The Case for Jared Goff

Rate this topic
Discussion & News On The Los Angeles Rams
Post Reply
My2Cents
Bench Warmer
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:32 pm
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 1:07 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Not sure if this is out there yet. While reading the article, I thought to myself that his shortcomings were due to pressure, but the article dispels that near its end.

https://www.turfshowtimes.com/2020/5/20 ... arterbacks



Truth
Bench Warmer
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:55 pm
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 2:52 pm

zackn wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:48 am
#2. Brady (Bucs)- HOF QB on cap friendly deal
#3. Rodgers (Packers)- HOF QB on cap friendly deal
#4. Brees (Saints)- HOF QB on cap friendly deal
#5. Wilson (Seahawks) - Great QB but expensive
#8. Ryan (Falcons) - Good QB on reasonable veteran deal
Honestly--these and other qb deals are simply different because of the years they signed. QB contracts go up. It also depends if it's a 2nd or 3rd (or 4th) contract--there's more variation with 3rd and 4th contracts. 2nd contracts tend to be pretty uniform (with some wiggle room)--that is, they are all more or less the same percentage of the cap (for the year signed).

Brady gets praised for having cap friendly deals but with his 2nd and 3rd contracts he cashed in just like everyone else.

So---all you're measuring with the contracts of starting caliber qbs is the year they came up. Especially with 2nd contracts, a deal will look more "cap friendly" in its later years. For example in 2024 Goff's contract will be 28 M, which by then will seem wildly low compared to the contracts being signed by qbs in 2024.

...
The difference between the QBs above cashing in, and say other QBs like Rivers, Stafford, Cousins...is that the QBs above deserve the money. I think Goff falls into the latter category. Not a top 6 QB in the league. He's just a guy. Puts up numbers. Honestly, not much difference between the Stafford/Rivers/Cousins/Ryan...pocket QBs that once you pay them huge money, become a liability for your team. They just don't make enough plays on their own to warrant giving them a 2nd contract, and it's one of the reasons their teams have struggled after they got paid.



Truth
Bench Warmer
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:55 pm
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 2:59 pm

Mike Schad 1st Rd wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 1:36 am
The premise that the Quarterbacks (Goff) Contract is hindering the Team from being able to build a GOOD team around him is wildly exaggerated. The Rams still have high-paid studs at many positions. Donald, Brockers, Whitworth, Woods. And soon to come Ramsey, Kupp And they will be able to slot them in EASILY. I surmise the Contracts of underperforming Todd Gurley, and to a lesser extent Brandin Cooks were a FAR bigger hindrance than the Goff Contract. Which, by the way will he a bargain soon after Dak, Deshaun, and Mahomes sign.
It's not a presmise. It's a fact. Goff takes up nearly 18% of the Rams cap, far more than every other QB in the league. Then you factor in all the 1st round picks they gave up to get him.

His contract and the 1st rounders they gave up were a huge HINDRANCE at building the rest of the team. Gurley was a bad contract, but that's one year of hit and they are done with it.

Mahomes deserves whatever the Chiefs pay him. He's worth it. Goff isn't. That's the point. True Superstar QBs you give big money too. Average QBs you shouldn't, and its part of the reason why the Rams are in cap hell now and had to let go quite a few good players this off season (and couldn't upgrade the o line).



Truth
Bench Warmer
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:55 pm
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 3:02 pm

Yorkshire Ram wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 6:31 am
zackn wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:48 am
#2. Brady (Bucs)- HOF QB on cap friendly deal
#3. Rodgers (Packers)- HOF QB on cap friendly deal
#4. Brees (Saints)- HOF QB on cap friendly deal
#5. Wilson (Seahawks) - Great QB but expensive
#8. Ryan (Falcons) - Good QB on reasonable veteran deal
Honestly--these and other qb deals are simply different because of the years they signed. QB contracts go up. It also depends if it's a 2nd or 3rd (or 4th) contract--there's more variation with 3rd and 4th contracts. 2nd contracts tend to be pretty uniform (with some wiggle room)--that is, they are all more or less the same percentage of the cap (for the year signed).

Brady gets praised for having cap friendly deals but with his 2nd and 3rd contracts he cashed in just like everyone else.

So---all you're measuring with the contracts of starting caliber qbs is the year they came up. Especially with 2nd contracts, a deal will look more "cap friendly" in its later years. For example in 2024 Goff's contract will be 28 M, which by then will seem wildly low compared to the contracts being signed by qbs in 2024.

...
I agree. It's like comparing apples and oranges once you start looking at contract levels. All the QBs are at different stages of their careers. If you're going to do that, then all the QBs on rookie deals will need be ranked lower as they're about to get a payday bigger than Goff's.
Mahomes is way better than Goff. So, regardless of whether he gets paid more, he'll deserve it because he's better than Goff.

Jackson/Watson are better than Goff too regardless of contract. But they are WAY BETTER (for thier teams) when they are on their rookie deals taking up 2% of their teams cap, and Goff takes up 18.



Mike Schad 1st Rd
Starter
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 am
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 3:24 pm

Truth wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 2:59 pm
Mike Schad 1st Rd wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 1:36 am
The premise that the Quarterbacks (Goff) Contract is hindering the Team from being able to build a GOOD team around him is wildly exaggerated. The Rams still have high-paid studs at many positions. Donald, Brockers, Whitworth, Woods. And soon to come Ramsey, Kupp And they will be able to slot them in EASILY. I surmise the Contracts of underperforming Todd Gurley, and to a lesser extent Brandin Cooks were a FAR bigger hindrance than the Goff Contract. Which, by the way will he a bargain soon after Dak, Deshaun, and Mahomes sign.
It's not a presmise. It's a fact. Goff takes up nearly 18% of the Rams cap, far more than every other QB in the league. Then you factor in all the 1st round picks they gave up to get him.

His contract and the 1st rounders they gave up were a huge HINDRANCE at building the rest of the team. Gurley was a bad contract, but that's one year of hit and they are done with it.

Mahomes deserves whatever the Chiefs pay him. He's worth it. Goff isn't. That's the point. True Superstar QBs you give big money too. Average QBs you shouldn't, and its part of the reason why the Rams are in cap hell now and had to let go quite a few good players this off season (and couldn't upgrade the o line).
Soooooo, the Rams should've DUMPED Goff, and went with.....Stidham? Foles? Trubisky? Jordan Love? I'll hang up and listen....


Proud supporter of Los Angeles/St. Louis/Los Angeles Ram Football since 1974 in the Garden spot of America, Beautiful Brooklyn, NY...

Mike Schad 1st Rd
Starter
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 am
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 3:26 pm

Truth wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 3:02 pm
Yorkshire Ram wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 6:31 am
zackn wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:48 am


Honestly--these and other qb deals are simply different because of the years they signed. QB contracts go up. It also depends if it's a 2nd or 3rd (or 4th) contract--there's more variation with 3rd and 4th contracts. 2nd contracts tend to be pretty uniform (with some wiggle room)--that is, they are all more or less the same percentage of the cap (for the year signed).

