(Poll) Who would you start this weekend? The Wolford/Goff Collection Thread

[So Ram]

What does Nick Foles have to do with it? If you are referring to the Eagles SB run, Wentz was out for the year, surely you realize the difference there?
If Goff cant go, start Wolford. If Goff can play, he plays. Period. He is the starting QB.
If you start Wolford over a healthy enough to play Goff, then you are benching your starting QB.
That is silly. I get it that fans go gaga over the newest and shiniest toy, but the coaching stuff doesnt. If McVay came to the conclusion that Wolford should start over Goff based on last week's game, then the franchise is in trouble.

Looking back I was wondering is The Rams offense actually scored a Touchdown with Wolford as there starter?

I think it is FUNNY this is even a discussion.I’m still lol at Troy Hill just being released & starting David Long who I wonder if he is even on The Rams roster? Btw-I like his upside.

let’s see though
3 - FG’s by this Gay guy who came out as The Rams FG kicker.Making him like the 4th or 5th kick since The Leg.

2- points by Robinson who has missed half the season as well.

Then of course Troy Hill had his 3rd TD of the season that put The Rams up 12-7 before half.

Mcvay being the 2nd half coach that he is got 6 total points from Wolford & The Rams offense.Mean while The Rams DEFENSE allowed ZERO 2nd half points. 18-7 Rams win.

I’m not the Biggest numbers guy,but Jared Goff is getting paid Big Dollars from The Rams to be there starting QB.IMO you have to go with him.

Nick Foles ? Should have been The Rams QB & Goff been drafted by another team imo.That was & has been my opinion.Am I a Jared Goff & RAMS FAN!! Heck Yeah.

Go Rams Kick some Seahag butt

 

[RentonRamsFan]

Different situations. Play calling for Wolford was a surprise to the Cards who had no idea what to expect. They were sitting on routes, like the INT, looking for him to make mistakes. And yes his mobility also allowed more time for the routes to materialize.
End of the day, they had the lead (thanks to the defense) and this was how McVay could stay conservative protecting the lead. Now if they trailed for an extensive amount of time? When Arizona could have peeled their ears back? I'm sure the whole thing would have looked different

Not sure how taking deep shots is staying 'conservative protecting the lead'? Personally, I think play calling could always benefit from surprise, regardless of who the QB is. I think the Jets and Seahawks pretty much knew the Rams like the short passing game and that's why Goff had problems. Arizona game planned for it also, and got burned a few times. If there is at least the realistic threat of a long pass, it loosens the coverage on the underneath stuff. Totally agree that the plan can be different with Wolford since he's mobile, but I'd still like Goff to take some shots down field .

 

[Bootleg]

I just can't see Goff starting. He had surgery for a fractured bone and had pins inserted not 5 days ago. I can't see how a doctor can clear him to play an NFL game. Especially considering the liability, insurance, and the big money involved should Goff damage his thumb further.

I think this quarterback controversy is just a giant ruse by McVay to throw off Seattle.

Edit: 12 days since surgery. But I still think it's too soon to play with a broken bone.

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

I just can't see Goff starting. He had surgery for a fractured bone and had pins inserted not 5 days ago. I can't see how a doctor can clear him to play an NFL game. Especially considering the liability, insurance, and the big money involved should Goff damage his thumb further.

I think this quarterback controversy is just a giant ruse by McVay to throw off Seattle.

Okay at some point you guys gotta stop it with the 5 days ago thingy, to date it’s 12 days ago

Carry on

 

[Bootleg]

Okay at some point you guys gotta stop it with the 5 days ago thingy, to date it’s 12 days ago

Carry on

Oh shit. You're right. I'll crawl back in my hole, now.

