[DC 86]

No way Raiders  were going to throw and risk an int or QB fumble. He didn’t need TO  for personnel change.  They were killing clock.  He had plenty of time.   Raiders coach admitted he was considering just kneeling.  It was an incredibly dumb decision.  But it was oh so Chargers…..

If you watch the press conference Bisaccia said that they had considered just running out the clock until they got close to field goal range, at which point they decided to go for the win. His alluding to taking the tie has been taken out of context because he said that they were discussing it on the sideline, but it wasn't in reference to the third down play, but to earlier. Once Jacobs ran for seven yards on second down it made third down doable (only four yards for a first down and a chance at a winning field goal) so they decided to try to keep going and get into field goal range. Specifically what Bisaccia said was (with my clarifications in brackets}:

"... we ran the ball there and they didn't call a time out [referring to the first down play where Jacobs lost a yard] so they were probably thinking the same thing [running out the clock] then we had the big run [referring to the second down play where Jacobs gained seven yards] ..."

The Raiders threw a 17 yard out pattern on the first play of the drive and then threw it twice more, i.e. they threw the ball on 3 of 7 plays, so they weren't playing it safe. It's clear their plan was not to do anything stupid but to try to win if they could get into field goal range, since they didn't want to be matched up with Kansas City in the first round.

The timeout was called with 0:38 on the game clock and with 0:05 on the play clock, so the only effect of the timeout was for the next play (third and four) to start with 0:38 on the game clock or 0:34 on the game clock (if the Raiders wait until the last second to snap the ball). Given that the play clock is 0:40 it makes no difference whether there's 0:38 or 0:34 at the start of the play since the team has the option of running or not running another play either way. If the Raiders were going to take a knee they would have lined up in victory formation and snapped the ball at any point once the game clock hit 0:40 but they didn't do that, which is when the Chargers called time out.

If the Raiders make a first down then a field goal attempt comes into play, if they are stopped short then it doesn't. So the only thing that matters for the Chargers at that point is preventing the first down. The Raiders lined up in shotgun and Staley determined that he had the wrong personnel for the play that he anticipated from that formation, so he called timeout and replaced a LB with a DL. So the only question is whether the Chargers calling timeout (enabling them to make a personnel change but for the Raiders to rethink the play call) enhances the Chargers chances of making the stop, or not.

---

Switching back to baseball…

The Athletic published a number of trades suggested by fans (I didn’t see yours, lex, however; the writer indicated he would review more fan-suggested trades in a future article) with some comments by the writer.

One Giants trade that was included was intriguing.

Cubs trade C Willson Contreras to the Giants for C Joey Bart and LHP Seth Cory (as part of the trade, the Cubs give SF a four day window to sign Contreras, which they do).

Note: Contreras is signed through 2022.  I assume the “window” comment references a contract extension). 

I like the deal because it gives the Giants a proven major league catcher without sacrificing any high end prospects (I am not a big fan of Bart).

I respect the fact that you make your own evaluations, but it's interesting that you consider Bishop to be "untouchable" but consider trading Bart to not be a sacrifice of a "high end prospect". Every single prospect ranking (mlb.com, Fangraphs, The Athletic, Baseball America, etc) has Bart ranked far higher than Bishop. That's not saying that you won't be proven right because prospects are highly unpredictable, but it's not how the industry values these guys.

In any case, I think that trade is horrible. You are trading six years of cost-controlled Bart (several years at the minimum salary) for one year of Contreras. The extension is irrelevant because you are going to be paying full market (theoretically in one year you can sign Contreras or an alternative in the free agent market for the same extension amount without having had to give up any prospect capital for that opportunity). Contreras is a very good player but he'll be 30 around the start of next season (whenever that is). Trading six years of Bart for one year of a 30 year old catcher, with the opportunity to sign him to an expensive extension, sounds very anti-Zaidi, meaning not logical.

[DC 86]

No way Raiders  were going to throw and risk an int or QB fumble. He didn’t need TO  for personnel change.  They were killing clock.  He had plenty of time.   Raiders coach admitted he was considering just kneeling.  It was an incredibly dumb decision.  But it was oh so Chargers…..

If you watch the press conference Bisaccia said that they had considered just running out the clock until they got close to field goal range, at which point they decided to go for the win. His alluding to taking the tie has been taken out of context because he said that they were discussing it on the sideline, but it wasn't in reference to the third down play, but to earlier. Once Jacobs ran for seven yards on second down it made third down doable (only four yards for a first down and a chance at a winning field goal) so they decided to try to keep going and get into field goal range. Specifically what Bisaccia said was (with my clarifications in brackets}:

"... we ran the ball there and they didn't call a time out [referring to the first down play where Jacobs lost a yard] so they were probably thinking the same thing [running out the clock] then we had the big run [referring to the second down play where Jacobs gained seven yards] ..."

The Raiders threw a 17 yard out pattern on the first play of the drive and then threw it twice more, i.e. they threw the ball on 3 of 7 plays, so they weren't playing it safe. It's clear their plan was not to do anything stupid but to try to win if they could get into field goal range, since they didn't want to be matched up with Kansas City in the first round.

The timeout was called with 0:38 on the game clock and with 0:05 on the play clock, so the only effect of the timeout was for the next play (third and four) to start with 0:38 on the game clock or 0:34 on the game clock (if the Raiders wait until the last second to snap the ball). Given that the play clock is 0:40 it makes no difference whether there's 0:38 or 0:34 at the start of the play since the team has the option of running or not running another play either way. If the Raiders were going to take a knee they would have lined up in victory formation and snapped the ball at any point once the game clock hit 0:40 but they didn't do that, which is when the Chargers called time out.

If the Raiders make a first down then a field goal attempt comes into play, if they are stopped short then it doesn't. So the only thing that matters for the Chargers at that point is preventing the first down. The Raiders lined up in shotgun and Staley determined that he had the wrong personnel for the play that he anticipated from that formation, so he called timeout and replaced a LB with a DL. So the only question is whether the Chargers calling timeout (enabling them to make a personnel change but for the Raiders to rethink the play call) enhances the Chargers chances of making the stop, or not.

---

Switching back to baseball…

The Athletic published a number of trades suggested by fans (I didn’t see yours, lex, however; the writer indicated he would review more fan-suggested trades in a future article) with some comments by the writer.

One Giants trade that was included was intriguing.

Cubs trade C Willson Contreras to the Giants for C Joey Bart and LHP Seth Cory (as part of the trade, the Cubs give SF a four day window to sign Contreras, which they do).

Note: Contreras is signed through 2022.  I assume the “window” comment references a contract extension). 

I like the deal because it gives the Giants a proven major league catcher without sacrificing any high end prospects (I am not a big fan of Bart).

I respect the fact that you make your own evaluations, but it's interesting that you consider Bishop to be "untouchable" but consider trading Bart to not be a sacrifice of a "high end prospect". Every single prospect ranking (mlb.com, Fangraphs, The Athletic, Baseball America, etc) has Bart ranked far higher than Bishop. That's not saying that you won't be proven right because prospects are highly unpredictable, but it's not how the industry values these guys.

In any case, I think that trade is horrible. You are trading six years of cost-controlled Bart (several years at the minimum salary) for one year of Contreras. The extension is irrelevant because you are going to be paying full market (theoretically in one year you can sign Contreras or an alternative in the free agent market for the same extension amount without having had to give up any prospect capital for that opportunity). Contreras is a very good player but he'll be 30 around the start of next season (whenever that is). Trading six years of Bart for one year of a 30 year old catcher, with the opportunity to sign him to an expensive extension, sounds very anti-Zaidi, meaning not logical.