Brady gets praised for having cap friendly deals but with his 2nd and 3rd contracts he cashed in just like everyone else.

So---all you're measuring with the contracts of starting caliber qbs is the year they came up. Especially with 2nd contracts, a deal will look more "cap friendly" in its later years. For example in 2024 Goff's contract will be 28 M, which by then will seem wildly low compared to the contracts being signed by qbs in 2024.

...
I agree. It's like comparing apples and oranges once you start looking at contract levels. All the QBs are at different stages of their careers. If you're going to do that, then all the QBs on rookie deals will need be ranked lower as they're about to get a payday bigger than Goff's.
Mahomes is way better than Goff. So, regardless of whether he gets paid more, he'll deserve it because he's better than Goff.

Jackson/Watson are better than Goff too regardless of contract. But they are WAY BETTER (for thier teams) when they are on their rookie deals taking up 2% of their teams cap, and Goff takes up 18.
And let me guess, when Jackson/Watson are SOON taking up 18% of Hou/Balt Cap itll be OKAY, cause..they're just so...TALENTED???


Proud supporter of Los Angeles/St. Louis/Los Angeles Ram Football since 1974 in the Garden spot of America, Beautiful Brooklyn, NY...

Mike Schad 1st Rd
Starter
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 am
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 3:33 pm

Truth wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 3:02 pm
Yorkshire Ram wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 6:31 am
zackn wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:48 am


Honestly--these and other qb deals are simply different because of the years they signed. QB contracts go up. It also depends if it's a 2nd or 3rd (or 4th) contract--there's more variation with 3rd and 4th contracts. 2nd contracts tend to be pretty uniform (with some wiggle room)--that is, they are all more or less the same percentage of the cap (for the year signed).

Brady gets praised for having cap friendly deals but with his 2nd and 3rd contracts he cashed in just like everyone else.

So---all you're measuring with the contracts of starting caliber qbs is the year they came up. Especially with 2nd contracts, a deal will look more "cap friendly" in its later years. For example in 2024 Goff's contract will be 28 M, which by then will seem wildly low compared to the contracts being signed by qbs in 2024.

...
I agree. It's like comparing apples and oranges once you start looking at contract levels. All the QBs are at different stages of their careers. If you're going to do that, then all the QBs on rookie deals will need be ranked lower as they're about to get a payday bigger than Goff's.
Mahomes is way better than Goff. So, regardless of whether he gets paid more, he'll deserve it because he's better than Goff.

Jackson/Watson are better than Goff too regardless of contract. But they are WAY BETTER (for thier teams) when they are on their rookie deals taking up 2% of their teams cap, and Goff takes up 18.
Oh by the way, for you folks keeping score, Playoff wins by Jackson/Watson COMBINED 1. Jared Goff 2.
LOLOLOLILOL at "Athletic" QB's...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


Proud supporter of Los Angeles/St. Louis/Los Angeles Ram Football since 1974 in the Garden spot of America, Beautiful Brooklyn, NY...

brasilrams
Pro-bowler
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:29 pm
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 3:58 pm

Mike Schad 1st Rd wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:25 am
brasilrams wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 6:20 pm
Mike Schad 1st Rd wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 5:39 pm


OK, Brazil, now we're talkin. Murray- could totally see you taking him over Goff. I disagree but fair.
Lamar? Like I said earlier, he BETTER win for you in the next 3 years or he ain't gonna. Hes almost in the Brady/Rodgers "pile". Better win soon or else.
Watson? Like I said my toughest pick in the "no" pile. You pick him over JG, I buy it.
Burrow? Like Mahomes and Wilson, we agree
Ryan? Jared Goff IS Matt Ryan...and 8 years younger
Rodgers? Of course hes way better now but hes fading, getting a little fragile. You would trade 11 years of Goff for 3 years of Aaron?? I cant.
Of course we both know Dak, Wentz and Jimmy G are basically dead heat with JG. Can you trade future Goff for future Wentz knowing his injury history? While I think Wentz has been better so far, dont think I would ACTUALLY trade it I understand your doubts on Goff but the one thing you would HAVE TO give him is Durability, and having little fear he will ever miss time. He has that "Gumby" build. So we have a difference of 5 or 6 slots . We will see. The IMPORTANT thing is, I and hope YOU hope you are wrong and Goff leads our Rams to a Super Bowl Title or more.
Yup, all good. Durability is one of goffs best attributes if not the best. He doesn't play well under pressure but he can take a beat and never gets injured. True. We mostly share the same opinion with a few differences here and there. Just regarding Ryan I said him instead of Goff because Ryan has 2 MVPs under his belt and one incredible super bowl performance, Goff has neither so far. I understand the age difference and the similar style of play but I would still pick Ryan, as of now.

And of course I hope I am dead wrong about Goff and if he proves me wrong, I will be the first one to admit it. You can be sure of that.
Just have to correct you, Ryan does not have TWO MVP's of course, he has one. And yes he's accomplished more in the past than JG. However, going into this year, any edge Ryan has over Goff is Miniscule (Goff already better?), combined with the MASSIVE age difference I just dont see why youd make the swap going forward. Remember, the premise isnt "who's BEEN better" than Goff (Brady, Ben, Brees,,Aaron) its who we would trade NOW for. FWIW, Goff now consistently comes in with higher rankings than Ryan on the Top 100 list, voted on by ACTIVE PLAYERS. So sure, Ryan had a way better SB than Goff, but that's no reason to trade 25 year old JG for 35 year old Matt, who by the way also greatly contributed to the biggest choke job in Supe History.
I can see why you would pick goff , I understand . But I would still pick Ryan for let's say a 3-4 year span based on the reasons I said . About the choke job I kind of disagree , that was all ( or 99 % ) on the falcons defense that allowed 28 points in a row and 2 straight 2 point conversions , if I am not mistaken . The falcons offense scored 28 points against bill belichick , Ryan did his job in that game . If the defense played half decently , he would have one SB ring right now With the rams it was the complete opposite , defense played lights out and goff ( and the entire offense of course ) couldn't produce more than 3 points . Oh and yes , Ryan has one MVP only , not sure why I thought he had two , but yup , it is only one .



Mike Schad 1st Rd
Starter
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 am
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 4:06 pm

brasilrams wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 3:58 pm
Mike Schad 1st Rd wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:25 am
brasilrams wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 6:20 pm


Yup, all good. Durability is one of goffs best attributes if not the best. He doesn't play well under pressure but he can take a beat and never gets injured. True. We mostly share the same opinion with a few differences here and there. Just regarding Ryan I said him instead of Goff because Ryan has 2 MVPs under his belt and one incredible super bowl performance, Goff has neither so far. I understand the age difference and the similar style of play but I would still pick Ryan, as of now.

