purplemonster Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said: Can someone explain to me why the Chargers called a timeout? I assume that if the Raiders missed the 3rd down conversion, LAC stops the clock again with their last TO (they had one left right?) Raiders attempt a FG (or punt), LAC can attempt to get in FG range if needed/desired Edited January 10, 2022 by purplemonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Brown Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 But a tie gets both teams into the dance. And it didn't look like Raiders had any interest in lining up for a FG, which can rarely get blocked and who knows what.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplemonster Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 1 minute ago, Bobby Brown said: But a tie gets both teams into the dance. And it didn't look like Raiders had any interest in lining up for a FG, which can rarely get blocked and who knows what.... Then why do you think the Raiders kicked it? They still could have sat on it and not kicked it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Brown Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, purplemonster said: Then why do you think the Raiders kicked it? They still could have sat on it and not kicked it. I kind of think they may have went for it just because the TO was called. Edited January 10, 2022 by Bobby Brown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 NFL Network is saying the Raiders HC said he was gonna take the tie, but the timeout changed his mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Brown Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 19 minutes ago, Shorttynaz said: NFL Network is saying the Raiders HC said he was gonna take the tie, but the timeout changed his mind. The game flow felt like that. I just don't understand how Charger coach felt it was an andvatage to call time out to make it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hezagenius Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 If they were taking the tie, why not just do victory formation after the time out? Or the play after that? When the TO was called, they were lined up for a play, in shotgun formation I believe. That is not the formation to run out the clock. What's getting lost, too, is that by winning, they face Cincy. With a tie, they face KC. They had to know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hezagenius Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 The TO was not on 4th down so if LV truly wanted to run the clock out, they could have ran it after the TO and then just stood on the field until time ran out. LAC lost because they couldn't stop the run. If LV are saying that TO changed their strategy, I question their coach's critical thinking skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 I think people are overthinking this. Both teams were playing to win the game, and knock their divisional rival out of the playoffs in the process. Nobody wanted a tie, and unless there was a situation where it made absolutely no sense to do anything (like inside their own 20 with 30 seconds left), they weren't going to kneel and take the tie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Brown Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 48 minutes ago, Gopher said: I think people are overthinking this. Both teams were playing to win the game, "We were content to have a tie." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
League_Champion Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 That was an odd game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 13 hours ago, purplemonster said: They get credit i think for most frustrating way to miss the playoffs this year. Lose to the Raiders and then to Jax. Either one gets them to the playoffs The way they lost to the Raiders may have been frustrating, but the Raiders are a good team and it was a close game. Getting blown out by a really bad Jags team, it was 26-3 when they scored a TD with under 5min left, with a shot at the playoffs on the line is a total embarrassment. 10 hours ago, Big John said: Going for it on 4th on their own 18? Very puzzling and while I can see the "analytics" and numbers behind it, these coaches are getting too cute and playing this game like its a simulation and not something real. Then the timeout at the end, alleged to get the best defense in there against the expected running play, but they remove one of their LB and instead plug in a safety (something I didn't notice but read in a story later). Yes to answer an earlier question, LA still had another TO after that (each team got 2 and hadn't used them). I was so rooting for a tie last night, not early on I just wanted a good game. Then as it got close, and went to OT, even as I struggled to stay away I thought a tie (without teams just giving up and kneeling out the clock the entire OT) would be awesome. Plus no Steelers in the playoffs as a bonus. I believe Raiders were planning to let the clock run out after their 3rd down attempt. 3rd and 4, at the LA 39, its a long FG, and no use to punt or run a play on 4th down. They were not going to take a knee, but run a real play. And maybe if they had gotten a big gain like that they'd have kicked a FG to win and send their division rival home. (Always a good feeling.) I do wonder if the LV coach changed his mind after the timeout, and decided to go for the win. I really think it was just because the FG was far more makeable (and if you miss, its a tie, unless they block and return for TD). A wild end to one of the craziest weekends of football I can remember. I only watched a portion of the PIT-BAL game, need to finish that and also look for highlights of some others, like IND-JAX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 7 hours ago, hezagenius said: The TO was not on 4th down so if LV truly wanted to run the clock out, they could have ran it after the TO and then just stood on the field until time ran out. LAC lost because they couldn't stop the run. If LV are saying that