 

[RentonRamsFan]

I'd love to see more deep shots, but the Arizona game is a different subject. Those shots were there to take because Wolford was at QB, now there's a l'il bit of tape on him, coverage will look quite different

One thing that I remembered from Wolford's post game interview (linked below, click the url to jump to the part I'm referring to, around 15:00 min mark), was that Wolford seemed to indicate he was manipulating the corners with his eyes which allowed some of those deeper throws to wide open guys. If this is true, I don't think it would matter if it were Wolford or Goff starting - if teams have started to jump those short throws, then it's up to the QB to take advantage in this way


View: https://youtu.be/yZo_Dgxrr5M?t=901

 

[Merlin]

There has to be a threat of a deep game, especially in McVay's offense.

Agreed and the deep ball is what makes McVay's offense special. Without that it's just another WCO trying to spread a defense out horizontally and using short passes to supplement the run game.

I think this year's offense is capped on its potency due to a lack of that threat. If the protections were better we could still take shots but it's more risky, as there will probably be less separation deep with guys like Kupp and Woody unless it's a blown coverage. Jefferson in the last few games has been in position to score TDs though (open deep with potential to do something if a throw is on time and target). Goff overlooked him a couple times (Goff has a tendency to disregard guys he doesn't trust) and Wolford missed him by underthrowing that deep one.

One important thing here is that the Seahawks don't have a Buddha Baker. I queue up their defense and they have the scheme calls with their patented looks with the outside leverage but their safeties are shitty. Their safeties are why they have given up an average of 285 yards per game in the air (which ranks them 31st in the league). Their big surge in defensive play, as talked up by media types like Nate on GMFB has basically been due to them living dangerously with busted coverages not being taken advantage of due to good pressures up front and a stretch of poor QB play against them.

So I expect that if we run the ball well there are going to be plenty of shots to be taken. We'll also move the chains well and we'll probably win this game. Running the ball is always a big deal for an offense but in this one it's going to be huge.

 

[dieterbrock]

Not sure how taking deep shots is staying 'conservative protecting the lead'?

It's low risk, as stated previously.
Again, this is all relative to game planning for a 1st time starter. As soon as Murray was out of the game, the Cards only chance to win was the exact way the Rams won. With the defense. And by the defense. So yeah, they were looking to take chances on jumping routes. So if that's what Wolford said, I believe him, it makes total sense how it would go down. Because he was a 1st time starter.
They arent approaching the game the same way if Goff is back there. Goff lit them up for 350 and 2 td's last time around

 

[jrry32]

Not sure how taking deep shots is staying 'conservative protecting the lead'? Personally, I think play calling could always benefit from surprise, regardless of who the QB is. I think the Jets and Seahawks pretty much knew the Rams like the short passing game and that's why Goff had problems. Arizona game planned for it also, and got burned a few times. If there is at least the realistic threat of a long pass, it loosens the coverage on the underneath stuff. Totally agree that the plan can be different with Wolford since he's mobile, but I'd still like Goff to take some shots down field .

The Jets gave us problems because the interior OL was getting blown off the ball. They were able to drop into coverage, take away deep throws, and could trust their rush to get home.

 

[dieterbrock]

Look I get it that folks are giddy about a QB who can run, make some plays with his feet. But cant we at least give Goff some credit where its due?
Seattle would love to not face him. Why? Because he's been shredding their D for years.
8 games under McVay, he's averaging about 285 yards a game, and have won 5 and lost 3. (Only reason his YPG isnt higher is that he only threw for 120 in the 42-7 evisceration of the Hawks when they ran the ball the whole 2nd half, would be more like 310 YPG without that game)
That said they lost 1 game with a last second Kupp endzone drop, and another loss after Z misses the game winning kick.
So yeah, they know what he can do and if Adams isnt 100%, and Whitworth is back at OLT, that's some scary shit for them.
Heck if the Rams D scored 9 against Seattle last time, and ST blocked a FG, the Rams would have won the division.

