Chargers @ Raiders Game Day Thread / Post Game Discussion (Wk 18)

[Guest]

These things stood out to me about last night's game.

1. Going for it on 4th down and 1 from our own 19 is fine, but Lombardi has repeatedly failed to understand that we are not a running team (even after having been stopped on the play before). Unless it is 4th down and half a yard or less, we need to be passing the ball or trusting Herbert to run for it if nobody is open.

2. Tyron Johnson shoved it in our face big time by forcing a key fumble that changed the game early on, by drawing a holding penalty on special teams, and by giving the Raiders good field position with a couple of his returns. By the way, wasn't one of the big knocks against Johnson mentioned by several on this forum that he could not play special teams?

3. When we had the momentum at the end of the game, and given our struggles on defense, I really wanted us to go for two after the Williams TD with no time remaining. Again, with the game on the line, put the ball in Herbert's hands. I can live with whatever happens in that situation. I like our chances in that situation. Instead, we ended up losing for the second time this season because we lost the OT coin toss. In one scenario, we guarantee that Herbert gets a chance to win it for us. In the other, we do not.

4. On a very positive note, when Herbert made absolutely perfect throws to Palmer (on 4th and 21) and Williams (with no time left) for the late 4th quarter TDs and the absolutely perfect throw to Ekeler for the critical two point conversion, I really felt like I could identify with Neo's colleagues in the Matrix when they proclaimed, "He is the one!" We have the best QB in the NFL right now and that is a really good thing going forward. And I have to believe that our being two seconds from the playoffs and not getting in is going to make our players a little salty for next year, which is also a good thing.

5. I understand why the team chose to focus on the OL in the past offseason at the expense of keeping some of our players on defense or adding more players on defense. Protecting Herbert is of vital importance. But I am hoping that aside from locking down Williams and shoring up the right side of the OL, we put a lot of the considerable resources we have (draft picks and cap room) into upgrading the defense. The defense was just too soft for much too much of the season.

[Guest]

This franchise will forever be the San Diego Chargers.

Fuck that shithole of LA

No, they are no longer the San Diego Chargers and have not been since 2016. Your delusion is not reality.

Change happens. Deal with it.

[Critty]

Upon further review I retract my support for Staley. Seems to be stuck in I am the only one that can solve this, mindset. Over coaching and simply weird in game decisions. If he gets some mental help, see a therapist, he may show up a more stable leader next season. He did cost the Chargers the KC loss and Raider loss. Maybe others too.

Prisoner of the moment.

If his aggressive coaching decisions cost him the Raiders game and the KC game, it also won him the Browns, Bengals and previous KC game. IMO, his overall aggressiveness and win it on my terms strategy was a plus 1 in wins for the year.

If he goes the conventional punt and take the FG style all year, then I think this team is 8-8 going into last night game and already eliminated from playoff contention.

The 29th rated defense is another reason to go for it as often as he does. You can question his genius. But Ramsey is a much better CB1 than Davis. And having a player like Ramsey would change last night game. Having a better RT would also change last night game.

We all know the rosters under Telesco have had horrible special teams often, horrible o-line play often. Average defense roster with a couple good players. Etc. The only thing Telesco ever seems to be able to do is have a good QB and a couple good WR. That not enough to win in this league and his record with 3 different coaches shows what type of program he has built.

Fire Telesco.
Let Staley have final say on draft and free agency.
Staley aggressiveness means he would make a trade for a Ramsey type player if he thinks that is what he needs to help unlock how well his defense can play. The man is all in in to win it. And if you keep Telesco it's in title only. Staley should get final say in draft and free agency.

[electricgold]

One thing is clear for the Chargers to progress under this coach the D is going to have to get much better and become a strength as opposed to a weak link... coupled with the right side of the Oline needs to be addressed!

[electricgold]

God i miss Marty Schottenheimer.

They were a bad team who kicked the Raiders butt on the final game of 03 and got the top pick in the draft to boot.

I still believe the better hire probably would of been Jim Harbaugh and unless the Chargers were to fire Staley and hire Harbaugh the next best move would be to bring in a really good DC and let him do his thing. Would Staley allow this? I hear he does have history with the Denver HC that was just fired?

[Guest]

Upon further review I retract my support for Staley. Seems to be stuck in I am the only one that can solve this, mindset. Over coaching and simply weird in game decisions. If he gets some mental help, see a therapist, he may show up a more stable leader next season. He did cost the Chargers the KC loss and Raider loss. Maybe others too.

His decisions were correct from a mathematical standpoint.

