[AvengerRam]

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.

Thank you for explaining that to me in such great detail.

Now can you explain, in 3 to 4 paragraphs (minimum) how to make toast?

[PARAM]

Well Denver's strategy was not new. They used the same strategy against the Chiefs (142 yards rushing; 27 points scored / a low for the Chiefs this year), the Jets (323 yards rushing; 34 points scored) and the Rams (270 yards rushing; 23 points scored / a low for the Rams). It's a good strategy if you don't want to get blown out. But they still lost each of those games so...…..

[/zn/]

Thank you for explaining that to me in such great detail.

Now can you explain, in 3 to 4 paragraphs (minimum) how to make toast?

Sure.

You act like gratuitous hostility on the internet is interesting.

And then pretend everything has to be personal.

Wait, that's not toast! (?)

Nevermind.

Either way, the Rams are more interesting.

....

[AvengerRam]

Either way, the Rams are more interesting.

....

Well, they were interesting...

[dieterbrock]

Well Denver's strategy was not new. They used the same strategy against the Chiefs (142 yards rushing; 27 points scored / a low for the Chiefs this year), the Jets (323 yards rushing; 34 points scored) and the Rams (270 yards rushing; 23 points scored / a low for the Rams). It's a good strategy if you don't want to get blown out. But they still lost each of those games so...…..

Maybe their run defense just isn’t very good? And this “strategy” is just a poor excuse?? Nah, can’t be.....

[/zn/]

Well Denver's strategy was not new. They used the same strategy against the Chiefs (142 yards rushing; 27 points scored / a low for the Chiefs this year), the Jets (323 yards rushing; 34 points scored) and the Rams (270 yards rushing; 23 points scored / a low for the Rams). It's a good strategy if you don't want to get blown out. But they still lost each of those games so...…..

Either way the one really disappointing game for them of those 3 was the Jets. Denver is clearly inferior to both the Chiefs and Rams, and on paper those ought to have been blow out games, yet they lost those 2 games by 4 and 3 points, respectively. KC even had to come back from 10 points down in the 4th quarter.

And so they didn't get blown out in either game. And this is a team that's 20th in scoring playing against the 1st and 2nd ranked scoring offenses.

The team that can actually win with that strategy against the Rams is one that can also run the ball and score points. Denver was never going to be that team, but they did keep those 2 games close, which is kind of against the odds in itself. Keeping it close like that is the only way they could have challenged the Rams and Chiefs at all.

...

[PARAM]

…...both of those games were in Denver, where they're playing with a distinct advantage (crowd, temperature, altitude).

Which brings me to another point. The Rams won 3 consecutive road games in tough environments. The Rams can be beat, no doubt, but I don't think that's been figured out just yet......the formula for that (if there truly is a formula). Denver "let them run" or so it's been speculated (I like Dieter's theory....Denver just sucks against the run) but the Broncos still lost and needed a desperation TD drive in the closing seconds to make it a 3 point loss.

This "culture of winning" thing that's always talked about is here. They are 11-1 under McVay on the road. The last time they didn't have a losing road record was 2006 under Linehan when they finished 4-4 (8-8 total). Since then and before McVay they were 20-59-1 on the road......that's an AVERAGE of 2-6. The truth is there's no "formula"......good teams win on the road and bad teams lose everywhere.

[dieterbrock]

Denver is giving up 148 yards per game rushing (Which is 31st in the entire league) and 5.3 YPR
Not including Rams game, 128 YPG, (would be 26th) and 5.0 YPR

Point being, they aren't good defensively against the run, in fact they are bad at it, league worst.

Can paint a pig whatever color you like. Lipstick, perfume, whatever. But its still a pig