And of course I hope I am dead wrong about Goff and if he proves me wrong, I will be the first one to admit it. You can be sure of that.
Just have to correct you, Ryan does not have TWO MVP's of course, he has one. And yes he's accomplished more in the past than JG. However, going into this year, any edge Ryan has over Goff is Miniscule (Goff already better?), combined with the MASSIVE age difference I just dont see why youd make the swap going forward. Remember, the premise isnt "who's BEEN better" than Goff (Brady, Ben, Brees,,Aaron) its who we would trade NOW for. FWIW, Goff now consistently comes in with higher rankings than Ryan on the Top 100 list, voted on by ACTIVE PLAYERS. So sure, Ryan had a way better SB than Goff, but that's no reason to trade 25 year old JG for 35 year old Matt, who by the way also greatly contributed to the biggest choke job in Supe History.
I can see why you would pick goff , I understand . But I would still pick Ryan for let's say a 3-4 year span based on the reasons I said . About the choke job I kind of disagree , that was all ( or 99 % ) on the falcons defense that allowed 28 points in a row and 2 straight 2 point conversions , if I am not mistaken . The falcons offense scored 28 points against bill belichick , Ryan did his job in that game . If the defense played half decently , he would have one SB ring right now With the rams it was the complete opposite , defense played lights out and goff ( and the entire offense of course ) couldn't produce more than 3 points . Oh and yes , Ryan has one MVP only , not sure why I thought he had two , but yup , it is only one .
Brasil, I totally get it. Ryan HAS BEEN better than Goff Will the 35 year old Matt Ryan (traded for Goff) lead the Rams to the promised land??? Doubt it, but fair enough. Close one.

I know the Defense blew it, but he also screwed up big time taking that sack to knock them out of game-winning FG range....but let's face it, that was a HUGE Kyle Shanahan tank job, just like this past SB.
Last edited by Mike Schad 1st Rd on Fri May 22, 2020 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.


Proud supporter of Los Angeles/St. Louis/Los Angeles Ram Football since 1974 in the Garden spot of America, Beautiful Brooklyn, NY...

brasilrams
Pro-bowler
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:29 pm
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 4:11 pm

zackn wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 5:04 pm
brasilrams wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 2:34 pm
. I already provided examples of qbs playing DECENTLY behind bad o lines . ANd not just me , the user " shooter " too , provided TONS of examples of good QB play behind bad o lines .
In terms of naming qbs, no. You guys whiffed. Shooter completely dodged what I asked and acted like it was all about the running game (as opposed to what I asked which was qb performance behind injury demolished and/or just plain subpar OLs).

And here's your response, which does not give me what I asked for (which you can't).
Do you honestly think that guys like mahomes. Watson, Lamar Jackson and Rodgers would play so BAD, so crappy.
When have they ever been in those conditions? I do know that the Rams got to Mahomes bad enough so he was throwing to ghosts at the end of that game, but then that's just one game and not a week in and week injury depleted OL. Rodgers too has been "goffen to" and by the Rams (see the 2018 game). But again, that's not a wrecked OL game after game, that was just the Rams getting to him that one game.

So you can't answer my question? (Of course not....I asked it for a reason.) Well just say so--say you can't--and don't pretend like you did answer it.

As for how "badly Goff played in 2019", he had a rough year with a shaky OL. Even then they went 9-7 in spite of games the defense completely gave away. When the Rams gave up 8 or more pressures, they went went 2-6. When they gave up 7 or fewer pressures, they went 7-1.

You did steal a page from my book and list Wilson (though in doing that you thought I was talking about OL *rankings* though I was talking about OL *injuries* which is a completely different thing---a relatively healthy OL can at least be consistent and you can know what they will do, but with a lot of injury substitutes that goes out the window).

Fitzpatrick has been crap his whole career, good OLs and bad OLs combined. They did manage to go 5-8 with him starting but then that OL was never as injured as what I am asking about. Tell me about the time Fitzpatrick came back to win against New Orleans on the road in a championship game.

Responding to a different post.
Wilson plays with a bad OL almost every year and while I know he is special not all QB's can still perform under those conditions. But let's be clear Goff can not. He doesn't do well with chaos and I know McVay knows that.
I mentioned Wilson. But I was talking about injury struck lines. With him that's 2017. So you (re)named one of my 2 exceptions, Wilson, and I also pointed out it caught up with him too. It's not just that not all qbs can play under those conditions, it's very very few who can.
Not sure what do you want here . We will keep going in circles . You ask us to provide examples of QBs that played well behind bad o lines . We provide . But you say it doesn't count for this reason or that reason . It has to fit your narrative no matter what . You ask . I provide . You say it is bullshit . So , what is the point ?

Now you are saying about injury struck lines . A bad o line is a bad o line . what now ? do you want to nitpick like that ? Now I need to find examples of good qb play behind an o line that was BAD becaaaaause they had injuries ??? cmon now .

Like I said , a bad o line is a bad o line . And like shooter said , if you go back 10 years in the NFL you will find TONS of examples of DECENT qb play behind o lines ranking 25-32 . ( bad o lines ) . Goff had 21 turnovers and could have been 26 ( 5 fumbles recovered by the rams ) . That is unacceptable even if he had a high school o line in front of him . Miami o line was ranked 32 last season and Fitz had like 15-16 turnovers.

You asked for examples and we provided them. Like I said , fitzpatrick was playing behind literally the WORST o line in football and his numbers were not so bad as goff's numbers last year .

Here is what shooter said , that you NEVER replied :

" So QBs that have performed well behind shit o-lines...well just in the last few years a couple come to mind. And I'm fairly certain if you go back for the past decade there are a ton more examples. How about Andrew Luck playing behind a shit o-line for multiple years in Indy? There were times they had no running game at all too, and what TY Hilton as their only legit WR? Luck ALWAYS gave them a chance to win. He would get them to the playoffs or close to it, all while getting hit more than any other QB. That is how a 1st overall pick should play, they were never out of a game. There were never times he's looked completely lost or overwhelmed on the field like Goff has. How about Kyler Murray last year? The rookie QB out performed Goff in almost every statistical category outside of yards. Goff had more turnovers, more fumbles, lower QBR, lower completion percentage, lower passer rating. How was the AZ line last year? Who were Murray's WRs he was throwing to compared to our weapons? How about the anticipation he showed and his ability to read a defense as a rookie? How about the year before in 2018 when all the media was shitting on the Vikings o-line because it was horrible. They ranked like 30th in the league and all Kirk Cousins did was throw for 4,300 yards with a 30-10 TD/int ratio. How come he didn't crumble behind that o-line? How come he didnt turn the ball over more? How has the Seahawks o-line been the past few years? What were they ranked last year 27th? How did Russell Wilson play? Like one of the best QBs in the league right? MVP candidate it would seem every year. I mean come on dude how many examples do you need.. "



brasilrams
Pro-bowler
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:29 pm
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 4:17 pm

