(Poll) Goff or Wentz Part Deux. Who do YOU want?

[Wolfecola]

This thread.

 

[nighttrain]

He said Week 12. I'd place a bet by the 5th game. Not 100% sure on Week 1. More like 60%. But I am certain he'll be starting by the 5th game.

Add me to the list of fans who believe absolutely in this statement, I actually think very good chance he starts first game
train

 

[PartyKane]

I believe Goff will be the starter by week 1.

Protect your investment? Just like Cam, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Winston, Mariota, etc?
You see what you have NOW

 

[nighttrain]

i HOPE we have this Generations JOE MONTANA, Hated him cuz he was a whiner, but *&*&^^&(*()_() great
train

 

[NJRamsFan]

Can we let this thread die now?

 

[Mojo Ram]

Can we let this thread die now?

Sure.

 

[Mikey Ram]

I've changed my mind, I'm now hoping the pick is Wentz...I can't wait for the suspense to end...

 

[Mackeyser]

I think you can with some limited exceptions. I think a team like the 1999 Browns would have ruined any rookie QB you dropped on it. But barring the limited examples of truly terrible teams (hell, Steve Young played on one and the 49ers were able to help him turn his career around), the true greats would have been greats anywhere.

Peyton Manning would have been Peyton Manning if he landed elsewhere. Peyton Manning was the system.

Just...no. Peyton Manning thrived in a system that fit perfectly his skill set. He wasn't asked to do things that didn't fit him. Oh... and when he was asked to change? He struggled mightily in his last year outside of the offense he'd run all of his professional life, for physical and scheme reasons. Kubiak's scheme just didn't fit Manning and wouldn't have fit him 3 years ago when he set all those records.

What you're saying is that scheme, coaching, surrounding players, etc mean absolutely nothing. I'm saying they absolutely do mean something. Steve Young is the perfect example. Stunk on the Bucs and in the USFL. Went to the 9ers and became a HoFer. And... if you actually watch any of Steve Young's play during that time, he NEEDED the coaching and Walsh's scheme. You couldn't just drop Young in anywhere and he'd succeed. He needed to be developed, nurtured and put into a scheme that maximized his talents. Not every scheme fits every player. How is that even a point of contention?

Yet, Brady's OL always seemed to improve, like magic, and then Brady would turn it on. Almost like somebody adjusted to the situation.

And Manning, the statue, was consistently one of the least sacked QBs throughout his career. Do you mean to tell me that's just coincidence? Let me remind you that Manning was sacked only 16 times in 2010 behind an OL comprised of:
LT: Charlie Johnson (a guy who was a mediocre starting LG and never a NFL quality LT)
LG: Kyle DeVan (you should be saying, "WHO?")
C: Jeff Saturday (at 35 years old)
RG: Mike Pollak (a backup G/C on Cincinnati)
RT: Ryan Diem (a decent starting RT)

Manning is the opposite of Russell Wilson. His style of play minimizes sacks. Prime Manning would have barely been sacked behind that Seattle OL. Not because the Seattle OL was good. Because Manning was that good.

sigh... different. offense. different. offense. Say it with me now... different. offense. Different schemes require different body types, put different emphasis on OL blocking schemes, require different things from the OL. In the EP offense that they were running in 2010, Belicheck had them shorten things up to allow Brady to release the ball quicker and thus require the OL to hold blocks for less time. It's an adjustment he could make in that offense. Why are you just throwing out random stuff?

I don't get to count Elway after he lost his mobility due to age because he was mobile prior to that? Same with Favre? Isn't the crux of your argument that non-mobile QBs don't succeed in the WCO?

So Elway "won" two superbowls at the end of his career, when really, if we're going to be serious, he became a game manager behind Terrell Davis. His play was tangential to them winning and Elway wasn't a substantial factor, the run game and defense were both years. That's not the point of what you're saying. You're trying to make the point that a QB can be SUCCESSFUL in all caps... and? who has? Other than the outlier Brees? Elway at the end wasn't. He was Capt. Handoff. And he got his rings doing that because he was too old to do diving helicopters anymore. Favre had one decent season in the pocket with the Vikes. He never stopped being Favre, he just was LESS the mobile Favre we saw. He still moved outside the pocket. None of that makes your point.