The timeout changed nothing. The Raiders had to run a play and they were clearly not kneeling as if to run out the clock. They were going to kick a FG even if they did not gain a yard. Staley changed personnel to stop the run, which is why he called timeout, but the players failed on that play.

Regarding the 4th and 1 from his own 19, the decision was correct, but the problem all year long has been that Joe Lombardi has been calling the plays. If it is 4th down and two or less, Lombardi seems to want to run the ball most of the time. But the Chargers are not a running team. The decision to go for it is fine, but the ball needs to be in Herbert's hands.

His aggressiveness flat out won the first KC game and the CLE game. It did not lose the second KC game. The decisions were statistically correct as they were last night. And we lost the KC game because 1) Derwin James got injured, allowing the Chiefs to get to OT and then win in OT, and 2) because we lost the toss of a coin.

In fact, I wish Staley had been more aggressive. I wanted him to go for 2 after the Williams TD with no time left. We had the momentum and could force the issue with the ball in Herbert's hands instead of risking losing another OT coin toss, which is, of course, what happened. The stats I read indicate that going for 2 is a 49.6% proposition on a league wide basis, but I think the odds are better with Herbert in the case of the Chargers. IMO, that was our best chance to win the game.

[Velo]

Rich Bisaccia: We were talking about taking a tie

Posted by Mike Florio on January 10, 2022, 12:08 PM EST

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/01/10/rich-bisaccia-we-were-talking-about-taking-a-tie/

Much has been said and written, and will be said and written, about the closing moments of Sunday night’s unprecedented regular-season finale on which the fate of three franchises rode. The biggest question will be whether, but for Chargers coach Brandon Staley’s decision to take a timeout with 38 seconds on the clock, the Raiders would have been content to run one more play and take a playoff-clinching tie.

“It was [a] conversation,” coach Rich Bisaccia told reporters after the 35-32 overtime win. “We were talking about it. . . . We ran the ball there, and they didn’t call a timeout. So I think they were probably thinking the same thing. And then we had the big run. When we got the big run, it got us in advantageous field goal position. . . . We were certainly talking about it on the sideline. We wanted to see if they were gonna take a timeout or not on that run. They didn’t, so we thought they were thinking the same thing. And then we popped the run in there and gave us a chance to kick the field goal to win it. So, we were certainly talking about it.”

It was smart to think about it. The choice was hardly between a tie (and a trip to Kansas City) or a win (and a game at Cincinnati). The effort to advance the ball toward a game-winning score carried an element of risk that could have resulted in a loss. Pick six. Fumble. Blocked field goal returned for a touchdown. Any of those would have meant Chargers in, Steelers in, Raiders out.

Indeed, even with two seconds on the clock and a 47-yard field goal on the table, an unconditional commitment to analytics would have favored taking a knee. Why? Taking the tie entailed a 100-percent chance of getting to the playoffs. Kicking the field goal introduced a risk, however slight it may have been, of a block, a scoop, a score, and no postseason at all for the Raiders.

Many have assumed that the Raiders should have wanted to win in order to secure a more favorable game against the Bengals, whereas a tie would have resulted in a game against the Chiefs. Beyond the fact that the Raiders know the Chiefs much better (and also lost to the Bengals at home, 32-13, during the regular season), a tie would have given the Raiders another day, with Cincinnati hosting a game on Saturday afternoon and Kansas City hosting its game on Sunday night.

One more day. To prepare. To rest. To recover.

One more day for Josh Jacobs‘s sore ribs. For Darren Waller‘s bad knee. One more day to recover from an unexpected but entirely possibly COVID diagnosis. (Then again, one more day to catch COVID.)

Here’s another factor, one that favors taking the win. The higher seed (No. 5 vs. No. 7) gives the Raiders a chance at hosting a divisional-round game, if the Steelers beat the Chiefs and the Patriots beat the Bills. The Raiders also could host the AFC Championship, if the Steelers beat the Titans and the Raiders beat the Patriots.

The bottom line is that, yes, the Raiders were considering taking the tie. A clear vibe was developing toward that end. The timeout operated as a reset button of sorts, disrupting the momentum that was pointing toward both teams getting in.

We’ll never know whether the Raiders would have been better off waiting a day to face the Chiefs. We do know that Bisaccia faced a decision that never before had landed on any coach’s radar. There was and is no clear right or wrong answer. But if they lose to the Bengals and if the Chiefs are flat or lifeless on Sunday night — or if the Steelers somehow pull off the upset — some will be wondering whether the Raiders would have been better off with one more day and a different opponent.

[Berserker76]

This franchise will forever be the San Diego Chargers.

