Saving Ulcers and Heart Attacks – One Fan at a Time
by Andy (allfield) on Sep 15, 2009 12:32 PM PDT
Email
PrintIn reading a lot of the comments on BFTB and hearing them on the radio, I am saddened. Not by the Bolts play (well, yeah, sure, there’s plenty of that), but by the reaction of the fans.
Yes, it was ugly. Maybe downright horrible. But imagine being a Raider fan. No, on second thought, don’t put yourself through that.
My point is that last night’s game was no different than it ever is for the Chargers.
Here’s my theory: the Chargers are filled with a certain degree of hubris and conceit that they build no fire before a game starts. They just ASSUME their talent is going to be enough to win. So they spend the first half getting their butts kicked. When they go into the locker room, they don't make adjustments so much as they WAKE UP! They go, "Oh. Our opponent doesn't suck. Hmm. Maybe we should try harder." So they scramble back. And more often than not, they win. Like, way more than they should be allowed to! No other team does in the NFL does it this way. That skill and talent at being so deft to rally late in a game should be applauded!
But more importantly, it should be understood that that’s who they are and that’s how they do it.
Of course, there are a lot of elements to this team that desperately need improvement (offensive and defensive line, play calling/coaching, Clinton Hart). But their uncanny knack for doing just enough to win – most of the time – makes them just as good as, say, Philadelphia. Or New England (who barely beat BUFFALO at HOME).
Okay, maybe not. But then again, maybe. After all, what are the criteria for being a good team in the NFL? Dominating? Blowing out the opponent? Winning by 40 on the road against a division foe who is hellbent on sending you to the morgue? As if any of that ever happens in the NFL!
Now, none of this changes the fact that this Charger team is hard to watch sometimes. Okay, a lot of time. But if you want to save yourself the heartache and other potential physical maladies the best suggestion I can give is not start watching the game until the second half. That’s when they’re great! And your blood pressure will thank you.
This FanPost was written by a member of the Bolts From The Blue community and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Bolts From The Blue editors or SB Nation.
91 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So is it wrong for me as a fan
To ask of my team to play like they are the best in the NFL, when anybody who knows anything about the NFL says that they could be. Why should I settle for second rate just because they got a win? Can’t I be happy about a win and concerned about my team at the same time?
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Sep 15, 2009 12:37 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Wonko lives in my head.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Sep 15, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
My issue
I understand the “They are who they are” argument. That’s fine. My issue is that it appears nothing is being done to try and change it. We know that when the team plays like this, they typically lose more games than they should, squeak into the playoffs and lose before getting to the Super Bowl for the same reasons as you’ve stated.
If your theory is correct, why don’t they try to correct it? I would prefer to root for a team that I know is trying to better itself than one that seems content with it’s shaky play because it’s QB pulls out last-second victories most of the time.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Sep 15, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it is fair to expect Norv to fix the play book
I was able to predict run vs. pass on just about every first and second down just from formation & distance. And on the runs I was better than 50% on predicting left or right.
If some drunk slob watching the TV can figure out what the Chargers are about to do, maybe its not too much to expect Norv to change up the plays coming out of these formations.
- For instance 100% running formation when full back lines up off to one side, and the half back directly behind the QB, and usually it goes to the opposite side from the FB.
- On first down in the "I formation" they run (I hate that). On second & 10 from the I they pass sending one of the backs out and keeping one in for protection.
Our formations and the plays we run out of them are a serious "Tell" and I think it puts us at a disadvantage.
by Trendsearcher on Sep 15, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
However
If you get creative and deploy your most advanced offense week 1, then you put a lot on film that the league can catch up with. I think one of the trademarks of the Norv Turner regime is that he holds his top plays for when he needs them and what ends up happening is that his offense looks predictable a lot of the time. I like this strategy to an extent, but the other side of the coin has to be that when the team isn’t being creative they need to punch people in the mouth and win at the line of scrimmage and they can’t seem to do that.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Sep 15, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
I am more than happy to take any win the Chargers get, but when you are expecting a run at the Super Bowl (which I still am) it is cause for a little concern to see the same problems, D-Line, O-Line and SS that existed at the end of lasst season.
