McVay needs an intervention

[lordbannon]

We're 10-1. We have the best record in the NFL. Sean McVay doesn't need an intervention, unless you think winning is bad.

But think about the draft position we're losing!

 

[Rmfnlt]

smart clock management and situational football are what make teams consistently good.

his track record supports trusting his gut

His track record is two seasons long

21-6
78% win rate

Pretty consistent... even with some questionable play calling.

As far as him admitting he needs to make adjustments? Of course. He's always going to be looking to improve.. himself and his team.

But that's different than having regrets.

I have not heard him say "I regret passing the ball in that situation" - or did I miss that?

He seems to make his decisions and accepts them. And, looks for ways he can improve going forward.

 

[den-the-coach]

Couple things on calling pass plays on the first two downs, Robert Woods would have gained more yards, but he stayed in bounds, I believe he could have gained 3 more yards on that play, if he didn't give himself up. Also if Goff hits HIgbee, there is room for additional yardage, overall, McVay did not want to give the ball back to the Chiefs, but I believe with a healthy Gurley, the plays might have been different.

 

[Rmfnlt]

If there is one area McVay could definitely improve, in my opinion, its situational football (no timeouts left about midway through the fourth so no challenges whatsoever) and clock management.

I agree.

I'm not adverse to identifying areas of improvement with McVay - or the team. Many posters who know me over the many years would probably say I lean on the critical side. I was one of the first and most ardent Fisher critics.

But I'm just not sure this is the best example of the questionable situational football decisions.

But, I do agree... it's an area he could improve upon (ticking time bomb?)... and seems like he knows that.

Now... he just needs to do it (make good situational decisions) when it's appropriate.

 

[jrry32]

The same offensive genius who has criticized his own eagerness to abandon the run several times before, right? Your statement is subjective by the very definition of the word.

I get it. The Rams win so us fans aren't allowed to criticize or question any aspect of the game. But here's a hypothetical scenario for you guys since this thread is filled with them: If that were Tom Brady or Drew Brees instead of Pat Mahomes, and you give him the ball back with over a minute to play and one time out, history says the odds are in his favor. And that's a legitimate concern going forward. If there is one area McVay could definitely improve, in my opinion, its situational football (no timeouts left about midway through the fourth so no challenges whatsoever) and clock management.

The same offensive genius who usually admits that he made a mistake is saying that he stands behind his choice here. I stand with him. Play not to give the ball back. Remember the QB sneak against Seattle on 4th and 1? It was the same idea.

 

[tklongball]

The same offensive genius who has criticized his own eagerness to abandon the run several times before, right? Your statement is subjective by the very definition of the word.

I get it. The Rams win so us fans aren't allowed to criticize or question any aspect of the game. But here's a hypothetical scenario for you guys since this thread is filled with them: If that were Tom Brady or Drew Brees instead of Pat Mahomes, and you give him the ball back with over a minute to play and one time out, history says the odds are in his favor. And that's a legitimate concern going forward. If there is one area McVay could definitely improve, in my opinion, its situational football (no timeouts left about midway through the fourth so no challenges whatsoever) and clock management.

Who ever tried to stop you from questioning or criticizing anything? I think many here agree with the option of running the ball there. It seems like the ones that disagree, certainly see your point, as that is what "The Book" Traditionally says..."Run the ball and force them to use their timeouts."

I think you might be misreading people being OK with McVay passing in that situation, as people saying you are wrong.

I think the reason so many people understand McVay passing in this situation is due to the following:

• 1st and 15
• Stacked Box
• The "New NFL" (Especially this game and how it was playing out). It truly felt like whoever had the ball last would win, regardless of time left or number of timeouts.
• The Rams & McVay's aggressive nature

At some point, due to the offensive explosion in baseball, "The Book" was re-written to some degree, and it wasn't an automatic that you sacrificed, or bunted the runner over every time. One or two managers saw the trend before anyone else caught on. I feel like we are starting to see just the beginning of that now in the NFL. I don't know if it will last or be a huge paradigm shift, but you see more coaches going for 2 when "The Book" doesn't necessarily call for it (Outside of the Panthers this past week, that was just stupid), Going for it on 4th down more often etc.

I think in a game like this, KC had a much better chance of scoring with 30 seconds and no timeouts, vs teams even last year. I think if you compare that game vs all of the games in which "The Book" was written, many people can see why McVay called it the way he did.

I certainly wouldn't tell you your take is wrong, I think a lot of people just understand why the Rams did what they did.

 

[dieterbrock]

I said you need to run the ball and force the opposing team to use all their time outs. My exact phrase was "Gurley or Brown could've also ran for a first down. But reality is you have to force the Chiefs to burn all three of their time outs there..." I can link my post for you if you'd like. You and your straw man argument somehow twisted that into three straight kneels and a punt. Excuse me but those two scenarios are nothing at all alike.

What's a straw man? You are stating that the goal is for KC to burn their timeouts. Maybe you should read what you wrote again.
Gurley or Brown "could have" run for a 1st down? Aren't you the guy who criticized for hypothetical reasoning??
McVay was all over getting a 1st down and had they been dominating in the run game, (which they clearly weren't) I'd imagine that would have been his route.
So your goal was to burn timeouts and McVay's was to get 1st downs.
I like his approach better, good thing he's coaching the team

EDIT- against Seattle they had ran for almost 150 yards, Green Bay almost 140. Against KC? They had kept Gurley and Brown to 70.