1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

He called you stupid and you decided to make fun of a TBI he experienced from combat. Please stop acting like those two things are in any way comparable.

Nah, it went further than that, but cute effort at revisionist history. Like I said I have no regrets at all because don't start something and cry after.

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

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.

That was always still an option though down 10 points. Not the case if you're down 13.

But it goes back to the lack of situational awareness that Nick has when he makes these decisions. No Quinyon, Greenard, or Baun on defense, my offense has been terrible all day, we are 0 for lifetime on 3rd and 4th down conversions the past two games, the weather sucks, yet we're still lucky to have a 10 point lead.

If the offense had shown a pulse and any sense that they were capable of going up 17 points, sure. But you were literally just coming off a 3rd down where Jurgens bumps into Hurts and wrecked the play. They were totally inept.

2 hours ago, wussbasket said:

Since the 2nd half of the Bears game, this team is 0/17 on 3rd downs. They haven't converted a 3rd down in 1.5 games.

So what you're saying is that Hurts is doing enough to win the game

Jurgens has to not be a clutz there and we score. With that much time left, I don't think you leave Stafford a chance to pull that game out which he was able to do with a banged up and fading defense. It's like leaving Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes with the last possession and a chance to win. You're a dead duck more times than not. If you can't score from the 2 yard line with 2 plays to do it, you don't deserve to win. Even failing there at the 2 yard line, at that juncture there was only a 3% probablility of Rams winning, down 10 with two scores and all those yards to go. I am not a fan of Sirianni's decision making, but that one I'm on board with.

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

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

I get the analytical approach, but what sample are they using? Is it an average offense, their offense this season, their offense in the last 6 quarters... I think the percentages change quite a bit, to the point where we're on the hope end of the spectrum.

Just now, BDawk_ASamuel said:

That was always still an option though down 10 points. Not the case if you're down 13.

But it goes back to the lack of situational awareness that Nick has when he makes these decisions. No Quinyon, Greenard, or Baun on defense, my offense has been terrible all day, we are 0 for lifetime on 3rd and 4th down conversions the past two games, the weather sucks, yet we're still lucky to have a 10 point lead.

If the offense had shown a pulse and any sense that they were capable of going up 17 points, sure. But you were literally just coming off a 3rd down where Jurgens bumps into Hurts and wrecked the play. They were totally inept.

Your second paragraph is more of a reason why you’d wanna go up to 17 points. Because injuries were mounting. you’re down all those guys so make them have to score 3 possessions in 8 mins. the Rams haven’t yet taken advantage of it. we have seen the Rams offense get streaky and super hot past two years. Stafford has had a boatload of come from behind victories in his career. Heck almost won a divisional round game against us down 13 with under 5 mins left. If wasn’t for Carter saving us we lose that game with a 13 point lead with even less time. With 8 minutes left there was enough time for them to get two possessions and go down the field and score 2 touchdowns.

I brought this up earlier, last year the Seattle Seahawks had a better defense than what the Eagles defense had out there on Sunday. In was the NFC championship game the rams were down 11 and Rams went on a 4 play 75 yard drive in three minutes to get a touchdown. The very next possession that they got they went 5 play 80+ yards to get another touchdown in a little over 3 minutes. The injuries are why I get even more for going for it to make it 17. At some point in time the Rams are good enough offense that they’re gonna take advantage that you have a 32-year-old Jones out there, you’re down your middle linebacker and Campbell stinks, you lost your best pass rusher and Cooper dejean was dealing with some sort of injury.

The offense only had one drive in the second half where they did anything. It was that drive where they moved 62 yards and failed on 4th and goal. so I’m more confident on that drive that they might be able to end the game then if they had to get the ball down 1 point and try to get themselves in the field-goal range. Because the other 5 drives of that half they didn’t do crap. They had 5 other possessions with 17 plays and had a grand total of 6 total yards

1 hour 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.

Completely illogical. 13 points and it is still a 2 score game. If the Eagles scored a TD there the game is essentially over.

Going up 13 wouldn't have suddenly made the defense more effective on the next drive, especially when they would be defending far less field than the 98 yards they were then having tondefend.

There is no logical reason at all why the Rams would then debate gong for 2. Why would going for 2 even enter the equation for the Rams?