Don’t get me wrong nobody jumped higher off the couch then me when the Chargers sealed the victory (I still have some vertical).
I am actually stoked about that game
The Raiders get paid to play too. They’ve had to deal with so many questions in the last few years. They have their own pride to defend.
This was not the San Diego Chargers vs. La Jolla High school. Maybe the pre-game hype might have lulled us into thinking that, but this is our rival. I always expect this to be a tough game, and heck I am happy if we still have a chance to win as that clock runs down.
My goals for a successful Charger season are simple – split with the Raider. They achieved it on the road – I am stoked! Everything that may or may not come from today forward is gravy in my book.
No way, man
You don’t just get to hop off the roller coaster when it’s about to dip! Ride every down!
Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ◔ヮ◔
Uncommon Sportsman :: Absurdity in play
I'm fine with fans avoiding the details and just enjoying some wins
I too, will take time to put aside the minutia of the game and just relax in the glory that is my team (if there is glory).
However, certain people, myself especially, need to analyze everything. I’m an Engineer by profession. My calling in life is find out problems and determine how they can be fixed. When I watch sports I’m inclined to analyze wtf is going on and try to figure out if it was good, bad, right, wrong, smart, stupid, fortunate, unfortunate. It’s not giving me heart attacks or ulcers, on the contrary, it is where a lot of my sports enjoyment comes from.
Unfortunately, sometimes my endeavors to be a fan of my home team clash with what I see on the field. This game is one of them. The win will still be a win tomorrow, but the team’s play was not the caliber of a Super Bowl contender. I’m sure when all the numbers are crunched, it won’t even crack a top 15 performance for the week. And that’s a shame and it’s frustrating. And anyone who tries to tell me it’s not is probably ignorant and happy (and ulcer-free) or delusional. Or maybe there’s a third option, but I’m not sure what it is.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
And what exactly is "play the caliber of a Super Bowl contender?"
To paraphrase the Wizard toward the end of “Wizard of Oz”: I’m afraid you’re confusing “Super Bowl contender” with “greatest team in history.”
No team plays like a “Super Bowl contender” for EVERY game. But “Super Bowl contenders” have one thing and one thing only in common: they win games. That’s it. Some do it by a lot, some do it by a little, and most, along the way actually lose games! (The horror!)
by Andy (allfield) on Sep 15, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Nope that is not true
Super Bowl winners tend to win games by big margins. Teams that win games by small margins tend to lose early in playoffs. Please do some research before you attempt to mock me.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
Now, I know you don't really mean that...
Is that to say that all Super Bowl winners (although you only said Super Bowl CONTENDERS) win all their games?? Of course not. Therefore, they don’t win games by big margins. And what exactly does “tend” mean? That kind of gives you a wide berth.
Were the NY Giants of 2007 considered Super Bowl contenders? Was that before or after their quarterback was getting booed and their head coach was on the verge of getting fired?
The bottom line is we’re on the same page. We both want the Chargers to win — every game. The larger the margin the better. Is it going to happen all the time? Of course not. Does not winning by a lot — or even at all — make them less of a “Super Bowl Contender?” I agree that the odds and the history of NFL would be against them. Heck, even in 2006 when the Bolts were 14-2 and had the best record in the NFL (I believe that would be the ULTIMATE in being “Super Bowl Contenders”), fully half of their wins were by a touchdown (plus conversion) or less.
by Andy (allfield) on Sep 15, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I do mean that
FootballOutsiders studied the issue of whether teams that win with mostly close games (called “Guts”) or teams that win with mostly big wins (called “Stomps”) end up being more successful. Teams that got more “Stomps” had a much better chance of advancing to and winning the Super Bowl than teams who won with “Stomps”. There is much more detail to the research than I’m presenting here, but that was the basic conclusion. So, in my opinion, anytime your team “Guts” out a win against an inferior opponent, then they are not playing like a Super Bowl contender.
Using arguments like the 2007 Giants or the 2006 Chargers are trying to use outliers to prove your argument, when in real analysis the outliers are not how you determine trending. In other words, teams can win the Super Bowl when they don’t play like it for much of the year and teams can get eliminated after playing like Super Bowl contenders. The NFL has enough randomness to allow that to happen. However, I’d still rather bet (in the Chargers case, emotionally invest) in the team that things like a Super Bowl contender, than a team that does not.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
*
Teams that got more "Stomps" had a much better chance of advancing to and winning the Super Bowl than teams who won with "Guts".
