Jeff Miller @JeffMillerLAT

I've been in this business nearly 40 years and this by the #Chargers
tonight is probably the worst performance by a team I've ever witnessed.

10:17 PM · Dec 14, 2023

Staley can't survive this, can he? They can't let him coach the last
three games.

--Robin

Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Jeff Miller @JeffMillerLAT
>
> I've been in this business nearly 40 years and this by the #Chargers
> tonight is probably the worst performance by a team I've ever
> witnessed.
>
> 10:17 PM · Dec 14, 2023
>
>
>
> Staley can't survive this, can he? They can't let him coach the last
> three games.
>
> --Robin

Staley should have been fired the day after the Raiders offered him a
playoff berth and he refused. For those of you who aren't familiar with
superoptimal strategies in multiplayer games with communication between
players forbidden, surely you can agree he should have been fired the
day after the meltdown against the Jaguars.

If they don't care about the playoffs, they definitely don't care about
regular season games.

The real question is whether they let him come back next year.
It seems unthinkable, but is it really beyond a family that can't agree
on anything?

Eddie

In news:ku20a7Fk7uuU1@mid.individual.net, Robin Miller
<robin.miller@invalid.invalid> typed:

> Jeff Miller @JeffMillerLAT

> I've been in this business nearly 40 years and this by the #Chargers
> tonight is probably the worst performance by a team I've ever
> witnessed.

> 10:17 PM � Dec 14, 2023

> Staley can't survive this, can he? They can't let him coach the last
> three games.

> --Robin

It seems pretty obvious that the team has given up on him.

max headroom wrote:
> In news:ku20a7Fk7uuU1@mid.individual.net, Robin Miller
> <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> typed:
>
>> Jeff Miller @JeffMillerLAT
>
>> I've been in this business nearly 40 years and this by the #Chargers
>> tonight is probably the worst performance by a team I've ever
>> witnessed.
>
>> 10:17 PM · Dec 14, 2023
>
>> Staley can't survive this, can he? They can't let him coach the last
>> three games.
>
>> --Robin
>
> It seems pretty obvious that the team has given up on him.
>
>

yes.

--Robin

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 8:25:47 PM UTC-8, Eddie Grove wrote:
> Robin Miller <robin....@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
> > Jeff Miller @JeffMillerLAT
> >
> > I've been in this business nearly 40 years and this by the #Chargers
> > tonight is probably the worst performance by a team I've ever
> > witnessed.
> >
> > 10:17 PM · Dec 14, 2023
> >
> >
> >
> > Staley can't survive this, can he? They can't let him coach the last
> > three games.
> >
> > --Robin
> Staley should have been fired the day after the Raiders offered him a
> playoff berth and he refused. For those of you who aren't familiar with
> superoptimal strategies in multiplayer games with communication between
> players forbidden, surely you can agree he should have been fired the
> day after the meltdown against the Jaguars.
>
> If they don't care about the playoffs, they definitely don't care about
> regular season games.
>
> The real question is whether they let him come back next year.
> It seems unthinkable, but is it really beyond a family that can't agree
> on anything?
>
>
> Eddie

Staley should have been fired after Jacksonville, yes, but can we stop engaging in revisionist history about the Raiders game the year before? If the Raiders were content to settle for the tie, once they got the first down with two minutes left, they could have knelt down three times. They threw it on third down and 8 the play before instead of handing the ball off and punting to pin the Chargers deep. Or they could have let the clock run out after Jacobs ran for 10 and not risked the 1% chance of a blocked FG return. They were trying to win (with minimal risk) because they would have been the 7th seed going to KC with a tie vs. the 5th seed going to Cincinnati with a win. Chargers would have been the 6th seed going to Buffalo win or tie.

Staley was not calling timeout to try to get the ball back and win the game, he was calling timeout because as a shitty coach, he had the wrong defensive personnel on the field and the timeout allowed the Raiders to change from one running play to another and gain 10 yards to make the field goal easier, but even had Jacobs been stopped for no gain, they would have tried a 55 yarder at the gun for the win, as Carlson had hit a 56 yarder earlier in the year and was 6-7 from 50+.

Michael

> Staley should have been fired after Jacksonville, yes, but can we stop engaging in revisionist history about the Raiders game the year before?

I thought Carr later admitted they were playing for a tie but changed their minds after the timeout. So I can't consider that revisionist history.

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 12:15:08 PM UTC-8, ReneG wrote:
> > Staley should have been fired after Jacksonville, yes, but can we stop engaging in revisionist history about the Raiders game the year before?
> I thought Carr later admitted they were playing for a tie but changed their minds after the timeout. So I can't consider that revisionist history.

His quote was taken out of context, and he also said they were always trying for the win.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33032641/raiders-win-make-nfl-playoffs-did-chargers-blow-teams-played-tie-wild-ending-explained

"This theory was also aided by a quote immediately after the game from Carr, which was taken out of context. Asked by sideline reporter Michele Tafoya whether the timeout changed the Raiders' strategy, he said "Yeah, it definitely did, obviously." That's great evidence for the conspiracy until you get to the next thing Carr said. "But we knew no matter what we didn't want a tie," the quarterback said. "My mindset was to make sure we were the only team moving on after this." Carr could just be talking like a competitive football player, but we've established that the Raiders had meaningful motivation to win throughout the game and were trying to get in field goal range on the prior down."

