Sure, I can agree that it's impossible to know how it would have affected it. We can't say with certainty that we know what would have happened. It doesn't seem likely that it affected the result all that much.
To think that the Raiders wanted a tie, means that one thinks they consider the Bengals and Chief's similar opponents.
I'm just relaying what the coach said, players said, and the situation itself. If they were truly playing to win they would not have settled for a 50 yard FG. We've seen teams try to avoid ties and you don't avoid ties getting it to midfield and proceeding to run it up the middle over and over again. At the end of the day man, the tie 100% got them to the playoffs. It was 0 risk chance of them getting in. Opening up the offense, a TO, 3 stops, whatever, could have easily eliminated them. Playing for the tie was conservative and safe. I doubt the coach was thinking about playing KC or Cincy and thinking getting to the playoffs would look a lot better on his resume than blowing a game that should have been over with in regulation in OT. Because if the Raiders lose this game it looks like a pretty bad choke job.
They "settled" for a 47 yard FG, from a kicker who hadn't missed at home all year, was 11-12 between 40-49 yards (6-7 beyond 50). Odds were pretty good he'd make it.
You are aware of this right? vvv Trying a 47 yarder to win and play the Bengals vs. taking the tie and facing the team that obliterated you last time out. 48-9? Granted, the Bengals whooped up on the Raiders too, but it's still not the same outcome.
Not necessarily - there's a middle ground here. They can have wanted a win ideally, but also be OK with a tie and not be willing to do anything to risk taking a loss. So they run the ball to run out the clock. If they get in a FG range, great - go for the win. If they don't, they get a tie. But if they take more risk and throw the ball, there's a chance the Chargers get the ball back and they actually lose, which eliminates them from the playoffs. This is a team that's had a nightmare of a season and they had made the playoffs once in 20 years (and had a 3rd string QB for it). Their goal is to just make the playoffs more than it is to pick their ideal opponent. If you're truly trying to win at all cost, I doubt you run the ball 3 straight times and use the full playclock on each play - especially on 2nd and 11, and after you had thrown the ball several times to get to the Chargers 44.
Exactly. This on top of the coach flat out saying "We were thinking about it." and then basically admitting that once they ran off a few good runs that they could just take a long FG. Like if they were so desperate on winning at all costs you don't settle for a 47 yard field goal as the last play of the game. They started off that drive with the TOs and time to get much closer and play more aggressively but they clearly were willing to run time out. People keep talking about how they were avoiding KC but they actually take risks losing that game playing aggressively, which is why they didn't. If they run enough time off the clock (which they did) then they guarantee themselves a playoff spot. I thought of it the same exact way, the Raiders are fortunate to get into the playoffs period. A few weeks ago, no one would have thought they'd be in that position. No one is saying that they WANTED to tie...but it seems clear to me they were ok with that outcome. They weren't going all out for the win, a team that does that is trying to get as close to the FG as possible and end the game as soon as possible to avoid a tie. Not run clock and settle for a near 50 yarder with 1 second left in the game.
While I agree that they wanted to win but would settle for a tie, they could have avoided the one small chance that a FG would be blocked and returned for a TD (stranger things have happened) and simply let the clock run out. And I truly don't think they WANTED a tie (as I wrote), they wanted a win.
I think they really just wanted to not-lose. A win was a bonus, but until the last play, they were doing everything in their power to simply not lose. Once it came down to the last play, the benefits of "avoid KC" outweighed "chance of FG being blocked AND returned for a TD". And kneeling on that last play with a 47 yd FG option comes with all sorts of problems - anger from their fanbase (for playing KC), anger from NFL for a blatantly non-competitive decision, etc. As coach, even if you want to tie there, you can't do it on that last play. If they got nothing on the previous play and it was still a 57 yarder, I expect they would have kneeled. Chargers probably don't call a TO there because they are content with a tie in that situation too.
Read somewhere that sportsbooks would have lost a billion dollars if the game was a tie, imagine the sh!tshow at the NFL office if that happened
Terribly officiated game but uhh good game. Congrats to the Bungles. Congrats to Texans Legends™ Vernon Hargreaves III, Clark Harris, D.J. Reader, Xavier-Su’a-Filo and Michael Thomas
Don't understand the "drama" with the whistle in the Bengals-Raiders game. It was inadvertent and came milliseconds before the catch was made. It was not in "the middle of the play" as BSPN wants you to believe. It had no impact on the play, and was a clear **** up by the referee.
In my opinion the officiating has been really bad this post season. Just saw a holding call against the Eagles that has to be a no call. Makes the games hard to watch
I think the rule is, if a whistle is blown before the play concludes, the play is dead at the time of the whistle. Doesn't matter where the ball is, doesn't matter where the ball will be, etc. Because the sound of the whistle was heard before the catch, the play should have been dead at that point in time, even though it was one of the best throws of the game and it would have counted for a TD.