Mike Schad 1st Rd wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 4:06 pm
brasilrams wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 3:58 pm
Mike Schad 1st Rd wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:25 am


Just have to correct you, Ryan does not have TWO MVP's of course, he has one. And yes he's accomplished more in the past than JG. However, going into this year, any edge Ryan has over Goff is Miniscule (Goff already better?), combined with the MASSIVE age difference I just dont see why youd make the swap going forward. Remember, the premise isnt "who's BEEN better" than Goff (Brady, Ben, Brees,,Aaron) its who we would trade NOW for. FWIW, Goff now consistently comes in with higher rankings than Ryan on the Top 100 list, voted on by ACTIVE PLAYERS. So sure, Ryan had a way better SB than Goff, but that's no reason to trade 25 year old JG for 35 year old Matt, who by the way also greatly contributed to the biggest choke job in Supe History.
I can see why you would pick goff , I understand . But I would still pick Ryan for let's say a 3-4 year span based on the reasons I said . About the choke job I kind of disagree , that was all ( or 99 % ) on the falcons defense that allowed 28 points in a row and 2 straight 2 point conversions , if I am not mistaken . The falcons offense scored 28 points against bill belichick , Ryan did his job in that game . If the defense played half decently , he would have one SB ring right now With the rams it was the complete opposite , defense played lights out and goff ( and the entire offense of course ) couldn't produce more than 3 points . Oh and yes , Ryan has one MVP only , not sure why I thought he had two , but yup , it is only one .
Brasil, I totally get it. Ryan HAS BEEN better than Goff Will the 35 year old Matt Ryan (traded for Goff) lead the Rams to the promised land??? Doubt it, but fair enough. Close one.

I know the Defense blew it, but he also screwed up big time taking that sack to knock them out of game-winning FG range....but let's face it, that was a HUGE Mike Shanahan tank job, just like this past SB.
Yup , it is a close one , that is why I said I totally understand someone picking goff over him . About watson , lamar and rodgers , I disagree that they only have like 3 years . It is impossible to predict if watson or lamar will get hurt because of their play style . I would trade them for goff because I think they would give us better chance of winning it all , even if it is for the next 3-4 years "only" . But yes , I understand the way they play ( lamar and jackson ) and rodger's age , makes it a riskier choice, in the long term , to pick them . But taking risks is part of the deal when you want to win it all . A qb like Mahomes that can throw the ball, but also makes plays with his legs , will always be more prone to injury than a pure pocket passer like goff / brady / ryan . But I also think those guys ( when they can THROW AND make plays with their legs ) posing as a double threat to defenses , are the guys that gives the team a better chance in the NFL nowadays . So , imo , it is a risk / reward thing .



Mike Schad 1st Rd
Starter
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 am
Contact:

Thu May 21, 2020 4:38 pm

brasilrams wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 4:17 pm
Mike Schad 1st Rd wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 4:06 pm
brasilrams wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 3:58 pm


I can see why you would pick goff , I understand . But I would still pick Ryan for let's say a 3-4 year span based on the reasons I said . About the choke job I kind of disagree , that was all ( or 99 % ) on the falcons defense that allowed 28 points in a row and 2 straight 2 point conversions , if I am not mistaken . The falcons offense scored 28 points against bill belichick , Ryan did his job in that game . If the defense played half decently , he would have one SB ring right now With the rams it was the complete opposite , defense played lights out and goff ( and the entire offense of course ) couldn't produce more than 3 points . Oh and yes , Ryan has one MVP only , not sure why I thought he had two , but yup , it is only one .
Brasil, I totally get it. Ryan HAS BEEN better than Goff Will the 35 year old Matt Ryan (traded for Goff) lead the Rams to the promised land??? Doubt it, but fair enough. Close one.

I know the Defense blew it, but he also screwed up big time taking that sack to knock them out of game-winning FG range....but let's face it, that was a HUGE Mike Shanahan tank job, just like this past SB.
Yup , it is a close one , that is why I said I totally understand someone picking goff over him . About watson , lamar and rodgers , I disagree that they only have like 3 years . It is impossible to predict if watson or lamar will get hurt because of their play style . I would trade them for goff because I think they would give us better chance of winning it all , even if it is for the next 3-4 years "only" . But yes , I understand the way they play ( lamar and jackson ) and rodger's age , makes it a riskier choice, in the long term , to pick them . But taking risks is part of the deal when you want to win it all . A qb like Mahomes that can throw the ball, but also makes plays with his legs , will always be more prone to injury than a pure pocket passer like goff / brady / ryan . But I also think those guys ( when they can THROW AND make plays with their legs ) posing as a double threat to defenses , are the guys that gives the team a better chance in the NFL nowadays . So , imo , it is a risk / reward thing .
I only said Rodgers had another 3 years I did imply that Lamar would have to win in the next 3 years cause the hits/body abuse will start to add up and I'm not sure if he can win as MAINLY a pocket passer (kinda like Wentz is FORCED to be now, just 4 years into his career). As far as Deshaun is concerned it was only a guess on my part that he wouldnt age well. As far as GOFF is concerned, he is the QB type that SHOULD age well. Never Athletic, if and a big IF he gets the game down Mentally, hes the "type" of QB that is better aged 28-33 than 23-28 (ala Lamar, Kyler?) But let's face it, it's just a hope on my part right now, I have no idea IF he takes the next step. HOWEVER, he has shown many good signs of a Classic Pocket Passer to make me think we can win it all with him at the helm.


Proud supporter of Los Angeles/St. Louis/Los Angeles Ram Football since 1974 in the Garden spot of America, Beautiful Brooklyn, NY...

Mike Schad 1st Rd
Starter
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 am
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 5:07 am

Truth wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 3:02 pm
Yorkshire Ram wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 6:31 am
zackn wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:48 am


Honestly--these and other qb deals are simply different because of the years they signed. QB contracts go up. It also depends if it's a 2nd or 3rd (or 4th) contract--there's more variation with 3rd and 4th contracts. 2nd contracts tend to be pretty uniform (with some wiggle room)--that is, they are all more or less the same percentage of the cap (for the year signed).

Brady gets praised for having cap friendly deals but with his 2nd and 3rd contracts he cashed in just like everyone else.

So---all you're measuring with the contracts of starting caliber qbs is the year they came up. Especially with 2nd contracts, a deal will look more "cap friendly" in its later years. For example in 2024 Goff's contract will be 28 M, which by then will seem wildly low compared to the contracts being signed by qbs in 2024.

