NFL GAME DAY DISCUSSION Week 18 Other Games Thread

[bormio]

Is it right that the Chargers would have played at Cincy and the Raiders at KC in the event of a tie?

If so, the Raiders had every reason in the world to go for the win. I am not a Staley fan because I think most of his decisions "based on analytics" are stupid.

But the Raiders had to be going for it in that situation. And if they weren't going for it, then Bisaccia is an idiot.

What Staley saw before the timeout was that the Raiders were going to run and for some dumb reason he had a light-set out there. Blame it on bad coaching but if he wasn't a complete idiot, he would already know that, one, the Raiders didn't want to play the Chiefs, and that two, they were going to run on 3rd down.

I really believe people are making too much of this, although it is quite possible that Bisaccia is a complete idiot too.

This makes a lot of sense

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Is it right that the Chargers would have played at Cincy and the Raiders at KC in the event of a tie?

If so, the Raiders had every reason in the world to go for the win. I am not a Staley fan because I think most of his decisions "based on analytics" are stupid.

But the Raiders had to be going for it in that situation. And if they weren't going for it, then Bisaccia is an idiot.

What Staley saw before the timeout was that the Raiders were going to run and for some dumb reason he had a light-set out there. Blame it on bad coaching but if he wasn't a complete idiot, he would already know that, one, the Raiders didn't want to play the Chiefs, and that two, they were going to run on 3rd down.

I really believe people are making too much of this, although it is quite possible that Bisaccia is a complete idiot too.

playoff machine had us as the 5th seed going to cincy if they tied(wed have had the best record of the wc teams). So Oakland was looking at either kc or buffalo in a tie. Either way, i can understand why theyd want the win there.

Cincy resting actually got them to AVOID us. I didn’t think they were trying to draw us like the mediots were suggesting but its still pretty ironic thats how it worked out given all the chatter.

 

[captain stone]

Chargers ownership should’ve ****ing FIRED their HC on the flight home…

All that ****ing Queefs-beating talent… wasted.

 

[Deus Irae]

Is it right that the Chargers would have played at Cincy and the Raiders at KC in the event of a tie?

If so, the Raiders had every reason in the world to go for the win. I am not a Staley fan because I think most of his decisions "based on analytics" are stupid.

But the Raiders had to be going for it in that situation. And if they weren't going for it, then Bisaccia is an idiot.

What Staley saw before the timeout was that the Raiders were going to run and for some dumb reason he had a light-set out there. Blame it on bad coaching but if he wasn't a complete idiot, he would already know that, one, the Raiders didn't want to play the Chiefs, and that two, they were going to run on 3rd down.

I really believe people are making too much of this, although it is quite possible that Bisaccia is a complete idiot too.

If the Raiders had been completely invested in a win, why were they just running the ball at the edge of FG range? Why would they go 3 straight runs from the Chargers 45, especially when the first run was a 1 yard loss?

 

[upstater1]

If the Raiders had been completely invested in a win, why were they just running the ball at the edge of FG range? Why would they go 3 straight runs from the Chargers 45, especially when the first run was a 1 yard loss?

I'm not sure what "completely invested" means.

Obviously, the #1 thing is to avoid a turnover throwing the ball.

But it's pretty normal and regular to watch teams run the ball to get into field goal position. They get conservative to prevent a turnover.

In this case, there's an even better reason to go conservative because the #1 goal is making the playoffs, and the #2 goal is avoiding the Chiefs if you're the Raiders.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not sure what "completely invested" means.

It means your argument fails.

 

[upstater1]

It means your argument fails.

It's not what it means.