[aeneas1]

“Now that they have a 20-3 lead, let’s intentionally let them run the ball”

-Said no one ever...

[/zn/]

dieterbrock wrote:
“Now that they have a 20-3 lead, let’s intentionally let them run the ball”

-Said no one ever...

Well actually Denver players talked about that strategy.

And in fact the Rams let them back into the game. Remember it ended 23-20 and was won on the Rams getting the onside kick.

And so in fact....said Denver players after that game.

The play calling did seem a bit curious considering the Broncos opted to over-defense Jared Goff and the passing game while blanketing the second and third levels and bringing plenty of heat with the pass rush duo of Bradley Chubb and Von Miller.

The Broncos did so knowing full well it might mean Gurley going off.

“Today, that was kind of part of our game plan, try to make them run the ball, really,” Broncos cornerback Chris Harris said. “Their offense has been putting up 40 points per game, so we just tried to figure out a way to slow them down.”

Defending the Rams these days has become a dangerous game of pick your poison. The Broncos decided if anyone on the Rams was going to beat them, it was going to be Gurley.

[dieterbrock]

Well actually Denver players talked about that strategy.

And in fact the Rams let them back into the game. Remember it ended 23-20 and was won on the Rams getting the onside kick.

And so in fact....said Denver players after that game.

And Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman...
Who cares what they said?
Its preposterous to think a team believes that letting the opposition run clock while they are trailing by 17 points is "the right thing to do"
Did you watch the game? If you actually did, you would see how silly this is.
The Rams were in complete control of that game until a fluke INT, a missed FG and typical Case Keenum "chuck it up and pray" completion got them within a td.
So the Rams said, "hold my beer" and took 6 minutes off the clock, kicked the FG, put the lead back at 10 and essentially ended the game.
I cant believe anyone can believe that Denver "let" the Rams run all over them on that drive, it defies all logic and common sense.

[/zn/]

And Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman...
Who cares what they said?

Except what they said and what they did matches up. (And btw it's not common for coaches and players on a team to all come up with the exact same lie right after a game, in unison).

In the 2nd half the Rams ran the ball 25 times for 169 yards.

They threw the ball 16 times and the result was 5 completions for 63 yards (less than 4 yards an attempt), 2 sacks, and an INT. So with the run working, which is usually a formula for the pass to work, they're throwing less and the passing game isn't being productive. Hurried throws was part of it, coverage was part of it.

Watching the game it was clear that Denver was playing the pass first, even in the 2nd half when behind.

.

[dieterbrock]

Except what they said and what they did matches up. (And btw it's not common for coaches and players on a team to all come up with the exact same lie right after a game, in unison).

In the 2nd half the Rams ran the ball 25 times for 169 yards.

They threw the ball 16 times and the result was 5 completions for 63 yards (less than 4 yards an attempt), 2 sacks, and an INT. So with the run working, which is usually a formula for the pass to work, they're throwing less and the passing game isn't being productive. Hurried throws was part of it, coverage was part of it.

Watching the game it was clear that Denver was conceding the run and playing the pass.

You really don't get it.
The Rams ran 16 plays beginning the 2nd half, 8 run, 8 pass and after punting their 1st possession, they scored to go up 20-3 with 6 minutes to go in the 3rd.
Of course they were going to run the ball afterwards.
That's what teams do (on offense)

[aeneas1]

Its preposterous to think a team believes that letting the opposition run clock while they are trailing by 17 points is "the right thing to do"

and it's equally preposterous to think the donkeys forced the rams to run the ball when the rams came out and threw the ball on every single down during their opening drive, 6 straight passes and 0 runs, and given the rams pass/run ratio in the first half against the donkeys was the rams 3rd highest of the season... other than that, the donkeys had a great game plan, they forced the rams to run the ball.

[AvengerRam]

Seems to me that the main reasons that Broncos game was close were (1) the Rams failed to take advantage of Red Zone opportunities, and (2) a fluke INT gave the Broncos an easy TD. I don't think that the Broncos' strategy had much to do with it at all.

[dieterbrock]

and it's equally preposterous to think the donkeys forced the rams to run the ball when the rams came out and threw the ball on every single down during their opening drive, 6 straight passes and 0 runs, and given the rams pass/run ratio in the first half against the donkeys was the rams 3rd highest of the season... other than that, the donkeys had a great game plan, they forced the rams to run the ball.

Yup.
Story of the game?
Fluke INT gives Denver 7 points
Missed FG costs 3 points
Back door cover TD at end of game against prevent, 7 points
Very close to a 26-6 game

[dieterbrock]

Seems to me that the main reasons that Broncos game was close were (1) the Rams failed to take advantage of Red Zone opportunities, and (2) a fluke INT gave the Broncos an easy TD. I don't think that the Broncos' strategy had much to do with it at all.

[/zn/]

Seems to me that the main reasons that Broncos game was close were (1) the Rams failed to take advantage of Red Zone opportunities, and (2) a fluke INT gave the Broncos an easy TD. I don't think that the Broncos' strategy had much to do with it at all.

Well I didn't give a reason in this thread why the game became close but I have elsewhere. Talking just about the offense's part of it, the redzone issue especially in the 3rd quarter was there but it was also a couple of moments McVay described as lacking "situational awareness." For example on the drive that begins at 10:14 in the 4th quarter, they have 3rd and 3 within manageable FG range (37 yards) and McV calls a pass into a defense playing good pass D (their strength) and it results in a sack and a 10 yard loss. They miss the 47 yard FG and instead of the Rams going up 23-10 at that point, Denver gets the ball. Just running the ball on 3rd down there would have meant, at worst, staying in FG range.

McV also took responsibility for the INT and throwing it from that point when at worst they could have punted after a run didn't get a 1st down, which would haved moved Denver further back on the field and with a less easy opportunity to score.

It wasn;t the defense that Denver played that kept the game close. In terms of just what the Rams offense did (and leaving the D out of it for the moment) it was the Rams situational playcalling in response to that defense, where at particular moments they made things harder on themselves than they had to be.

Like the 3rd and 3 in the 4th quarter...like I said, just run there, and the FG is more manageable. At that point Goff was 4 of 11 throwing into a defense that was covering everything and rushing the passer, play action or no play action. McV himself said that call showed poor situational awareness.