I think this team misses Dallas Goedert a ton. Would help on 3rd downs. And Hurts was getting him involved in the middle of the field early on. Was great in the red zone. They had a good rapport going. Even last year with a terrible offense, he was very productive. I am just looking forward to see if they can get healthy enough to have Devanta and Goedert back at least at the same time. Will be a way different passing game. Pass protection will be way less of an issue, if we can get Lane back ASAP and Lampkin takes over left guard.

26 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

He said JD had fewer snaps because of personnel. Also that the cast on Carter impacted his play more

53 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Should’ve sent Jurgens instead and left him there

The had two instances of being at 3rd & 2 in the game on two different drives, both 3rd down plays were pathetic slow developing plays. Both times they could have pushed forward to get to 4th & 1 and worst. But both times they were long slow developing plays that failed and put them in worse position for 4th down.

7 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Kicking the field goal to go up 13 points would have made no sense at all. It was the right choice to go for it, but not a good enough play called in that situation.

How does it not make sense? You can go either way…you kick the fg and go up 13 and the D drags out the ensuing drive, Rams score now they’re debating going for 2 and do they need to kick onside. Then you get the ball back and another FG puts the game out of reach. Honestly there was no wrong decision, other than the O was completely inept and Stevie Wonder could see they weren’t knocking it in. A FG means the Rams have to approach the ensuing drives as if they’re going to need 3 to win.

1 hour ago, Alphagrand said:

Even at 24-23 I don’t think Hurts was getting into FG range the way he was playing in the second half

Considering in the 2nd half of games, they have gone 3 and out/4 and out in 62% of their drives. scored in just 19% of their drives. The eagles are more likely to go 4 and out than going to get into field range. The question to me is it more likely that the Eagles score on one play from the 2 yard line to seal the game or that the Eagles are gonna drive down the field to get into FG range to win if down 1? I’m guessing they believe scoring from the 2 yard line had a higher probability of winning the game with how our second halves have been. I’d add don’t forget the Eagles allowed the commanders to score 13 points in the fourth quarter in week one, the horrific Titans to march down the field in the fourth quarter and get a field goal to take the lead, the bears dominating them in the fourth quarter. all those offenses are worse than the Rams. The bears would be better if it wasn’t the third string quarterback that did it to them. So there was an increased probability if you kicked the FG that the rams could put up 14 points on you.

I would add into all this the myth momentum factor of kicking the field goal. If the Rams hold you to a field goal, that’s a win for them. That’s a huge swing from game is over at down 17 with 8 mins to two possessions. the game is still in the balance. Only need is two possessions to go down to get two touchdowns especially with how bad the eagles offense had been most of the second half. Which we saw in the nfc championship game, the Rams were down 11 on back to back possessions scored two 75+ yard drives around 3-3.5 mins against a better Seahawks defense than the Eagles. At some point in time, the Rams were going to take advantage of the fact you were down Mitchell, down Greenard, down Baun. They finally took advantage of the fact that Campbell is awful in coverage and that Jones was also bad in coverage

6 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

How does it not make sense? You can go either way…you kick the fg and go up 13 and the D drags out the ensuing drive, Rams score now they’re debating going for 2 and do they need to kick onside. Then you get the ball back and another FG puts the game out of reach. Honestly there was no wrong decision, other than the O was completely inept and Stevie Wonder could see they weren’t knocking it in.

I'm starting to think Siri's 4th down calls were more about trying to build confidence in the offense than winning the game. If they punted and kicked a FG respectively, and that gave the D enough grace to hold the win - we'd likely still be sickened by the offense and its historically bad performance. Conversely, if the offense had contributed materially at all in the 2nd half - it would've colored the win much differently.

10 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Considering in the 2nd half of games, they have gone 3 and out/4 and out in 62% of their drives. scored in just 19% of their drives. The auntie’s gonna get them into field range or not good. The question to me is is it more likely that the Eagles score on one play from the 2 yard line or that the Eagles are gonna drive down the field to get into FG range to win? I’m guessing they leave from the 2 yard line had a higher probability with how our second half have been.

I would add into all this the myth momentum factor of kicking the field goal. If the Rams hold you to a field goal, that’s a win for them. That’s a huge swing from game is over at down 17 with 8 mins to two possessions. the game is still in the balance. Only need is two possessions to go down to get two touchdowns especially with how bad the eagle often had been most of the second half. Which we saw in the nfc championship game, the Rams were down 11 on back to back possessions scored two 75+ yard drives around 3-3.5 mins against a better Seahawks defense than the Eagles. At some point in time, the Rams were good at take advantage of the fact you were down Mitchell, down Greenard, down Baun. They finally took advantage of the fact that Campbell is awful in coverage and that Jones was also bad in coverage

You’re forgetting the Rams have a kicker they don’t trust. As i said above, kicking the FG puts so many more scenarios on the table for the rams to play for outside of we get a TD and worst case scenario we trot out this fat dude to attempt a FG.

