Peter King: 12/3/18 and lots of other Rams related comments
- Thread starter Prime Time
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
The Ramowl
Starter
I will admit it made me nervous, but not giving the ball back and getting the opportunity to burn more time is probably the best strategy, especially against Stafford who is famous for his ability to come back late in the game.
That would have been the best way to play it. Take 3 knees. Kick the FG up two scores with 36 seconds and no timeouts.
Missed FG still leaves them 95 yards in 36 seconds to tie.
Gurley made the right move. McVay should have followed that up with 3 knees and a foot.
Situational football is the point. You're going to give it back to Detroit at least once anyway. And they are going to have to score a quick td anyway. And then recover an onside kick anyway. And then score another td. If Gurley scores, those 3 things have to happen and it won't make any difference if you give them 2 and a half minutes and 2 time outs or 2 minutes and no time outs. They aint happening. Plus their kicker is horrible at on sides kicks. Just horrible.
I like what Gurley did the first time he went down to kill the rest of the clock but this was different.
Bit nit picky but I believe the ball would go to the 20 after missed fg from that range. Your point is still valid though
Wasn't there a stat during the broadcast, something like Stafford had only won 2 games when down at halftime in the last 3 years?
Maybe that was true at one point, but he's probably lost his touch
Lol. Spot if the kick. So LOS being the 3. . So the Lions would be the 11-12. No worries.
On the Gurley maneuver, I don't know what statistics say, but what caused me anxiety was when he ran parallel to the goalline and let the pursuit get to him -- it's not like Gurley has never fumbled through the endzone for a touchback or something. People can reason through the strategy all they want, all I know is that my pulse rate went up there.
IMO the smarter move would have been to slide short of the goalline rather than run 2 more seconds off by going parallel to the goalline and letting the pursuit get to him -- smarter move, but I'll leave it up to debate whether not scoring on that run was a smart move.
IMO the smarter move would have been to slide short of the goalline rather than run 2 more seconds off by going parallel to the goalline and letting the pursuit get to him -- smarter move, but I'll leave it up to debate whether not scoring on that run was a smart move.
Last edited:
I didn't like it. Either way the Lions were getting the ball back, all the move did was add the risk of a turnover or not scoring at all on a fluke missed FG or something. A wasted timeout is almost nothing in the scheme of things.
The other times he's done it was smart because we just ran the clock out after, but that wasn't an option this time
The other times he's done it was smart because we just ran the clock out after, but that wasn't an option this time
What I didn't like about it.
I was watching the stupid little game cast ( it's like watching electric football) it said
TOUCHDOWN Rams! So I ran into the living room gave my wife A high five and said touchdown! TG!
Then walk back to the phone and no touchdown and have to wait like forever to see the results!
I was watching the stupid little game cast ( it's like watching electric football) it said
TOUCHDOWN Rams! So I ran into the living room gave my wife A high five and said touchdown! TG!
Then walk back to the phone and no touchdown and have to wait like forever to see the results!
if either way they need to score, recover onside, and score again, simple logic would assume that it would be better to give them less time and less TOs, no?
when the spot is inside the 20, the ball then gets moved back to the 20 for the other team. its like a touchback. again its nit picky but just sharing the rules
It was the right thing. If he scores, there is 2:38 left on the clock, and they have a timeout left, and we are up 14.
He ends up getting tackled at the 2, and they are forced to call their last timeout with 2:32 left. Even if we don't score, after first down, the 2 minute warning. run it on 2nd down, will be about 1:20 left. Run it on 3rd down, about :40 left. Kick the field goal to go up by 10 with basically time running out.
In order to tie the game if he scores, they need 2 TD in 2:38 with 1 timeout and the 2 minute warning. It is a long shot, but it happens. What if they run the kickoff back?
In order to tie the game if he doesn't score. Worst case scenario, we fumble on 1st down. They get the ball with about 2:20 and only the 2 minute warning, but only needing 1 score. It is clearly a worse scenario, but the odds of that happening are so small, that Risk Alalysis, says this is the right move. Fumbles generally happen when a guy gets hit not expecting it, or when he is fighting for extra yards, which doesn't really happen under this scenario. It is basically one of those "DONT FUMBLE" times, which cuts your odds of fumbling way down.
Gurley has 1 lost fumble this year on 230+ Carries, including when he is fighting for yards, etc.
You play out these 2 scenarios 1000 times each, and you win more often by not scoring.
He ends up getting tackled at the 2, and they are forced to call their last timeout with 2:32 left. Even if we don't score, after first down, the 2 minute warning. run it on 2nd down, will be about 1:20 left. Run it on 3rd down, about :40 left. Kick the field goal to go up by 10 with basically time running out.
In order to tie the game if he scores, they need 2 TD in 2:38 with 1 timeout and the 2 minute warning. It is a long shot, but it happens. What if they run the kickoff back?
In order to tie the game if he doesn't score. Worst case scenario, we fumble on 1st down. They get the ball with about 2:20 and only the 2 minute warning, but only needing 1 score. It is clearly a worse scenario, but the odds of that happening are so small, that Risk Alalysis, says this is the right move. Fumbles generally happen when a guy gets hit not expecting it, or when he is fighting for extra yards, which doesn't really happen under this scenario. It is basically one of those "DONT FUMBLE" times, which cuts your odds of fumbling way down.
Gurley has 1 lost fumble this year on 230+ Carries, including when he is fighting for yards, etc.
You play out these 2 scenarios 1000 times each, and you win more often by not scoring.
In the heat of the moment - I thought he should have just scored the TD to put the Rams up by 2 TDs. It turned out even better by burning time and timeouts and eventually scoring a TD 2 plays later - but taking that chance was a bit nerve racking at the time. And oh by the way I have Gurley on my fantasy team so I was selfishly looking for the guaranteed TD. I wonder what McVay thought of the move when it happended? Did he comment?
I thgink the same thing. Smart of him not to score IMO, but he then put ball possession at risk as 3 defenders circled him. He had 2 arms wrapped around the ball, but still, slide and accomplish the same result without the risk
Yes as long as we score a td but it's not just a potential fumble on subsequent plays. He could have fumbled being tackled on the play in question. Potential botched snap, penalty, forced field goal meaning less points needed for Detroit, blocked or missed field goal, penalty on field goal, or even someone getting hurt on subsequent plays. A lot of bad things could happen. As I said I just saw a college team kicked from the playoffs because a fumble on the goal line with 30 seconds left.
I'd rather put the points on the board and and let them have their 2 timeouts with 2 and a half minutes left because im thinking they don't even get the first td and I've seen more turnovers inside the 5 this year then successful onside kicks. The lions d was playing better then their offense and their kicker had no chance at an onside kick.
I agree also. Doesn't duck.
Perfect strangers at the bar saying "Shit, I sat...., I shoulda' played...,yada, yada, yada", like you're some kind of genius when your player has a good day. (Hey partner, really, really don't give a shit).
I know, I know, I'm 70 (as @RamFan503 loves reminding me), and I missed that bus, but it's still annoying.
AAAAHHHHH...feel much better. :boxing:
HE WITH HORNS
Hall of Fame
You always go for the touchdown. If he had fumbled there, it could have been catastrophic. Also, the Lions would have had to score a touchdown AND get an onside kick recovery, AND get another TD just to TIE the game.
If we had given up two TDs and an onside, we would have deserved to lose.
Whoever told Gurley to not score there was not thinking clearly.
If we had given up two TDs and an onside, we would have deserved to lose.
Whoever told Gurley to not score there was not thinking clearly.