Wyche: Rams getting Goff ready

[Picked4td]

I wonder about the scouting and GM. Finding good defenders has been no problem, but watching Green Bay/Atlanta today has me marvelling at how acrobatic their receivers are, making diving and great leaping catches regularly. And also noticing how much Atlanta's OLine has improved without Boudreau. Also Green Bay moves on from a guy like Sitton and doesn't skip a beat. Thompson finds linemen in mid to late rounds that end up being good. The Rams haven't drafted a good lineman since Incognito.

So, can Snead and the scouting department been that bad at evaluating offensive talent, or is the coaching that bad? I never liked the Boudreau hiring, he not only is coaching the line but he does pre draft evaluations. I think they have to start by moving on from Bou. PSU replaced their old school OLine coach in Herb Hand with a much younger, Matt Limegrover. The difference is night and day. A tackle, Brendan Mahoney, who looked bad at guard and center is now a tackle on the NFL's radar. The other guard was moved to Center and the difference as notable. Two red shirt freshman play guard and even the awful ORT from last year looks good. It's a total improvement across the board, all from one coach. Time to say bye-bye to Bou. And if that doesn't solve the issues then maybe find a better GM too.

to be fair, the oline play was so bad last year it wasnt possible to get any worse. Hopefully they fix that run blocking and get back to the glory days of a powerhouse. #WEARE

 

[jrry32]

Here's the QB salary cap hits for 2016: http://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2016/

Obviously a "good backup" is subjective, but the only backup QB I see making $5m is Chase Daniel? Although maybe I'm missing some guys that are categorized as backups v. starters or something. The math doesn't seem to add up to $5m being the going rate for a backup, "good" or not. I actually think Goff might be the highest cap hit backup (if he is even the backup versus Mannion, who knows with Fish).

Chad Henne, Josh McCown, and Chase Daniel all have cap hits that are about the same. Considering Goff's level of talent, $5 million is appropriate for him as a backup. If he's starting, we're getting a windfall if he plays anything approaching decent.

And yes, Goff is clearly the #2 QB. I'm not sure how anyone could argue otherwise at this point.

The analysis concludes the opposite, that even when they hit the lottery on the right QB that ends up winning a Super Bowl -- such as Eli or Flacco -- it is still is the case where the value of all the picks sacrificed equals more than the one QB. Of course those QBs won a Super Bowl so it was a win for the organization.

If we take approximate value as the end all be all stat, which it's not. Fact is that Eli helped the Giants win two Super Bowls. Flacco helped the Ravens win one Super Bowl. Those trades were worth it. The Michael Vick trade was worth it for the Falcons. Those franchises got what they needed.

Not to mention the absolutely flawed logic that trades necessarily have a winner and a loser. The Eli trade had two winners. Some trades have two losers.

And then we get to the final flaw in the analysis. You have to assume the team making the trade would pick those players. For example, you have to assume if the Falcons didn't trade up for Vick that they'd take Tomlinson and whoever else with those picks. That's not sound logic.

If Goff is a franchise QB, we are a winner and got everything we wanted from those picks. It doesn't matter what the Titans get. We needed a QB. We traded those picks to ensure we got the QB we needed.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

After watching these two young bucs on snf i can't wait to see goff in action. Make it happen fish. I'm sure case will still return your calls and go out with you.

.

 

[dieterbrock]

.

After watching these two young bucs on snf i can't wait to see goff in action. Make it happen fish. I'm sure case will still return your calls and go out with you.

.

Yeah no kidding. 2 young guys, making their share of mistakes, at times suggesting they're "not ready" and the next, making big plays proving they're worth the shot

 

[Adi]

I wouldn't say that. 33% of his carries are with 3 or more wide receivers on the field.

Really ? Doesn't seem that way, there is always multiple defenders meeting him at or behind the line of scrimmage. I definitely didn't see his season going like this

 

[Fatbot]

If he's starting, we're getting a windfall if he plays anything approaching decent.

Yes, this is a good point and a teeny bonus to my position that Goff should have started from day 1. As a starter he's a bargain, as a backup, not so much.

And yes, Goff is clearly the #2 QB. I'm not sure how anyone could argue otherwise at this point.

Nobody's arguing otherwise, my comment was a wisecrack aimed at Fisher unpredictability (that apparently missed the mark).

If Goff is a franchise QB, we are a winner and got everything we wanted from those picks.