1 minute ago, Waiting4Someday said:

I starting to think Siri's 4th down calls were more about trying to build confidence in the offense than winning the game. If they punted and kicked a FG respectively, and that gave the D enough grace to hold the win - we'd likely still be sickened by the offense and its historically bad performance. Conversely, if the offense had contributed materially at all in the 2nd half - it would've colored the win much differently.

Maybe, but the 4th and almost 2 tush push call was horrid. That had zero chance…

Just now, Wentz_Era said:

You’re forgetting the Rams have a kicker they don’t trust. As i said above, kicking the FG puts so many more scenarios on the table for the rams to play for outside of we get a TD and worst case scenario we trot out this fat dude to attempt a FG.

if we kick a field goal, the Rams have to get two touchdowns to win that game. So essentially, the kicker doesn’t come into play except for the extra points. Because at that point they’re not gonna have enough time to have 3 possessions to go touchdown, field goal, and another field goal. Especially with new kickoff rule and chances are minimal for an onside recovery. So essentially you eliminated the fat Rams kicker by making it 13

Again, do you think it is far more likely that the Eagles could score a touchdown from the 2 yard line to make it 17 or more likely that they could get into field goal range being down one point? Based off how our offense looked most of second half that game and all season I’d argue it is far more likely that they could get a touchdown 2 yards away when they’re scoring in the red zone 62% of the time and going 3 and out/4 and out 62% of the time in the second half and 45% of the time overall

6 minutes ago, Waiting4Someday said:

I starting to think Siri's 4th down calls were more about trying to build confidence in the offense than winning the game. If they punted and kicked a FG respectively, and that gave the D enough grace to hold the win - we'd likely still be sickened by the offense and its historically bad performance. Conversely, if the offense had contributed materially at all in the 2nd half - it would've colored the win much differently.

It would be an ugly win but anyone complaining about it would just get a "a win is a win"

I know because I've complained about ugly wins

Just now, Wentz_Era said:

Maybe, but the 4th and almost 2 tush push call was horrid. That had zero chance…

Yeah, if you think with your head - the offense just isn't converting money downs right now, so why go for it. If you're a bad gambler maybe one more chance will change our luck...

7 minutes ago, Waiting4Someday said:

Yeah, if you think with your head - the offense just isn't converting money downs right now, so why go for it. If you're a bad gambler maybe one more chance will change our luck...

Yeah this is what I was getting at. The last drive would have been moot with reasonable coaching. Rams had no shot if he just makes like two normal decisions prior to that.

A glimpse of Markel Bell in the running game.

41 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

How does it not make sense? You can go either way…you kick the fg and go up 13 and the D drags out the ensuing drive, Rams score now they’re debating going for 2 and do they need to kick onside. Then you get the ball back and another FG puts the game out of reach. Honestly there was no wrong decision, other than the O was completely inept and Stevie Wonder could see they weren’t knocking it in. A FG means the Rams have to approach the ensuing drives as if they’re going to need 3 to win.

Sirianni has always made these types of calls acting like momentum and flow of the game isn’t a real thing. It is. It kills yours and gives it all to the opposing team when you fail. We see it every week in other games how teams feed off of field-tilting plays.

Nick also has an inability to be honest with himself during these decisions. Such as "Hey, our offense has been terrible all day, we haven’t had one conversion, we have injuries all over the place, the weather sucks, and we’re lucky to have a 10 point lead right now. Maybe I should just take the points.”

I know the Rams ended up scoring 2 TDs anyway, but I think it’s a completely different game if you don’t give them that momentum swing and go up 13.

3 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Sirianni has always made these types of calls acting like momentum and flow of the game isn’t a real thing. It is. It kills yours and gives it all to the opposing team when you fail. We see it every week in other games how teams feed off of field-tilting plays.

Nick also has an inability to be honest with himself during these decisions. Such as "Hey, our offense has been terrible all day, we haven’t had one conversion, we have injuries all over the place, the weather sucks, and we’re lucky to have a 10 point lead right now. Maybe I should just take the points.”

I know the Rams ended up scoring 2 TDs anyway, but I think it’s a completely different game if you don’t give them that momentum swing and go up 13.

I hate this whole momentum swing argument. Because the only way the Rams don’t get any type of life or momentum is if you score a touchdown to make it a 3 possession game. The Rams needed for the eagles to score 0 points or hold them to a field goal so that it is still a two possession game with 8 minutes left so they have a chance to win. The latter still gives them hope and life. It is also momentum swing from its completely over down 17 to giving up a FG but down 13 with enough time to get two possessions.

I would add to this, if you make it a 13 point game then you’ve eliminated the Rams kicker besides extra points. Let’s just say the Rams scored a touchdown like they did on that 98 yard drive then got the ball back after forcing a 3 and out. instead of then giving up another touchdown, let’s just say they hold them in field goal range. Do you think the Rams feel very confident that their kickers is gonna go out there and make a game tying field goal late in the 4th quarter when they’ve had nightmares in that stadium kicking the ball? I’m betting they aren’t thrilled about that or confident.

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I agree it's probably easier to fake as well as they don't really care about player safety as much as they preach. It's just the fallout if it ever came out that they intentionally were manipulating the concussion protocol would be so extreme it's not even worth it just to protect a players ego.