...
I agree. It's like comparing apples and oranges once you start looking at contract levels. All the QBs are at different stages of their careers. If you're going to do that, then all the QBs on rookie deals will need be ranked lower as they're about to get a payday bigger than Goff's.
Mahomes is way better than Goff. So, regardless of whether he gets paid more, he'll deserve it because he's better than Goff.

Jackson/Watson are better than Goff too regardless of contract. But they are WAY BETTER (for thier teams) when they are on their rookie deals taking up 2% of their teams cap, and Goff takes up 18.
Just gonna leave this here..
Screenshot_20200522-080351_Twitter.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Proud supporter of Los Angeles/St. Louis/Los Angeles Ram Football since 1974 in the Garden spot of America, Beautiful Brooklyn, NY...

User avatar
zackn
Veteran
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:40 pm
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 6:30 am

Truth wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 2:52 pm
zackn wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:48 am
#2. Brady (Bucs)- HOF QB on cap friendly deal
#3. Rodgers (Packers)- HOF QB on cap friendly deal
#4. Brees (Saints)- HOF QB on cap friendly deal
#5. Wilson (Seahawks) - Great QB but expensive
#8. Ryan (Falcons) - Good QB on reasonable veteran deal
Honestly--these and other qb deals are simply different because of the years they signed. QB contracts go up. It also depends if it's a 2nd or 3rd (or 4th) contract--there's more variation with 3rd and 4th contracts. 2nd contracts tend to be pretty uniform (with some wiggle room)--that is, they are all more or less the same percentage of the cap (for the year signed).

Brady gets praised for having cap friendly deals but with his 2nd and 3rd contracts he cashed in just like everyone else.

So---all you're measuring with the contracts of starting caliber qbs is the year they came up. Especially with 2nd contracts, a deal will look more "cap friendly" in its later years. For example in 2024 Goff's contract will be 28 M, which by then will seem wildly low compared to the contracts being signed by qbs in 2024.

...
The difference between the QBs above cashing in, and say other QBs like Rivers, Stafford, Cousins...is that the QBs above deserve the money. I think Goff falls into the latter category. Not a top 6 QB in the league. He's just a guy. Puts up numbers. Honestly, not much difference between the Stafford/Rivers/Cousins/Ryan...pocket QBs that once you pay them huge money, become a liability for your team. They just don't make enough plays on their own to warrant giving them a 2nd contract, and it's one of the reasons their teams have struggled after they got paid.
Well except when it's 2nd contract time no one goes "where do the qbs rank." It doesn't work that way. What happens is, a starting qb comes up for a 2nd contract and the team wants to keep him, so they just give him more or less the amount that qb 2nd contracts go for that year. In 2015 Wilson got 22 M; in 2017 Carr got 25 M; in 2018 Jimmy G got nearly 28 M. It goes up every year and every year it's pretty much the same percentage of the cap. So Jimmy G got more than Wilson after starting just 7 games only because it was 2018.

In terms of paying your qb means a liability, I don't buy that. You pay your qb because the alternative is to get a different one, and qbs are hard to come by. Every year the playoffs are full of teams that have paid their veteran qb so to me the idea that it's an automatic liability does not add up.



Mike Schad 1st Rd
Starter
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 am
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 6:43 am

zackn wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:30 am
Truth wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 2:52 pm
zackn wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 12:48 am


Honestly--these and other qb deals are simply different because of the years they signed. QB contracts go up. It also depends if it's a 2nd or 3rd (or 4th) contract--there's more variation with 3rd and 4th contracts. 2nd contracts tend to be pretty uniform (with some wiggle room)--that is, they are all more or less the same percentage of the cap (for the year signed).

Brady gets praised for having cap friendly deals but with his 2nd and 3rd contracts he cashed in just like everyone else.

So---all you're measuring with the contracts of starting caliber qbs is the year they came up. Especially with 2nd contracts, a deal will look more "cap friendly" in its later years. For example in 2024 Goff's contract will be 28 M, which by then will seem wildly low compared to the contracts being signed by qbs in 2024.

...
The difference between the QBs above cashing in, and say other QBs like Rivers, Stafford, Cousins...is that the QBs above deserve the money. I think Goff falls into the latter category. Not a top 6 QB in the league. He's just a guy. Puts up numbers. Honestly, not much difference between the Stafford/Rivers/Cousins/Ryan...pocket QBs that once you pay them huge money, become a liability for your team. They just don't make enough plays on their own to warrant giving them a 2nd contract, and it's one of the reasons their teams have struggled after they got paid.
Well except when it's 2nd contract time no one goes "where do the qbs rank." It doesn't work that way. What happens is, a starting qb comes up for a 2nd contract and the team wants to keep him, so they just give him more or less the amount that qb 2nd contracts go for that year. In 2015 Wilson got 22 M; in 2017 Carr got 25 M; in 2018 Jimmy G got nearly 28 M. It goes up every year and every year it's pretty much the same percentage of the cap. So Jimmy G got more than Wilson after starting just 7 games only because it was 2018.

In terms of paying your qb means a liability, I don't buy that. You pay your qb because the alternative is to get a different one, and qbs are hard to come by. Every year the playoffs are full of teams that have paid their veteran qb so to me the idea that it's an automatic liability does not add up.
Yup. A QB's 2nd Contract is the basic "going rate." Doesnt mean you're a Superstar (Carr, Jimmy G, Goff) just means you either pay it or step back into the QB lottery system. Dont really understand the rage from the "NeverGoffers" over the Contract. It was either pay a QB who's already brought you to a Super Bowl and is in or near the Playoffs every year, or step back into Case Keenum/Ryan Fitzpatrick-ville while you hope (pray) your Draft Picks like Paxton Lynch, Drew Lock, Dwayne Haskins could ever be as good as Goff? I'll go with Option A.
Last edited by Mike Schad 1st Rd on Fri May 22, 2020 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.


Proud supporter of Los Angeles/St. Louis/Los Angeles Ram Football since 1974 in the Garden spot of America, Beautiful Brooklyn, NY...

User avatar
zackn
Veteran
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:40 pm
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 6:50 am

Not sure what do you want here . We will keep going in circles . You ask us to provide examples of QBs that played well behind bad o lines . We provide
No I didn't.

I am asking now 2 things.

First, read what I actually say.

Second, here's what I am actually saying---when OLs get massively injured and regress as a result, they take the qb down with them.

It's not this subjective thing about "bad OLs." That's you guys inventing criteria I am not using. Plus it depends on the subjective judgment as to what is a "bad" OL. That's why that's never what I said.

I was very specific to the Rams situation in 2019. (And 2007 for that matter since this is not the first time).

Name me examples of qbs whose OLs were severely compromised due to injury and the qb continued to play well.


None of your examples fit that. Except Wilson in 2017 and I long since mentioned him myself.