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
Which is sort of like saying...
“Teams that are good have a better chance at winning the Super Bowl than teams that are not as good.” A point I do not disagree with. Nor can I disagree or argue with “tendencies” or “statistical analysis” or even “probability.” I also cannot disagree with the sentiment that “if the Chargers continue to play games like they did last night — win or lose — they will probably not win the Super Bowl.” And none of my above sentiments deviated from that point of view.
Hate me if you choose, but I am more like you than you care to admit….
by Andy (allfield) on Sep 15, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions
There are a lot of people out there
That really do think that teams that gut out close wins are better fit for winning playoff games, so it wasn’t really a case of saying "Teams that are good have a better chance at winning the Super Bowl than teams that are not as good."
The counter argument will always be that teams that get a lot of “Stomps” are beating up on inferior teams that won’t be in the playoffs. But, history says that this is not true. Teams that get “Stomps” have actually been better prepared.
You may not think you have deviated from me, but you said “But "Super Bowl contenders" have one thing and one thing only in common: they win games. That’s it.” And, I would argue that there are other things that they have in common and that there are plenty of teams (like the Miami Dolphins last year) that win games, but aren’t really Super Bowl contenders.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
Heart-racing victories
You guys are not alone – I’m nervous watching every game because most of the games in the Norv Turner era are frustrating to watch as a fan. I’m a realist so I’m not Mr. Positive after a performance like that. I guess it would be easier being a naive fan who just looked at the scoreboard & the nice blue jerseys, but I care more than them.
A little venting to follow….
While the national media puts us on a top 5 pedestal, I know better because of our history (I predicted a 10-6 finish with hopeful eyes). We most likely will make the playoffs but we are playing on the road at PITT again to advance – I don’t see this kind of performance giving me any confidence we can beat them. It’s 1 game and hopefully we play better in following games, but it doesn’t look good right now. I want our team to play great, finish 12-4, and get a bye at home, that is our best chance at reaching the Super Bowl.
I’ve lost track of how many games we come out flat and look like one of the worst teams in the league but somehow we put it together and pull out the victory. It’s great that we’ve been winning enough to win 3 straight AFC West titles but we sure haven’t looked like a Super Bowl contender for 4 quarters very often. If Oakland had a decent veteran QB last night we would have lost that game for sure, possibly in embarrassing fashion. One of my co-workers comments, “Hey, great victory last night for your team!” I just shook my head and didn’t bother to mention my concerns because they don’t understand football enough to see the game through my eyes.
Frustrating performance leads me to questions….
I’m not asking for complete domination but can we at least have a starting drive with a score to get on the board first with a FG? Can the DL and LB touch the QB once? Why do other teams have blitz packages that put all kinds of heat on the QB with less talent than we have at LB? Why is Clinton Hart a starter? Can anyone tackle other than Weddle? With all this talent and the offensive genius in Turner, why do we struggle every 1st half? If Oakland can make us look this bad, what is BALT going to do to us? I don’t know why the Raiders stopped running the ball because they were running it down our throat most of the game? BALT has a better running game – it could be ’lights out" for us next week?
When is it enough to just make the playoffs and lose again with all this talent? Does Norv have the job for 2+ years even if we keep losing in the playoffs and don’t reach a Super Bowl? Maybe the talent is overrated and Norv is doing the best he can? Who wants to coach this team under AJ?
Great questions all
And I’m sure many of us have “theories” and “answers.” But my fear is that a the people who sit in the key decision-making seats (AJ, Dean, Norv) continue to live in denial, believing their own hype that this team is sooo talented, and that there is an excuse for all the close games and tough losses. AJ continues to live by the end result of the season when it comes to judging Norv, and since that’s usually a division title, that means an extension for Norv!
Well, it’s taken me this long, but I’m finally willing to say, if that’s the bed AJ is willing to make, then he needs to be prepared to lie in it. When this team finishes 6-10 this year, both of them should be gone. But alas, I am not a decision maker. And since Dean lies in bed right along side of them, they’ll probably all stay. And we the fans will continue to suffer.
by Andy (allfield) on Sep 15, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
6-10? Do you honestly think that’s a likely outcome?