TO changed their strategy, I question their coach's critical thinking skills. Except Chargers still had a TO left, and if they were trying to force LV to either kick FG or punt they could have taken the 2nd TO. And once the 4th down play is over the clock would stop on change of possession. Once they got the first down LA taking a TO was pointless if LV wanted to run the clock out. 7 hours ago, Gopher said: I think people are overthinking this. Both teams were playing to win the game, and knock their divisional rival out of the playoffs in the process. Nobody wanted a tie, and unless there was a situation where it made absolutely no sense to do anything (like inside their own 20 with 30 seconds left), they weren't going to kneel and take the tie. Disagree, the Raiders if they had not gotten a first down were content to just let the clock run out. And Staley wasn't stopping the clock to preserve time and get his own chance to score again (according to him). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 9 hours ago, Bobby Brown said: "We were content to have a tie." Not sure who you're quoting, but the Raiders HC said that they "discussed" the possibility of taking a tie, but knew that if they got a chance to kick a FG to win it, that's what they were going to do. Of course they discussed it (who wouldn't). Bottom line.... Nobody wants to limp into the playoffs by kneeling for a tie, unless it's basically the only option. The last resort. That's the epitome of playing not to lose, versus playing to win. No team that does that has a prayer of making the SB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
League_Champion Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Yup, if they were on their own 30 then take a knee. I don't think that's even an option if your inside the 50. You gotta go for the win at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 (edited) 26 minutes ago, League_Champion said: Yup, if they were on their own 30 then take a knee. I don't think that's even an option if your inside the 50. You gotta go for the win at that point. Here's the thing, if they were on their own 30 and start taking a knee to drain the clock for the tie, LA definitely takes 2 timeouts and forces their hand. They were already across midfield (at LA 45) with 2 minutes left, 1st and 10. At that point they ran the ball twice, got 6 yards and used about 1min 20sec. If LA had wanted to force them to kick a FG, or punt, so they got a chance, they'd have taken timeouts sooner. But they just wanted to get the defense set, and with the play clock nearly gone, LA took a timeout with 38 second left. I don't know if the Raiders really planned to attempt a FG from 57 yards (or something shorter depending on how much they got on 3rd and 4 play with ball on 39). Maybe they would, Carlson isn't very good from deep, just 30 of 40 from 40-49 yards, and 13 of 16 on 50+ (but just one miss in each range this year). David Carr says the timeout changed "their mindset" but they were never playing for a tie and wanted to win. Some might read the headline or hear something like that and think it means "they were OK with a tie" but he clearly says different. https://www.si.com/nfl/2022/01/10/raiders-chargers-overtime-timeout-tie-brandon-staley-derek-carr Last night (it was really late, after lots of NFL action over 10+ hours, and some beverages) it sure seemed to me like the timeout was a bad idea. And that maybe both teams were playing with "a tie isn't horrible" view. Even that LV kicked the FG to say FU to the Chargers for taking the TO. But in hindsight, with more info, its pretty clear the big blunder there was allowing the Raiders to get 10 yards and make for a much more makeable FG. Coach Staley is taking a beating, I could understand that initially, but if people read more about it and take a moment to think they shouldn't be blaming the timeout. https://thespun.com/more/top-stories/brandon-staley-getting-crushed-did-sunday-night Edited January 10, 2022 by stevegrab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 11 hours ago, hezagenius said: If they were taking the tie, why not just do victory formation after the time out? Or the play after that? When the TO was called, they were lined up for a play, in shotgun formation I believe. That is not the formation to run out the clock. What's getting lost, too, is that by winning, they face Cincy. With a tie, they face KC. They had to know that. This is exactly why the Raiders tried the field goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplemonster Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 FWIW sounds like Staley wasnt considering optics at all. He was just trying to get a better run d out there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplemonster Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Lots of people talking about the end of the game or Herbert going 6/6 on 4th downs there for a stretch (idk the number it was a lot though). But you gotta give Bisaccia some credit. He beat two pretty good teams that were desperately trying to get into the playoffs to get in himself. I think most people, myself included, had left that team for dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 57 minutes ago, purplemonster said: Lots of people talking about the end of the game or Herbert going 6/6 on 4th downs there for a stretch (idk the number it was a lot though). But you gotta give Bisaccia some credit. He beat two pretty good teams that were desperately trying to get into the playoffs to get in himself. I think most people, myself included, had left that team for dead. They were 3-2 when Gruden was fired, and have gone 7-5 since. They had a rough patch where they lost 3 in a row including @Giants. And also lost to WFT. But they beat both NFC East playoff teams. Their defense has played better, allowing just under 20ppg in the last 4 (all wins) after giving up 48 to KC in a loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 That was the most Browns way to lose a game 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.