Now if I have to explain why a massively injured OL makes a difference, I will, but I think you guys should already know all that if your going to act like you actually know football. Excuse me for being blunt about that, but---geez, c'mon. For example, a thought experiment. Tell me the 2000 Rams do as well if they lose Pace, McCollum, and Timmerman for the season. According to you that would have no effect whatsoever? Right.


...



Mike Schad 1st Rd
Starter
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 am
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 7:13 am

zackn wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:50 am
Not sure what do you want here . We will keep going in circles . You ask us to provide examples of QBs that played well behind bad o lines . We provide
No I didn't.

I am asking now 2 things.

First, read what I actually say.

Second, here's what I am actually saying---when OLs get massively injured and regress as a result, they take the qb down with them.

It's not this subjective thing about "bad OLs." That's you guys inventing criteria I am not using. Plus it depends on the subjective judgment as to what is a "bad" OL. That's why that's never what I said.

I was very specific to the Rams situation in 2019. (And 2007 for that matter since this is not the first time).

Name me examples of qbs whose OLs were severely compromised due to injury and the qb continued to play well.


None of your examples fit that. Except Wilson in 2017 and I long since mentioned him myself.

Now if I have to explain why a massively injured OL makes a difference, I will, but I think you guys should already know all that if your going to act like you actually know football. Excuse me for being blunt about that, but---geez, c'mon. For example, a thought experiment. Tell me the 2000 Rams do as well if they lose Pace, McCollum, and Timmerman for the season. According to you that would have no effect whatsoever? Right.

+1. Well duh. When the Offensive Line is subpar, OF COURSE you're better off with a mobile Quarterback. Heck, I bet Pete Carroll intentionally IGNORED the Offensive Line just BECAUSE he had Russell Wilson and put the Cap money in other places. HOWEVER, when you have a GOOD Offensive Line guess what? You're better off with a "statuesque" sharpshooter QB like Goff rather than a Lamar type who deep down would rather run than pass.
...


Proud supporter of Los Angeles/St. Louis/Los Angeles Ram Football since 1974 in the Garden spot of America, Beautiful Brooklyn, NY...

User avatar
Commish
Veteran
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:00 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 11:53 am

zackn wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:50 am

Now if I have to explain why a massively injured OL makes a difference, I will, but I think you guys should already know all that if your going to act like you actually know football. Excuse me for being blunt about that, but---geez, c'mon. For example, a thought experiment. Tell me the 2000 Rams do as well if they lose Pace, McCollum, and Timmerman for the season. According to you that would have no effect whatsoever? Right.
Hell, you don't have to 'imagine' anything, just remember how Kurt Warner performed at QB in 2002 (0-8 as a starter) and in the '03 season opener (inept loss to the Giants), when the physical punishment he'd taken in a "Max Q" offense caught up with him big-time.

(There's a myth among numerous Rams fans that if Warner had merely continued to start for our team in '03, he would magically have recovered to his '08 level of performance [with the Cardinals] almost immediately, however to me that's pure fantasy.)

As excellent a QB as Warner was from 1999-'01, he never 'elevated' an otherwise-struggling "O" for the Good Guys... ;) :? :idea:

ram pathos...

--The Commish


UHURA: "Do you think that's all they ever had?"
KIRK: "No, but it's all they had left."

brasilrams
Pro-bowler
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:29 pm
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 12:52 pm

zackn wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:50 am
Not sure what do you want here . We will keep going in circles . You ask us to provide examples of QBs that played well behind bad o lines . We provide
No I didn't.

I am asking now 2 things.

First, read what I actually say.

Second, here's what I am actually saying---when OLs get massively injured and regress as a result, they take the qb down with them.

It's not this subjective thing about "bad OLs." That's you guys inventing criteria I am not using. Plus it depends on the subjective judgment as to what is a "bad" OL. That's why that's never what I said.

I was very specific to the Rams situation in 2019. (And 2007 for that matter since this is not the first time).

Name me examples of qbs whose OLs were severely compromised due to injury and the qb continued to play well.


None of your examples fit that. Except Wilson in 2017 and I long since mentioned him myself.

Now if I have to explain why a massively injured OL makes a difference, I will, but I think you guys should already know all that if your going to act like you actually know football. Excuse me for being blunt about that, but---geez, c'mon. For example, a thought experiment. Tell me the 2000 Rams do as well if they lose Pace, McCollum, and Timmerman for the season. According to you that would have no effect whatsoever? Right.


...
A bad o line is a bad o line. You are nitpicking to provide an excuse for Goff. " Ohhh it has to be bad but bad because of injuries to starters , it can't just be BAD as it is ". Really? Lol.

The o line doesn't need to be decimated by injuries and with 3 backups in there to be considered bad. It doesn't, sorry. Bad is bad. If it ranks 25-32 it is bad!. Some lines are crappy and bad as it is and tons of qbs have performed well or at least decent behind those lines.

Like I said, you are nitpicking to try to fit your narrative. You want me to find examples of bad qb play BECAUSE 3 backups got in there and then, they made the line a bad line? Is that what you SPECIFICALLY want?

According to your absurd logic, If it is bad as it is - without the backups - , it doesn't count ?

Cmon....

BTW - at first you just said bad o line. Then we provided the examples and now you are saying these examples don't count because it has to be a bad line but bad as a result of injuries and back ups playing.

You will always find a different reason to make the excuse for Goff s poor play. It is never his fault. I am sure all those 16 picks and 10 fumbles ( 5 lost) were the o lines fault. Or maybe mcvays fault.

Oh and don't put words on my mouth. I never said that a bad o line ( doesn't matter the reason) won't impact the qbs performance. Of course it will. All I am saying is that even with a bad line Goff should not have regressed that much. It is on HIM TOO. 21 turnovers is totally unacceptable even if high school kids are blocking for you. Again, we provided examples of very good qb play behind bad ranked o lines but you choose to not accept those examples.



User avatar
zackn
Veteran
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:40 pm
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 8:00 pm

brasilrams wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:52 pm
zackn wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:50 am
Not sure what do you want here . We will keep going in circles . You ask us to provide examples of QBs that played well behind bad o lines . We provide
No I didn't.

I am asking now 2 things.

First, read what I actually say.

Second, here's what I am actually saying---when OLs get massively injured and regress as a result, they take the qb down with them.

It's not this subjective thing about "bad OLs." That's you guys inventing criteria I am not using. Plus it depends on the subjective judgment as to what is a "bad" OL. That's why that's never what I said.

I was very specific to the Rams situation in 2019. (And 2007 for that matter since this is not the first time).

Name me examples of qbs whose OLs were severely compromised due to injury and the qb continued to play well.


None of your examples fit that. Except Wilson in 2017 and I long since mentioned him myself.

