Rams Extend Ramsey

[baconrad11]

Rams really are going in on the stars/scrubs team building model.

In 2021, they'll be paying a combined 84.9 million in cap space to Goff, Donald, and Ramsey alone. That's about 48% of their cap allocated to just three players...one of which is mediocre IMO (Goff)

That's just so much of your cap being tied up to only 3 players. And to top it off, they are without a first round pick again next year....And when you tie up that much of your cap to just a few players, it makes first round picks all that much more valuable. 

 

I'll take a wait-and-see approach.  From what I have heard, their expectations are Superbowl or bust and they will view anything short of that as a failure. Can they win 9-10 games this season? Maybe. In that division, in this conference as well that has so many fringe contenders, it's gonna be really tough.

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by baconrad11

[El Ramster]

40 minutes ago, baconrad11 said:

Rams really are going in on the stars/scrubs team building model.

In 2021, they'll be paying a combined 84.9 million in cap space to Goff, Donald, and Ramsey alone. That's about 48% of their cap allocated to just three players...one of which is mediocre IMO (Goff)

That's just so much of your cap being tied up to only 3 players. And to top it off, they are without a first round pick again next year....And when you tie up that much of your cap to just a few players, it makes first round picks all that much more valuable. 

 

I'll take a wait-and-see approach.  From what I have heard, their expectations are Superbowl or bust and they will view anything short of that as a failure. Can they win 9-10 games this season? Maybe. In that division, in this conference as well that has so many fringe contenders, it's gonna be really tough.

 

I find it hilarious. 
 

Shanny has had one good season in 4 years. 
 

oh yeah the niners are elite. 
Rams have yet to have a poor season, what a dog ish team. Gross. How can they compete. 
 

lmao. Blows my freaking mind. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by El Ramster

[Dr LBC]

7 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

The reason that unit works so well is not just because Gilmore is elite, the other parts are higher than average too. This is reflected in multiple stats or grading publications having JC Jackson, McCourty and Jones very high for #2,3,4 etc. In PFF's case, they had JC Jackson a top 10 CB for a lot of the season. Gilmore eats up most money in that unit yes, but the other parts are well resourced, and strength in depth there is a massive part of why the secondary is so stingy. 

LAR probably can't do that. Ramsey is elite, but what about the supporting cast? One CB is not transcending, but a very strong overall corps is.

Presently our corps/secondary is pretty damn solid.  That gets forgotten, I feel, in large part due to the John Johnson (who is a well above average safety) injury coupled with the fact that we were fielding Eric Weddle's geriatric butt.  If we safely assume that Les Snead has learned from his lesson of trying to wallpaper over cracks with aging "name" veterans in their twilight (something Belichick did, but BB also had the sense that those guys only ended up actually making the final roster at about a 50-60% clip), Snead's actually done a plus job at using picks outside the 1st round to secure guys who performed very well in our secondary - again, using a similar philosophy as BB did in acquiring talent like JC Jackson who had pristine tape but was slept on because he had trouble staying healthy.  We'll need him to continue to succeed in this moving forward, but he and the scouting department have shown, with a pretty strong recent track record (JJJ in the 3rd, Taylor Rapp in the 2nd, Troy Hill claimed off the Pats' PS, David Long in the 3rd - who we've got high hopes for this season), that they're up to the task.

[Deadpulse]

2 minutes ago, The LBC said:

Presently our corps/secondary is pretty damn solid.  That gets forgotten, I feel, in large part due to the John Johnson (who is a well above average safety) injury coupled with the fact that we were fielding Eric Weddle's geriatric butt.  If we safely assume that Les Snead has learned from his lesson of trying to wallpaper over cracks with aging "name" veterans in their twilight (something Belichick did, but BB also had the sense that those guys only ended up actually making the final roster at about a 50-60% clip), Snead's actually done a plus job at using picks outside the 1st round to secure guys who performed very well in our secondary - again, using a similar philosophy as BB did in acquiring talent like JC Jackson who had pristine tape but was slept on because he had trouble staying healthy.  We'll need him to continue to succeed in this moving forward, but he and the scouting department have shown, with a pretty strong recent track record (JJJ in the 3rd, Taylor Rapp in the 2nd, Troy Hill claimed off the Pats' PS, David Long in the 3rd - who we've got high hopes for this season), that they're up to the task.

One of the reason aging vets who do make the roster tend to work out in NE is because BB only used them in certain ways/situations. For instance, Jason McCourty is technically our starter behind Gilly but he is only used on certain matchups and situations that play to his strengths. Otherwise you will see JC or Jonathan Jones out there. Same with Pat Chung's second stint in NE. 

