NFL Week 18 - the extra week

[degenerasian]

Vegas absolutely should just take three kneeldowns here.

They want to beat the Chargers, they hate them, and they don't want to go to Arrowhead. Being the 5 seed isn't terrible.
And they don't want the stink the media will make of settling for the tie.

That was an incredible season ending game.

[brian]

Vegas absolutely should just take three kneeldowns here.

They want to beat the Chargers, they hate them, and they don't want to go to Arrowhead. Being the 5 seed isn't terrible.
And they don't want the stink the media will make of settling for the tie.

That was an incredible season ending game.

I still think the game theory there is to not take any chances that can cost you the game (like a fumble, etc.). If you're ahead by 1 with 2 minutes left and the opponent can't stop the clock you kneel three times.

[Rex]

I don't blame the Raiders for kicking. This isn't college, the risk of disaster is extremely low. And as mentioned, they had a chance to improve their seed. Boy Genius, on the other hand, has some explaining to do.

[degenerasian]

Vegas absolutely should just take three kneeldowns here.

They want to beat the Chargers, they hate them, and they don't want to go to Arrowhead. Being the 5 seed isn't terrible.
And they don't want the stink the media will make of settling for the tie.

That was an incredible season ending game.

I still think the game theory there is to not take any chances that can cost you the game (like a fumble, etc.). If you're ahead by 1 with 2 minutes left and the opponent can't stop the clock you kneel three times.

Yes but in the US there is this stigma against ties. Three knees there would have been cries of a fix tomorrow morning from the talking idiots nationwide even though that was a great game and an organic tie.

[degenerasian]

Also the Raiders couldn't take 3 knees. The Chargers would have used their 2 timeouts, they wanted the ball back. I don't know why.

[sancarlos]

[degenerasian]

If this is true then it's a shame for the Chargers players because they played their asses off, down 15, converted 6 4th downs to earn that tie and playoff spot.

[rass]

Glad I went to bed Raiders up 15. I don't need that sort of pointless stress that late at night. And with that extra sleep, I might make it until the third quarter of the CFP championship before I fall asleep.

[mister d]

Also the Raiders couldn't take 3 knees. The Chargers would have used their 2 timeouts, they wanted the ball back. I don't know why.

A smart team would have recognized the situation and done anything possible to signal they were down with a passive tie. That timeout was insanely stupid.

[degenerasian]

Also the Raiders couldn't take 3 knees. The Chargers would have used their 2 timeouts, they wanted the ball back. I don't know why.

A smart team would have recognized the situation and done anything possible to signal they were down with a passive tie. That timeout was insanely stupid.

The Chargers mistake was not taking time off the clock when they got into FG range. A tie is the same as a win. So when the Raiders kicked to make it 32-29, you treat it like they are up by 2, not 3.

Teams do this all the time at the end of 4th quarters when down by 2. Get into FG range, start killing the clock and kick the FG to win. Don't leave any time for the other team. So why were they launching balls into the end zone trying to win and then leaving 4 minutes for the Raiders?

In fact the 49ers did this earlier in the day. They also just needed a tie to make the playoffs and when they got the ball first in OT they ran a 7 minute drive and kicked a FG leaving the Rams little time.

[Gunpowder]

How is this rancid trashheap of a team going to the playoffs?

How did everyone not just do what the Vikes did for most of that game or the Chargers most of that game or the Bengals both games?

The only way the Ravens could have possibly lost that game was if they had either fumbled (which you can't control) or thrown a pick (which you can) in the red zone. So naturally they decide to throw the ball and they throw the pick. Just run every play and you'll destroy this team. Play a cover 2 with 9 guys at the LOS on defense and they won't move the ball.

[Gunpowder]

I don't blame the Raiders for kicking. This isn't college, the risk of disaster is extremely low. And as mentioned, they had a chance to improve their seed. Boy Genius, on the other hand, has some explaining to do.

How this guy got coach of the year chatter all year while leading an absolutely stacked roster to yet another Chargery season boggled my mind.

[Rex]

Reflecting on it a bit, and reading the postgame quotes, I think the Chargers were just disorganized and not trying to be cute. At the 2:00 warning, they had to know that 3 runs/knees ends the game. If they were fearful that Vegas would run the clock down and kick a field goal, they should have called a time out after the first run was stopped for a loss. At that point, you are legitimately putting Vegas to a decision to press for the first down, take a very long FG or punt. The fact that they didn't do it says that they were happy with the tie. What is weird to me is Staley's rationale that they called a TO to get their best run personnel on the field. Why wasn't your best run personnel already on the field? It's obvious to everyone that they are going to run 3 times so long as the clock is running. Was the best run personnel on the field when they got 7 yards on 2nd and 11? And was that really the best run personnel that gave up 10 yards on 3rd and 4? Despite what the Raiders are saying (and full marks to them for rubbing it in), it must have been the 10 yards and not the time out that caused them to change thinking on the FG. At 57 yards, the risk of a block is probably too high. At 47 though, that risk is almost gone.