Now if I have to explain why a massively injured OL makes a difference, I will, but I think you guys should already know all that if your going to act like you actually know football. Excuse me for being blunt about that, but---geez, c'mon. For example, a thought experiment. Tell me the 2000 Rams do as well if they lose Pace, McCollum, and Timmerman for the season. According to you that would have no effect whatsoever? Right.


...
A bad o line is a bad o line.
Nope.

And you are missing the entire point if not deliberately trying to dodge it.

The case we have is someone who played well when the OL was solid (although not great). Then it fell apart in 2019 when both OTs started the season shaky and then they had multiple injury replacements.

The issue then is someone who plays well with a relatively healthy line who then has to play behind an injury depleted line. You guys are finding every way possible to avoid directly addressing that.

And I said if you don't get why extensive OL injuries make a difference I would explain it. Guess I have to do that. Though I think of it as football 101 basics.

First, OL rankings are subjective. Unless you just take PFF as gospel and don't think about it any deeper. A relatively healthy OL, even one that is not considered very good, at least has continuity plus the coaches know it and what it can do, as does the qb. That's why Warner could play well in ARZ behind an OL that was not considered stellar. They just combined his ability to read quickly pre-snap and get the ball out with their ability to play effectively in a short quick passing game. If a line can communicate and if the offensive coaches know their strengths and weaknesses they can at least plan on doing things that can work.

When an OL gets massively injured--beyond just a guy or 2 missing time--you lose continuity, you lose rhythm (an OL unit has to play together it's not just 5 individuals), and the qb loses confidence in it which leads to pressing on his part just to make plays. The playcalling is different because you can't use the entire arsenal (McVay directly said as much last year when asked if OL injuries changed his playcalling). The communication is not there, the familiarity is not there, the trust is not there, the timing is not there---it's just not an integrated unit.

Last year is a good example. Once they had 3 inexperience injury replacements in place, they did not start out that great--they stumbled against Baltimore and struggled against the Bears, and then did okay against teams that could not bring pressure (Arizona and Seattle), regressed against Dallas, but then improved against SF. It took them a while to get up to the point where they were cohesive enough to play a team like SF tought but at least they got there. Stats back this.

On top of it what you really listed was guys you THOUGHT would play well behind an injured OL. You still don't have examples of qbs actually playing as well behind extensively injured OLs. You just tried to change the topic.

And no in terms of trying to change the subject, a "bad OL" is not the same as an injury depleted one--including the fact that "bad" is just a subjective value judgment. I can say that an OL is probably one of the 10 best, or the middle of the pack, or not that effective (bottom 12) but I would never pretend it's possible for anyone to legitimately just rank them in some strict 1 through 32 order.

And there are good teams with average at best OLs. That's been true all along, it's something we all know.

But you add extensive injuries to that unit and you mess with continuity, cohesion, communication, trust, playcalling, timing, and efficiency. That's even with good OLs, which can be brought down by extensive injuries. AND when that happens qb play suffers. I named a couple of exceptions (Brady and Wilson) but as I said they couldn't sustain it, it caught up with them too.

...
...



brasilrams
Pro-bowler
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:29 pm
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 8:21 pm

zackn wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 8:00 pm
brasilrams wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:52 pm
zackn wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 6:50 am


No I didn't.

I am asking now 2 things.

First, read what I actually say.

Second, here's what I am actually saying---when OLs get massively injured and regress as a result, they take the qb down with them.

It's not this subjective thing about "bad OLs." That's you guys inventing criteria I am not using. Plus it depends on the subjective judgment as to what is a "bad" OL. That's why that's never what I said.

I was very specific to the Rams situation in 2019. (And 2007 for that matter since this is not the first time).

Name me examples of qbs whose OLs were severely compromised due to injury and the qb continued to play well.


None of your examples fit that. Except Wilson in 2017 and I long since mentioned him myself.

Now if I have to explain why a massively injured OL makes a difference, I will, but I think you guys should already know all that if your going to act like you actually know football. Excuse me for being blunt about that, but---geez, c'mon. For example, a thought experiment. Tell me the 2000 Rams do as well if they lose Pace, McCollum, and Timmerman for the season. According to you that would have no effect whatsoever? Right.


...
A bad o line is a bad o line.
Nope.

And you are missing the entire point if not deliberately trying to dodge it.

The case we have is someone who played well when the OL was solid (although not great). Then it fell apart in 2019 when both OTs started the season shaky and then they had multiple injury replacements.

The issue then is someone who plays well with a relatively healthy line who then has to play behind an injury depleted line. You guys are finding every way possible to avoid directly addressing that.

And I said if you don't get why extensive OL injuries make a difference I would explain it. Guess I have to do that. Though I think of it as football 101 basics.

First, OL rankings are subjective. Unless you just take PFF as gospel and don't think about it any deeper. A relatively healthy OL, even one that is not considered very good, at least has continuity plus the coaches know it and what it can do, as does the qb. That's why Warner could play well in ARZ behind an OL that was not considered stellar. They just combined his ability to read quickly pre-snap and get the ball out with their ability to play effectively in a short quick passing game. If a line can communicate and if the offensive coaches know their strengths and weaknesses they can at least plan on doing things that can work.

When an OL gets massively injured--beyond just a guy or 2 missing time--you lose continuity, you lose rhythm (an OL unit has to play together it's not just 5 individuals), and the qb loses confidence in it which leads to pressing on his part just to make plays. The playcalling is different because you can't use the entire arsenal (McVay directly said as much last year when asked if OL injuries changed his playcalling). The communication is not there, the familiarity is not there, the trust is not there, the timing is not there---it's just not an integrated unit.

Last year is a good example. Once they had 3 inexperience injury replacements in place, they did not start out that great--they stumbled against Baltimore and struggled against the Bears, and then did okay against teams that could not bring pressure (Arizona and Seattle), regressed against Dallas, but then improved against SF. It took them a while to get up to the point where they were cohesive enough to play a team like SF tought but at least they got there. Stats back this.

On top of it what you really listed was guys you THOUGHT would play well behind an injured OL. You still don't have examples of qbs actually playing as well behind extensively injured OLs. You just tried to change the topic.

And no in terms of trying to change the subject, a "bad OL" is not the same as an injury depleted one--including the fact that "bad" is just a subjective value judgment. I can say that an OL is probably one of the 10 best, or the middle of the pack, or not that effective (bottom 12) but I would never pretend it's possible for anyone to legitimately just rank them in some strict 1 through 32 order.

And there are good teams with average at best OLs. That's been true all along, it's something we all know.

But you add extensive injuries to that unit and you mess with continuity, cohesion, communication, trust, playcalling, timing, and efficiency. That's even with good OLs, which can be brought down by extensive injuries. AND when that happens qb play suffers. I named a couple of exceptions (Brady and Wilson) but as I said they couldn't sustain it, it caught up with them too.

