- Joined
- May 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,291
Allow me to begin by saying I preferred Wentz. Review my posts pre-draft and you will find I believed he was smarter, bigger, and stronger. I thought he was Big Ben II. Those were my reasons for preferring him.
But now I see why Goff was the pick. While Wentz was accustomed to a team with superior talent and coaching to the competition, who knew how he would handle the adversity of playing on a team that was undermanned? How would Wentz deal with multiple losses, an inferior OLine and developing receivers? Goff dealt with those issues and found a way to persevere through them at Cal. Wentz may have been more ready to command an NFL offense but Fisher believed that slow and steady wins the race. Jeff had an extension on the table so he wasn't interested in quick fixes. Snisher believed Goff was better equipped to be Matty Ice who was a more precise passer when the team came together. Fisher believed this team would continue to develop into a powerhouse and Keemun was good enough to manage the team until Goff was ready. Goff showed better red zone efficiency in college when the windows are tighter and the pressure more intense. This caused Snisher to believe Jared had more upside. Goff had better footwork in the pocket when he had to buy time to throw (Wentz was more likely to break and run), and Goff showed the best anticipation when he KNEW what to expect from the defense.
In short, Wentz may very well be the superior QB but Goff was a better fit for THIS team as built by Fisher's formula. To make some NFL comps, Goff (in FISHER'S mind) was capable of becoming Tom Brady while Wentz was more Brett Favre and we all know which one the conservative, play it close to the vest method a conservative coach would chose. Goff will acquiesce to a system while Wentz would be more likely to improvise.
Now my post has become a coaching philosophy lesson. Goff was the talented and developing game manager while Wentz would prefer to trash a play call for the sake of trusting his own abilitiy to make something happen. Older coaches tend to ply their trade with patience. Younger coaches seek to find a way to establish something new in order to find success, thus gaining both recognition and security.
I wonder which of you see this differently.
But now I see why Goff was the pick. While Wentz was accustomed to a team with superior talent and coaching to the competition, who knew how he would handle the adversity of playing on a team that was undermanned? How would Wentz deal with multiple losses, an inferior OLine and developing receivers? Goff dealt with those issues and found a way to persevere through them at Cal. Wentz may have been more ready to command an NFL offense but Fisher believed that slow and steady wins the race. Jeff had an extension on the table so he wasn't interested in quick fixes. Snisher believed Goff was better equipped to be Matty Ice who was a more precise passer when the team came together. Fisher believed this team would continue to develop into a powerhouse and Keemun was good enough to manage the team until Goff was ready. Goff showed better red zone efficiency in college when the windows are tighter and the pressure more intense. This caused Snisher to believe Jared had more upside. Goff had better footwork in the pocket when he had to buy time to throw (Wentz was more likely to break and run), and Goff showed the best anticipation when he KNEW what to expect from the defense.
In short, Wentz may very well be the superior QB but Goff was a better fit for THIS team as built by Fisher's formula. To make some NFL comps, Goff (in FISHER'S mind) was capable of becoming Tom Brady while Wentz was more Brett Favre and we all know which one the conservative, play it close to the vest method a conservative coach would chose. Goff will acquiesce to a system while Wentz would be more likely to improvise.
Now my post has become a coaching philosophy lesson. Goff was the talented and developing game manager while Wentz would prefer to trash a play call for the sake of trusting his own abilitiy to make something happen. Older coaches tend to ply their trade with patience. Younger coaches seek to find a way to establish something new in order to find success, thus gaining both recognition and security.
I wonder which of you see this differently.
