One bad throw

[ScottW]

and it could be a game changer. Rivers played as close to a perfect
half as he can but still only leads by one score.

As the talking heads say...you can't throw away points like that.
A really stupid play. If Mathews can't be given the ball in the red
zone....why is Rivers getting it?

ScottW

PS Did Mathews get hurt? He sort of took himself off the field and I
only saw Brown after that.

[ScottW]

I guess not...he's back in.

Someone once asked if Rivers can throw it away to avoid a
sack....apparently that is for advanced QBs...not Phillip.

You don't take that sack and maybe Gaither doesn't feel the need to
hold the next play......


ScottW

[ScottW]

On Nov 1, 8:16 pm, Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 19:01:49 -0700 (PDT), ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >and it could be a game changer.
>

> Except it WASN'T, and the game had a LOT of time left.

Not against a really bad KC team but then again....I think we do hope
to beat better teams....except some Norv haters would give up a SB in
exchange for Norv's head.

ScottW

[Robin Miller]

I think Norv should be fired simply for not running the ball on that
play, and on fourth down if necessary. The exact same thing happened
earlier in the season. Trust your running game, especially on the
one-yard line.

--Robin

[Marcy D]

Norv haters will never have to make that choice. He'll never win a
Super Bowl.

[ScottW]

Except we came to find out that Norv called a running play and it was
Rivers made the switch.

It's really tough for us to know who did what and why on any given
play from our vantage point.
That's why I object to people who (like you) who want to make a knee
jerk decision based on one play or even one game. There can't be one
play or even one game that should cause a HC to be fired. A change of
such magnitude should have complete seasons and thorough reviews
justifying it IMO.
Now that doesn't mean an argument can't be made to can Norv.....I'm
just saying one game or one play shouldn't be the basis for it.
But don't worry....I don't see the "signs" of this team effectively
competing against the competition remaining on the schedule and I
expect Norv (and hopefully AJ and sadly even Rivers) to be canned
after missing the playoffs again and I won't argue against it. My
change of heart won't be based on one game or even one season.

ScottW

[Robin Miller]

ScottW wrote:

> On Nov 1, 9:21 pm, Robin Miller <complex....@invalid.com> wrote:


>> ScottW wrote:
>>> and it could be a game changer. Rivers played as close to a perfect
>>> half as he can but still only leads by one score.
>>
>>> As the talking heads say...you can't throw away points like that.
>>> A really stupid play. If Mathews can't be given the ball in the red
>>> zone....why is Rivers getting it?
>>
>>> ScottW
>>
>>> PS Did Mathews get hurt? He sort of took himself off the field and I
>>> only saw Brown after that.
>>
>> I think Norv should be fired simply for not running the ball on that
>> play, and on fourth down if necessary. The exact same thing happened
>> earlier in the season. Trust your running game, especially on the
>> one-yard line.
>
> Except we came to find out that Norv called a running play and it was
> Rivers made the switch.

You're right about the earlier game. I forgot about that.

I am, however, still steamed about the call last night.

--Robin

[ScottW]

Wasn't the distance much longer last night? Have you lost all trust
in Rivers?
Seriously...if they really need to reign it in to keep Rivers from
mistakes they might as well throw in the towel.
That would be Martyball....the game plans that can win the division
but never beat a playoff team. I don't think you can play a season
one way and change it in the playoffs so we must live and die by
Rivers arm.

ScottW

[Robin Miller]

It's not about Rivers. He was playing great last night. But they had two
downs and a timeout to run it in from the one, and Rivers was playing
with two new wide receivers. It's about trusting the running game and
taking the higher-percentage play. Besides, Rivers has never been able
to throw the fade to the end zone, and this season Rivers has been
terrible on roll out throws. All factors point to running the ball in
that situation. And then running it again on fourth down if necessary
rather than kicking a field goal.

--Robin

[ScottW]

As much as I agree with you about Rivers you simply can't claim the
Chargers are any better running the ball in short yardage or goal line
situations.
They have sucked at it all year.
That said...I don't know what the play call really was and if Rivers
made a switch like he did previously. Looks the same set and same
play where Rivers missed Royal.
Would have been nice if the NFL post game dufi (plural of dufus?)
asked Rivers a question and let him answer a question rather than the
stupid banter they wasted the whole segment on.

> And then running it again on fourth down if necessary
> rather than kicking a field goal.

I have no idea why you think going for it on 4th down would be the
smart play.
I can't agree with that. Take the 3 and go into half time with
momentum and up 2 scores.

ScottW

[Robin Miller]

ScottW wrote:

> That said...I don't know what the play call really was and if Rivers
> made a switch like he did previously. Looks the same set and same
> play where Rivers missed Royal.
> Would have been nice if the NFL post game dufi (plural of dufus?)
> asked Rivers a question and let him answer a question rather than the
> stupid banter they wasted the whole segment on.

The woman sideline reporter said (I think during the third period) that
she talked to Norv, who told her that he called the play that Rivers ran
because "the Chargers had not had success running the ball in against
Kansas City in the past."

> I have no idea why you think going for it on 4th down would be the
> smart play.
> I can't agree with that. Take the 3 and go into half time with
> momentum and up 2 scores.
>
> ScottW
>

I just wanted the Chargers to prove they could dominate in a
short-yardage situation. And I thought they could make it.

--Robin