Raiders HC Pete Carroll defends controversial decision from Sunday

In a season defined by confusion, Las Vegas Raiders head coach Pete Carroll’s explanation for the late-game field goal may have finally completed the bingo card.

Pressed on why he chose a field goal instead of, say, something that might help the Raiders win, Carroll offered an explanation that felt part rulebook seminar, part performance art, and part existential riddle. He said the decision stemmed from a wobbling clock, a dispute with an official, and the belief that with enough negotiating, time itself might bend his way.

Raiders HC Pete Carroll stands by his decision…

Carroll said he saw “eight seconds, seven” and pushed for “10,” as if he were bargaining at a flea market instead of running a two-minute drill. When officials didn’t oblige, the clock slipped from five to three and back to five, producing what he admitted might “look stupid.” It did—but he insisted the stupidity was at least strategic.

He called the moment “competing all the way.” That’s one interpretation of spending precious seconds arguing for theoretical time while trailing by multiple scores. Another is that the Raiders’ season has unraveled so thoroughly that even the coaching decisions now need supplemental context.

Carroll also insisted there was “a real clear thought” behind the sequence—a claim that rests entirely on faith, because nothing on the field backed it up. The plan, he said, was to kick the field goal, recover an onside kick, and—if the universe cooperated—still have “a second left.” Left unsaid was the need for a touchdown after all that. But at this stage, why get bogged down in details?

Raider Nation catching strays from the coach?

Fans, he conceded, “couldn’t understand.” He is correct. It is difficult to grasp a plan that hinges on infinitely adjustable clock math visible only to the head coach and presumably the same quantum physicists who developed string theory.

In the end, the only thing the Raiders successfully milked was the clock on their own dignity. The field goal didn’t change the outcome. However, what about the explanation afterward? That might stand as the most ambitious attempt yet to convince the public that a baffling decision was, in fact, all part of the plan.

Thoughts, Raider Nation? Buying Carroll’s explanation, or is it all moot at this point?