Poll - Go for the 5 point lead or pinning the guy at the 5 and going for the score?

[addicted]

I'd like to see how many people here would have gone for the 5 point lead at the end of the game or would have gone for the TD like Zorn did?

[MartinC]

I get the first 4th down call - extend the drive, use more clock.

The second call I'm kicking the FG and making them score a TD to win not a FG.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I think you should go for points there. Having to drive for a TD is harder than going from the 5 for a FG.

The play we called was horrid. Need to go up the gut there if you're going for it. Not a sweep.

[ColdnGrey]

I liked the idea, hated the play call.

[MonkFan8]

I liked the idea, hated the play call.

This. Good idea, given they had no time outs. Go for the win. Horrid, predictable playcall that had zero chance of success.

[gca61087]

since the rams had no timeouts, i think they should take the points there.

theres a big difference between having to drive and score a touchdown and getting into field goal range.

[novaman]

Yes that was a sequence of poor coaching. The first 4th down play made sense. The second sequence had several blunders. The Rams were out of timeouts, so that run to the left and out of bounds made no sense. The players should have been reminded to stay inbounds no matter what.

And then to not kick the field goal was a mistake. If the field goal is good, the Rams have to drive the length of the field and into the endzone to win.

As it turned out, the Rams only need to gain about 65 yards to have a shot at winning the game with a field goal.

[jflow78]

I don't have a problem with either going for it with 6 inches to a 1st, or kicking the FG. If we would have done anything other than run to the left (which is Zorn's favorite play ever in goal line situations, or appears to be since that's the exact play he calls EVERY ****ING TIME THE TEAM'S IN THAT SITUATION) then we would have gotten it.

Calling for the FG would have been fine too, our kicker was doing great, and our D was doing well too.

As it turned out, the Rams only need to gain about 65 yards to have a shot at winning the game with a field goal.

If we'd kicked the FG the subsequent kickoff would have put them about 65 from the endzone too, so the distance would have been roughly the same. Thank goodness our D made up for HC's mistakes. Those 4 downs were incredible, our D looked like champs.

[SonOfWashington]

We didn't even need the TD. We were half of a yard away from the 1 if I recall correctly, and that would have won the game after three kneel downs. So I was all in favor of the decision, but the play call sucked.

[pvkeeper19]

I loved the choice, hated the play call. They needed six inches for a first, an about a yard and a half for a score. Jason Campbell is a big boy. If they snap the ball and he leans forward, it's a first down, and game over.

[MrJL]

I'd rather make them go sixty or seventy yards with no time outs then risk them getting a big return on a kick off.

[SIXX99]

I liked the idea, hated the play call.

Yep. We go left more than NASCAR drivers.

[hkHog]

I said "go for the TD" but it was still a bad play call. Why we didn't run a QB sneak or iso is beyond me? Don't run a slow developing outside run when you just need a yard and your QB is 6'5", 250lbs. If you're not going to sneak or iso it then you have to go for the FG.

[Mad Mike]

The wording of the poll isn't biased at all. :doh:

How about: Go for the fourth down and chance at a 10 point lead or at worst pinning your opponent deep with 90+ yards to go with no time outs and very little time on the clock.

[MrJL]

I don't have a problem with either going for it with 6 inches to a 1st, or kicking the FG. If we would have done anything other than run to the left (which is Zorn's favorite play ever in goal line situations, or appears to be since that's the exact play he calls EVERY ****ING TIME THE TEAM'S IN THAT SITUATION) then we would have gotten it.

Calling for the FG would have been fine too, our kicker was doing great, and our D was doing well too.

If we'd kicked the FG the subsequent kickoff would have put them about 65 from the endzone too, so the distance would have been roughly the same. Thank goodness our D made up for HC's mistakes. Those 4 downs were incredible, our D looked like champs.

good thing you know for a fact there wouldn't have been a big return.

[elkabong82]

I would have gone for it too, but I wouldn't have called a slow developing sweep when only a 1/2 yard was needed.

[Mister Happy]

Butts shouldn't have ran out of bounds on 2nd down with 2:20 on the clock.

[Sndman8369]

I loved the call because even if we missed they are pinned inside the 5, less than 2 min left, and no timeouts. If they score with that situation, we would have deserved to lose.

[MSJHWT]

Like most people, love the decision to go for it, HATED the stretch call. Run JC on a QB sneak, run Sellars or Portis up the gut for the 1 foot, but to run 10 yards on the LoS before trying to go forward????

[greenmile]

Wow, I thought this would be a 90/10 vote in favor of the FG. I'm dissapointed with the football knowledge level of this group. Shame on you guys.

[JCav06]

Kick the FG. Harder for them to score a TD than it would be to get them in field goal range.

[skinfan2k]

go for the kill! if u get 1 yd, the game is over.. you kick a FG and the game is extended by how many more plays?

[Buck812]

Wow, I thought this would be a 90/10 vote in favor of the FG. I'm dissapointed with the football knowledge level of this group. Shame on you guys.

The second one I agree wit because either way they would have had to go about 70 yards probably. If we go for 3 then they would probably have the ball around the 25 30 yard line. The difference is that you have them pinned against their goal with little room to operate. I didnt think they would get one1st down if we didnt make it and they didnt. It was a good call there.

I still however question the first one. I think that far out I would have kicked the FG for the same reasons. You leave them a shorter field only needing a FG if you dont make it. Essentially they would have only needed 40 yards to win the game and not the 70 or so they would need to win with a TD.

[Rodriggo]

How are people supporting this? A terrible call today by Zorn. Luckily we got it done but how do you not force the Rams to get 6 instead of 3 with 2:00 minutes to play? Especially considering what happened last year?

[scruffylookin]

Kick the FG. Harder for them to score a TD than it would be to get them in field goal range.

Disagree.

It was the same either way.

The Skins kick the FG and then let's say the Rams get the ensuing kickoff return out to their 30. They need to go 70 yards to win the game.

If the Skins fail to convert, the Rams are backed up at the 2 and still need to go about 70 yards to kick the winning field goal.

The Rams would have to travel roughly the same distance either way.

But going for it gives the Skins a chance to end the game right then and there.

Kicking the field goal guarentees the Rams a chance for the win.

Going for it was the right decision. The play call was awful.