We watch Jared Goff and see that he's a pocket passer. Great. And he looks to be pretty damn good. That's great, too. Point is that even if you get past the fact that no Air Raid QB has ever lasted in the NFL or had any decent success beyond Foles' one really good season (yeah, Foles and Keenum also came from Air Raid offenses), the system he's being dropped into has no record of success with the typ of QB he is other than one outlier and we aren't trying to replicate those conditions.

You simply cannot conflate player's conditions or ignore their disparate offensive systems as if those don't weigh in as factors when they are major factors. If they weren't factors, then Tim Couch would be a top QB. Is he? No? Hmmm. (insert tearing down Tim Couch to make the point that Goff is awesome which isn't the point in contention)

Well, no, I stake my argument on Jared Goff. I stake my argument on the Rams not running a true WCO, a point you already conceded. I stake my argument on your WCO argument being illogical and ineffective in the first place. What do you stake your argument on? Lazy generalizations? Certainly seems like it.

This idea that pocket passers can't succeed in WCOs is beyond insane. But it's not even that relevant. You've already told us that the Rams don't run a straight WCO.

But hey, it's always entertaining when people try to tell me what "reality" is. I'm glad to know that you think your opinion is "reality." Meanwhile, over here in my "reality," I'm just going to keep on thinking that your outlook is inaccurate.

Okay... well, I asked for examples and you provided me examples more of why one should NOT use pocket passers in a WCO than why one should. Every successful WCO since the 90s has used a mobile QB except Payton with Brees and that's because he's beyond exceptional AND Payton is an innovator within that system.

What I meant with saying that we're using a quasi-WCO (and don't be obtuse, I wasn't making any lazy generalizations and you know it), is that Fisher was unhappy with Schotty's WCO and wanted to make changes, but didn't want to change the offense. So, he brought in Cignetti and they made some alterations. Those helped a little, then stagnated all the same. Then Boras came in and...even more stagnation, but the D had been improving all the time and Gurley was now part of the picture he's a great deodorant and covers a lot of stink.

So they've got this WCO that's had multiple hands on it, that's not purely any "variant" or "system" like in New Orleans, there's no unifying principle or guiding philosphy and now they're looking to further bolt on additional tinkers with Mike Groh's passing inputs. That's a bit of an unknown. Will it attack various zones, focus on mismatches, attack the defense vertically, etc.

THAT is why I called it a quasi-WCO, as I articulated multiple times in the past. So don't do that.

If you want to cheer and drink the Kool-Aid and believe we're gonna set records and go undefeated, then fine, do that. Heck, there's no better time than now to do that!!! I've purposely not responded to dozens of posts because I just didn't see the need to dampen anyone's enthusiasm.

But don't pretend that solid, clear-thinking analysis backs that up.

The Rams are trying to do something that hasn't been done before. Maybe it'll work out. Maybe it'll be a colossal bust. I'm just articulating the ACTUAL risks they are taking.

For whatever reason, that's striking a real nerve. /shrug

Hey, long shots sometimes pay off. That said, I'm not gonna say that this is a slam dunk if it isn't. Doesn't mean I won't root for the long shot to pay off...

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

Long shot...

Mac, Mac, mac...mac mac

Sigh

 

[Mojo Ram]

People are lauding the situation that P.Lynch has been dropped into in Denver which I agree with, although I still don't think he's an NFL QB but I digress. Goff couldn't ask for a more ideal destination than LA.
Stud running back, stout defense, college home town.

I am fully behind the Goff pick but Wentz is going to be a stud in this league. I wish he could have landed somewhere else. Philly is mess right now.

 

[Mackeyser]

Long shot...

Mac, Mac, mac...mac mac

Sigh

I'm still convinced a large contingent of folks believe either a) I'm bent about Goff or b) I'm super tied up about being right and will root for the Rams to lose so I can say, I told y'all so.

None of which is true.

Still, I see what I see.

Hey, if my damn Botox hadn't been a bad batch, I'd probably not have all this time and be spending a bunch of my extra time back at BJJ.... but it is what it is...

 

[RamWoodie]

My eyes are wide open. QBs are not getting harder and harder to come by. And the "issue" that forces QBs to start out of "necessity" applies just as much to the Rams. The Rams don't have a viable starter besides Goff. That's why they traded up for Goff in the first place.(well, that combined with Goff's top level talent)

For you to say that shows how closed your eyes are. The track record show how tough it is for spread system QBs to adjust to the NFL. Goff is quite talented but not day 1 starter talented as I see him. He's got a way to go before he's ready to start.