This is correct and how I was relating it to the thread, but my fear is it's been taken further and substitute the "if Goff is a franchise QB" with "Goff has to be a franchise QB", and he must now look like it from the moment he's inserted.

If Fisher had started Goff from day 1, I think fan outlook would be much more forgiving of a rookie making mistakes under the theory that we had to overpay for him because our QB situation was so turrible, and at least even a struggling rookie QB could be mediocre enough to finally let the team finish over 7-9. But now after Fisher has basically kept him hidden like Gollum petting his precious in a cave, it puts a huge expectation out there that I think is potentially more damaging to Goff than had he just gone through the growing pains of learning on the job.

 

[Fatbot]

The Rams saw a QB they wanted. Everyone said that Goff wouldn't be there after the 9ers. To get the quarterback they wanted they had to pay that price. You can argue that they could have gotten Prescott or Lynch at 15, but that is not who they wanted. So they rolled the dice and paid the going price. If Goff is as good as Fisher and Snead think then it was worth it. Besides if analysis had to make these decisions with real chips in the pot, do you think they would have the same take.

Every other team that traded up and failed had a guy they wanted, too. Their "want" is irrelevant, ultimately the move will be judged on the performance of who they got versus who they could have got.

 

[jrry32]

Yes, this is a good point and a teeny bonus to my position that Goff should have started from day 1. As a starter he's a bargain, as a backup, not so much.

I'd still call him a bargain as a backup because he's better than any backup in the NFL imo. But yes, he should be starting.

Nobody's arguing otherwise, my comment was a wisecrack aimed at Fisher unpredictability (that apparently missed the mark).

That's my mistake. It's hard to tell. There are some people who believe that Mannion should be the #2 QB.

This is correct and how I was relating it to the thread, but my fear is it's been taken further and substitute the "if Goff is a franchise QB" with "Goff has to be a franchise QB", and he must now look like it from the moment he's inserted.

I don't agree. It would be great if he does. However, quality QBs don't go anywhere. If Goff is a franchise guy, he'll (likely) be here for the rest of his career.

If Fisher had started Goff from day 1, I think fan outlook would be much more forgiving of a rookie making mistakes under the theory that we had to overpay for him because our QB situation was so turrible, and at least even a struggling rookie QB could be mediocre enough to finally let the team finish over 7-9. But now after Fisher has basically kept him hidden like Gollum petting his precious in a cave, it puts a huge expectation out there that I think is potentially more damaging to Goff than had he just gone through the growing pains of learning on the job.

I agree. Fisher botched the situation. I wish he'd own his mistake and make the change we need.

 

[jrry32]

Every other team that traded up and failed had a guy they wanted, too. Their "want" is irrelevant, ultimately the move will be judged on the performance of who they got versus who they could have got.

With QBs, I think it all comes down to who you got. I don't know of any Giants fans or Ravens fans who care what they traded for Eli or Flacco. If you get a franchise QB, you don't regret giving up what you did. If you don't, you do. It's all about whether Goff succeeds or fails.

 

[-X-]

I agree. Fisher botched the situation. I wish he'd own his mistake and make the change we need.

That implies that Goff would have won all the games the Rams lost, and nobody knows that. Further implies that Goff would have also won all the games the Rams won by not doing less than Keenum did. Nobody knows that either. We can all assume he would have, but that's all we can do based on our own biases.

Nobody botched anything. He just wasn't ready, and Fisher said multiple times that he didn't want to put him in a position to fail. He didn't want him out there doing what he did in preseason. Missing calls, not recognizing defenses, not knowing when to audible, not knowing what to audible into, and all the other little things that nobody on this board was privy to in practice. Just because some people 'ooh' and 'ahhh' at practice now doesn't mean he was a complete QB a month ago. It just means he can throw a nice ball, and we all knew he could do that anyway.

Fisher simply has a different plan for preparing Goff that doesn't align with other people's plans (who have no affiliation with the Organization). That's all. There is no refuting that irrefutable fact. It's just a different plan and nothing less. Suggesting it's more than that, or that it's a bad plan, takes you into the realm of subjectivity.

Now let me start your reply for you.

"No...."

 

[jrry32]

That implies that Goff would have won all the games the Rams lost, and nobody knows that. Further implies that Goff would have also won all the games the Rams won by not doing less than Keenum did. Nobody knows that either. We can all assume he would have, but that's all we can do based on our own biases.