Also why would they have to consider going for an onside kick? Rams went 98 yards down the field, scored a TD with all 3 timeouts remaining when they gave it back to the Eagles with just under 4 minutes left.

Branded criticism amongst fans to criticize going for it on 4th down at the goalline. It was 100% the correct decision but not the right play for it. If they kicked the field goal the game wpuld have ended the same way in a loss. If they got the TD they would have won. It is as simple as that.

Going for it was absolutely the right call

13 minutes ago, Swoop said:

So what you're saying is that Hurts is doing enough to win the game

5 Daltons. 👏

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

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 tube possession game so they still have a chance it’s 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 few will just to tie the game.

a two-possession game where you need two TD's is different than one where you need a TD and a FG. Sure, they would've had more hope if they had just allowed 3, but I don't think the momentum swings the way it did when they came away giving up nothing. it's not 100% momentum in their favor because they still allowed points and are now in the scenario where they have to score two touchdowns. As Bdawk said earlier, it changes up the way they approach everything, and it also changes how we attack defensively.

Rams are winning that game, down 13 or 10. Eagles needed to score there to put the game away and didn't. Lack of execution what have ya. Sirianni can't take the blame on that one. Offense failed to execute on very makeable down and distance and the defense vanished giving up 2 consecutive long drives and not making plays like a simple interception to Jones. They basically choked and couldn't convert in crunch time.

5 minutes ago, Waiting4Someday said:

I get the analytical approach, but what sample are they using? Is it an average offense, their offense this season, their offense in the last 6 quarters... I think the percentages change quite a bit, to the point where we're on the hope end of the spectrum.

Using it on what gives you the highest probability of winning the game given the scenario. Here’s the issue, if you want kick the field goal and put yourself up 13. The Rams go down to score 2 touchdowns. In the second half of games, the Eagles are 62% going 3 and out/4 and out. They are a mere 19% at scoring on 2nd have possessions. I will guarantee you the Eagles had those analytics that they were looking at. So if you only had 6 possessions in the second half and you’re only scoring on 1 out of every 4 that that’s the possession that you have to score to win the game. Add on that was the only possession they got a first down til that point in the second half.

furthermore the Eagles on that drive move the ball 62 yards on 11 plays. I will point up that was their longest drive of the game. So their offense was actually functioning and in a rhythm on that drive up until they got to 3rd and 4th and goal. And really 3rd down is on a bad snap and jurgens running into hurts. Even so didn’t lose a yardage. so looking at what they had accomplished up until that point, I would say the likelihood that they’re gonna put another drive together to get you into field-goal range was likely not happening. That was their best drive of the game when you consider it wasn’t a short field given by DeJean and covey and they actually had to move the ball to get it to the 2.

17 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

That was always still an option though down 10 points. Not the case if you're down 13.

But it goes back to the lack of situational awareness that Nick has when he makes these decisions. No Quinyon, Greenard, or Baun on defense, my offense has been terrible all day, we are 0 for lifetime on 3rd and 4th down conversions the past two games, the weather sucks, yet we're still lucky to have a 10 point lead.

If the offense had shown a pulse and any sense that they were capable of going up 17 points, sure. But you were literally just coming off a 3rd down where Jurgens bumps into Hurts and wrecked the play. They were totally inept.

This! Sometimes just taking the smart approach is the right thing to do.

2 minutes ago, MF POON said:

a two-possession game where you need two TD's is different than one where you need a TD and a FG. Sure, they would've had more hope if they had just allowed 3, but I don't think the momentum swings the way it did when they came away giving up nothing. it's not 100% momentum in their favor because they still allowed points and are now in the scenario where they have to score two touchdowns. As Bdawk said earlier, it changes up the way they approach everything, and it also changes how we attack defensively.

the game is over if you scored a touchdown. You don’t think the Rams know what if you score a touchdown that game is completely over? like the Rams not getting some life or momentum as they held it to a two possession game, keeping the game alive and still had a shot with 8 mins to score 2 tds….

Here’s the funny part to me, if they would’ve kicked the field goal and the Rams still went down to score 2 touchdowns and we don’t get a FG, I guarantee we be having a discussion about why didn’t the eagles go for the touchdown to make it a 3 possession game. Knowing that your defense was decimated even more at that point and likely getting gassed. was only amount of time until the eagles got themselves going as had 6.2 yards per carry on that drive and knowing how bad the offense looked outside of every other drive that half. That guarantee that discussion is happening .