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions
The end result of the season is really what matters.
AJ is a firm believer that once you get into the playoffs, anything can happen. So if the staff consistently gets the team to the post-season, then that’s all you can ask of them.
Many teams, like the one we just beat, would kill to be in that position.
Greg Maddux for manager.
by Zach (maestro876) on Sep 15, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions
AJ's fault?
It hurts to watch my team play. But I did not have a doubt that Rivers and Sproles could bail us out. The thing that hurts the most is that thinking ahead, we will have a slow start again if we keep playing like this, and this time the chefs and the faiders are coming out strong, it’s not going to be easy. We laugh about Al Davis and the way he does business, but at least their D looked very good and our OL looked terrible. Is it Aj’s fault? He is so stubborn and we NEED GOOD free agents. Our line sucks (both) and the 2nd best player (Sproles) we have is about to hit free agency and we don’t sign free agents… So you see my point
I really dislike the argument that free agents equals wins.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Sep 15, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Free Agents Don't Equal Wins
But I think filling in some depth or a couple holes with a few mid level Free Agent signings in the off season can help a teams chances. Now the Chargers, depending on the severity of the injuries, may have to hope that some of their inexperienced players are ready to become starters in the NFL right now – or they will have to sifted through the leftover O Line free agents.
I for one have never suggested that they overpay for big name free agents, just that they could have signed a couple mid level players, like they did at LB with Burnett.
Offensive lineman
usually become free agents for a reason. I’d argue that there are no mid level free agents at that position. Just top tier guys that think the grass is greener and lower tier guys that aren’t wanted.
Also, look at what it costs to get a mid-tier guy. Look at the money Drayton Florence got to go to Jacksonville. You basically pay mid-tier players as if they were top-tier guys.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
EXACTLY
Which is the point I’ve always made. Guys you draft you have at a tremendous value. Guys you sign you overpay.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Sep 15, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Value
Guys that you draft do have fiscal value. But many of them will never pan out to be reliable NFL players.
So then you cut those guys
and draft new ones. I don’t see what you are trying to get at. Most of the vets you sign won’t be reliable players either, but they have the “advantage” of eating away at your cap (or your bottom line if there is no cap).
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
What I am trying to get at
I believe that a team like the Chargers could have found a veteran O Lineman that was willing to sign with them for a reasonable price who could have provided a little depth at the postition this season. Would he have been a pro bowl stud? No. Would he have given the Chargers a better chance of achieving their goal this season than an inexperienced lineman who may now be force into action (like Green)? I don’t think it is much of a stretch to say yes.
Yes they can cut the young players that don’t pan out and replace them with other rookies as you suggested. But that doesn’t help the lack of depth that they have right now.
Again I am not suggesting that a team should build through free agency, I am only suggesting that adding 3 or 4 mid level free agents in the off season can help a team. There are some Vets who are willing to play for a reasonble price when the offer is coming from a Super Bowl contender like the Chargers.
His name was Kynan Forney. We cut him last weekend.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Great Point
They signed him a couple years ago, and it appears he was not the right choice.
Just like draft picks not all free agent signings work out.
Quick
Name a big free agent signing on the 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers…. I’m waiting….
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
Justin Hartwig, Mewelde Moore and Keyaron Fox. Big-time free agent acquisitions.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
So we've got 1 starter and a couple of backups
Chargers got a starter (Burnett), but they didn’t get a couple of backups. We’re f@#$ed.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
That sounds about right.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Not quite right
I could be wrong on one of these guys but:
I think the following players were acquired by the steelers via free agency and started for the steelers last season.
Justin Hartwig
Travis Kirschke
Ryan Clark
James Farrior
Mitch Berger
And I believe these players were acquired by the steelers via free agency and played for them during the 08 season:
Fernando Bryant
Tyrone Carter
Najeh Davenport
Byron Leftwich
Nick Eason
Mewelde Moore
Keyaron Fox
Sean McHugh
Five Super Bowl starters and 13 total players on the team. Again am not saying that free agency should be a major part of building a team, but it should be a part.