That's a faulty assumption. Teams win, and teams lose. But it does imply that Goff would have helped the Rams win more than 3 games out of our first 7. I do believe that.

Nobody botched anything. He just wasn't ready, and Fisher said multiple times that he didn't want to put him in a position to fail. He didn't want him out there doing what he did in preseason. Missing calls, not recognizing defenses, not knowing when to audible, not knowing what to audible into, and all the other little things that nobody on this board was privy to in practice. Just because some people 'ooh' and 'ahhh' at practice now doesn't mean he was a complete QB a month ago. It just means he can throw a nice ball, and we all knew he could do that anyway.

Fisher definitely botched this from the start. There are so many ways for a team to make the learning curve not as steep and speed up a rookie QB's transition. It doesn't seem like the Rams did any of it, which fits with Fisher's MO.

Simply put, there have been so many rookie QBs started over the past 5 years. Other teams know how to start rookie QBs without putting them in a position to fail, why not ours?

Instead of starting our rookie QB who might have made rookie mistakes, we started our veteran journeyman QB who did make rookie mistakes and currently is second in the NFL in interceptions thrown. Our plan kind of backfired.

Fisher simply has a different plan for preparing Goff that doesn't align with other people's plans (who have no affiliation with the Organization). That's all. There is no refuting that irrefutable fact. It's just a different plan and nothing less. Suggesting it's more than that, or that it's a bad plan, takes you into the realm of subjectivity.

This is a football forum. It exists for the sake of subjectivity. Fisher botched this thing. I think the vast majority of us hope he's willing to see that and prepare Goff to start against Carolina.

 

[-X-]

That's a faulty assumption. Teams win, and teams lose. But it does imply that Goff would have helped the Rams win more than 3 games out of our first 7. I do believe that.

So my assumption is faulty, but yours isn't? How's that work, exactly?

Fisher definitely botched this from the start. There are so many ways for a team to make the learning curve not as steep and speed up a rookie QB's transition. It doesn't seem like the Rams did any of it, which fits with Fisher's MO.

I don't think you understand the meaning behind the phrase "Didn't want to set him up to fail." It has nothing to do with an on-the-job learning curve, or easing his transition. It has everything to do with not wanting to put him in until he had reached a certain understanding and comfort level with the offense.

Simply put, there have been so many rookie QBs started over the past 5 years. Other teams know how to start rookie QBs without putting them in a position to fail, why not ours?

I already told you. It's a different plan and a different methodology.
And like I said previously, it just doesn't align with yours, or anyone else's who isn't affiliated with the Organization. That's all.

Instead of starting our rookie QB who might have made rookie mistakes, we started our veteran journeyman QB who did make rookie mistakes and currently is second in the NFL in interceptions thrown. Our plan kind of backfired.

No it didn't, and I'm kind of disappointed in your willful ignorance of the way the season has played out to date. You, of all people, know when to look at stats and when to look at the field for reasons why the QB "alone" didn't win the game. Blindly using stats as some sort of measuring stick flies in the face of everything I've ever read from you over the years. Your bias is strong this year, jrry. Very, very strong.

This is a football forum. It exists for the sake of subjectivity. Fisher botched this thing. I think the vast majority of us hope he's willing to see that and prepare Goff to start against Carolina.

Well gee, thanks for helping me get my bearings. I thought I was in the comments section of a crochet website.
But since we're using subjectivity as absolutes, then ... no. He didn't botch anything.

Appears we're at an impasse now, so agree to disagree about the handling of this situation.

 

[…..]

Now let me start your reply for you.

"No...."

:rolllaugh:

 

[Zaphod]

I wonder about the scouting and GM. Finding good defenders has been no problem, but watching Green Bay/Atlanta today has me marvelling at how acrobatic their receivers are, making diving and great leaping catches regularly. And also noticing how much Atlanta's OLine has improved without Boudreau. Also Green Bay moves on from a guy like Sitton and doesn't skip a beat. Thompson finds linemen in mid to late rounds that end up being good. The Rams haven't drafted a good lineman since Incognito.

So, can Snead and the scouting department been that bad at evaluating offensive talent, or is the coaching that bad? I never liked the Boudreau hiring, he not only is coaching the line but he does pre draft evaluations. I think they have to start by moving on from Bou. PSU replaced their old school OLine coach in Herb Hand with a much younger, Matt Limegrover. The difference is night and day. A tackle, Brendan Mahoney, who looked bad at guard and center is now a tackle on the NFL's radar. The other guard was moved to Center and the difference as notable. Two red shirt freshman play guard and even the awful ORT from last year looks good. It's a total improvement across the board, all from one coach. Time to say bye-bye to Bou. And if that doesn't solve the issues then maybe find a better GM too.

