Is Wolford a legit top end backup QB?

[Faceplant]

I've watched the AZ game twice and I do not believe the "9 points" argument paints a fair picture. Wolford moved the team and made tough throws. Made plays with his legs. Turnovers in the red zone cost the Rams points.

I would like to see more of him this preseason, but I have liked what I have seen so far....

 

[dieterbrock]

I've watched the AZ game twice and I do not believe the "9 points" argument paints a fair picture. Wolford moved the team and made tough throws. Made plays with his legs. Turnovers in the red zone cost the Rams points.

I would like to see more of him this preseason, but I have liked what I have seen so far....

4 3 and outs in that game, in the previous 3 games vs the Cardinals, the Rams had only 2 3 and outs combined.
I dont know why folks need to exaggerate how he played in that game, especially now that we have Stafford. The Rams had their way with that Arizona defense to the tune of almost 500 yards and 30 points per game in the previous 3 games vs them.
He threw the INT that basically gave Arizona the 7-0 lead. If not for the defense, the team would have been trailing 7-5 at the half.
Like Mike Tyson said, "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". And now that Wolford got his bell rung because the Seahawks knew what was coming, I'd imagine he'll be little more tentative going forward thus minimizing the one thing he did well.
I'm just happy we wont have to find out, we keep Stafford under for center for 19 games and life will be good

 

[PARAM]

I'm just happy we wont have to find out, we keep Stafford under center for 19 games and life will be good

20 Games.....21 if we don't get a first round bye

After reading that number the realization hit....that's a lot of games.

 

[Faceplant]

4 3 and outs in that game, in the previous 3 games vs the Cardinals, the Rams had only 2 3 and outs combined.
I dont know why folks need to exaggerate how he played in that game, especially now that we have Stafford. The Rams had their way with that Arizona defense to the tune of almost 500 yards and 30 points per game in the previous 3 games vs them.
He threw the INT that basically gave Arizona the 7-0 lead. If not for the defense, the team would have been trailing 7-5 at the half.
Like Mike Tyson said, "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". And now that Wolford got his bell rung because the Seahawks knew what was coming, I'd imagine he'll be little more tentative going forward thus minimizing the one thing he did well.
I'm just happy we wont have to find out, we keep Stafford under for center for 19 games and life will be good

Ummm... OK?? I guess I just don't hate the guy as much as you do??

 

[FrantikRam]

I've watched the AZ game twice and I do not believe the "9 points" argument paints a fair picture. Wolford moved the team and made tough throws. Made plays with his legs. Turnovers in the red zone cost the Rams points.

I would like to see more of him this preseason, but I have liked what I have seen so far....

It's the same old sad story of crediting/blaming everything on offense to the QB.

I also thought he played well. The first throw was awful obviously, but after that he settled in and for what he had control over, I think he played like an average NFL QB which is awesome for his first career start coming under so much pressure with the playoffs on the line.

He was accurate, made some throws under pressure, and used his legs well.

 

[OldSchool]

Ummm... OK?? I guess I just don't hate the guy as much as you do??

It's not for those of us arguing he hasn't shown he can be a starter about hate. It's just not seeing anything on tape, yet, to crown him something other than a backup. After saying this about Wolford for about the 100th time I think I'll move on since this concept seems beyond people.

 

[OldSchool]

It's the same old sad story of crediting/blaming everything on offense to the QB.

I also thought he played well. The first throw was awful obviously, but after that he settled in and for what he had control over, I think he played like an average NFL QB which is awesome for his first career start coming under so much pressure with the playoffs on the line.

He was accurate, made some throws under pressure, and used his legs well.

Funny because if that first comment was about #16 the 2nd bolded would have never been uttered.

The third bolded is interesting since he had a 57% completion in his time on the field which would have put him 36th when stacked up against the top passers in the league. At least I think 36th ESPN's list stops at 35 which is still .05% above Wolford. Not sure how we can call that accurate but oh well.