I don't think it's something that players are incentivized to fake. The injury protection dynamic is 2 sided. Players are under pressure to perform to keep their jobs.

4 hours ago, GoEagles614 said:

Check out Jason Avant on social media to see some breakdowns of horrendous film and play design.

That sounds like not a good time.

46 minutes ago, Waiting4Someday said:

I starting to think Siri's 4th down calls were more about trying to build confidence in the offense than winning the game. If they punted and kicked a FG respectively, and that gave the D enough grace to hold the win - we'd likely still be sickened by the offense and its historically bad performance. Conversely, if the offense had contributed materially at all in the 2nd half - it would've colored the win much differently.

Tbh I think it was about building confidence and winning the game on the 4th and goal. It can be both.

Frankly, I have no problem with them going for it. They’re analytic organization and the analytics said to go for it. To me you better have the right play call if you’re going for it. The play call to me was more of the problem and execution. the fact that sirianni was "attempting” (use the term lightly) to call the time out. If you have to even think about calling the timeout, then you should call the timeout to get the play in there. Get the best play possible

8 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I hate this whole momentum swing argument. Because the only way the Rams don’t get any type of life or momentum is if you score a touchdown to make it a 3 possession game. The Rams needed for the eagles to score 0 points or hold them to a field goal so that it is still a two possession game with 8 minutes left so they have a chance to win. The latter still gives them hope and life. It is also momentum swing from its completely over down 17 to giving up a FG but down 13 with enough time to get two possessions.

I would add to this, if you make it a 13 point game then you’ve eliminated the Rams kicker besides extra points. Let’s just say the Rams scored a touchdown like they did on that 98 yard drive then got the ball back after forcing a 3 and out. instead of then giving up another touchdown, let’s just say they hold them in field goal range. Do you think the Rams feel very confident that their kickers is gonna go out there and make a game tying field goal late in the 4th quarter when they’ve had nightmares in that stadium kicking the ball? I’m betting they aren’t thrilled about that or confident.

Rams went into that final drive knowing that they only needed to get in field goal range to tie instead of absolutely needing to get a touchdown. That changes how you call plays on offense and you can still remain conservative. If you go up 13, still give up a TD, then go 3 and out on offense, they go into that drive knowing that a field goal does you nothing. Maybe they still get it, but it's a totally different mindset and approach to playcalling.

40 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

if we kick a field goal, the Rams have to get two touchdowns to win that game. So essentially, the kicker doesn’t come into play except for the extra points. Because at that point they’re not gonna have enough time to have 3 possessions to go touchdown, field goal, and another field goal. Especially with new kickoff rule and chances are minimal for an onside recovery. So essentially you eliminated the fat Rams kicker by making it 13

Again, do you think it is far more likely that the Eagles could score a touchdown from the 2 yard line to make it 17 or more likely that they could get into field goal range being down one point? Based off how our offense looked most of second half that game and all season I’d argue it is far more likely that they could get a touchdown 2 yards away when they’re scoring in the red zone 62% of the time and going 3 and out/4 and out 62% of the time in the second half and 45% of the time overall

None of that hypothetical even matters. You take the 3 and force the Rams to respond. You may not believe in momentum, but it's a real thing in sports.

Just now, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Rams went into that final drive knowing that they only needed to get in field goal range to tie instead of absolutely needing to get a touchdown. That changes how you call plays on offense and you can still remain conservative. If you go up 13, still give up a TD, then go 3 and out on offense, they go into that drive knowing that a field goal does you nothing. Maybe they still get it, but it's a totally different mindset.

you seem to think the Rams trust their kicker or kicking game after he missed a 48 yard field goal earlier. The Rams in the last 5 quarters against the Eagles have had two blocked field goals, a missed field goal and 1 made FG. I don’t think they were ever in the mindset that we want to settle for a field goal unless it was a chip shot. They didn’t want to have to rely on the kicking game because the kicking game has been bad particularly all last year (analytically one of the worst), 5-7 this year while being 3-5 from 40-49 this year and every time they seemingly go to Philadelphia it is an issue late in games.

I already felt like the eagles were going to need more than 3 to win.

I also felt like there was no way they were going to be able to gain enough yards to score more points.

So I sort of understood the want to go for it.

I also didnt have confidence they would convert it. Probably should have kicked, and probably would have lost by 1 anyway.

7 minutes ago, MF POON said:

None of that hypothetical even matters. You take the 3 and force the Rams to respond. You may not believe in momentum, but it's a real thing in sports.

So you’re telling me there’s absolutely no momentum for the Rams holding you to a field goal to still give them hope and life? It’s funny how the Rams holding you to a field goal to keep it at a 2 possession game so they still have a chance is not momentum for them. That’s 100% momentum in their favor that they could still score just two touchdowns to win that game. Instead of having to score 3 touchdowns to win the game or two touchdowns and a fg will just to tie the game. That is a massive win for the Rams to keep it at 2 possessions with 8 mins left and life that they could still win the game.