This is the one aggressive move I support happening this season. I don't put all of their woes on him, but you certainly have to consider looking there when you consider the return of investment in the o line.

 

[Zaphod]

Really ? Doesn't seem that way, there is always multiple defenders meeting him at or behind the line of scrimmage. I definitely didn't see his season going like this

I think that percentage may even be a bit higher in recent games. But what makes it so noticeable to me is that his runs have been consistently better, meaning stuffed at the line less but also why you see fewer home runs.

This is just personal observation on my part, not numbers from the internet, so I could be way wrong.

I like to watch how we line up, who goes in motion, and how the defense lines up and adjusts almost to the exclusion of the snap itself. But I'm not taking notes by any stretch of the imagination and I only go back so many times.

Just responding because I found it interesting. And it's not necessarily the number of tight ends out there, but where they line up.

In that regard our line is actually playing much better than it has in years past. But they are aren't winning so much from power I formations where there is little for the defenses to guess about.

 

[dieterbrock]

Fisher definitely botched this from the start. There are so many ways for a team to make the learning curve not as steep and speed up a rookie QB's transition. It doesn't seem like the Rams did any of it, which fits with Fisher's MO.

Simply put, there have been so many rookie QBs started over the past 5 years. Other teams know how to start rookie QBs without putting them in a position to fail, why not ours?

Instead of starting our rookie QB who might have made rookie mistakes, we started our veteran journeyman QB who did make rookie mistakes and currently is second in the NFL in interceptions thrown. Our plan kind of backfired.

Right, it's botched because Keenum is not worthy of keeping Goff on the bench.
He's not playing as well as a Brees, Warner or Kitna did.
He's making the mistakes that was feared Goff would make
Last year's team was the first in Fishers' 4 seasons to not begin 3-5 when they started 4-4 (4-3 thru 7)
This team was supposed to be improved from last an at best we will be tied.

 

[blackbart]

Right, it's botched because Keenum is not worthy of keeping Goff on the bench.
He's not playing as well as a Brees, Warner or Kitna did.

Yeah he only set a record for consecutive completions, what are they thinking.

 

[Fatbot]

I'd still call him a bargain as a backup because he's better than any backup in the NFL imo.

Goff hasn't played a snap in the NFL so calling him the best backup in the world is a statement of faith, not logic. Which is fine, this is a fan site after all. My original point is the inefficiency. Even assuming you are correct then it is still silly to have $5m sitting on the bench in the form of the best backup in the NFL while our starter is struggling and the team is falling under .500. So any way you slice Goff's talent the Rams are not realizing good value of that cap money on the field. It's not a big deal because the cap is very forgiving of inefficiencies, thus I generally don't care what players are being paid. But at some point it adds up to a tangible importance -- like a Joe Thomas can't fit under the cap or something (not advocating this, just an example!). It's not a "Jared Cook mad" type of inefficiency, or a total waste like Sensabaugh, but it's there.

quality QBs don't go anywhere

The NFL stands for not for long, it's about winning now not guessing what will happen down the road. Maybe both sides have the best intentions to have a franchise arrangement now, but maybe he brawls with management like Palmer & leaves. If he stays the Rams will have to deal with paying him somehow after paying Aaron Donald. Maybe he gets an Andrew Luck deal or marries a supermodel so doesn't care about his contract (QB name censored), who knows? All we know now is the clock is ticking on Goff's one for sure contract, the "pick for development" model the Rams love is just not a great model in my opinion.

 

[dieterbrock]

Yeah he only set a record for consecutive completions, what are they thinking.

Yes he did, how did that game work out by the way? We won right?
And then that peach of a next game right, with those 4 INT
Yeah he's a keeper all right

 

[blackbart]

Yes he did, how did that game work out by the way? We won right?
And then that peach of a next game right, with those 4 INT
Yeah he's a keeper all right

You tell me, did they win. They being the team, right. Did the team win? Could Keenum have had a better performance? Possibly one or two plays but that would not have helped the defense holdup their end of the game would it?

Keenum has not won or lost any of the games this year by himself. Neither has Donald or Gurley or Demoff.