Someone needs to explain to me how that last timeout made ANY sense at all
3rd and 4 on Chargers' 39. Raiders about to line up in shotgun formation, Chargers call timeout (with about 8 seconds left on the play clock) knowing that they need a stop and presumably make an adjustment / didn't like the personnel that they had out there. As much as the broadcast was saying that the Raiders could kneel and take the tie, them running a play to try to set up a FG was the more likely route. After the timeout, the Raiders lined up under center and ran the ball. The Chargers had the worst run defense in the league and gave up a 3rd and 23 earlier in the game.
I think the Twitterverse is taking some out of context comments from Derek Carr's postgame interview about the Raiders changing strategy after the timeout (they ran a play from a different formation) while ignoring how Carr subsequently said they weren't playing for a tie.
Chargers needed to force a 4th down in which case it would have been an interesting decision for the Raiders. If you don't call a timeout, Raiders could still convert and it would have been the same difference.
I just wonder if the tie scenario wasn't there if the Chargers would have gone for two at the end of regulation.
As soon as they showed Dean Spanos on the broadcast, I couldn't help but not feel bad if the Raiders won.