That doesn't mean it is the culprit, it just means it's the most rational explanation.
It's important first to differentiate a tank week strategy from a bye week. They are NOT the same thing despite many conflating them as such in most of the arguments that continue to defend the "fresh and healthy" theory that demonstrably failed on Saturday night.
Going into the 49ers game there were two competing theories shared on this board.
The
'Trust in McVay Theory' held that he was doing the right thing by effectively tanking the 49ers game in order to give the Rams a fresh and healthy advantage over an opponent that would be comparatively tired and beat up.
The
'Concerned by McVay's Decision Theory' held that changing a season long process that had worked was a big gamble. Especially with such a young, inexperienced team . And that McVay was asking some players, like Gurley, to sacrifice some significant individual awards to do it. The gamble needed to pay off with a win or McVay would have made a mistake.
The Trust McVay Theory was falsified by the result. Not just by the score, but also by how the teams showed up and performed. The Concerned by McVay's Decision Theory is still standing even if not proven.
Some have argued that the Rams didn't tank the 49ers game and week, but the term "tanking" is defined as not competing. For the first time all season McVay chose to prioritize something else over competing during game week. The goal switched from winning to keeping starters fresh and healthy. Everything about that week through the game was different than it had been the previous 16 weeks. Scrubs practiced and played, starters watched and accepted defeat as for what was supposed to be the greater good.
The other interesting thing about that is two teams followed the tank strategy going into the players, the Rams and Chiefs. The Chiefs scrubs still managed to pull out a win against the hapless Broncos while the Titans starters fought for their lives against Jacksonville. The Rams, of course, were not so fortunate. But both teams that employed the tank strategy were upset by decided underdogs at home.
Logic dictates that, at least in the Rams case, tanking is the most likely reason for their systemic failure against the Falcons. When you have established a working system and then introduce something new or different into that system and it is followed by an immediate failure, the most likely culprit is the change that was introduced into the system. It's simple and basic diagnostics that nobody really questions when they don't have an emotional investment in the cause of the failure itself. If your car has been running great on a certain kind of gas and one day you fill up with something different and suddenly the car sputters and dies, what's the first and most likely suspect? The new fuel of course. Does that mean it was the new gas? Nope. Could have just been a coincidence and something unrelated is to blame. But, one thing nobody does is rules out the most likely cause without a better, more likely reason to explain the sudden engine failure. Yet, that's exactly what many have done when it comes to the tanking strategy.
McVay made a mistake. He shouldn't have changed the process. He shouldn't have introduced the change into what was working. Even though the possibility exists that the most likely reason for the failure is strictly coincidental, it's still a mistake because what he did didn't work. He chose a strategy that carried significant risk for both team and individual goals, which he likely underestimated. And in the process, he failed to identify a successful strategy. He's accountable.
It's okay, we can say it. You can admit it. It happens. Bill Walsh made mistakes. Bill Belichick makes mistakes. In saying and admitting it we're not hating on McVay or wanting to replace him. We simply want our most excellent young coach to learn and continue to get even more excellent.