 

[sloramfan]

i sure as hell don't hate the guy, and i sure as hell was rooting my ass off for him to succeed, but even before dieter layed out the 3 and out comparison, the wolford i saw, is not, in my opinion a very good backup...

that's right, not even a good backup... goff needed help?? puh-leeze... wolford needed the cavalry, and got it...

should wolford make the team, and have to start? of course i'll be rooting my ass off for him to succeed I'M A RAMS FAN, and could care less about "i told you so's".. just win baby...

let's hope like hell we get through the season healthy... IMHO wolford at QB= no playoff berth...

go rams

slo

 

[Faceplant]

It's not for those of us arguing he hasn't shown he can be a starter about hate. It's just not seeing anything on tape, yet, to crown him something other than a backup. After saying this about Wolford for about the 100th time I think I'll move on since this concept seems beyond people.

But I never said anything about him being a starter, lol. This thread is about his status as a backup, yes?

 

[PARAM]

On third down he was 5 of 9 for 31 yards (3.4 ypa) with 2 first downs. He had 3 third down runs for first downs. On first down he was 5 of 11 for 57 yards (5.18 ypa) and a pick. He ran 3 times on first down for 20 yards. So yeah, he offered a new option on the ground but the first time he ran against Seattle he was injured. His best down was 2nd down. 11 of 17 for 138 yards, no rushing attempts. But in the end, 6.08 ypa overall isn't even NFL average, is it? It would have placed him just above Sam Darnold for #32 in the NFL. If we count everybody who threw at least 28 passes, he'd have finished #39 with guys like Marcus Mariota, Mason Rudolph, Tyrod Taylor, Chase Daniels, Kyle Allen, Brett Rypien and Garrett Gilbert ahead of him. Is that impressive? Not to me, though I was impressed with his cajones. But if Garrett Gilbert (21-38 for 243 yds 1 TD 1 Int) beats you out, you can't be impressed.

 

[FrantikRam]

Funny because if that first comment was about #16 the 2nd bolded would have never been uttered.

The third bolded is interesting since he had a 57% completion in his time on the field which would have put him 36th when stacked up against the top passers in the league. At least I think 36th ESPN's list stops at 35 which is still .05% above Wolford. Not sure how we can call that accurate but oh well.

Ugh.

Wolford started off horribly - IIRC 1/6 with an INT. After that he settled in and was accurate - several drops in that game and after the shaky start, he was above 60%. Likely closer to 70% if not for the drops.

I'm completely excusing his shaky start because it was his first career game. I also completely excused #16's first season FWIW.

I'm assuming that doesn't happen again - and he started off better against Seattle so that's a fair assumption.

If you look at his stats after that shaky start, and compare to any comments I've ever made about any QBs performance, I've never said anything bad about a game like that - 200 yards, 50 yards rushing, 7 YPA on over 60% (rough numbers after the poor start, once he settled in) with no turnovers. That's a solid game.

And of course, this topic has nothing to do with any former Ram QBs.

 

[FrantikRam]

i sure as hell don't hate the guy, and i sure as hell was rooting my ass off for him to succeed, but even before dieter layed out the 3 and out comparison, the wolford i saw, is not, in my opinion a very good backup...

that's right, not even a good backup... goff needed help?? puh-leeze... wolford needed the cavalry, and got it...

should wolford make the team, and have to start? of course i'll be rooting my ass off for him to succeed I'M A RAMS FAN, and could care less about "i told you so's".. just win baby...

let's hope like hell we get through the season healthy... IMHO wolford at QB= no playoff berth...

go rams

slo

Well this is about Wolford being a backup - so I'd love to see your list of backup QBs that, in your mind, would lead the Rams to a playoff berth.

FWIW, I definitely think he could have gotten us to 8-8 and beaten out the Bears for the 7 seed.

 

[Ramstien]

In answer to the question, I'd give him a resounding, Yes. Do any of you saps have any idea how many snaps a backup QB gets during the week of practice before, the game? I didn't think so.

 

[Tano]

I just saw these posts and I am telling myself

Just stay out of it ... just stay out of it ... just stay out of it...

 

[Allen2McVay]

I just saw these posts and I am telling myself

Just stay out of it ... just stay out of it ... just stay out of it...

I think you need to jump in.

 

[OldSchool]

But I never said anything about him being a starter, lol. This thread is about his status as a backup, yes?

You're absolutely right it's everybody else it seems and these threads all have run on together.

 

[wolfdogg]

"and that says it all"?