Just wondering do you think a team should only build through the draft and not add any players through free agency?
Most of those players were signed before 2008
And at least a couple were signed to replace drafted players that were hurt. I’m also curious as to what position Kirschke was the starter at.
Obviously Farrior is an outlier there, a guy cut by his team before he developed into a Pro Bowler. I’m all for signing those. Good luck finding them. The Chargers do take a stab every once in a while with guys like Hart, Scott or Burnett.
A number of others are just veteran fillers who are there to replace guys the Steelers failed to develop. The Steelers drafted safeties that didn’t pan out and that’s why they have Clark and Carter. They’ve drafted corners that didn’t pan out so they needed a has been like Bryant. They drafted a couple of centers that they failed to develop so they signed Hartwig. The Chargers have had guys like that too with Newberry and Smith last year.
Just because the Steelers couldn’t develop their drafted players and had to replace them with filler guys that are going nowhere doesn’t mean the Chargers can’t develop their own guys.
I’m still not seeing a strong case here
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Sep 15, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I guess thats one opinion
The Steelers were your example of a team not using free agents, that is where I think you missed the boat on this one. Kirschke started for them at DE some of the time. Farrior and Hartwig were big parts of the Super Bowl team, Clark was less of a factor but he was a factor.
And you have stated my point perfectly by pointing out that “a number of the others are just veteran fillers who are there to replace guys the Steelers failed to develop”. “Veteran Fillers” are a small part of a winning formula.
You make it sound like the Steelers are failures in this response, last time I checked they won another Super Bowl last season. So they must be doing something right.
The Chargers have done a great job of developing their drafted players, I just think a couple of “Veteran Fillers” at some weak positions might have helped the team this year. I am surprised that so many people think my opinion on this is crazy.
I was thinking about this on the drive home from work
The Steelers are a bad example. They are a team that’s been a successful organization for almost 20 years now. I don’t have the number with me, but I’m guessing their total number of top 5 draft picks in that team is either 1 or 0. They don’t haven’t had a out of draft picks that could be counted on to be immediate contributors and picking late in each round increases the bust-ability of each pick. So, since the Steelers end up with a fair share of their picks being high risk, low reward they need to rely on finding a fair share of usable free agents to supplement their roster.
The Chargers have not reached the pleasant equilibrium of success cycles like the Steelers have. The Chargers have tended to ride that rollercoaster hard up and down and still have a number of players that were picked high in the draft and will have to deal with those players becoming free agents or retiring before they can really be compared organizationally to the Steelers. Most of the Chargers players are high picks from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds. That is a pretty good way to build depth, but probably won’t be sustainable if we keep making the playoffs and lose some players. So, maybe, going forward we’ll see more free agents as supplements to the roster.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Sep 15, 2009 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
That just blew my mind.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Sep 16, 2009 5:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Of those, how many were “big signings”?
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions
That is my point
I do not believe a team needs to spend a ton of money on “big signings” but rather fill the void that a team has at certain positions with mid level players who are at least legitimate NFL players.
I think that's pretty much AJ Smith's philosophy.
Greg Maddux for manager.
by Zach (maestro876) on Sep 15, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually they had 5 starters and 8 back ups
So it appears that while you may not be f@#$ed, you are wrong.
How am I wrong?
You changed the rules by finding guys signed before 2008.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
Not aware of any 1 year rule
I was not aware that a free agent was only allowed to help the team that he signed with for one season. I apologize if that rule does exist and I overlooked it.
I thought the point was that the free agents were suppose to be "filling in some depth or a couple holes"
So I assumed that meant that they would have to added to supplement the 2008 team and not already be part of the returning players to the that team. My bad. I guess I didn’t quite understand your point. So you are really complaining that we didn’t sign free agents 3-4 years ago?