Fuck that shithole of LA

Time to move on, Champ, or find another team. Raiders are always looking for some new ones!

[electricgold]

His decisions were correct from a mathematical standpoint.

The timeout changed nothing. The Raiders had to run a play and they were clearly not kneeling as if to run out the clock. They were going to kick a FG even if they did not gain a yard. Staley changed personnel to stop the run, which is why he called timeout, but the players failed on that play.

Regarding the 4th and 1 from his own 19, the decision was correct, but the problem all year long has been that Joe Lombardi has been calling the plays. If it is 4th down and two or less, Lombardi seems to want to run the ball most of the time. But the Chargers are not a running team. The decision to go for it is fine, but the ball needs to be in Herbert's hands.

His aggressiveness flat out won the first KC game and the CLE game. It did not lose the second KC game. The decisions were statistically correct as they were last night. And we lost the KC game because 1) Derwin James got injured, allowing the Chiefs to get to OT and then win in OT, and 2) because we lost the toss of a coin.

In fact, I wish Staley had been more aggressive. I wanted him to go for 2 after the Williams TD with no time left. We had the momentum and could force the issue with the ball in Herbert's hands instead of risking losing another OT coin toss, which is, of course, what happened. The stats I read indicate that going for 2 is a 49.6% proposition on a league wide basis, but I think the odds are better with Herbert in the case of the Chargers. IMO, that was our best chance to win the game.

Yep you could look at it this way or you could say IF the Chargers were to have Josh Jacobs last night as their RB & DE play like Maxx Crosby just add those 2 players on our side as opposed to what we had and I bet we win.

[electricgold]

Rich Bisaccia: We were talking about taking a tie

Posted by Mike Florio on January 10, 2022, 12:08 PM EST

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-taking-a-tie/

Much has been said and written, and will be said and written, about the closing moments of Sunday night’s unprecedented regular-season finale on which the fate of three franchises rode. The biggest question will be whether, but for Chargers coach Brandon Staley’s decision to take a timeout with 38 seconds on the clock, the Raiders would have been content to run one more play and take a playoff-clinching tie.

“It was [a] conversation,” coach Rich Bisaccia told reporters after the 35-32 overtime win. “We were talking about it. . . . We ran the ball there, and they didn’t call a timeout. So I think they were probably thinking the same thing. And then we had the big run. When we got the big run, it got us in advantageous field goal position. . . . We were certainly talking about it on the sideline. We wanted to see if they were gonna take a timeout or not on that run. They didn’t, so we thought they were thinking the same thing. And then we popped the run in there and gave us a chance to kick the field goal to win it. So, we were certainly talking about it.”

It was smart to think about it. The choice was hardly between a tie (and a trip to Kansas City) or a win (and a game at Cincinnati). The effort to advance the ball toward a game-winning score carried an element of risk that could have resulted in a loss. Pick six. Fumble. Blocked field goal returned for a touchdown. Any of those would have meant Chargers in, Steelers in, Raiders out.

Indeed, even with two seconds on the clock and a 47-yard field goal on the table, an unconditional commitment to analytics would have favored taking a knee. Why? Taking the tie entailed a 100-percent chance of getting to the playoffs. Kicking the field goal introduced a risk, however slight it may have been, of a block, a scoop, a score, and no postseason at all for the Raiders.

Many have assumed that the Raiders should have wanted to win in order to secure a more favorable game against the Bengals, whereas a tie would have resulted in a game against the Chiefs. Beyond the fact that the Raiders know the Chiefs much better (and also lost to the Bengals at home, 32-13, during the regular season), a tie would have given the Raiders another day, with Cincinnati hosting a game on Saturday afternoon and Kansas City hosting its game on Sunday night.

One more day. To prepare. To rest. To recover.

One more day for Josh Jacobs‘s sore ribs. For Darren Waller‘s bad knee. One more day to recover from an unexpected but entirely possibly COVID diagnosis. (Then again, one more day to catch COVID.)

Here’s another factor, one that favors taking the win. The higher seed (No. 5 vs. No. 7) gives the Raiders a chance at hosting a divisional-round game, if the Steelers beat the Chiefs and the Patriots beat the Bills. The Raiders also could host the AFC Championship, if the Steelers beat the Titans and the Raiders beat the Patriots.

The bottom line is that, yes, the Raiders were considering taking the tie. A clear vibe was developing toward that end. The timeout operated as a reset button of sorts, disrupting the momentum that was pointing toward both teams getting in.

