[HAL 9000]

Going back to that drive, it is a shame Woods lost his balance on the crossing slant, he would have gone untouched into the end zone

Yeah that play would have been a TD. During the game Aikman called out Goff for not leading him better but after the review it seemed Woods tripped. Got to at least make the catch, so I suppose all things considered it was a significant play that led to the tie.

There was another play right after that when Goff threw the ball away a little too quickly that looked like the same play with Woods wide open again. All well, we won anyways.

[FMulder]

In no way would most people classify McVay as “conservative” but with respect to possible 4th down decisions during the Super Bowl I think a lot of it will come down to how the game is being played. If it looks like a shoot out I fully expect him to be more aggressive in going for it, if it is more of a close, defensive struggle then it would seem to behoove him to not be overly aggressive in those decisions. I do know that the Rams are going to have to do a much better job in the red zone in getting TDs vs settling for FGs. That has been an issue for some time but against the Pats they need to maximize every scoring opportunity they get to the fullest

[Horny Mcbae]

Not surprised at all to read that article. I've noticed it this season and posted the same in this thread. He is "conventional" if not borderline conservative on 4th downs. He has a reputation of being very aggressive and he is in a lot of other things. The most surprising example came when the players asked him to go for it on fourth and 1 against the Seahawks earlier in the season to ice the game and Jared had that QB sneak. We were near midfield too and his decision was to punt and give Wilson the ball with about 1:30 left until the players changed his mind. I read that after the game and thought...……. well that's surprising..... maybe he's not as aggressive as everyone thinks he is.

Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Personally I can live with it if we went super aggressive and lost rather than going conservative and losing. But that's just me. I see the other side of it too.

[PARAM]

I'm not ragging on anybody but when I read going for the 3 there was "the wrong decision" I shake my head. We won so apparently it worked out. I think what Mulder said is absolutely correct. "Depending on how the game is going....."

This game was a fight all day long. Scratching and clawing our way back into it. Going for it there was not the correct move because (as someone else had said) he 'needed' to get us even. Going for it there required some risk and though New Orleans would have had the ball on the 1 (or 2 or 3 if we lost yards) with a long way to go for a score, they would have still had the LEAD.

All it would have taken to lose whatever momentum we were gathering was a fumbled snap (we had one of those), a fumbled handoff (we had one of those) or a missed assignment (we had some of those). Then New Orleans would have only had to run out the clock by gaining a few first downs. They wouldn't have had to score at all. In lieu of gaining enough yards for a first down, all it would have taken was a defensive holding call (first down), a PI call (first down), hands to the face (first down), etc.

Tying the game gave the Rams a boost. Positive energy. Can you imagine if they come up short on 4th and 1? Air out of the balloon!! I'm glad McVay is smart coach who managed to keep his ego in check and make the right decision. It worked out just fine. Having said that, like Mulder said, in the Superbowl it might not be the right decision depending on how the game is going.

[rams74]

Tying the game gave the Rams a boost. Positive energy. Can you imagine if they come up short on 4th and 1? Air out of the balloon!! I'm glad McVay is smart coach who managed to keep his ego in check and make the right decision. It worked out just fine. Having said that, like Mulder said, in the Superbowl it might not be the right decision depending on how the game is going.

I agree with PA. In addition to all that, the article refers to times that McVay has chosen to punt on 4th and short. We have one of the best punters in the league. Hekker can flip the field and change the nature of the game. So if McVay uses Hekker as a weapon, rather than just a means of bailing out, why wouldn't you use him?

McVay is more plugged in to the flow of the game and his own team than any fan. So far, it's been working pretty well. I don't have to agree with every play call (and I don't) to be able to trust Sean McVay in these situations. I would like to see more creative play calling inside the 5 yard line, but if he chooses to continue pounding the run there, then more power to him.

Go Rams!!!

[max]

@FO_ASchatz: .@edjsports Game Winning Chance on the #LARams' fourth-and-1: 46.9 percent with a run, 34.5 percent with a field goal. That's a big error.

Now we must consider the impact of the environment. Does it outweight the difference in success rate according to the numbers?

Me, I doubt it. But hey we won.

[BullDog99]

How can you question any call which ultimately worked in our favour.? The Rams defense were holding there own all game, so why risk it. Especially, when there was still over 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Remember, the Saints have one of the best rush defenses in the league. The Rams on the other hand, although the OL has been playing better lately. Their not exactly one of the most physical groups in the NFL, and their's a reason the Rams red zone offense is only ranked 18th in the league. NO, this was definitely a case of the risk, far outweighing the reward.!!

[Hacksaw_64]

Personally I'm going for it 100% of the time in that game in that situation.

A couple of caveats here:

1. I'm not the Head Coach
2. The Rams are in the Superbowl


I believe not going for it was probably a harder decision for McVay to make. It turned out to be the correct one.

[moklerman]

How can you question any call which ultimately worked in our favour.? The Rams defense were holding there own all game, so why risk it. Especially, when there was still over 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Remember, the Saints have one of the best rush defenses in the league. The Rams on the other hand, although the OL has been playing better lately. Their not exactly one of the most physical groups in the NFL, and their's a reason the Rams red zone offense is only ranked 18th in the league. NO, this was definitely a case of the risk, far outweighing the reward.!!

I think it depends on why the decision is being questioned. I don't think any Rams fans are questioning the move because they don't trust McVay or think he doesn't know what he's doing.

But I do agree that the decision is worth discussing because it was so out of character for him.

If I was coaching the game, I would have put it on the offense to get that last yard so my perception of McVay's choice is probably bias too but overall, I think many fans are just surprised that McVay would settle for the tie in that situation.

[aeneas1]

td success rate - 4th & 1 from opponent 1:

note - rams are 3 for 3 in this sitch under mcvay.