Michael

phlash74 <phlash74@msn.com> writes:

> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 12:15:08 PM UTC-8, ReneG wrote:
>> > Staley should have been fired after Jacksonville, yes, but can we
>> stop engaging in revisionist history about the Raiders game the year
>> before?
>> I thought Carr later admitted they were playing for a tie but
>> changed their minds after the timeout. So I can't consider that
>> revisionist history.
>
> His quote was taken out of context, and he also said they were always
> trying for the win.
>
> https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33032641/raiders-win-make-nfl-playoffs-did-chargers-blow-teams-played-tie-wild-ending-explained
>
> "This theory was also aided by a quote immediately after the game from
> Carr, which was taken out of context. Asked by sideline reporter
> Michele Tafoya whether the timeout changed the Raiders' strategy, he
> said "Yeah, it definitely did, obviously." That's great evidence for
> the conspiracy until you get to the next thing Carr said. "But we knew
> no matter what we didn't want a tie," the quarterback said. "My
> mindset was to make sure we were the only team moving on after this."
> Carr could just be talking like a competitive football player, but
> we've established that the Raiders had meaningful motivation to win
> throughout the game and were trying to get in field goal range on the
> prior down."
>
> Michael

I listened to all of the stuff available, with lots of SF bay area
coverage here, and I am *certain* that they were playing for a tie.
The problem is that it is forbidden to say so. You'd be sanctioned by
the league office if you got too close to admitting it, even after the
fact. But when I listened, and paid attention to the pauses before
careful consideration of what they were allowed to say, I thought there
was only 1 conclusion.

The fact that Staley didn't recognize in time, and didn't keep the right
players on the field, is on him.

Eddie

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 2:13:15 PM UTC-8, Eddie Grove wrote:
> phlash74 <phla...@msn.com> writes:
>
> > On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 12:15:08 PM UTC-8, ReneG wrote:
> >> > Staley should have been fired after Jacksonville, yes, but can we
> >> stop engaging in revisionist history about the Raiders game the year
> >> before?
> >> I thought Carr later admitted they were playing for a tie but
> >> changed their minds after the timeout. So I can't consider that
> >> revisionist history.
> >
> > His quote was taken out of context, and he also said they were always
> > trying for the win.
> >
> > https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33032641/raiders-win-make-nfl-playoffs-did-chargers-blow-teams-played-tie-wild-ending-explained
> >
> > "This theory was also aided by a quote immediately after the game from
> > Carr, which was taken out of context. Asked by sideline reporter
> > Michele Tafoya whether the timeout changed the Raiders' strategy, he
> > said "Yeah, it definitely did, obviously." That's great evidence for
> > the conspiracy until you get to the next thing Carr said. "But we knew
> > no matter what we didn't want a tie," the quarterback said. "My
> > mindset was to make sure we were the only team moving on after this."
> > Carr could just be talking like a competitive football player, but
> > we've established that the Raiders had meaningful motivation to win
> > throughout the game and were trying to get in field goal range on the
> > prior down."
> >
> > Michael
> I listened to all of the stuff available, with lots of SF bay area
> coverage here, and I am *certain* that they were playing for a tie.
> The problem is that it is forbidden to say so. You'd be sanctioned by
> the league office if you got too close to admitting it, even after the
> fact. But when I listened, and paid attention to the pauses before
> careful consideration of what they were allowed to say, I thought there
> was only 1 conclusion.
>
> The fact that Staley didn't recognize in time, and didn't keep the right
> players on the field, is on him.
>
> Eddie

It's completely inconsistent with how they played the final drive. You don't throw on third and 8, risking a sack or interception, if you're playing for a tie, especially if your opponent also benefits from a tie. You don't hand the ball off with less than two minutes if you're playing for a tie, the league office would never have sanctioned them if they knelt on the ball in that situation because they could easily defend themselves by saying they couldn't risk losing and missing the playoffs altogether. There's a world of difference between playing for a tie and being willing to settle for a tie rather than risk a loss. The Raiders were doing the latter.

Just watched a highlight video and when the Chargers called timeout, the Raiders were lined up in shotgun, ready to snap the ball with 7 seconds still on the play clock. They were not playing for the tie, they were about to run it out of the same formation they had just gained 7 yards on.

Michael

phlash74 <phlash74@msn.com> writes:

> Just watched a highlight video and when the Chargers called timeout,
> the Raiders were lined up in shotgun, ready to snap the ball with 7
> seconds still on the play clock. They were not playing for the tie,
> they were about to run it out of the same formation they had just
> gained 7 yards on.
>
> Michael

Well, I'm unlikely to change your mind, but I'm going to give it one
last try.

In these things, both sides have to play their part. The Raiders were
going to keep running unless they got to 4th down with more than 40
seconds left on the game clock. They weren't going to kick a FG sooner,
even if they got into close range, because the only thing that would
keep them out of the playoffs was to get a blocked FG run back or an
ensuing kickoff return TD. It's like a player stopping at the 1 yard
line rather than scoring when up by 1.

The players and coach were surprised when the timeout hit, and they
realized Staley was too obstinate to cooperate. That's when the coach
changed his mind to a scoring mentality.

Are you familiar with the prisoner's dilemna? I'll assume so. People
have come up with various strategies for a robot that plays over and
over against a universe of other robots, cannot make deals, but is given
the past history of the robot. The ones that do best are the ones who
look to see if the other robot has acted the same way as they would in
the other robot's past history. They consider a robot reasonable if they
would have made the same decisions, and they make the superoptimal
choice only with reasonable robots.

When Staley called the timeout, that announced the Chargers were not
reasonable, so the Raiders changed their minds and decided to prioritize
scoring.

Now maybe the Chargers run defense was so bad that if the Raiders kept
running the ball, they would have been unable not to score a TD.

Eddie