Jon Gruden changes tone on Goff

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
See, I respectfully disagree.
Well then you're dead to me.
Maybe we're talking about different things. When I say "develop a QB" what I mean is to take a college QB or a journeyman QB with raw talent and develop that talent into a pure NFL thrower...a guy who delivers the ball when it matters. McNair never became that. I don't hold that against him cuz that's not what Fisher asked him to do and it's not what nearly won them a Super Bowl...but...he wasn't a pure thrower in that sense. And it's possible to be that AND be mobile. I'm not saying purity lies in the pocket.
Yeah, we're probably talking about different things then. You're drilling down to a specific trait in a QB by saying development means molding a QB into a pocket passer. So if that's the case, then guys like Tarkenton, to McNair, all the way on down to Wilson, didn't have to be developed because they had that extra dimension? Or they didn't need 'as much' development? I'm unsure of what your point is regarding McNair's talents. Almost seems like Fisher deserves no credit for McNair's success. And if that's the case, then no mobile QBs can credit their head coaches.
So, for all the antipathy for Belichick, I think Matt Cassell's season is undervalued, Brady's development is GROSSLY underestimated and people forget how well Bledsoe was playing prior to his injury and Brady taking over. That was in no small part...Belichick. I don't like giving him much credit, but credit where it's due. Also, under Belichick, Testaverde had his best years and revived his career toward the end. It made some wonder if he'd had that all along, "what could have been?" And that staff in Cleveland (what became Baltimore) essentially was a soon to be All-Star cast of coaching that was on the cusp of getting a ton of things right.
Why is Cassell's season undervalued? I said he had a season equal to what you'd expect from Bradford and the rest of the team had a hand in his winning record. You cannot deny that if you look at it closely and objectively. And Bledsoe was not playing well prior to Brady taking over. He actually had his best years under Parcells and Carroll. And Testaverde's best season (statistically) was under Marchibroda while his best W/L record was under Parcells. Didn't matter who his coach was, he was just a good QB who could thrive under different conditions if those conditions were ripe. So ultimately, who developed him? Ray Perkins? lol. See, here's the thing. If mobile QBs are exempt from the QB development rule as it pertains to a Head Coach's hand in it, then wouldn't the same hold true for talented pocket passers as well? I mean, what if Brady was just that good coming out, and Belichick had no hand in it (like your Fisher/McNair comparison)? What if Brady's just that cerebral and works harder than anyone else? What if it was just the right time, right place, right system, and right infusion of talent on an annual basis? Can't rule that out, can you?
And honestly, looking at this disaster of an offensive scheme and the complete lack of development of ANY of the QBs under Fisher's watch since he came to the Rams, even if we "gave him McNair", which I'm not want to do, even if we did... and? I'm not sure how that helps him in 2016 with two young QBs who he and his staff seem to have no idea how to develop.
I knew we would ultimately land here. I won't allow you to toss out McNair, since that's the ONLY rookie QB of his choosing, and he had success with that choice. He went to the playoffs 4 times with that choice, and he put a team around him that would allow him to thrive. He didn't choose to have Bradford blow out his knees and be saddled with guys like Clemens, Davis, Hill, et al. Now we're in 2016, with the 2nd rookie QB of his choosing, 3 games in, and he's already failed at developing Goff? Without looking, tell me when McNair started. Okay, now look. Did it matter that it took that long for him to start, when ultimately they were in a Super Bowl together and almost beat arguably the most potent team of all time? And if Fisher/Goff get into the Super Bowl together in the next couple of years, would Fisher get any credit for that, or is it because Goff is just that talented?
I can tell you that under this CBA, you've got to be a stone idiot to spend a 7th round pick to trade for a guy as your backup and THEN use up a ton of reps having him and another guy fight over the damn backup job, thereby ensuring that the rookie you spent the 3rd round pick on gets virtually zero reps. That...is head-shakingly idiotic and I just can't wrap my head around that kind of thinking. They knew Keenum. They wanted him. They Traded for him. But they still wanted him to earn the backup job enough to NOT develop their rookie???? Who, at the time may have been the future if Nick Foles didn't work out?
All of Houston's QBs fell into a hole that year, so they had to steal Case from our practice squad. He was on the PS because they had to make room for Mark Barron and Foles was slated as the starter anyway. He was in camp for a couple of months, but it was enough to make an impression on the coaches to want him back. And thankfully they did, because he stabilized the QB position for us last year in the back stretch of the season after Foles failed. You can toss all rules out the window when your starter (Bradford) can't stay on the field and you need to find a replacement on an annual basis. Mannion got his reps, but he didn't show enough to supplant either Foles early on, or Keenum down the stretch. He's getting the reps a backup QB should get, and now he has to beat out Goff (which he isn't). Keenum earned the starting job. I happen to subscribe to that method of advancement in the league.
I'm just not buying it. And even if it were given to me, I wouldn't take it. Cuz like I said, even if I just acquiesce on McNair, it doesn't change anything about Fisher's Rams tenure which is what concerns me. And his decisions, especially in the last few seasons have been just...bad with respect to the QB position. Downright bad.
Naw. His LUCK has been bad with the QB position since he got here. He didn't injure Bradford. Or re-injure Bradford. But he did draft Goff, so that book is far from closed.
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,176
Name
Mack
Well then you're dead to me.