In truth, I think we are over-looking the basics here. I don’t think it necessarily should come down to “sign free agents” or “don’t sign free agents” strategies. The team simply needs to look at its depth of the current roster in the offseason, see where the strengths are in the draft and figure out where the team is cap-wise. From there you can evaluate players in the free agent market and see where they could fit in the depth chart and the cap and sign them if it is prudent to do so. I have a hard time believing that any team looks at it much different than that. So saying the team should have signed more free agents is kind of like saying they should have done something that didn’t appear to make the team better.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Sep 15, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Agreed & recd
Your second paragraph states it perfectly in my opinion. But I think the weaknesses that were present at the end of last season were not addressed (O Line, D Line and Safety). You could be right, they may have looked at the free agents available at those positions in the off season and decided that none of them fit, whether it be cap wise or ability on the field. If that is the case then we are where we are and lets hope Hardwick & Vasquez are back soon, and the young D Lineman progress rapidly. I guess even if thats not the case, that is still where we are now.
As far as which off season “I was complaining about”. I think as you stated, each year a team should look at their weaknesses and try to add a few mid level players that might help. Sometimes those players will work out and stay with the team for 3 or 4 years, sometimes they will turn out to be a bad fit and be gone right away, much like draft picks.
Hardwick and Vazquez will be back pretty soon
So we all win.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
Something I wanted to point out.
The Raiders secondary played extremely, extremely well. Their corners and safeties were on our receivers like glue. Many of Rivers’s early completions were fit into extremely tight holes. Many incompletions were knocked away when the Oakland DBs got a hand or finger in front of the ball to deflect it. That’s where Philip’s lone pick came from.
Their DBs just played extremely good coverage man-to-man, and that let their front seven focus up front on getting pressure and stopping the run.
Greg Maddux for manager.
by Zach (maestro876) on Sep 15, 2009 1:58 PM PDT reply actions
Our secondary played well for most of the game
except for that 4th and 15 play and some other slight mistakes(Miller).But our front seven sucked ass,where was the pressure?
NEVER MISS A GAME,WHETHER BY BEING THERE OR WATCHING AT HOME,FO SHO!!!
Philip’s pick came when the ball bounced off Antonio Gates’ hands.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I like to call those "Assisted Interceptions"
And, on top of that, Gates would have caught the ball if the defender hadn’t hit him the back as the ball was coming in. PI? Maybe. Raiders hugged that line all night.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
They made contact before the ball arrived several times last night, but they were all close and the refs were letting them do it.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Seemed like every time Phil had time to set
he’d find his man. As long as the pocket didn’t collapse on him…
Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ◔ヮ◔
Uncommon Sportsman :: Absurdity in play
Agreed. He looked very good when he got time.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s to be expected from him.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Sep 16, 2009 5:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Phil was pretty good even when he didn't have time.
That’s part of his game that has significantly improved. He’s getting better at the little shifts to avoid rushers, and still get the ball out. That’s one of the major aspects of his game that has improved in the last couple years.
Greg Maddux for manager.
by Zach (maestro876) on Sep 16, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions
As an unbiased observer who lives in SD but roots for neither team
The Chargers are very fortunate that the Raiders have idiots running that organization. Russell was awful and if Jeff Garcia is playing the Chargers lose that game by 2 TD’s. They were running at will and with Garcia using play action he would have had a big night. The other backup looked better than Russell in his brief appearance.
Then, after dominating the Charger’s receivers for the most part playing man to man, the Raiders decide to play some crazy Cover 2 or Cover 4 defense on the last drive where all 7 secondary players are 25 yards downfield leaving easy dump offs that can be converted to first downs without a challenge.
Seymour will be sick of that organization in about a month. There’s no way he signs an extension and the Raiders will have traded a very high first round draft pick for a guy who walks after a year (or 2 depending on what happens with the CBA).
Hey, did you catch the Bears-Packers game on Sunday? I especially enjoyed the ending.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree Garcia would have won that game forthe Raiders
Glad he was in Philidelphia instead of Oaklang last night. We did get lucky that Jamarcus stunk it up so bad.
But hey they got lucky too, Norv kept calling run plays over and over and getting stuffed. If Norv leaves the run, the Chargers passing game would have out mucho points on the board.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda Chargers get the W and that’s what matters in my book.
by Trendsearcher on Sep 15, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I disagree with the idea that the Raiders would have won with Garcia in at quarterback. The game would have been completely different. We’re talking different gameplans from both teams coming in, different in-game adjustments being made, etc. The only thing that would have remained the same is that the Chargers have better players.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Not on the lines
The only thing that would have remained the same is that the Chargers have better players.