If "all" is McVay was through with Goff and Wolford was the only other QB he realistically could have started, then yeah that says it all.

But if Wolford was all that.....capable of inspiring his team mates; making plays Goff allegedly couldn't; being an NFL starter.......then why the hell did we trade for Stafford? Why not keep the 2022 & 2023 first round picks and just trade Goff for a 6th round pick and a blocking sled?

Because Wolford didn't impress McVay that much!

If I recall correctly, news of the lions willing to trade Stafford, around January 23, came out after that game so mcvay probably was unaware of his availability for a trade when deciding who would start against the packers.

And although i would have liked to have seen a true competition in camp between Goff and Wolford, I much prefer stafford

 

[dieterbrock]

Wolford started off horribly - IIRC 1/6 with an INT. After that he settled in and was accurate - several drops in that game and after the shaky start, he was above 60%. Likely closer to 70% if not for the drops

Drops? Nah, he missed a couple of guys downfield, which enthused the Rams fanbase who were sick of Goff. Didnt matter that he didnt connect, that he threw the pass in the first place was seemingly enough.
So you mentioned his slow start, but how about how he ended? 1 for his last 4 for -2 yards. Important? Well, his inability to convert had them settling for the field goal that made the score 18-7, and then after Murray drove them down the field for a FG to potentially make it a 1 score game (Thanks for the block ST!!), Wolford went 3 and out, only eating up a little over 1 minute of clock, and giving the ball right back to Murray in good field position.
Of course the defense did their thing, stopped the Cards dead and Kingsbury waiving the white flag. The ineptitude of the offense there was greatly overlooked.
Alas, the dislike of Goff was so strong I actually could understand why some were so supportive of #9. I didnt agree with it, but understood it. What I dont understand is why now people are still holding on to some illusion (delusion?) that JW played well. Goff is gone, we've now got our QB that we can all get behind.

 

[FrantikRam]

Drops? Nah, he missed a couple of guys downfield, which enthused the Rams fanbase who were sick of Goff. Didnt matter that he didnt connect, that he threw the pass in the first place was seemingly enough.
So you mentioned his slow start, but how about how he ended? 1 for his last 4 for -2 yards. Important? Well, his inability to convert had them settling for the field goal that made the score 18-7, and then after Murray drove them down the field for a FG to potentially make it a 1 score game (Thanks for the block ST!!), Wolford went 3 and out, only eating up a little over 1 minute of clock, and giving the ball right back to Murray in good field position.
Of course the defense did their thing, stopped the Cards dead and Kingsbury waiving the white flag. The ineptitude of the offense there was greatly overlooked.
Alas, the dislike of Goff was so strong I actually could understand why some were so supportive of #9. I didnt agree with it, but understood it. What I dont understand is why now people are still holding on to some illusion (delusion?) that JW played well. Goff is gone, we've now got our QB that we can all get behind.

Obviously this requires context - if you just take it at face value and hold the QB responsible for dropped TDs and RBs fumbling on the one yard line, and compare it to other QBs who aren't making their first career start in a do or die game - yes, it was a below average game overall.

I've never held the QB to that standard and just look at how they're playing. Doesn't matter how many points the offense scores - QB can't control that. OL has to block, TEs have to catch perfectly thrown TDs, and RBs have to not fumble.

Taking all that into account, I feel like he played well after settling in. I can't think of a backup QB I'd rather have.

 

[dieterbrock]

Obviously this requires context

I tried that, but the context of how bad Arizona's defense was/is, along with how dominating the Rams offense had been against them previously, compared to how poorly the results were offensively, doesnt resonate. Seems to me that the only context that matters was Goff could do no right, and Wolford could do no wrong.
These dropped passes? What ones? The passes that were thrown poorly and missed wide open guys? How about the great catches that were made? Woods made a great catch on the sideline, Everett of all people made a great catch of a pass behind him, and Higbee was wide open, but the ball was thrown so poorly that he had to stop to catch it, a well thrown ball may have been 6. Funny how that works, how "context" get left out. As for the fumble, the shame there was that Wolford had failed at the goal line on the previous possession, ended up only getting 3. So they ran Akers instead, and he coughed it up. Context indeed. Defense scored 9, ST saved 3. The offense literally didnt need to do anything.