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!
I remember watching that show as a kid and thinking I wanted to hear a character say, "The last 37 times I overheard something and made an assumption, it turned out to be wrong, so maybe this time I'll clarify."
This. The timeout was still stupid though. Raiders were lining up in shotgun for a handoff draw up the middle. they were burning clock. Look at the last two runs previously, It's not like they were rushing to preserve clock to try and win the game. If Staley just let's them run that (tired) play, maybe they still get a huge chunk, who knows? But I would have rather had them run that play then give them time to rest Jacobs, and draw up a power run with the TE pulling.
and for Staley to pull a LB for a DB.
Saw that. Staley should be canned. So much bone head all year long. I mean, you could go out and get Flores right now. His relationship with Herbert will save him though. For one more year anyway.
honestly the more I think about it, and the more I talk with my Raiders fan friends (several of whom were at the game) the less convinced I am that they were content with a tie.
They may have let him try and kick a 50ish yarder. I doubt a 57 yarder (assuming no gain on the 3rd down carry). But I cannot be convinced they were really "trying" to win the game. Just watch the 1st and 2nd down runs. No urgency whatsoever. If you're trying to win the game you are getting to the line of scrimmage a lot quicker than that and trying to get your kicker at least inside a 45 yarder.
Agreed not a 57 yarder, but I do think they were trying to win the game.
This is the way I see it too. The Raiders had a chance to keep a divisional foe out of the playoffs and took the opportunity. Not having to play KC in the first round is a bonus.
I watched both coaches press conferences and posted the links. You just make stuff up. No evidence. What they said is just “coach speak” and you know what they really meant. Yeah. OK
No urgency because they wanted to kick with no time left. And they were at 3rd down so didn’t want to leave Chargers with time either way
Small technicality - time left only mattered if they missed the FG, as they'd both kicked FGs in OT to that point. The FG ended the game regardless. a MFG would have potentially given SD time.
That part I don't know, but why were they lined up to run the exact same run play again?
Maybe because the Chargers had the exact same defensive alignment & they thought it would get them a 1st down?
Exactly, you see some teams do this frequently at the end of the game. 1:20 left and a completion to the other teams 45 and they immediately take a timeout, when their opponent still has 3 timeouts. Let that clock run a bit. Bleed that time down so your opponent has very little time if you score.
The timeout is so stupid (not because it didn’t change the fact that the raiders were going to run the ball on 3rd down) but it accomplishes nothing. Let’s say they stuff them on 3rd down. Do you call the other timeout ? Then what? Force the chargers to punt? Then what? You have the ball on your own 20? Then what? You throw a Hail Mary? No you should knee it. But I don’t think the chargers coach had any idea of a formalized plan, or if he did, it was so dumb at the risk of losing a playoff spot to tie that he should be fired anyway.
They basically were telling the Chargers to stop the same play again. My opinion is just an opinion, but it seemed that the Raiders were not going to go out of their way to get another 10 yards or so before that TO was called.
This was already debunked earlier in this thread. He pulled a LB for a DT, not a DB.
Well I would say it was we will run it unimaginatively and if the chargers have any ability at all to stop us we will tie. Otherwise maybe we get a field goal.
first off, there’s a dramatic difference in “things that can go wrong if you pass”vs “things that can go wrong if you run”. A sack kills their FG chances, a pick could get taken back, and Jacobs isn’t a fumbler, historically.
That was the whole show and maybe if you were lucky Chrissy would be at the receiving end of some type of water hazard causing her entire top to soak and rendering it see thru
The timeout was called to set the defense up. There was no other strategic objective of it. Let the clock run until Vegas is about to snap to burn as much time as possible then call timeout to set the defense. That’s it.
Anything to get Chrissy in a bikini was everyone’s favorite episode, though I always thought Janet was hotter.That was the whole show and maybe if you were lucky Chrissy would be at the receiving end of some type of water hazard causing her entire top to soak and rendering it see thru
There's a middle ground there. I would say they were fine settling for the tie but preferred the win for obvious reasons. When it got down under two minutes they weren't going to take the risk of throwing the ball but they were still trying to get into comfortable FG position if they could without too much risk. I'm sure the coaches told the holder and the kicker that if the snap and hold were not perfect, don't kick it. Also if the FG attempt was 10 yards further they would have just run out the clock but thanks to the Chargers pathetic run defense (which has been a problem all year) it worked out perfect for them.
Well summed. I agree with this. Run until they stop you, don't take risks & hope to win the game.
Makes perfect sense, but I do think that TO gave them the opportunity to call a much more aggressive run play. I am convinced the run play before the TO was a carbon copy of the 2nd down call, and the SD defenders knew it as well. It was only a question if they were going to stop the same run play or not.
It may have looked like it, but without trying to sound condescending here, that's basically the nature of NFL offensive schemes in present-day NFL. Show them the same look with several different playcalls, and within those playcalls have several options for the QB to change the play at the line, or within the play as with the RPO style plays.
They ran to left on first and second down, and were in the same setup on 2nd and 3rd. Yes, of course they could have shown the same look and run another play. My opinion is the same play was coming. I'm not basing it on fact, just on what I felt in that sequence, and from what I saw. Raiders did not have the look of a team ready to take risks at that stage. After the TO, they called an obviously different run play, and the rest is history.
They replaced the LB Murray, who's been terrible, with DT Joseph, just like they did twice earlier in short yardage situations (successfully).
Well, that’s one interpretation. Obviously, I disagree. You are certainly entitled to that opinion though.
You directed me to the coaches press conferences. I listened. Posted links. Nothing to what you insinuated. Then you blow it off as coach speak because somehow you know for a fact that the Raiders changed their strategy and decided to stick it to the Chargers because they were insulted by the time out. That they were playing for the tie all along. Even if the coaches said differently. You don’t know squat.
off topic
They gave up 3x 4th & longs on that final Chargers drive to tie it, any of which would have won them the game had they been able to make a stop.
Sure, but "got lucky as hell after failing to shut the door repeatedly" would also seem like an accurate description.
Judge Smails said:
Oh I know, they certainly could have substituted while the clock was ticking. I don’t think they were certain they were ready and with the season on the line they wanted to be certain.
You lack the intellectual capacity to keep up with this conversation. You should probably sit it out.