[Rex]

I don't blame the Raiders for kicking. This isn't college, the risk of disaster is extremely low. And as mentioned, they had a chance to improve their seed. Boy Genius, on the other hand, has some explaining to do.

How this guy got coach of the year chatter all year while leading an absolutely stacked roster to yet another Chargery season boggled my mind.

Yeah, it's not just the cluster in the last 2:00. As already mentioned, they could have taken more time off the clock on their own drive. And the drive to tie it was one of the least efficient drives I have ever seen (remember, I'm a Giants fan), saved only by Herbert's talent. They had 3 time outs and never tried to use the middle of the field for 5-15 yard gains like every normal good offense.

[Brontoburglar]

the timeout is only getting so much scrutiny because of the coach who called it, not because of the (lack of) impact it had on the game situation

[Gunpowder]

the timeout is only getting so much scrutiny because of the coach who called it, not because of the (lack of) impact it had on the game situation

Was going to note that. It's just all this Chargerity stacked up over the entire season that everyone seems to have missed until recently.

[Brontoburglar]

yup. and hey, Staley is hailed again as the boy genius if his post-timeout switch to five defensive linemen stops Jacobs and forces the 55-yard field goal attempt that misses or if the Raiders let the clock run out

instead, the lack of execution post-timeout is inexplicably putting the focus on the timeout call itself. when in reality, the Chargers' weakness all season is what cost them a shot at the Super Bowl. opponents ran 509 times on LAC for 4.6 yards a clip. only four teams faced more rushing attempts and they all finished below .500

[Gunpowder]

yup. and hey, Staley is hailed again as the boy genius if his post-timeout switch to five defensive linemen stops Jacobs and forces the 55-yard field goal attempt that misses or if the Raiders let the clock run out

instead, the lack of execution post-timeout is inexplicably putting the focus on the timeout call itself. when in reality, the Chargers' weakness all season is what cost them a shot at the Super Bowl. opponents ran 509 times on LAC for 4.6 yards a clip. only four teams faced more rushing attempts and they all finished below .500

He's not going to be heralded as a genius if they tie. The only way he gets props is if the Chargers block the field goal and take it to the house, which is very unlikely and probably doesn't even improve their seeding.

[Gunpowder]

The drawback is really in signaling to the Raiders that hey, we're going for this for absolutely no reason, so your move guys.

[tennbengal]

I don't blame the Raiders for kicking. This isn't college, the risk of disaster is extremely low. And as mentioned, they had a chance to improve their seed. Boy Genius, on the other hand, has some explaining to do.

a tie would have sent them to Arrowhead - and the Chiefs beat them by a combined 83-29 this year. At no point last night should they have been playing for a tie if they had a realistic chance to win and go to Cincinnati instead.

[Brontoburglar]

yup. and hey, Staley is hailed again as the boy genius if his post-timeout switch to five defensive linemen stops Jacobs and forces the 55-yard field goal attempt that misses or if the Raiders let the clock run out

instead, the lack of execution post-timeout is inexplicably putting the focus on the timeout call itself. when in reality, the Chargers' weakness all season is what cost them a shot at the Super Bowl. opponents ran 509 times on LAC for 4.6 yards a clip. only four teams faced more rushing attempts and they all finished below .500

He's not going to be heralded as a genius if they tie. The only way he gets props is if the Chargers block the field goal and take it to the house, which is very unlikely and probably doesn't even improve their seeding.

oh he'd absolutely be getting props postgame if they tied after he explains why they called timeout to get the right personnel on the field to stop the Raiders. it'd be the flipside of the line of thinking that's permeating the timeout discussion right now for better or worse (more the latter)

and no, there was no difference in seeding for the Chargers. they were the 6 if they were in thanks to beating the Raiders earlier in the year

[Gunpowder]

I cannot see a coach getting heralded for calling timeout in order to get run defenders on the field to stop an obvious run by a team that wasn't really even trying to win but I guess it could happen.

[Brontoburglar]

think of how many people took Carr's words at face value about the timeout without thinking critically about it for even a half second

[Ryan]

I can't believe I finally get to root for the Chiefs to put up a 60-spot but here we are.