 

[RentonRamsFan]

It's low risk, as stated previously.
Again, this is all relative to game planning for a 1st time starter. As soon as Murray was out of the game, the Cards only chance to win was the exact way the Rams won. With the defense. And by the defense. So yeah, they were looking to take chances on jumping routes. So if that's what Wolford said, I believe him, it makes total sense how it would go down. Because he was a 1st time starter.
They arent approaching the game the same way if Goff is back there. Goff lit them up for 350 and 2 td's last time around

Got it - I think different people have different ideas of what a low risk game plan is Regarding Goff lighting them up, I had shared this article previously:

John Wolford's passing chart shows what Rams' offense has been missing

John Wolford was aggressive throwing downfield, a welcomed sight for the Rams offensively.

theramswire.usatoday.com

The interesting thing I took away from this article is that it could be argued that Goff didn't actually light up the Cards:

"It’s easy to be impressed by Goff’s numbers from that Week 13 game against the Cardinals. But you also have to look deeper than just a 78% completion rate, 351 yards and a touchdown. Goff averaged 3.5 intended air yards, which was the third-lowest by any quarterback in any game this season. For comparison, Wolford averaged 10.2 intended air yards against Arizona, 11th-highest of Week 17. "

From this statement, it's more like Kupp and Woods lit up the Cards with YAC. Based on how the Cards were taking away the short passing game against Wolford, it could be argued that the Cards were game planning based on what happened in the first game.

 

[jrry32]

Got it - I think different people have different ideas of what a low risk game plan is Regarding Goff lighting them up, I had shared this article previously:

John Wolford's passing chart shows what Rams' offense has been missing

John Wolford was aggressive throwing downfield, a welcomed sight for the Rams offensively.

theramswire.usatoday.com

The interesting thing I took away from this article is that it could be argued that Goff didn't actually light up the Cards:

"It’s easy to be impressed by Goff’s numbers from that Week 13 game against the Cardinals. But you also have to look deeper than just a 78% completion rate, 351 yards and a touchdown. Goff averaged 3.5 intended air yards, which was the third-lowest by any quarterback in any game this season. For comparison, Wolford averaged 10.2 intended air yards against Arizona, 11th-highest of Week 17. "

From this statement, it's more like Kupp and Woods lit up the Cards with YAC. Based on how the Cards were taking away the short passing game against Wolford, it could be argued that the Cards were game planning based on what happened in the first game.

I say this respectfully, that article makes an embarrassing argument and creates the perception that the author does not understand football. A QB's job is to take what he's given. Completing nearly 80% of your passes for over 350 yards, zero turnovers, and leading your offense to 31 points is quite impressive. Implying that Goff should have thrown the ball deeper down the field considering the success he had in that game is an extremely foolish claim by that author. And no, it's not "more like Kupp and Woods lit up the Cardinals." They accounted for less than half of Goff's yardage in that game.

But yes, I have no doubt the Cardinals made adjustments based on the first game. And had Goff been healthy, I have no doubts he'd have adjusted to the Cardinals' adjustments.

 

[dieterbrock]

Got it - I think different people have different ideas of what a low risk game plan is Regarding Goff lighting them up, I had shared this article previously:

Low risk game plan is simple, plays which have the lowest risk. And lets not make this game out to be some Daryl Lamonica mad bomber stuff, he threw a handful of passes down field. Which is significantly lower risk than across hash. Vertical throws inherently have lower risk than horizontal
As for that article, I know exactly how Goff shredded them that game, I watched it. And like I keep saying, its based on how teams prepare for QB. Yes Goff shredded Arizona in that game, because in the previous meeting he torched them for 320 and 3 TD after an earlier 420 yards, 2 TD in just 3 Quarters of play game. They opted for more ball control this year meeting 1, because they wanted to keep the ball out of Murray's hands.
Game planning is predicated on previous play, and Goff has destroyed the Cards D under Kingsbury watch to the tune of 365 yards, 2.5 TD and 30 points per game.
I dont think in their wildest dreams they would have game planned for Goff expecting 231 yds, 0 TD and 9 points

 

[dieterbrock]

I say this respectfully, that article makes an embarrassing argument and creates the perception that the author does not understand football

Lol. Thank you for eloquently saying what I could not.... I had to leave my comment regarding that article out....