They pushed us around pretty soundly last night, we aren’t as good up front as they are. Plus their Full Backs are bigger and more physical than ours.
Jamarcus really is bad. Once the Chargers held their OLBs back to stop the run, an average QB should have taken us apart with all that extra time. Flaco is going to be big trouble.
by Trendsearcher on Sep 15, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
The Raiders had some success in certain matchups, but you can’t honestly sit there and claim the Raiders have better or even comparable players.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
On any given Sunday
On paper our skills guys look much, much better.
Our Fatties? Aside from McNeil and Jamal… Not so much. Yeah Hardwick is pretty good to when he’s not on the sidelines in some kind of prtective boot (what’s wrong with that guy’s wheels?!)
by Trendsearcher on Sep 16, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
I hope you are correct in saying that Seymour will resent Oakland in a month...
He absolutely dominated out there, and that is sad considering that he had only spent a matter of hours with the team and their playbook…I do think that he will not be around with Oakland for more than two years…they will inevitably sign Ryan Leaf to a ten year 200 million dollar contract…
Formerly Blount#9...
Around the NFL I didn't see any team running on all 8
Just to point a few things across this blog, I didn’t see Arizona/Pittsburgh/NE/Indy throwout juggernaut performances….Not too many teams hitting their stride the first week
Raiders weren’t going to be bad forever and they came to play for 58 minutes last night. I see their future moving up (Russel doesn’t look like an answer to me); but in our little office pool I was figuring Raiders running 2nd in the West
Denver looks to be in serious trouble there…..I feel for my cousins in Colorado.
Sorry that was a TD if I was referee….never been one to take a great play out on technicalities, doubt if it would have changed outcome of game, but I didn’t like the call
NE maybe the luckiest of the teams, but they certainly don’t impress me much. I have no idea if that returner for Buffalo still has a job.
Still on track for the game: Indy vs SD for AFC title
I think the smart people know why Arizona didn't throw out a juggernaut performance
Because they are not a capable of it. They don’t even belong in the same conversation as Pitt/NE/Indy.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
Yeah…..If you weren’t drawing comparison between their run through the playoffs and the Colorado Rockies run to the World Series a few years back, you weren’t paying enough attention.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Sep 16, 2009 5:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Arizona isn’t a very good football team. Pittsburgh and Indianapolis both beat quality teams. New England and the Chargers both neglected to show up early on against highly motivated divisional opponents.
The Raiders still aren’t that good. They played about as well as they could be expected to last night and had nothing for the Chargers by the end of the game.
It’s a good thing they don’t let people who are unfamiliar with the rules referee games, I guess.
New England was lucky that they were playing against a bad football team. I doubt Leodis McKelvin is out of a job.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I think its funny
about the argument over the rules on that catch. I’ve heard old school football men talk about it as if the rule isn’t just.
I think NFL players should be able to take a hit and if they can’t hold onto the ball after they are taken to the ground then they don’t deserve a catch. I would think that would be the old school mantra on this. It’s kind of baffling to me.
It’s also funny that some of these are the same people that complain that when you throw a guy to the ground and the ball pops out it should be a fumble (“In my day, they used to call that a fumble”), but today are ruled down by contact. Shouldn’t that be the same thought process for catches.
What do I know?
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
I think people are just being influenced by the ignorance of the broadcast team.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
They're thinking back on the time before replay
When things were more “traditional”, and “a fumble was a fumble1”
Greg Maddux for manager.
by Zach (maestro876) on Sep 15, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think its the technollogy deciding the play
Yeah, I think its the technollogy deciding the outcome of the play they don’t like, even if they don’t realize it. Plus its the old “let ’em play” mentality versus nitpicking.
Which brings me to my problem with the technophobes
I’m fine with the point of view that referees/umpires need to make snap judgments on the fly and the errors there are the “human” side of the game. However, I do have a problem with the referees/umpires flat out not seeing something. If something happened a certain way, it should be called as it is stated in the rules, whether or not someone saw it. That’s where replay fits in. I don’t think it benefits the game to have things decided because a referee/umpire can’t be looking two places at once.
Wisdom can not be cultivated through ignorance of information.
by Wonko on Sep 15, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Is technophobia running a muck on BFTB?
