There was an open question as to whether they were going to go for a FG or just run the clock out and both walk into the playoffs. At the time of the Charger TO, they were at the far end of their kickers range. Usually that’s a lower kick to get extra distance and more susceptible to being blocked and returned. The TO may have just pissed off the Raiders enough for them to go for the win. No one knows if they would have gone for the FG (though of course the players and coach are all going to publicly say that was their plan). Even the announcers couldn’t come up with a reason why LA’s coach called for the TO… just let sleeping dogs lie.
He called the TO to get his best run defense on the field. This isn't that complicated.
It absolutely changed everything. Raiders were going to let the clock run out on a token play where they had no interest in extending the game, it seems pretty clear Bissaccia thought there was a sort of unspoken agreement. All Staley did was piss off the Raiders by looking at his nerd chart and thinking he was the smartest guy in the room.
I don't think you have this timing right. They called the timeout with 5 seconds left on the playclock at :38. They could not have run the clock down to 0:03 unless they had run another play, so Scenario A isn't applicable. It's only Scenario B.
OK, so then what's the problem with the timeout at all?
No the Raiders were about to snap the ball and run the ball up the middle to set up a FG attempt, a play the Chargers were not ready for. So they called a timeout and the Raiders ran the ball up the middle to set up a FG attempt
www.espn.com
Called a timeout to change the defense to not stop the run when they were already set up to stop the run and the other team was happy with the tie, that's brilliant coaching.
Watching the game and then Bisaccia and Carr after the game.
People have speculated it gave the Raiders time to re-evaluate the strategy and supposedly players on the Raiders have said they changed their minds. But I'm skeptical of that, I don't see a reason why it would have. The taking off the LB while expecting run is a little bit stranger, but I don't know enough to say if that new package was a better run defense against 11 personnel or whatever.
So what difference does the TO make? They were going to just let the clock go when the picked up the first???? Carr literally said their focus was on winning the game.
I don't think they were going to run anything to try and pick up the first down. Calling the timeout changed the calculus, I think it pissed off Bisaccia and gave him time to think about risk/reward.
Ok... So you are just guessing they wouldn't have gotten the first down, seems like sounds logic.
No, Carr or the running back could've taken themselves out of the play or a weak ball security run right up the middle to make it look somewhat like you're still trying to compete but with no real intent on getting the first down. I thought it was pretty clear Bisaccia was playing for the tie and he thought Staley was as well until the timeout. The timeout changed everything.
What about the TO makes you think the Chargers weren't content with a tie? If they were playing to win they would've called the TO immediately after the second down play. The Chargers just wanted to put the best personnel out to make the stop on third down to give them the best chance at a tie.
I already told you, I think it pissed off Bisaccia, gave what was taking place a minute to marinate and for him to decide what to do. Before that it sure seemed to be an organically developing situation where they had a sort of an unspoken agreement on what was happening and how the game would play out, at least on Bisaccia's end. The timeout changed everything.
Bisaccia is a moron if that is what happened