I seriously LOL'd. Almost woke up the wife...hahaha.

Yeah, we're probably talking about different things then. You're drilling down to a specific trait in a QB by saying development means molding a QB into a pocket passer. So if that's the case, then guys like Tarkenton, to McNair, all the way on down to Wilson, didn't have to be developed because they had that extra dimension? Or they didn't need 'as much' development? I'm unsure of what your point is regarding McNair's talents. Almost seems like Fisher deserves no credit for McNair's success. And if that's the case, then no mobile QBs can credit their head coaches.

I think you missed what I said. Purity doesn't lie on the pocket and allows for mobile passers. My point is that McNair was much closer to Vick than Tarkenton. I'm not hating on him for that and Fisher actually used him pretty well in that scheme, but he was what he was.

Why is Cassell's season undervalued? I said he had a season equal to what you'd expect from Bradford and the rest of the team had a hand in his winning record. You cannot deny that if you look at it closely and objectively. And Bledsoe was not playing well prior to Brady taking over. He actually had his best years under Parcells and Carroll. And Testaverde's best season (statistically) was under Marchibroda while his best W/L record was under Parcells. Didn't matter who his coach was, he was just a good QB who could thrive under different conditions if those conditions were ripe. So ultimately, who developed him? Ray Perkins? lol. See, here's the thing. If mobile QBs are exempt from the QB development rule as it pertains to a Head Coaches' hand in it, then wouldn't the same hold true for talented pocket passers as well? I mean, what if Brady was just that good coming out, and Belichick had no hand in it (like your Fisher/McNair comparison)? What if Brady's just that cerebral and works harder than anyone else? What if it was just the right time, right place, right system, and right infusion of talent on an annual basis? Can't rule that out, can you?

Well, mobile QBs aren't rules out, so a lot of this is responding to something I didn't say and I actually agree with you.

I realize that initially Fisher had some bad QB luck. That said, when he got Keenum back, you send Austin Davis on his way and get the Rookie the reps he needs. And I think we've seen that thus far, he's not set up the rookie to be successful. What seems to be the most in Goff's way are the actual play calling and some of the under Center mechanics. Well, the very idea that there's no adjustment to get production from the Rookie in 2016 is slow. There's a word for that... It really doesn't help that our play calling is such a nightmare that Gruden gets hard listening to it.

I would dispute that Mannion got his reps, but that's water under the bridge now that we got Goff. Mannion won't be here beyond his rookie deal, anyway, and I fully expect us to deal him with a year left to recoup picks because otherwise, we get nothing.

By the way, love the football talk.

And you're right about Testaverde. He's had more hands on him than a NY Subway turnstile... So who really knows who developed him, but I had thought his best years were under Belichick. I shoulda checked first. Another cautionary tale regarding tired posting...lol.
 

Picked4td

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
1,568
Idk how you can really argue with what hes saying. I thought by now it was common knowledge that with the new CBA its tough to get reps for your back ups, especially QB. Now hes likely getting good practice of calling plays, reading coverage/blitz, and a feel for the speed of the game, but neither of those help him with our own plays and going through the reads, nor do they give him an authentic game like experience with actual hits and real pressure.

