They did. They also went 7-9 and fired the HC and are standing at ground zero again after just 2 seasons.
Rinse, repeat.
Wentz to start game one
- Thread starter PA Ram
- Start date
-
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.
Rinse, repeat.
That's true. Every single one of the 5 of them the last 8 years. And before that, just 2 of the previous 8 #1 QBs started week 1. Why is that? Were those QB's not prepared properly by their head coaches? Was there a change in 2008 or 2009 that made starting a #1 QB imperative? I'm sure the money QBs get these days isn't anywhere near what Bradford got 6 years ago. And why just "#1 QBs"? Is there really such a huge difference between a QB taken #1 and a QB taken #2 or #3? I'd think if a QB is taken in the top 3, he's got to be deemed to have "it".
I think the norm these days is forcing a QB into the starting lineup. None of them are really "ready". Otherwise they would win right from the get go.....like #18 pick Joe Flacco or #1 pick Andrew Luck. I don't buy the "it's only a 4 year contract so the team has to get the production right from the get go for the money invested", even if the teams get a 5th year option. Eli Manning got a 4 year 84 million deal with 65 mil guaranteed and he didn't start until week 11. Winston got a 4 year 25 mil contract with 16 guaranteed and started right away. And Blake Bortles, going #3 in 2014 got almost as much (22 mil/13.3 guaranteed) as Luck going #1 in 2012 (22 mil/ 14.5 guaranteed). Bortles didn't start week 1, while Luck did.
I don't believe a guy has to start from the get go, though everybody concerned would love him to do that AND I don't believe a kid being ready for week 1 depends on the ability of the head coach to "get him ready". Of course he may change his parameters or have very low expectations from the beginning to allow the QB to start from day 1. Or he may maintain his parameters and have high expectations for the rookie QB, yet not start him from day 1. Who among us can really say what those parameters should be and whether or not the head coach should start him regardless of that?.....unless we're just anxious for the franchise QB to start leading the franchise back to respectability!
Sure, by your standards.
If we're speaking in absolutes, I'll say the situation is being handled expertly.
Okay. If you want to change it to top 5, you have 13 QBs dating back to 2007.(i.e. the past decade) Of those 13 QBs, every QB but Bortles and Russell started Week 1.(and now Goff) Russell held out until September 12th. The Jaguars planned for Bortles to sit the entire year to fix mechanical issues (he ended up starting the third game).
Was there a change? Yes. There's clearly a change. NFL coaches have changed philosophies on whether or not to sit QBs. My guess? Rule changes have made it easier for rookie QBs to succeed and the evolution of offenses have made it easier to prepare them to start early in the season.
So now we return to my question, why were 10 of the 11 QBs who didn't holdout through Week 1 "up to speed" and Goff is not? Who should that blame fall on?
And yet, of these 9 QBs forced to play Week 1, all but Stafford and Sanchez had solid or better rookie years. And even with Sanchez's poor play, the Jets made the playoffs.
And no, they wouldn't "win" from the get-go. That puts all of the responsibility for the team's success and failure on the QB. Flacco was significantly outplayed by both Jameis Winston and Cam Newton as rookies. Flacco's team made the playoffs his rookie year because they had a strong defense. Winston's and Newton's teams did not because they lacked a strong defense.
In fact, if you look at Flacco's performance in the preseason, you'd say that Flacco wasn't "ready" to start.
I don't believe Goff has to start Week 1 either. I believe it's the best move for the Rams.
Who among us can say what those parameters should be? Every single one of us. This is a Rams board. I come on here to give my opinion on the Rams.
Yes, by my standards. It's an opinion, not a factual statement.
The situation was handled poorly.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Yeah sure.....act like THIS fan base on this message board would not be hanging their hat on that victory!
When you're always 7-9.....you need to look elsewhere for victories. We're currently looking for ours when Goff starts, but my guess is week 1 inactive.
A.J. Hicks
Hall of Fame
I believe that the Rams and Fisher could have given Goff a whole lot more opportunity in the preseason. He needed more time. I have rewatched every preseason game multiple times, there are situations in every game in which Goff could have stayed in longer, or actually had the opportunity to work with the 1's -especially the Oline.