The NFL is going to something. You can't deny it. NFL offenses are growing more and more to resemble spread offenses which has made the transition easier for rookie QBs.(that and the more restrictive rules towards defenses which have opened up the passing game)

If you think so...but explain why there's a problem with spread offense college QBs making it in the NFL.

I'll place a bet with you right now that Goff becomes the Rams starter before Week 12 (barring injury).

I don't bet my hard earned money. This is just a difference of opinion...and we're gonna see who's right. I will gracefully admit I was wrong if Goff starts. Not a problem for me...there's too many times we've seen rookies come in the NFL and be better than expected...that's part of the fun of the draft.

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

Mac, the one thing I believe ( well not just one, haha) you have mistaken is... the Rams are going to be a power run team, you seem so concerned about the fast LBs in our division, well I suppose you'd have a point if the Yams were actually going to be a passing team...thing is, there're not

I feel silly writing this, cuz I know you already know this

 

[-X-]

 

[Mackeyser]

I'm not sure what the alternative is...

No one wants to see me twerking on an effigy of Goff or Fisher, drunk on Kool-Aid.

Not a pretty picture.

 

[Mackeyser]

Mac, the one thing I believe ( well not just one, haha) you have mistaken is... the Rams are going to be a power run team, you seem so concerned about the fast LBs in our division, well I suppose you'd have a point if the Yams were actually going to be a passing team...thing is, there're not

I feel silly writing this, cuz I know you already know this

Well, we both love our Yams... and yes, they will be a power running team. And with a rookie QB, teams will account for that... they'll disguise coverages, stack the box, have run blitzes, zone blitzes and generally try to do everything to stop the run and make Goff beat them in the air.

That was the plan before and will doubly be the plan now.

I think we're going to see Goff make some amazing plays... and we're going to see the system in all it's flawed non-glory.

And Fisher won't be able to say anymore, "if we only had a QB".

The only thing after that will be when we get an actual offensive mind in who can bring in an offense and properly develop Goff and the talent we have. I just worry that it will take Kroenke years to realize the need to change...

 

[NJRamsFan]

I'm still convinced a large contingent of folks believe either a) I'm bent about Goff

Yes

b) I'm super tied up about being right

Yes

and will root for the Rams to lose so I can say, I told y'all so.

I don't think you'lll actively root against the rams but I do think if they fail for the reasons you stated it will bring you a certain amount of satisfaction. (Hedged your bets you're either the guy that saw all this coming and tried to warn us or the rams win....win/win)

We know you prefered Wentz. We know why you preferred Wentz. We know your issues with Goff. We know you think the system is not the best fit. We know your doubts about fisher developing qbs. We know you say you still don't dislike goff as a prospect despite these things. We fully understand your stance at this point you're not saying anything new but rather re packaging the same arguments.

I can only speak for myself but I for one am tired of reading why (in your opinion) this is a flawed marriage and we shouldn't expect success. I don't care if you can make a valid case. We're winning at least 10 games this year and not a single person on this board can tell me shit.

 

[-X-]

they'll disguise coverages, stack the box, have run blitzes, zone blitzes and generally try to do everything to stop the run and make Goff beat them in the air.

That's kind of an oversimplification of how to stop an NFL offense. For one, it's not generally a good idea to stack the box on an RB who can take it the distance once he gets through that first line of defense. And Gurley didn't see a lot of that because of that reason. Disguising coverages doesn't do much either, when it's the Rams themselves who are disguising their offense by running and motioning multiple plays out of the same sets. But that aside, and assuming you're right, so what? We could have won a handful of extra games last year with better QB play. Why is it difficult to imagine that we can actually improve with better weapons? Almost every NFL offense struggles when they're out-gunned by the other offense. We just took significant steps to level the playing field, and all we really need is a 4-5 pt/game improvement. If everything else remains unchanged (defense/ST), that's gonna translate to a few more wins.

 

[Mackeyser]

Well, you're wrong about 1 and 2. You're also free to think I'm a flying space monkey.