Simply put, until hes the starter hes not getting any real reps that will have him playing like a vet and not a rookie once he does start. Its exactly why people, myself included, wanted him to start week 1 and get the growing pains out of the way
 

gabriel18

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
4,902
That's your opinion PERIOD
Not really my opinion but it seems like every so called analyst is crazy over Wentz and that doesn't look good for a team that could've had him . Especially a team that has scored 9 points in two games .
 

gabriel18

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
4,902
Even though I liked Wentz a little better in the draft I'm not ready to say that they picked the wrong guy, yet. They definitely picked the wrong guy if they wanted him playing this year though.
That's the point I was trying to make . I thought they drafted a QB that could start day one and was NFL ready . Just disappointed I guess .
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
BTW, @Mackeyser, what's your definition (or idea) of how a head coach develops a QB?
What is it you think they do, or should do, to accomplish that goal?
AND ... do QB coaches, coordinators, etc., have any hand in that?
 

gabriel18

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
4,902
Well, okay, since you said PERIOD and all, I guess that's that. :(
I'm just pointing out what 95% of the media is saying and that makes the Rams look bad right now . You can't tell me that a lot of Ram fans dont think they made the wrong pick . I'm all in on Goff but can't understand how the #1 pick can't beat out a guy that has put up 9 points so far . I guess today's game will give us a better grasp on how the season plays out .
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
I'm just pointing out what 95% of the media is saying and that makes the Rams look bad right now .
That's fine, but you know ... the media ... ?
Who really gives a shit about what they say.
Seriously, most of them are no more qualified to weigh in on an issue than everyone here.
 

OC--LeftCoast

Agent Provocateur
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
3,695
Name
Greg
That's the point I was trying to make . I thought they drafted a QB that could start day one and was NFL ready . Just disappointed I guess .


And that's the thing, when did Fisher ever come out and say we're looking to plug in our rookie QB day 1?

This has been a long term pick from day one, Fisher rarely if ever starts rookies opening week, hell I remember Robert Quinn was a healthy inactive his first nfl game, even Donald didn't start last year until week 4

Who really gives a fat rats ASS what 95% of the flipping media believes. yeah the same media that's trying their best to ram justifying Kraperdicks disrespecting our flag and national anthem down our throat, sorry but I think I'll just go ahead and keep my own "opinion" here which is;

Relax ladies, Goff is a long term investment, I've been on board with him day one, when the staff feels it's time to unveil him, then and only then can we begin to come to "meaningful" conclusions as to whether or not the Rams screwed the pooch or knocked it out of the park concerning his selection.

GO RAMS!!
 
Last edited:

ramsince62

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
2,581
Harkey's the fullback, and the blocking tight end. Kendricks is the move tight end, but also motions as the fullback. Goff is also getting the reps he needs, because he doesn't just sit around during practice and take notes. He may not be getting the lion's share of reps with the 1's, but I'd find it very hard to believe he's getting none. Then he stated that he doesn't know if Case has receivers running around free - which would signify to me that he hasn't watched any tape. So basically he's just saying stuff.

Yup, Gruden and Carroll, two of the dumbest bricks and losers in league history....UGH.......:argue: I'm so thankful we have a Fish instead.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude

Yup, Gruden and Carroll, two of the dumbest bricks and losers in league history....UGH.......:argue: I'm so thankful we have a Fish instead.
I don't think he's dumb. I just think he was being overly generic in his analysis.
If you don't know something, then don't talk about it. Or learn something about the thing of which you're speaking.
 

ramsince62

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
2,581
I don't think he's dumb. I just think he was being overly generic in his analysis.
If you don't know something, then don't talk about it. Or learn something about the thing of which you're speaking.

I know what you're saying, it's just that I tire of some folks taking shots at obviously successful coaches like those two.....this criticism is not directed towards you specifically. Personally, I think this team would be better off with a Jon Gruden at this point, but that's just my opinion. This team needs mental toughness and he's just the type of coach to give it to them.