Although I was aghast at the timeout I suppose you have to call TO here that screenshot is bingo if unaltered
edit: turns out it wasn’t zoomed out enough there was coverage
Week 18 game thread?
- Thread starter Van Everyman
- Start date
edit: turns out it wasn’t zoomed out enough there was coverage
If you’re a top 5 seed, there is no way you can play seeds 1, 2, and 3. Only possible if you’re a 6 or 7 seed. And if you’re the 7 seed, there’s a better chance the 4 seed knocks the 3 seed out.
But, yeah, the road for the Pats wasn’t going to be easy regardless.
He’s in the fog of war after a huge win. He doesn’t need to say why, but it’s really nice that he said what.
I only see 9 defenders in that picture so maybe there is a DB in off coverage outside the frame.
I wish the Charges were still In San Diego too. Or, maybe they can add one team per year in LA and end up with five or six.
I’d just love to read what strategic change the Raiders theoretically made after the TO that made it MORE likely they were trying to advance the ball rather than run the clock out.
Run to the right became a run up the middle? Pass became a run up the middle?
Run to the right became a run up the middle? Pass became a run up the middle?
I thought live the San Diego timeout was simply to try to let his gassed defense rest up for one last third down stop. The tie was more appealing to SD (Buffalo - either way tie or win) than Oakland who was abs should have been playing to win with kC looming.
If SD had won the OT toss and they had gotten the 3rd possession instead of OAK, maybe then we would have seen “Just Tie Baby!”
In retrospect San Diego should have….had Hebert go for it one more 4th down in OT
fun fascinating last 2 quarters
If SD had won the OT toss and they had gotten the 3rd possession instead of OAK, maybe then we would have seen “Just Tie Baby!”
In retrospect San Diego should have….had Hebert go for it one more 4th down in OT
fun fascinating last 2 quarters
this is the proper way to play for a tie.
View: https://twitter.com/barstoolsports/status/1480264372815544331
View: https://twitter.com/barstoolsports/status/1480264372815544331
There are probably fewer than 5 people who know the answer to this question and they’re probably not posting here
They handed the ball off instead of…? If they got stuffed for a small gain THEN we’d see if there was a change in strategy.
We don’t need Bisaccia to lay out what it could have been. I haven’t read even a theory posed here.
EDIT - If the Raiders had lined up in a kneel formation on the third down before the TO, then I’d buy that the TO was a mistake.
I think Carr was just saying things. It looked like the Raiders were content to keep running, and who knows what they do if LAC stopped them for little gain each time. But once they broke through for the first down kicking was the easy call.
They'd have trouble beating the Little Sisters of the Poor if they play like they did today.
The qb said in what is typically a fluff on field interview that it changed their thinking. They didn’t exactly break the play down.
I think LA became concerned enough that the Chargers would call timeout again and force them to kick a long FG or punt that they could have called a play they felt had a better chance to get them a first down and FG range. Maybe they’ll explain better later I don’t know what to tell you
The theory would be they decided to kick a fg instead of just letting the clock run because they viewed the timeout as a threatening move and retaliated. It might sound stupid, but this is the NFL where coaches are wired like the Harbaughs and we end up with Deflategate because John is a giant manbaby.
I think going for it on 4th on your own 20 really pissed LV off even through it didn’t work.
In OT they were playing with house money down/distance wise given the tie scenario. No outcome outside of Piscarcik was bad.
In OT they were playing with house money down/distance wise given the tie scenario. No outcome outside of Piscarcik was bad.
They retaliated by running a play that wasn’t a kneel down, which is what they were lining up to do before the TO?
I guess this doesn’t matter, I don’t give a shit about defending Staley’s honor and acumen for its own sake.
It does sound stupid, because that assumes that the Raiders were agnostic as to whether they gt the 7 seed vs. the 5 seed.
No, that they retaliated by kicking the fg at the end instead of just letting the clock run out.
Well their QB said what he said, so I dunno *shrug*. I doubt we’d get a straight answer at this point anyway.
They didn’t want to play KC. Once that became a distinct possibility they pursued it.
This literally didn’t even occur to me. That’s almost incomprehensible to me that they’d sit on the ball the play AFTER getting the first down.
I get you’re spitballing, mind you. But Bisaccia is an unparalleled idiot if he would kneel on a potential GW kick from the 30 with time expiring given the seed implications.
Bucky, were the Raiders going to take a delay of game penalty in lieu of the Chargers calling the TO?
Cuz Carr was gonna perform the first kneel down from the shotgun - and no Alamo player behind Carr - in living NFL memory!
View: https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1480418029292896260
Everyone (media included) were so set on wanting the game to end in a tie that they are creating a controversy out of nothing.
View: https://twitter.com/BenjaminSolak/status/1480416356172451845
Yeah with the quote Bucky got (and totally misinterpreted because he's a complete moron) it's a good timeout. Terrible execution on D, but Staley correctly thought that they would run there, and if he gets a stop he doesn't lose. Seems like Staley correctly predicted what LV was going to do (not surprising it was obvious) and thought a TO would help them get a stop there.... it didn't but that more execution than a TO issue.
Yeah with the quote Bucky got (and totally misinterpreted because he's a complete moron) it's a good timeout. Terrible execution on D, but Staley correctly thought that they would run there, and if he gets a stop he doesn't lose. Seems like Staley correctly predicted what LV was going to do (not surprising it was obvious) and thought a TO would help them get a stop there.... it didn't but that more execution than a TO issue.
Once they converted the 1st down they were never in a million years going to take a knee rather than kick. What logical reason would they ever have for not kicking a not that long field goal?
Well with the seeding you do it, but if there was no seeding component you would let the clock run to ensure you are in the playoffs and there isn’t some blocked fg disaster.
The negligible percent chance of a FG block return TD with time expiring, which would be the same risk whether the Chargers had 0, 1, 2, or 56 timeouts.
I guess Bisaccia could be that poor at risk assessment that a TO with like 30 seconds left BEFORE the play they convert for a first down led him to realize kicking a sub 50 yarder with time expiring if they got the first was the correct choice. Why he wouldn’t have realized that in the 20 seconds after the conversion anyways we will never know.
But Staley’s job is to optimize his third down D on the play of the game, not play 4D chess about whatever weird shit might be bouncing around in Bisaccia’s head.
See this is why the TO is a sign of bad coaching. Not because the Raiders were going to go for the tie (obviously they weren't). But why the F was the run defense so unprepared that he need to call a TO to get it straight? And then give up a, what, ten yard run immediately afterward?
Yeah, but that's a less than 1% chance vs maybe a 75% chance of playing the Bengals instead of the Chiefs
Ok, but there is a seeding component, which is why they were never going to take a knee in that spot despite what you seem to think for no logical reason.
I agree completely. After the run got them into very reasonable FG range, if LV, had let the clock run out without attempting the FG, there is no doubt that all anyone would be taking about today would be issues relating to "the integrity of the game". And kicking that FG also greatly improved LV's position in the playoffs. Instead of going to KC for a whipping, they play the Bungles. The only risk to kicking that FG was the extremely rare block that gets run back all the way. Going for the win shouldn't be controversial. Not going for it would be historically controversial!
Is it?
I mean, yes, it would be nice if the Chargers D was already set for the likely play. But if the coach sees something that he doesn't like, wouldn't it be better to call the timeout and come out with the defensive alignment you want? It's a high leverage play, and so even a marginal improvement in the chances of a stop would be worthwhile. The Chargers D still didn't execute, but that's been a problem a good portion of the season for them, and is likely due to the players on the roster than the coaching.