11 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

Going for it was absolutely the right call

I am going with Foles on this

The problem I have with the go for it on 4th at the goal line is the conversation takes away how absolutely dumb it was to go for it on 4th and almost 2 at your own 38 up 10 points with over 16 minutes left in the game.

The Eagles were very fortunate the Rams spent 3/4's of the game dropping TD passes, overthrowing players and generally pissing down their legs for it to be as close as it was

1 hour ago, Wentz_Era said:

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

I agree with this. I hated that call at that spot on the field. And even though I’m a fan of the Tush Push, I tend to like it less with more than a full yard. I wanted a punt there. We were moreso bailed out by Puka’s PF penalty than even our defense. I thought for sure we handed them 3 points at a minimum.

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

the game is over if you scored a touchdown. You don’t think the Rams know what if you score a touchdown that game is completely over? like the Rams not getting some life or momentum as they held it to a two possession game and still had a shot with 8 mins to score 2 tds….

Not really. We all thought that playoff game in 2024 vs the Rams was completely over when Saquon ran that final TD, but they managed to claw back and take it to the wire. We had like a 15 point lead I think with 5 minutes left, and it came down to the final play. Whose to say they don't somehow rattle off 2 quick TD's, make us go 3 and out again, and then tie it with a FG? My argument isn't what the rams were capable of, it's what position you put them in. I think we have a better shot at winning by taking the 3 points, because I didn't think they had any shot at converting that 4th down play.

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

Using it on what gives you the highest probability of winning the game given the scenario. Here’s the issue, if you want kick the field goal and put yourself up 13. The Rams go down to score 2 touchdowns. In the second half of games, the Eagles are 62% going 3 and out/4 and out. They are a mere 19% at scoring on 2nd have possessions. I will guarantee you the Eagles had those analytics that they were looking at. So if you only had 6 possessions in the second half and you’re only scoring on 1 out of every 4 that that’s the possession that you have to score to win the game. Add on that was the only possession they got a first down til that point in the second half.

furthermore the Eagles on that drive move the ball 62 yards on 11 plays. I will point up that was their longest drive of the game. So their offense was actually functioning and in a rhythm on that drive up until they got to 3rd and 4th and goal. And really 3rd down is on a bad snap and jurgens running into hurts. Even so didn’t lose a yardage. so looking at what they had accomplished up until that point, I would say the likelihood that they’re gonna put another drive together to get you into field-goal range was likely not happening. That was their best drive of the game when you consider it wasn’t a short field given by DeJean and covey and they actually had to move the ball to get it to the 2.

If the offense finally got it in gear to move the ball in the open field, wouldn't you think they might be able to close out the game during the following possession. The Rams offense up to that point in the 2nd half, was like punt/missed FG/punt/downs (after Siri gave them a short field) - I don't think it was a foregone conclusion that the D couldn't hold out. Didn't an INT hit Jones in the hands?

6 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

If your an offensive head coach and you have watched numerous games from the sidelines and rewatched hours of film with offensive players like D. Smith, D. Goedert, J. Hurts, S. Barkley......who have been on your team multiple years, and you cannot provide insight or helpful ways to collaborate with your OC during gameplanning - then that speaks volumes.

By no means does that comment eliminate Hurts from any blame and responsibility, but again as an offensive head coach in the modern day NFL, if your coordinator cannot rely on you helping them along with many other coahces, then that seems like a team with weird structure that cannot be sustained.

3 minutes ago, MF POON said:

Not really. We all thought that playoff game in 2024 vs the Rams was completely over when Saquon ran that final TD, but they managed to claw back and take it to the wire. We had like a 15 point lead I think with 5 minutes left, and it came down to the final play. Whose to say they don't somehow rattle off 2 quick TD's, make us go 3 and out again, and then tie it with a FG? My argument isn't what the rams were capable of, it's what position you put them in. I think we have a better shot at winning by taking the 3 points, because I didn't think they had any shot at converting that 4th down play.