ETA: I mean, this is the dream

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 150jax.htm

[rass]

No way a beloved Pittsburgh QB goes out like that!

[pruitt2]

I can't believe I finally get to root for the Chiefs to put up a 60-spot but here we are.

ETA: I mean, this is the dream

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 150jax.htm

God - as a Bills fan, that was a joyous game to watch.

Notice that the over/under was 37.5?

Insane. Even the Washington/Giants game this weekend was higher.

[mister d]

think of how many people took Carr's words at face value about the timeout without thinking critically about it for even a half second

What's the critical thinking behind "you can lose kicking a FG but you can't lose kneeling down"?

[tennbengal]

think of how many people took Carr's words at face value about the timeout without thinking critically about it for even a half second

What's the critical thinking behind "you can lose kicking a FG but you can't lose kneeling down"?

Again...if they tie they end up in KC who housed them this year by a combined 83-29. I think the chance of a disaster vs the possibility of making the kick and going to Cincinnati instead was worth whatever risk that was. They clearly thought so too.

[Brontoburglar]

think of how many people took Carr's words at face value about the timeout without thinking critically about it for even a half second

What's the critical thinking behind "you can lose kicking a FG but you can't lose kneeling down"?

that the small risk of the kick getting blocked and returned for a touchdown is worth the risk of not having to play at Kansas City in the playoffs

eta, yeah what TB said

[mister d]

Again...if they tie they end up in KC who housed them this year by a combined 83-29. I think the chance of a disaster vs the possibility of making the kick and going to Cincinnati instead was worth whatever risk that was. They clearly thought so too.

But to what extent did they really think that if they were content to run and just kinda see what happens? Like doesn't their playcalling indicate they were fine letting the clock run down?

[Brontoburglar]

Again...if they tie they end up in KC who housed them this year by a combined 83-29. I think the chance of a disaster vs the possibility of making the kick and going to Cincinnati instead was worth whatever risk that was. They clearly thought so too.

But to what extent did they really think that if they were content to run and just kinda see what happens?

enough to kick the field goal after getting into field goal range

I don't understand how it's so complicated. you don't have to play aggressively when you know you're already in the playoffs. and kicking a 47-yard field goal isn't aggressive when it's a two-seed difference. the Chargers allowing 10 yards on the run is what changes things.

[mister d]

Did they not run it from out of FG range and then again when they were 57 yards out?

[Brontoburglar]

I'm wondering if you're intentionally being obtuse

yes, they ran the ball on their final three plays. that was the smart decision given the circumstances. at that point just inside the Chargers' half of the field, you know you're in the playoffs so you don't do anything to screw that up with an interception/incomplete passes to stop the clock/etc. if you get a first down and get into field goal range as time expires, great. do that and improve your seeding. you don't, well, you take the trip to KC as it's better than missing the playoffs

with the stadium being indoors and Carlson having a strong leg, it's a non-zero possibility they kick the long field goal anyway if they don't get the 10 yards. that's why it's foolish to think the Raiders were explicitly playing *for* the tie. they weren't doing that, they were playing to not get the tie stolen out of their back pocket

[brian]

I'm wondering if you're intentionally being obtuse

yes, they ran the ball on their final three plays. that was the smart decision given the circumstances. at that point just inside the Chargers' half of the field, you know you're in the playoffs so you don't do anything to screw that up with an interception/incomplete passes to stop the clock/etc. if you get a first down and get into field goal range as time expires, great. do that and improve your seeding. you don't, well, you take the trip to KC as it's better than missing the playoffs

with the stadium being indoors and Carlson having a strong leg, it's a non-zero possibility they kick the long field goal anyway if they don't get the 10 yards. that's why it's foolish to think the Raiders were explicitly playing *for* the tie. they weren't doing that, they were playing to not get the tie stolen out of their back pocket

Yeah, they would have tried the 56-ish yard FG for sure likely with the explicit instruction to Carlson to get the ball in the air. If he misses it, so be it. But just can't get it blocked there.

[degenerasian]

I'm wondering if you're intentionally being obtuse

yes, they ran the ball on their final three plays. that was the smart decision given the circumstances. at that point just inside the Chargers' half of the field, you know you're in the playoffs so you don't do anything to screw that up with an interception/incomplete passes to stop the clock/etc. if you get a first down and get into field goal range as time expires, great. do that and improve your seeding. you don't, well, you take the trip to KC as it's better than missing the playoffs

with the stadium being indoors and Carlson having a strong leg, it's a non-zero possibility they kick the long field goal anyway if they don't get the 10 yards. that's why it's foolish to think the Raiders were explicitly playing *for* the tie. they weren't doing that, they were playing to not get the tie stolen out of their back pocket

Which is what the Chargers should have done when they had the ball.