However, I believe that Fish feels he is on the cusp of putting this team into a different mindset. He has reset the roster and now it's time to establish this new mindset.
I never knew the Ogletree that I see in Hard Knocks. That guy has potential to be a tremendous leader! Let's go win some games early with Case managing the games, allowing the defense to rest and see points scored.
I'm not sure where Goff's start point is but I believe that the whole 3rd string, out the first week, etc. Is a bunch of Fish coach speak. He's going to let Case see him through the first 2-4/5 weeks, at Tampa or home vs. Buffalo. Catch some strong momentum and then Goff will be in there (could potentially turn in a third rookie of the year).
However, I believe that Fish feels he is on the cusp of putting this team into a different mindset. He has reset the roster and now it's time to establish this new mindset.
I never knew the Ogletree that I see in Hard Knocks. That guy has potential to be a tremendous leader! Let's go win some games early with Case managing the games, allowing the defense to rest and see points scored.
I'm not sure where Goff's start point is but I believe that the whole 3rd string, out the first week, etc. Is a bunch of Fish coach speak. He's going to let Case see him through the first 2-4/5 weeks, at Tampa or home vs. Buffalo. Catch some strong momentum and then Goff will be in there (could potentially turn in a third rookie of the year).
Ron Jaworski said just today that Wentz would be the #3 QB, without the Bradford trade...Wentz isn't ready to start, but they are willing to let him learn on the job because they planned on sucking for a #1 Draft Pick next year., anyway...If we had given up the season like they have, you can bet Goff would be starting very soon.
They traded their 1st round pick next year to Cleveland so they could move up and draft Wentz. Tanking the season for a high pick would be pointless for them since that pick would only go to Cleveland.
I am telling you what I heard, from a former NFL QB that played in Philly, who is connected in the Philadelphia sports scene. No one there thought Bradford would play for the Eagles next year, and the #1 Draft pick (plus a 4th) is more than they could possibly get in a normal situation. Eagles GM Howie Roseman was blown away by the offer, and thats why they did the trade. It made sense to the Eagles, obviously, or they wouldn't have done the trade.
12intheBox
Legend
Thanks @12intheBox ! I was wondering if he'd still be starting by the time today rolled around. Should be fun to watch.
12intheBox
Legend
Yeah - and of course the staff is going to say he is 100% ready to roll. We will see how far along he really is when the whistle blows.
You seem to be the type of fan that hope the team loses as well ?? Keenum gives The Rams the best chance of winning.
What does that say about The Rans ??
Nick Foles wasn't The answer. Bradford needed to move on. If he gives The Rams a long term fair commitment then your looking at another whole situation
I like where The Rams are at. I think with Bradford & a couple key players not getting hurt The Rams were right there.
The Vikings think they are primed , other wise they don't give up 1st & 4th.
As we all should know a franchise QB is not cheap. Case is going to get paid as well.Jarred Goff is being paid cheap compared to what Bradfords rookie deal as the #1 pick.
Last edited:
Not sure about that....The decline of Jason Peters? The suspension of Lane?? The all-pro center Kelcie?? Exactly why is this o-line garbage?
A rookie struggled....that's what rookies do....It's also what some vet QB's do too...but if he finds a way to win, in spite of his struggles, he'll grow from it, and get better.....
I believe Goff deserves this chance as well.....
OC--LeftCoast
Agent Provocateur
Make no mistake Champ, I fully expect a rough game for Wentz today, I think he's being rushed, while some, including you feel he'll grow from it, you know it is possible they could ruin him like the Texans did Carr
I just don't get the "must play them immediately" mindset when the team had better options at the moment.
Lots of teams drafting one overall don't have that choice, these guys feel they have a chance for a win winning season, I'll let it play out.
I think trading up is admitting your QB situation is not comfortable....You are acknowledging you have a major deficiency at the position. It is then the coaches responsibility to get the drafted player up to speed. We selected Goff for a reason...We felt that the QB's we had are inadequate, and incapable of reaching the teams goals.....It should be the same situation that G-Rob was in...as well as Tavon...players drafted that high, play...otherwise...stay put, get more players to help the overall team...jmo....