We had a 13 point lead because Jake Elliott missed the extra point after that Barkley TD. So we were in the exact same situation we would have been this past Sunday if we kicked the field goal to keep it just a 2 score game but with even more time on the clock then there was in that playoff game.

A TD at the goalline would have put the game away for the Eagles. A FG would have accomplished nothing when the Rams were still able to win the game with 2 scores, which they ended up doing.

I can't anyone's football opinion seriously if they are unable to understand that going for it on 4th and goal down at the 1 1/2 yard line to turn it into a 3 score game is 100% the correct call to make in that situation.

5 minutes ago, MF POON said:

Not really. We all thought that playoff game in 2024 vs the Rams was completely over when Saquon ran that final TD, but they managed to claw back and take it to the wire. We had like a 15 point lead I think with 5 minutes left, and it came down to the final play. Whose to say they don't somehow rattle off 2 quick TD's, make us 3 and out again, and then tie it with a FG? My argument isn't what the rams were capable of, it's what position you put them in. I think we have a better shot at winning by taking the 3 points, because I didn't think they had any shot at converting that 4th down play.

It was only a 13 point lead. It would have actually been very similar to this last game where they score a TD, Eagles immediately go 3 and out and the Rams have about 2 mins for a game winning TD drive. The difference is they didn't do it in 2024, but did it in 2026.

The "Eagles shouldn't have gone for it on 4th and goal" discourse this week has driven me nuts. It's because people just want to attack Sirianni no matter what he does and if he kicked the FG and they lost by one the same people would've went at him for being a coward.

You have 2 yards to win the game. You take that proposition 100 times out of 100. People can argue the offense sucked, but it doesn't matter. For one, the offense drove down to the 2 yard line in their one real drive of the game, so if there was a drive to go for it, it was that drive. Two, you should be able to score from the 2 regardless of personnel. And if you fail Rams get the ball at the 2, where if you kick the FG, Rams need 2 TDs but likely start their drive at the 35. The defense was missing key guys, they were hanging on for dear life. Go out and get 2 yards and win the game. I commend him for going for the kill there instead of taking a "Hang on and pray" approach, which is a loser mentality.

And the Rams would have won that game either way. The defense was shot, the rain lightened up, the Rams figured it out, the defense had too many injuries. The Rams were scoring 2 TDs to end that game, momentum or not.

2 minutes ago, MF POON said:

Not really. We all thought that playoff game in 2024 vs the Rams was completely over when Saquon ran that final TD, but they managed to claw back and take it to the wire. We had like a 15 point lead I think with 5 minutes left, and it came down to the final play. Whose to say they don't somehow rattle off 2 quick TD's, make us go 3 and out again, and then tie it with a FG? My argument isn't what the rams were capable of, it's what position you put them in. I think we have a better shot at winning by taking the 3 points, because I didn't think they had any shot at converting that 4th down play.

Division round they were down 13 with five minutes left and nearly came back and actually had a guy wide open if not for Carter. The same 13. Which of I’m sirianni I’m thinking about that saying a much better 2024 defense needed Carter to save our ass, we would’ve blown a 13 point lead in under 5 mins to this exact opponent. Add-on my defense is even worse now than it was in 2024 with the amount of injuries we had.

So I look at it this way, on that drive the Eagles before fourth down went 10 plays for 62 yards. They ran the ball at a 6.2 yards per carry average. That was the only possession in the entire game for the Eagles that they had a drive of over 50 yard yards. they were running the ball well. And frankly, the third down play probably works if it’s a better exchange and jurgens doesn’t F up.

That was one of the few times the Eagles offense look like they got themselves into a rhythm. So if you kick the field goal, you’re also telling your offense I don’t believe you can get the 2 yards to win this game and end it. I’m guessing that’s gonna have unintended consequences down the road in terms of confidence. At least you’re giving your offense a chance to end this game bu going up 3 possessions and give them a massive load of confidence if they do it.

Also the rams in order to get 3 possessions either need two quick tds and an onside or score a TD, then FG then hope to get a TD after recovering an onside. I’d add their kicker has been bad from 40 to 49 yards this year. And their kicking game in the last 5 quarters in Philadelphia has had two blocked FGs, missed FG and a made FG. So their kicking game has been an inconsistent in games against the Eagles and particularly bad late in games in general.