[Dr LBC]

1 minute ago, Deadpulse said:

One of the reason aging vets who do make the roster tend to work out in NE is because BB only used them in certain ways/situations. For instance, Jason McCourty is technically our starter behind Gilly but he is only used on certain matchups and situations that play to his strengths. Otherwise you will see JC or Jonathan Jones out there. Same with Pat Chung's second stint in NE. 

Yeah, I was more speaking to BB having the sense to only utilize them in specific situations rather than roll them through as the main piece - which was something Wade never quite grasped when he was here, likely because in the early 2000's he was able to do that with players like Randall Godfrey and Donnie Williams, among others, because the league hadn't gone through the genesis of as major increase in pacey, quick-twitch offensive players over the middle hallmarked by the great success of slot receivers like Welker and Stokley.

[RuskieTitan]

On 9/9/2020 at 8:55 AM, DerbyRam said:

I think my biggest takeaway from this thread is why everyone is mocking the Rams offense? It's been a top 10 offense for the past 3 years 🙄 

The Rams hasn't had a top 10 defense since 2001. The offense will be just fine. 

Scoring 3 points in a Super Bowl because your quarterback can't function without someone telling him exactly what to do may have something to do with it.

It's like being named Prom King and all that you end up with that night is a kiss on your check from your date. Sure, people recognize you and the prom queen as the top two, but did you really score that night?

[Tugboat]

9 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

The reason that unit works so well is not just because Gilmore is elite, the other parts are higher than average too. This is reflected in multiple stats or grading publications having JC Jackson, McCourty and Jones very high for #2,3,4 etc. In PFF's case, they had JC Jackson a top 10 CB for a lot of the season. Gilmore eats up most money in that unit yes, but the other parts are well resourced, and strength in depth there is a massive part of why the secondary is so stingy. 

LAR probably can't do that. Ramsey is elite, but what about the supporting cast? One CB is not transcending, but a very strong overall corps is.

That was also true of Ramsey when he was at his absolute best.  It was in a Jaguars secondary that was completely stout, top to bottom.  Bouye, Gipson, Church before he got way old, and Colvin were all playing top tier football at the same time Jalen was looking like arguably the best CB in football.

[AkronsWitness]

8 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

Scoring 3 points in a Super Bowl because your quarterback can't function without someone telling him exactly what to do may have something to do with it.

It's like being named Prom King and all that you end up with that night is a kiss on your check from your date. Sure, people recognize you and the prom queen as the top two, but did you really score that night?

That and the fact Todd Gurley existing took a looot of pressure off Goff. Now there is no Gurley and its all on Goff

[I <3 Faulk]

27 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

Scoring 3 points in a Super Bowl because your quarterback can't function without someone telling him exactly what to do may have something to do with it.

It's like being named Prom King and all that you end up with that night is a kiss on your check from your date. Sure, people recognize you and the prom queen as the top two, but did you really score that night?

Goff threw 2 touchdowns that got dropped. He stood tall in that pocket and kept slanging the rock. We've seen Brady and Manning wilt under the kind of pressure Goff was facing and at 24 he did his job as QB. Of course McCourty made one hell of a play on one of them, but Cooks had it in his hands. 3 points is always gonna be hanging over him, just like his rookie year, but let's not pretend like he played like Ben in his first Super Bowl, or like Mcnabb in his.

[jrry32]

7 hours ago, Gmen said:

I'm not sure how familiar you are with advanced analytics, but completion percentage over expectation (CPOE) and expected points added (EPA) are two of the more popular measures of QB efficiency in the analytics community.  Even in his best season, Goff was below league average in terms of CPOE.   Meaning, he's not a particularly accurate passer.   The fact that's he's managed to have an above average EPA despite that, IMO is a testament to McVay and WR talent.

The Rams can absolutely win with Goff.  They just need to continue to build a good team around him.  He's not going to carry them.

EDIT: And the nflfastR CPOE model is actually being kind to Goff.  The Next Gen Stats model had him at -3.6 CPOE in 2019. 34th out of 40 qualifying QBs

It's certainly enlightening that you conclude that the analytic that favors Goff is because of McVay and the WR talent, while the analytic that doesn't favor him is because Goff isn't good enough. You're only proving my point. Personally, I couldn't care less about analytics, especially any analytic that makes heavy use of completion percentage. But looking at your own chart, the average EPA per attempt analytic has 2019 Goff on par with 2018 Rodgers, 2018 Goff on par with 2018 Brady and 2018 Wilson and better than 2018 Watson, and 2017 Goff on par with 2017 Ryan, 2019 Wilson, and 2019 Watson. That doesn't exactly paint the picture you're trying to tell us exists. But yes, I know, Goff's success in that metric is not due to Goff's ability at all. Got it.