NEVER MISS A GAME,WHETHER BY BEING THERE OR WATCHING AT HOME,FO SHO!!!
Old men
also hate the refs interfering in the game. If the play happened and was immediately called a incomplete, then it was explained later, instead of calling it a TD and overturning it, they’d be more willing to buy into it.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Sep 16, 2009 5:14 AM PDT up reply actions
If a player makes...
If a player makes a great play…then the ref should side on the player side; that is exactly what the game is about a display of effort and skill, rules are just meant for the game to played fairly
Sideline/endzone/bobbles will always throw fits for fans and refs, but realistically the guy made the play…I thought it was poor to review something in slow motion and say I don’t like the way you handled the ball so therefore it was no catch
Old men just want to see the game played….20 zillion replays and hands off receivers, like the swine flu for the NFL
The issue here is that the receiver didn’t make a great play. He dropped the ball when he hit the ground.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Sep 16, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
McKelvin averaged the most yards for a returned last season.
He was just excited they were about to beat the Patsies. Oh well.
A kid who has a unicorn ranch in his room cannot call other people weird. Yes, we know about "Rancho Unicorno."
by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Sep 15, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
McKelvin just...
acquired countless amounts of new fans in the northeast…But also now has 280 million or so new enemies just about everywhere else…for some reason, quite a few reside in New York…
Formerly Blount#9...
The thing that concerns me
Is that I don’t think a team which turns up expecting to win on talent alone is ever going to go that far. I want a team that is confident in its ability to out-work and hustle the opposition as well, and that doesn’t need to find itself in a corner before bringing it’s A game.
That said, I don’t mind a slow start (the injuries are of course a concern) – the worry is that the game was symptomatic of an attitude that was supposed to have changed (and needs to be changed).
Passion Play - follow the annual quest for the premiership in all its horror and glory, http://spunc.com.au/members/hunter/product/9780980517965/
It doesn't surprise me...
I don’t understand why everyone was so high on the Chargers getting to the Super Bowl this year in the first place. Several things worried me even before the MNF game.
1. L.T. couldn’t stay healthy at 28 or 29, but we’re supposed to believe that he’s going to lose the injury bug and get better as he gets older? He’s an NFL RB, not fine wine.
2. Shawne Merriman came back from major knee surgery, but we’re supposed to assume that he will be able to revert back to his pre-injury form on the first year back from rehab.
3. The Chargers had issues last year at SS and D-line and they still have Hart at SS & they replaced Olshansky with his backup (Cesaire). I know everyone is going to argue that Merriman was out last year and it will be different now that he’s back. Well, read #2 again.
4. I don’t want to rehash the sign or don’t sign FAs argument, but the fact remains that this team either has to stay incredibly healthy on the lines or rely on inexperienced players. It just never seemed realistic to me to just hope that everyone stays healthy. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t happen in a sport like football.
I can't say that I'm terribly surprised either, but...
I remember a guy who missed 23 of 48 games from ’99 through ’01, earning the nickname “Fragile Fred”. This dude has since shed that tag, and rushed for 1100 yds in ’06 (age 30) and 1200 yds in ’07 (age 31) averaging over 5 yards a carry each season. L.T. had a phenomenally healthy career up until he tweaked his knee in the ’07 playoffs, so forgive me for being optimistic that he could be effective this season.
No one necessarily expects #56 to revert back to his pre-injury form immediately, hell I’m not even expecting him to EVER return to his pre-steroid-suspension form. But once he plays himself back into game shape the pass rush will pick up. Not only will his play improve as the season goes on, but his fiery leadership will make those around him better. And English will help us as well as he learns the pro game. When those things happen, our secondary will become a non-issue.
By the way, A.J. brought in Jermaine Phillips during the offseason to address our safety issues, but that didn’t pan out for whatever reason. He picks his shots, not just signing whoever is available just because they’ve been on an NFL roster before.
I don't know whether I prefer Astroturf to grass. I never smoked Astroturf.
JOE NAMATH
Jermaine Phillips
was using us as a bargaining tool with the Bucs. He never intended to leave Tampa.
Greg Maddux for manager.
by Zach (maestro876) on Sep 16, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
BFTB Apparel Store
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
