Turns out they're for sending ambiguous coded messages to the other team! #themoreyouknow

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I agree with the Barnwell tweet I posted above that they would have kicked even if they hadn't gotten the first down. The upside of playing Cinci over KC is higher than the downside risk of the kick being blocked and returned for a TD
Click to expand...
That’s the whole ball of wax. Crazy conspiracy talk aside, this is Occam’s razor. 

 
AAABatteries said:
Raiders had to run a play - clock wasn’t going to run out.
Click to expand...
Maybe I misunderstood the point being made in the quote "Chargers waited until there was :38 on the clock to take a timeout, deliberately. Now the clock runs out if the Raiders don't score or go out of bounds." No, Raiders could let it run to :02, call timeout, and kick a FG. As they did. Also, what does deliberate calling of a timeout at :38 change? If they don't call timeout, all of that stuff in the quote is still true - except Raiders can still call a timeout, since they had 2. If I'm misunderstanding the quote, I'd love to better understand.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jewell
Chargers Receivers Going Forward
Replies
28
Views
2K
JohnnyU
JohnnyU
Ministry of Pain
**Broncos at Chargers**(-3, 46) 4:05
Replies
43
Views
809
Harry Frogfish
Harry Frogfish
W
Dynasty Rookie Draft 1.02 Dilemma
Replies
21
Views
1K
beef
beef

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top