[El Ramster]

23 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

It's certainly enlightening that you conclude that the analytic that favors Goff is because of McVay and the WR talent, while the analytic that doesn't favor him is because Goff isn't good enough. You're only proving my point. Personally, I couldn't care less about analytics, especially any analytic that makes heavy use of completion percentage. But looking at your own chart, the average EPA per attempt analytic has 2019 Goff on par with 2018 Rodgers, 2018 Goff on par with 2018 Brady and 2018 Wilson and better than 2018 Watson, and 2017 Goff on par with 2017 Ryan, 2019 Wilson, and 2019 Watson. That doesn't exactly paint the picture you're trying to tell us exists. But yes, I know, Goff's success in that metric is not due to Goff's ability at all. Got it.

GET EM!!

 

LAVAR ARRINGTON VOICE!

 

GET EMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!

[Gmen]

57 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

It's certainly enlightening that you conclude that the analytic that favors Goff is because of McVay and the WR talent, while the analytic that doesn't favor him is because Goff isn't good enough. You're only proving my point. Personally, I couldn't care less about analytics, especially any analytic that makes heavy use of completion percentage. But looking at your own chart, the average EPA per attempt analytic has 2019 Goff on par with 2018 Rodgers, 2018 Goff on par with 2018 Brady and 2018 Wilson and better than 2018 Watson, and 2017 Goff on par with 2017 Ryan, 2019 Wilson, and 2019 Watson. That doesn't exactly paint the picture you're trying to tell us exists. But yes, I know, Goff's success in that metric is not due to Goff's ability at all. Got it.

I find that people that say this generally don't understand the purpose of analytics.  If you actually took the time to learn about completion probability models (the data that goes into the model, and how they're trained, etc) I think you'd appreciate more what the numbers are telling us.  You'd also realize that Goff is a very average QB. 

CPOE is a more stable year to year metric than EPA, so in general it's considered a better metric for measuring QB accuracy.  EPA is useful for measuring team offensive efficiency, and a QB's production in that offense. But it's hard to determine how much of the EPA the QB is responsible for. For example, if a receiver takes a 4 yard slant pass for 50 yards, the QB gets EPA credit for that receiver's effort.  Maybe he should, maybe he shouldn't.  But the two metrics are correlated.  QBs that fall to the right of the imaginary diagonal generally play on good offenses (Mahomes, Jackson, Brady, Wentz '17).  QBs to the left generally aren't being helped as much by their surrounding cast (Darnold, Dalton, Taylor, Mariota etc).   Goff falls so far to the right of the diagonal, not once, not twice, but all three seasons in that system.  The fact that Goff has a below average CPOE, and simultaneously has an above average EPA, is precisely the reason I credit the system for Goff's "success".   An average (at best) QB playing in a good system.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Gmen

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, Gmen said:

I find that people that say this generally don't understand the purpose of analytics.  If you actually took the time to learn about completion probability models (the data that goes into the model, and how they're trained, etc) I think you'd appreciate more what the numbers are telling us.  You'd also realize that Goff is a very average QB. 

I read about what goes into the CPOE model before responding to your post and understand the purpose of analytics just fine. But what I realize is that you came to a conclusion and are working backwards to justify that conclusion. That's not the purpose of analytics. Your post reminds me of the old adage about drunks and lampposts: You are using statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination.

Quote

CPOE is a more stable year to year metric than EPA, so in general it's couse statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination”nsidered a better metric for measuring QB accuracy.  EPA is useful for measuring team offensive efficiency, and a QB's production in that offense. But it's hard to determine how much of the EPA the QB is responsible for. For example, if a receiver takes a 4 yard slant pass for 50 yards, the QB gets EPA credit for that receiver's effort.  Maybe he should, maybe he shouldn't.  But the two metrics are correlated.  QBs that fall to the right of the imaginary diagonal generally play on good offenses (Mahomes, Jackson, Brady, Wentz '17).  QBs to the left generally aren't being helped as much by their surrounding cast (Darnold, Dalton, Taylor, Mariota etc).  Goff falls so far to the right of the diagonal, not once, not twice, but all three seasons in that system.  The fact that Goff has a below average CPOE, and simultaneously has an above average EPA, is precisely the reason I credit the system for Goff's "success".  An average (at best) QB playing in a good system.

Yet, Goff's EPA has been quite stable from year to year, just like his CPOE. Difference is that Goff's EPA shows a good young QB. That doesn't support your conclusions, so you decided to disregard it. That's what makes it clear that the metrics aren't about informing your opinion; they're about supporting your preconceived notions. The metric that shows Goff as a good QB (on par with other guys we all acknowledge as franchise QBs and even cornerstones) only proves that the system and the talent around him are great. But the metric that makes Goff appear a below average QB is the one that accurately sums up his level of play. The irony is, of course, that points matter much more than completion percentage. 