...
...
Well , l totally disagree and we will leave it like that I guess . OR else , we will be going in circles like I said . To me it is much more simple than for you I guess. To me , bad is bad . It doesn't matter if they have a lot of back ups making it bad or if it is bad with the starters . It doesn't matter if they have a lack of communication , trust , etc etc . The fact is if the o line is ranked 25-32 by most experts , all of the qbs playing behind these lines , will be running for their lives on most games , they will be hit , hurried and sacked tons of times . Again , imo , you are trying to nitpick . The reason to WHY the line is bad doesn't matter , if the line SUCKS , it SUCKS , it doesn't matter if they are more or less cohesive as a unit . Bottom line is that the QB won't have a lot of time to throw the ball , so he better adapt , something goff couldn't do . I just can't understand why you can't admit that he shouldn't have regressed that much when even HE basically admitted that ( not with those words but something like that ) . Some of those picks were just plain stupid , mistakes rookies would do , not a qb playing his 4th season . He finished with 22 tds and 21 turnovers . Again , find any excuses you want , to me , those numbers are unacceptable .



User avatar
69RamFan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8819
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 5:19 pm
Location: LA-CA By way of NY/NJ
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 8:28 pm

I cannot take credit for the first stats....

I actually got this from another site... But did my own research at the same time....

From 2017-2019, who has the highest Red Zone QB passer rating (Min 100 RZ passes):

Hint - His initials are J.G.

Jared Goff
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Russell Wilson
Aaron Rodgers
Philip Rivers
Matt Ryan
Ben Roethlisberger
Dak Prescott
Deshaun Watson

Actually Goff was in the top 10 for having the most passing TD in the RZ each of those three years...

At the same time, He was in the top 10 for the most passing TD inside the 10yd line the past three years.

Coming in second for the most TDs in the RZ and inside the 10yd line behind Wilson

For the past three years,,, even with having a so so year in 2019,,,
Those are elite numbers with the best of them..... :D :D :D



User avatar
69RamFan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8819
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 5:19 pm
Location: LA-CA By way of NY/NJ
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2020 9:32 pm

Here is a great sample about the OL comparing from 2018 to 2019...

This vid was about the running game and Gurley,

But at the same time frame,,,

This didn't help the passing game and Goff either...

Because of how the defense were coming at McVay's scheme with a 6-1 defensive front....






If McVay can figure out how he can improve with this type of 6-1 or 6-2 Defense against his scheme,,, we should be good for the 2020 season......



Mike Schad 1st Rd
Starter
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 am
Contact:

Sat May 23, 2020 1:29 am

69RamFan wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 8:28 pm
I cannot take credit for the first stats....

I actually got this from another site... But did my own research at the same time....

From 2017-2019, who has the highest Red Zone QB passer rating (Min 100 RZ passes):

Hint - His initials are J.G.

Jared Goff
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Russell Wilson
Aaron Rodgers
Philip Rivers
Matt Ryan
Ben Roethlisberger
Dak Prescott
Deshaun Watson

Actually Goff was in the top 10 for having the most passing TD in the RZ each of those three years...

At the same time, He was in the top 10 for the most passing TD inside the 10yd line the past three years.

Coming in second for the most TDs in the RZ and inside the 10yd line behind Wilson

For the past three years,,, even with having a so so year in 2019,,,
Those are elite numbers with the best of them..... :D :D :D
+1. Key stats right there. Conducive to WINNING.
Goff 33-14 last 3 years (11 wins per)

NeverGoffers: "Red Zone Rating, Schmed Schmone Schmating." Stay on my narrative!!!!


Proud supporter of Los Angeles/St. Louis/Los Angeles Ram Football since 1974 in the Garden spot of America, Beautiful Brooklyn, NY...

User avatar
zackn
Veteran
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:40 pm
Contact:

Sat May 23, 2020 3:20 pm

All I am saying is that even with a bad line Goff should not have regressed that much.
First we pretend to know how Jackson etc. would play behind injury damaged OLs. They actually play behind top OLs but let's erase that fact and pretend it's all entirely on the qb.

Next we pretend to know exactly how much a qb "ought to" regress behind a shaky and injury damaged OL.

That's right up there with the myth that good qbs NEVER regress behind shaky and injury damaged OLs. Only the bad ones do apparently (according to the myth).

Meanwhile as the OL settled down toward the end of the 2019 season passing performance went (predictably) up.

I will look at some facts. The most infamous Rams OL injury wreck was in 2007 (though were those then too who tried to put it all on the qb).

So here's Bulger in 2006 v. 2007, and Goff in 2018 v. 2019.

BULGER 2006: 62.9% completions, 4.1% TD percent, 1.4% Int percent, 7.3 YPA, qb rating of 92.9
BULGER 2007: 58.5% completions, 2.9% TD percent, 4.0% Int percent, 6.3 YPA, qb rating of 70.3

GOFF 2018: 64.9% completions, 5.7% TD percent, 2.1% Int percent, 8.4 YPA, qb rating of 101.1
GOFF 2019: 62.9% completions, 3.5% TD percent, 2.6% Int percent, 7.4 YPA, qb rating of 86.5

Adjusting for the difference in eras, it does not look all that different to me. Though Goff's increase in INTs was minimal (0.5% increase).



Mike Schad 1st Rd
Starter
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:07 am
Contact:

Sat May 23, 2020 3:34 pm

zackn wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 3:20 pm
All I am saying is that even with a bad line Goff should not have regressed that much.
First we pretend to know how Jackson etc. would play behind injury damaged OLs. They actually play behind top OLs but let's erase that fact and pretend it's all entirely on the qb.

Next we pretend to know exactly how much a qb "ought to" regress behind a shaky and injury damaged OL.

That's right up there with the myth that good qbs NEVER regress behind shaky and injury damaged OLs. Only the bad ones do apparently (according to the myth).

Meanwhile as the OL settled down toward the end of the 2019 season passing performance went (predictably) up.

I will look at some facts. The most infamous Rams OL injury wreck was in 2007 (though were those then too who tried to put it all on the qb).

So here's Bulger in 2006 v. 2007, and Goff in 2018 v. 2019.

BULGER 2006: 62.9% completions, 4.1% TD percent, 1.4% Int percent, 7.3 YPA, qb rating of 92.9
BULGER 2007: 58.5% completions, 2.9% TD percent, 4.0% Int percent, 6.3 YPA, qb rating of 70.3

GOFF 2018: 64.9% completions, 5.7% TD percent, 2.1% Int percent, 8.4 YPA, qb rating of 101.1
GOFF 2019: 62.9% completions, 3.5% TD percent, 2.6% Int percent, 7.4 YPA, qb rating of 86.5

Adjusting for the difference in eras, it does not look all that different to me. Though Goff's increase in INTs was minimal (0.5% increase).
STOP MAKING SENSE!!!!!!!



Post Reply
Rate this topic
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests