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

[-X-]

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.

To put it simply, he doesn't have to change it.
But he will anyway. Via Boras and Groh.

 

[Mackeyser]

To put it simply, he doesn't have to change it.
But he will anyway. Via Boras and Groh.

Well, his previous decision making patterns don't bear that out. He's been remarkably consistent in that regard (which has made projecting some things with Fisher really easy).

But one can hope, right? A flower can bloom in the desert and all that?

 

[Akrasian]

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.

Are you kidding? The GIF of that would be immortal on the internet.

 

[-X-]

Well, his previous decision making patterns don't bear that out. He's been remarkably consistent in that regard (which has made projecting some things with Fisher really easy).

But one can hope, right? A flower can bloom in the desert and all that?

I'm not a big proponent of past behavior being the predictor of future behavior in this context.
I (and others, I guess) maintain that the offense was limited and simplified due to the limitations of the QBs.
It stands to reason that things will open up when it becomes evident that they're no longer limited in that regard.

 

[-X-]

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.

That's not gonna happen, but you should consider yourself fortunate that Fisher isn't a mod here.

 

[kurtfaulk]

I'm not a big proponent of past behavior being the predictor of future behavior in this context.
I (and others, I guess) maintain that the offense was limited and simplified due to the limitations of the QBs.
It stands to reason that things will open up when it becomes evident that they're no longer limited in that regard.

Case in point, the game against the panthers in 2013. Man Sammy was slinging it that day. The panthers were getting shredded. Only a missed block, a stupid trip and quick dropping an easy td catch stopped the Rams that day.

Then Sam got injured and the Rams were stuck with Fisher ball for almost 3 years.

.

 

[Mackeyser]

I'm pretty sure until he can do better than Scott Linehan, Fisher should focus on Fisher.

And I'm a sexy beast. If I could do myself... we'd all be spared these football takes...LOL.

Sometimes, people can change their patterns, but it's pretty rare.

Analytics is the beginning...

Psychohistory will be a thing. Cuz, ya know... patterns are real and deviations are rare.

 

[jrry32]

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?

Manning didn't look good, period, this year. He actually looked bad over the final stretch last year too. Because it was age, not scheme, that did him in.

What I'm saying is that there are elite enough players that they can transcend situation except in very rare cases. And as I ALREADY pointed out, Young was in a rare situation in Tampa Bay.

Not every scheme fits every player. But there are players that fit every scheme. Prime Peyton Manning fits every scheme. Prime Jerry Rice fits every scheme. Prime Randy Moss fits every scheme. Prime Tom Brady fits every scheme.

Supporting cast matters but that's pretty clear. However, as you've seen with Manning and Brady over the years, that can also be overcome. Although, there will be statistical ramifications.

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?

Get out of here. It has nothing to do with the offense. It has everything to do with the QB.

It's laughable to me that you think you can't make the same adjustments in any offensive scheme. Do you think that getting the ball out quicker when the OL is having issues is limited solely to the E-P offense? Come on.

Guys like Brady and Manning are able to make those adjustments because of their QB skill-set, not their offensive system. If you were to have OL issues and try to adjust the scheme for Blaine Gabbert to get it out quicker, you're not going to have much success. Brady and Manning can speed it up and still be highly effective. QBs like Gabbert cannot.

Which is how Brady and Manning were able to minimize sacks year after year and adjust to the personnel around them.

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.

Kind of hard for Drew Brees to be an "outlier" when he's not alone. I've already named multiple other QBs who were successful players. I also can't help but chuckle at you calling Favre's 2009 season, "decent." That's the understatement of all understatements. And then there's you saying that Elway wasn't successful in his late career despite his years under Shanahan being the most productive of his career and his final year (1998) resulting in the best Passer Rating and TD Rate of his career...despite him being, as you described, "Capt. Handoff." That game manager who wasn't a substantial factor posted four of his five most productive years of his career under Mike Shanahan.(which were also the last four years of his career)

AND you've already pointed out that we don't run a true WCO.

Your incorrect characterization of Goff tops all of this off. You act like Goff can't move outside the pocket. You act like Goff is Drew Bledsoe or Zach Mettenberger. Goff is a mobile passer. He's no less mobile than Andy Dalton and Kirk Cousins who both have posted very productive seasons in WCOs in today's NFL.

But again, you've already told us that the Rams don't run a true WCO.

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)

You've brought up yet another player who clearly fits in the exception I already carved out. Yes, I think Tim Couch would have been a very successful QB if he ended up on a better team. But, then again, I already answered that point in this post and my last post. I mean, I EXPLICITLY mentioned the 1999 Browns as a team that would ruin any QB.

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.

Right. That's why the Texans were quite successful with Matt Schaub, the Bengals/Redskins were successful with Kirk Cousins and Andy Dalton, and the Seahawks were successful enough to play in a Super Bowl with Matt Hasselbeck. And that's outside of the Super Bowl winning Drew Brees. That also removes Super Bowl winning John Elway when he had no mobility left.(after you made a bunch of excuses as to why he was just along for the ride) And Favre having the best year of his career. That also discounts all of the pass first QBs out there who you are counting as scramblers. For example, Aaron Rodgers...the same Aaron Rodgers who tested similarly to Jared Goff as a prospect.

Why is this problematic? Because you've chosen to assume that Goff can't create with his feet when that is anything but the case.

Frankly, I've given you successful players. I am baffled as to how guys like Matt Hasselbeck or Schaub are chopped liver. No, they aren't HOFers. But they were Pro Bowl players and top 10 QBs during their primes. In addition to that, we've seen Andy Dalton and Kirk Cousins in the last few years have quality seasons as pocket passers in the WCO. So clearly nothing has changed since Hasselbeck's and Schaub's time ended. I get that you want me to name all time greats but you're constraining me big time. You've already removed every mobile all time great which is a significant chunk and then you've constrained me to a specific system which didn't really become prevalent until the 1980s and 1990s. You've narrowed the field considerably. Yet, there are still examples. We have a HOF QB in Brees (who you call an outlier), multiple good QBs (who you discounted), and previously mobile HOF QBs who had good/great years after they lost their mobility.

Personally, I think you're moving the goal-posts until you decide that I can't give you what you're asking for.

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.

Except Schotty never ran a pure WCO. His scheme was an Air Coryell/WCO hybrid. He even mixed and matched terminology from both schemes.

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's the thing...who the hell knows what this system is? It isn't a true WCO, Air Coryell, or E-P. It's Fishenstein's monster.

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

And you're right. At best, it's a quasi-WCO. Which is why I am not swayed by you generalizing what a WCO QB should be in order to be successful. This isn't a WCO. This is a hotchpot. And that might end up being a problem. But it is what it is.

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...

I am getting irritated by the generalizations and things that strike me as deeply illogical. Like crediting the system for the things that made Manning and Brady truly special. The system didn't make Manning or Brady special. Manning and Brady ARE/WERE the system. Or choosing not to count players who disprove your hypothesis for whatever reason you can come up with.

There's plenty of solid, clear-thinking analysis that backs up the Rams having a more successful 2016. You've gone on the record to say that you struggle seeing us win 6 games. IMO, there's far more clear-thinking analysis that backs up us winning 9-10 games than there is us winning less than 6 games.

 

[NJRamsFan]

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.

pN
Literally no one said you can't have an opinion just that you've adequately expressed it at this point. Anyone who frequents this board knows exactly where you stand on this subject. If you took my post as telling you you can't have your own own opinion you're just looking to feel attacked.

My question is at this point, having adequately expressed your opinion what are your goals at this point continuing this discussion? Are you trying to make other posters submit?

You haven't made a new point in days.

 

[nighttrain]

it's over the Rams picked Goff and that's all folks!
train

 

[DaveFan'51]

Well, his previous decision making patterns don't bear that out. He's been remarkably consistent in that regard (which has made projecting some things with Fisher really easy).

But one can hope, right? A flower can bloom in the desert and all that?

One thing I hate seeing is a "Predictable" Offense! Except when we're running it right down their throats, and they can't do a thing to stop us!:yess::rolllaugh:

 

[Mackeyser]

pN
Literally no one said you can't have an opinion just that you've adequately expressed it at this point. Anyone who frequents this board knows exactly where you stand on this subject. If you took my post as telling you you can't have your own own opinion you're just looking to feel attacked.

My question is at this point, having adequately expressed your opinion what are your goals at this point continuing this discussion? Are you trying to make other posters submit?

You haven't made a new point in days.

No one's made a new point in days. Just shouting "PLAYOFFS!!! SUPERBOWL!!!" isn't any more a new point than having a more critical take. And pretty much, other than expressing excitement, it's unlikely there's gonna be much of anything new until we have new information from rookie camp and then OTAs. What you're saying could be said about everyone posting.

I'm not trying to make anyone submit. Just talking football.

@jrry32 We just fundamentally disagree on how and why people become successful in the NFL. I gave the example of Lawrence Taylor and Bill Parcells. You say unequivocally that some players fit every scheme. I say that I don't know that and that part of what as made them exceptional is the very system, coaching they've received, players they've played with, etc. No man is an island. Archie Manning was pretty good on a terrible team. Imagine if he'd been on a good team with better coaching. Who knows what his legacy is. Same with Tim Couch and David Carr. We've seen the difference with Derek Carr and now the Raiders look to be set up very well in the coming years.

So, we fundamentally disagree at a bedrock level. And since clearly this disagreement is bothering people, I'll just let it go.

And for anyone else listening. I do patterns. It's what I do. It's what allowed me to be an exceptional engineer while I could. In this instance, the analogy would be me acting like a surveyor for a railroad for a train I want to ride. However, the route the railroad wants to take, I see as not a very good path. So, that's what I say. "That looks treacherous." However, I still want to ride the train. So, I have a vested interest in seeing the train go forward. I could just ignore what I saw. I chose not to.

I really didn't think it would be that big a deal.

 

[NJRamsFan]

No one's made a new point in days. .

Right. Because 99% of us have stopped having this argument that you refuse to let go of. What happened happened. where you stand on it is clear. Shouting it at everyone louder and louder making the same points with different arguments is acheiving nothing.

Just shouting "PLAYOFFS!!! SUPERBOWL!!!" isn't any more a new point than having a more critical take.

Correct. Its not a new point. Its called rooting for your favorite team and expressing excitement over our new franchise QB. again we ALL know where you stand. Saying it over and over is just annoying


Youve even made this engineering point at least 5 times now. You do patterns. you see the impending disaster we all refuse to see. Cool. I see playoffs. Am i willfully ignorant to some of your various concerns? Sure I probably am. But isnt that what being a fan is all about?

This is my last post in regards to this because clearly its going nowhere. What you do is your own choice but I gurantee im not the only one (by a longshot) that youre rubbing the wrong way with your seemingly obsessive need to show everyone that were destined to fail

 

[bluecoconuts]

 

[Mackeyser]

Right. Because 99% of us have stopped having this argument that you refuse to let go of. What happened happened. where you stand on it is clear. Shouting it at everyone louder and louder making the same points with different arguments is acheiving nothing.

Correct. Its not a new point. Its called rooting for your favorite team and expressing excitement over our new franchise QB. again we ALL know where you stand. Saying it over and over is just annoying


Youve even made this engineering point at least 5 times now. You do patterns. you see the impending disaster we all refuse to see. Cool. I see playoffs. Am i willfully ignorant to some of your various concerns? Sure I probably am. But isnt that what being a fan is all about?

This is my last post in regards to this because clearly its going nowhere. What you do is your own choice but I gurantee im not the only one (by a longshot) that youre rubbing the wrong way with your seemingly obsessive need to show everyone that were destined to fail

So, lemme get this straight....

The ONLY way to be a fan is to just root? That's it? Just cheer. That's what you're saying? I just wanna make sure I understand.

 

[NJRamsFan]

So, lemme get this straight....

The ONLY way to be a fan is to just root? That's it? Just cheer. That's what you're saying? I just wanna make sure I understand.

I give up with you. You try over exaggerate everything.

One minute you turn what I'm saying into "oh so you're saying I'm not allowed to have an opinion"

Now it's "so you're telling me there's literally only one way to be a fan"

Good luck with everything mack I don't wish to have further interaction with you

 

[Mackeyser]

Wow... you've been basically telling me to shut up for several pages, but I'm exaggerating. Got it.

Cool. You win. I'll do that.

Peace.

 

[jrry32]

@jrry32 We just fundamentally disagree on how and why people become successful in the NFL. I gave the example of Lawrence Taylor and Bill Parcells. You say unequivocally that some players fit every scheme. I say that I don't know that and that part of what as made them exceptional is the very system, coaching they've received, players they've played with, etc. No man is an island. Archie Manning was pretty good on a terrible team. Imagine if he'd been on a good team with better coaching. Who knows what his legacy is. Same with Tim Couch and David Carr. We've seen the difference with Derek Carr and now the Raiders look to be set up very well in the coming years.

So, we fundamentally disagree at a bedrock level. And since clearly this disagreement is bothering people, I'll just let it go.

We do.

Yep, LT would have been great in any scheme. Any situation? That's a different story. If he ended up with a coach who was so incompetent that he refused to let LT rush the passer, that would have had a major effect on LT's career.

As I said before, situation isn't bulletproof. There are rare situations that cannot be overcome.(football is a team game) Scheme is bulletproof. The truly great players transcend schemes.

However, the 2016 Rams aren't the sort of rare situation that can't be overcome. The 2009 Rams arguably were.

 

[-X-]

So ...... we done here?

Because I'm not cleaning up this mess.

 

[Mojo Ram]