And as some who've known me for nearly two decades can attest, I've never been unwilling to admit being wrong. I just don't roll that way. If I post with certitude, it's because intellectually, I believe I've figured something out, not because I've got my ego attached. I lost that long ago (life beating the snot out of me has done that...). But you don't know, so it's easy to draw that conclusion, I guess. It's just not me, is all. The only win that matters is the Rams winning. If I'm right, that's BAD because that means the Rams are losing and a host of other things will have gone wrong. I expressly do not want that. I want the Rams to win and I'm not attached at all to this. If Goff has a fantastic debut, I'll be thrilled. If he struggles, I'll be cautioning patience. You'll believe what you like, but that's why I posted that. I figured folks thought that and it's just not even close to who I am or what I'm about.

I like and liked Goff as a prospect and I like him as a Ram. I preferred Wentz because I had little faith that Fisher would change the offense in any meaningful way. I'm certain that will be borne out to be true. I liked Goff better as a pure passer. Said that umpteen times. Look at my posts. I was talking about coming into this offense being a problem for EITHER QB prior to the draft. But, it is what it is. I put a lot of time and effort into my posts mostly because I have a lot of time at the moment and I have to do something with it.

Last I checked, it's a Rams forum.

If it's a place for only cheerleading, drinking Kool-Aid and shouting Hosannas at everything the Rams do, then a) why is there a Vent thread whenever the Rams lose (and why is it so full)? and b) does that mean anyone not going full Carnivale should just...leave? It just seems increasingly like the tenor is "hey, we got the QB, so grab those damn pom-poms or gtfo".

If that's the case, any admin can ban me or send me a pm and you won't have to ask twice.

P.S. as for the "we were only a few plays from..." argument, I don't buy that. Heisenberg's Observer Principle obviates it. Once you change that play, you change everything. Hasn't anyone seen any of the Back to the Future movies? As well, it is just as easy to say, "we were only a few plays from being 4-12". Is that enough of an argument for flushing the roster and starting over? Because we were only a few plays from a bad season?

I just wanna talk Rams football. If the community doesn't want that or only wants to hear one thing and no counter voice, then I'm fine with that, too.

 

[jrry32]

For you to say that shows how closed your eyes are. The track record show how tough it is for spread system QBs to adjust to the NFL. Goff is quite talented but not day 1 starter talented as I see him. He's got a way to go before he's ready to start.

You have no business telling anyone their eyes are closed. Cam Newton, a spread QB, just won the MVP Award. Andy Dalton, a spread QB, just finished second in Passer Rating. Blake Bortles, a spread QB, just finished tied for second in touchdown passes. Derek Carr, a spread QB, just finished tied for seventh in TD passes. Tyrod Taylor, a spread QB, just finished seventh in Passer Rating. Alex Smith, a spread QB, just finished tenth in Passer Rating. Marcus Mariota, a spread QB, just posted a Passer Rating over 90 AS A ROOKIE.

Right now, we have arguably the best collection of QB talent in NFL history. The past 5-10 years have been a golden era for QBing.

Bortles, as a second year pro who came out of a spread system, just threw for 4400+ yards and 35 TDs. He's the first second year QB since Dan Marino to throw for 4000+ yards and 30+ TDs. Derek Carr, as a second year pro who came out of a spread system, just threw for 3987 yards and 32 TDs. He was 13 yards from being in that exclusive club with Marino and Bortles. Cam Newton, as a fifth year pro who came out of a spread system, won the NFL MVP Award. He threw for 35 TDs and ran for another 10 TDs at only 26 years old. Peyton Manning didn't win his first NFL MVP Award until after his sixth year in the NFL when he was 27 years old.

If recent history tells us anything, it's that the transition to the NFL has gotten easier and that spread QBs aren't at the same disadvantage they used to be. In fact, if you showed people back in 2000-2004 the offenses run by the Broncos and Patriots in recent years, I have a feeling that they would call those systems "spread offenses."

If you think so...but explain why there's a problem with spread offense college QBs making it in the NFL.

There isn't. 15 of the 32 QBs currently starting in the NFL came from spread offenses. If Paxton Lynch starts in Denver or Geno Smith in New York, that'll make 16.

I don't bet my hard earned money. This is just a difference of opinion...and we're gonna see who's right. I will gracefully admit I was wrong if Goff starts. Not a problem for me...there's too many times we've seen rookies come in the NFL and be better than expected...that's part of the fun of the draft.

That's understandable. But I think there's zero chance that Goff isn't starting by the fifth game of the year. You don't need to admit you're wrong. I don't care about that.