Let's throw out an alternate theory taking these metrics at face value. Goff has inconsistencies with his accuracy, but when he's on, he's really, really damn good. That allows him to make up for the inconsistencies with his per attempt success. Basically, it's like a HB who gets tackled behind the LOS at a higher than average rate but also busts off long runs at a higher than average rate. His success rate might be lower than you'd expect based on his per attempt success. Of course, this theory doesn't presuppose that Goff isn't responsible for any of his successes but is only responsible for his failures. As I said, it's clear that you came to a conclusion and are working backwards to justify that conclusion. You can say the same about me, but I'm not the one trying to sell you that I came to my "reasoned" conclusion based on objective metrics.

[Gmen]

1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

I read about what goes into the CPOE model before responding to your post and understand the purpose of analytics just fine. But what I realize is that you came to a conclusion and are working backwards to justify that conclusion. That's not the purpose of analytics. Your post reminds me of the old adage about drunks and lampposts: You are using statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination.

Yet, Goff's EPA has been quite stable from year to year, just like his CPOE. Difference is that Goff's EPA shows a good young QB. That doesn't support your conclusions, so you decided to disregard it. That's what makes it clear that the metrics aren't about informing your opinion; they're about supporting your preconceived notions. The metric that shows Goff as a good QB (on par with other guys we all acknowledge as franchise QBs and even cornerstones) only proves that the system and the talent around him are great. But the metric that makes Goff appear a below average QB is the one that accurately sums up his level of play. The irony is, of course, that points matter much more than completion percentage. 

Let's throw out an alternate theory taking these metrics at face value. Goff has inconsistencies with his accuracy, but when he's on, he's really, really damn good. That allows him to make up for the inconsistencies with his per attempt success. Basically, it's like a HB who gets tackled behind the LOS at a higher than average rate but also busts off long runs at a higher than average rate. His success rate might be lower than you'd expect based on his per attempt success. Of course, this theory doesn't presuppose that Goff isn't responsible for any of his successes but is only responsible for his failures. As I said, it's clear that you came to a conclusion and are working backwards to justify that conclusion. You can say the same about me, but I'm not the one trying to sell you that I came to my "reasoned" conclusion based on objective metrics.

Just because Goff's EPA happens to be stable, doesn't mean EPA in general is a stable QB metric.  That's not a good argument.  That's not to say EPA is a bad metric.  It's actually a very good metric for offensive efficiency. It accounts for TDs, INTs, fumbles, sacks and yards.  However, as I mentioned earlier, EPA is also polluted by yards after the catch, which I don't believe the QB should be credited with.  That may be the reason why Next Gen Stats doesn't track EPA as a QB stat, but instead uses CPOE.  What a receiver does after the catch should only be credited to the receiver IMO, not the QB. And to show evidence that Goff's EPA disproportionately benefits from YAC, here is a chart showing that Kupp, Woods and Cook have been 3 of the top 4 leaders in big YAC plays over the past 5 years.  More evidence that Goff benefits from the system / surrounding cast. 

Even before I went down the analytics rabbit hole a few months ago, this was my conception of Goff.  Average QB in a good system.  The analytics support that theory.  I believe you can plug 20 other QBs into that system and have similar or better success than Goff.  But I'll leave it at that since this thread is about Jalen Ramsey. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Gmen

[jrry32]

26 minutes ago, Gmen said:

Just because Goff's EPA happens to be stable, doesn't mean EPA in general is a stable QB metric.  That's not a good argument.  That's not to say EPA is a bad metric.  It's actually a very good metric for offensive efficiency. It accounts for TDs, INTs, fumbles, sacks and yards.  However, as I mentioned earlier, EPA is also polluted by yards after the catch, which I don't believe the QB should be credited with.  That may be the reason why Next Gen Stats doesn't track EPA as a QB stat, but instead uses CPOE.  What a receiver does after the catch should only be credited to the receiver IMO, not the QB. And to show evidence that Goff's EPA disproportionately benefits from YAC, here is a chart showing that Kupp, Woods and Cook have been 3 of the top 4 leaders in big YAC plays over the past 5 years.  More evidence that Goff benefits from the system / surrounding cast. 

Even before I went down the analytics rabbit hole a few months ago, this was my conception of Goff.  Average QB in a good system.  The analytics support that theory.  I believe you can plug 20 other QBs into that system and have similar or better success than Goff.  But I'll leave it at that since this thread is about Jalen Ramsey. 

Except for the fact that QB play has a huge impact on YAC. Anybody who knows football knows that. But I'm glad you're at least admitting that you "went down the analytical rabbit hole" having already decided what Goff was. It's no surprise that you analyze the metrics through that lens.

Edited September 12, 2020 by jrry32