1st & 10 at LV 27
(5:21 - OT) A.Ekeler left guard to LV 23 for 4 yards (K.Wright).

2nd & 6 at LV 23
(4:44 - OT) (Shotgun) J.Herbert pass incomplete short right to J.Guyton (C.Hayward).

3rd & 6 at LV 23
(4:40 - OT) (Shotgun) J.Herbert pass incomplete deep right to M.Williams.

4th & 6 at LV 23
(4:30 - OT) Dustin Hopkins 41 Yd Field Goal

Those two pass plays on 2nd and 3rd down are inexplicable. You would not to that if you were down by 2 (which they essentially were).
You run the ball two more times. If you get a first down, you run it three more times, or very very short screen passes. Put the tie in your pocket first.

[Brontoburglar]

there's no fundamental difference between giving the Raiders the ball with 4:30 to go or 2:50 to go

it's also not effectively a two-point game. the field goal continues the game. the touchdown ends it. far different scenarios. Mike Williams was also in single coverage in the end zone on that third-down play (a very curious call by the Raiders).

pretending the situation the Chargers were in on the drive before is equal to the Raiders' final drive or the 49ers' drive to start overtime is a fallacy

[degenerasian]

there's no fundamental difference between giving the Raiders the ball with 4:30 to go or 2:50 to go

it's also not effectively a two-point game. the field goal continues the game. the touchdown ends it. far different scenarios. Mike Williams was also in single coverage in the end zone on that third-down play (a very curious call by the Raiders).

pretending the situation the Chargers were in on the drive before is equal to the Raiders' final drive or the 49ers' drive to start overtime is a fallacy

A FG doesn't really continue the game when there's under 2 or 3 minutes left. Raiders are taking no chances when they get the ball back on their own 25 with 2:50 or less left. Having 4:30 left gave them 3 extra running plays and 20+ yards, which they still weren't really taking any chances.

Plus, you can get first downs on the ground, the Raiders defense was gassed. Chargers still could have gotten a TD by running and killing clock as a backup plan. You have to ensure the tie first. One more first down and you're at the 2 minute warning.

[mister d]

Yeah, they would have tried the 56-ish yard FG for sure likely with the explicit instruction to Carlson to get the ball in the air. If he misses it, so be it. But just can't get it blocked there.

Maybe this is where my non-NFL mind is causing a disconnect. If you're 100% in the playoffs without a kick and run any risk of missing the playoffs with a kick, kicking makes no sense to me. I know blocks are rare and the long-snapper just launching one is even rarer, but its not 0%.

(The timeout struck me as two soccer teams playing to a gentleman's tie and then the shittier team making a run in the 80th minute just begging the better team to put them away.)

[Brontoburglar]

just think of it as being two seeds better in the playoffs increases your super bowl odds far more relative to the chances of a kick six or block six happening

[Brontoburglar]

there's no fundamental difference between giving the Raiders the ball with 4:30 to go or 2:50 to go

it's also not effectively a two-point game. the field goal continues the game. the touchdown ends it. far different scenarios. Mike Williams was also in single coverage in the end zone on that third-down play (a very curious call by the Raiders).

pretending the situation the Chargers were in on the drive before is equal to the Raiders' final drive or the 49ers' drive to start overtime is a fallacy

A FG doesn't really continue the game when there's under 2 or 3 minutes left. Raiders are taking no chances when they get the ball back on their own 25 with 2:50 or less left. Having 4:30 left gave them 3 extra running plays and 20+ yards, which they still weren't really taking any chances

the Raiders completed a 17-yard pass on the first play of the drive, were at midfield in two plays and three of the first four plays were passes. while they were being conservative, they were also clearly trying to advance the ball at the beginning of the drive. the extra time is not a factor, nor did they gain 20+ yards simply because of the extra time on the clock. the time between plays after they got to midfield is a variable, not a stagnant number in this case.

Plus, you can get first downs on the ground, the Raiders defense was gassed. Chargers still could have gotten a TD by running and killing clock as a backup plan. You have to ensure the tie first. One more first down and you're at the 2 minute warning.

you can also get a touchdown through the air -- and they almost did that. you can't pretend that the first down is automatic with two running plays.

conversely, leaving more time for the Raiders may actually be a better idea. if you get a stop, you can end the game on your terms, rather than letting the Raiders dictate the end of the game knowing that they have more at stake with the difference between a win and a tie than you do

both teams played overtime correctly, the Chargers defense just didn't get the stops it needed on the final drive (and got the benefit of a blown facemask call)