We’ll never know whether the Raiders would have been better off waiting a day to face the Chiefs. We do know that Bisaccia faced a decision that never before had landed on any coach’s radar. There was and is no clear right or wrong answer. But if they lose to the Bengals and if the Chiefs are flat or lifeless on Sunday night — or if the Steelers somehow pull off the upset — some will be wondering whether the Raiders would have been better off with one more day and a different opponent.

I don't believe anything Staley did cost them the win last night... At the end of the game the Chargers were still in a position to WIN the game! If we are playing blame games it really was the fumble by our kick returner.... And the last play of the game where Jacobs and their kicker won the game and our run D folded after a timeout.

[KrazyLegs]

Rich Bisaccia: We were talking about taking a tie

Posted by Mike Florio on January 10, 2022, 12:08 PM EST

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/01/10/rich-bisaccia-we-were-talking-about-taking-a-tie/

Much has been said and written, and will be said and written, about the closing moments of Sunday night’s unprecedented regular-season finale on which the fate of three franchises rode. The biggest question will be whether, but for Chargers coach Brandon Staley’s decision to take a timeout with 38 seconds on the clock, the Raiders would have been content to run one more play and take a playoff-clinching tie.

“It was [a] conversation,” coach Rich Bisaccia told reporters after the 35-32 overtime win. “We were talking about it. . . . We ran the ball there, and they didn’t call a timeout. So I think they were probably thinking the same thing. And then we had the big run. When we got the big run, it got us in advantageous field goal position. . . . We were certainly talking about it on the sideline. We wanted to see if they were gonna take a timeout or not on that run. They didn’t, so we thought they were thinking the same thing. And then we popped the run in there and gave us a chance to kick the field goal to win it. So, we were certainly talking about it.”

It was smart to think about it. The choice was hardly between a tie (and a trip to Kansas City) or a win (and a game at Cincinnati). The effort to advance the ball toward a game-winning score carried an element of risk that could have resulted in a loss. Pick six. Fumble. Blocked field goal returned for a touchdown. Any of those would have meant Chargers in, Steelers in, Raiders out.

Indeed, even with two seconds on the clock and a 47-yard field goal on the table, an unconditional commitment to analytics would have favored taking a knee. Why? Taking the tie entailed a 100-percent chance of getting to the playoffs. Kicking the field goal introduced a risk, however slight it may have been, of a block, a scoop, a score, and no postseason at all for the Raiders.

Many have assumed that the Raiders should have wanted to win in order to secure a more favorable game against the Bengals, whereas a tie would have resulted in a game against the Chiefs. Beyond the fact that the Raiders know the Chiefs much better (and also lost to the Bengals at home, 32-13, during the regular season), a tie would have given the Raiders another day, with Cincinnati hosting a game on Saturday afternoon and Kansas City hosting its game on Sunday night.

One more day. To prepare. To rest. To recover.

One more day for Josh Jacobs‘s sore ribs. For Darren Waller‘s bad knee. One more day to recover from an unexpected but entirely possibly COVID diagnosis. (Then again, one more day to catch COVID.)

Here’s another factor, one that favors taking the win. The higher seed (No. 5 vs. No. 7) gives the Raiders a chance at hosting a divisional-round game, if the Steelers beat the Chiefs and the Patriots beat the Bills. The Raiders also could host the AFC Championship, if the Steelers beat the Titans and the Raiders beat the Patriots.

The bottom line is that, yes, the Raiders were considering taking the tie. A clear vibe was developing toward that end. The timeout operated as a reset button of sorts, disrupting the momentum that was pointing toward both teams getting in.

We’ll never know whether the Raiders would have been better off waiting a day to face the Chiefs. We do know that Bisaccia faced a decision that never before had landed on any coach’s radar. There was and is no clear right or wrong answer. But if they lose to the Bengals and if the Chiefs are flat or lifeless on Sunday night — or if the Steelers somehow pull off the upset — some will be wondering whether the Raiders would have been better off with one more day and a different opponent.

This is a pretty good summation of what happened and the potential thought process.

IMO, the Raiders were 100% satisfied with the tie at that point. 38 seconds left and 3rd down.

Staley's TO acted as reset button.

[Velo]

I don't believe anything Staley did cost them the win last night... At the end of the game the Chargers were still in a position to WIN the game! If we are playing blame games it really was the fumble by our kick returner.... And the last play of the game where Jacobs and their kicker won the game and our run D folded after a timeout.

What about the decision to go for it on 4th down from the Chargers' 18 yd line? Fortunately, the Chargers' D held the Raiders to a FG, but it was a cheap 3 pts for the Raiders that was a big factor in the score at the end of regulation.