 

[bubbaramfan]

Goff or Wolford, Wolford or Goff. I'm like the dyslexic insomniac who stayed up all night contemplating the meaning of "Dog".

 

[Merlin]

For me I know what Jared can be, think back to the Vikings TNF game the Chiefs MNF game and many others and while he can have stinkers we all know that I don't know if Wolford at his best can ever even come close to what we've seen Jared do when he's on. I'd rather roll with the guy I know can have great games than the guy who I'm not sure can ever be close to that good. Not trying to throw shade at Wolford but we just don't know if he can be that good and rolling into the playoffs IMHO isn't the time to answer that question if Jared can go.

This is a good point irt Jared's upside. What he can be. Wolford simply does not have that level of talent.

But in this league your floor matters too. Goff's struggles are real. This isn't some BS made up by a bunch of guys who have something against him. Goff has played poorly in some key games to include the game in Seattle where we squandered opportunity after opportunity and lost the division.

So as much as I get your point OS and even agree with it, I also feel like McVay had better pull his ass quick if he comes out playing shitty. Because we have a backup who can run this offense and to beat Seattle we don't need Joe Montana we just need solid and steady and a willingness to take shots deep when they're there which they will be.

 

[OldSchool]

This is a good point irt Jared's upside. What he can be. Wolford simply does not have that level of talent.

But in this league your floor matters too. Goff's struggles are real. This isn't some BS made up by a bunch of guys who have something against him. Goff has played poorly in some key games to include the game in Seattle where we squandered opportunity after opportunity and lost the division.

So as much as I get your point OS and even agree with it, I also feel like McVay had better pull his ass quick if he comes out playing shitty. Because we have a backup who can run this offense and to beat Seattle we don't need Joe Montana we just need solid and steady and a willingness to take shots deep when they're there which they will be.

I've said many times Jared has a ton of warts on him this year you know you've seen me say that. But as I've also said even with his warts we don't know if Wolford's best is any better than Jared's warts.

Five weeks ago against this same defense Jared with his lows put up a 37/47 for 351 yards 1 TD and no turnovers and was sacked less than the mobile Wolford with the same oline the only difference being Kupp. You also have to give him some credit. Oh and he ran for a TD.

 

[SteezyEndo]

I am just glad Whitworth will be back because if Goff does play our OL has to be strong against a fired up Seahawks DL. My only concern is if Goff is being pressured or knocked down constantly is he going to be worrying about the game at hand or protecting the thumb. Mindset is everything come gameday. I hope Goffs mindset will be on point. We lose we go home no other chances. Which is why I am nervous about tomorrow.

 

[RentonRamsFan]

Not going to quote all the responses, but I understand what everyone is saying and there's some things I also agree with. To be clear, I'm not trying to take anything away from Goff - the message I'm trying to convey is that diversity in the game plan is good. Sure, you can 'take what defenses give you', but in the playoffs, defenses are better, and what they seem to be 'giving you', may actually be an attempt to lure you into throws they want you to make.

 

[jrry32]

Not going to quote all the responses, but I understand what everyone is saying and there's some things I also agree with. To be clear, I'm not trying to take anything away from Goff - the message I'm trying to convey is that diversity in the game plan is good. Sure, you can 'take what defenses give you', but in the playoffs, defenses are better, and what they seem to be 'giving you', may actually be an attempt to lure you into throws they want you to make.

Taking what defenses give you means throwing short when it's open and throwing deep when that's open. It isn't intended to mean always throwing short. It's about attacking where the vulnerabilities are. The Seahawks run a C-3 heavy scheme. The vulnerabilities are typically in the intermediate range. That's where I expect Goff to attack (assuming he starts). The point is that if the defense is going to allow you to complete about 80% of your passes, score points, and consistently move the ball with the short pass, you'd be greedy as hell to try and force low-percentage passes deep.