Sean McVay may be a progressive coach with some of his offensive concepts and strategy, but when it comes to fourth-down decisions, he isn't always as aggressive as he should be. Even though he's improved in that area this season, he got conservative late against the Dolphins in the Rams' 23-15 loss on Monday night.

The play in question? A fourth-and-goal from the 4-yard line with 6:34 left in the game. At the time, the Rams were trailing 20-9 and had all three timeouts. A field goal would've made it an eight-point game (again), with a great chance that the Rams would get the ball back thanks to their allotment of timeouts.

They did get it back with 2:43 to play, but the problem is, the Dolphins added another field goal to increase their lead to 11 points - again.

According to the analytics, the Rams would've increased their win probability by going for it on fourth-and-4 instead of settling for a 22-yard field goal.

After the game, McVay was asked whether he considered going for it on fourth down.

"I did, but because it was a two-possession game and what had occurred, felt like kick it away," he said. "Felt like the defense was playing really well right there. But because of just the flow of the overall game, that was what resulted in keeping it to a one-possession game."

If the Rams didn't convert, it's highly unlikely they would've come back to win. But they didn't win anyway, so it wouldn't have made a difference. Had they converted on fourth down and scored a touchdown, they could've made it a 20-16 (or 20-17) game.

In that scenario, giving up a field goal on the next drive wouldn't have made it a two-possession game like it did on Monday night. The Rams would've still been in it, at worst trailing by seven points with a few minutes left.

It's always easy to second-guess decisions after the fact, but the Rams shouldn't have gotten so conservative in that situation. Kicking another field goal did very little to help Los Angeles get back in the game.