Week 15 - Rams vs Jets

[JonStark]

5 hours ago, jrry32 said:

I have no issue with the screen to Brown. McVay doesn't seem to trust our protection on 3rd and 11+.

I don't have an issue with it once in a while. I do have an issue with doing it nearly every 3rd and long. It's basically conceding defeat. Also, why not do it to an actual WR, or have the RB line up in the backfield and do a screen from there? 

4 hours ago, rocky_rams said:

Thats completely different than the situation at hand with the play calling we are talking about 

It's not. I'm trying to tell you that the result of a play is irrelevant when discussing if it was a good or a bad play call to begin with. You had two downs to get 4 yards. Calling two passing plays with deep first reads is bad playcalling. Goff screwed up too by not moving past his first read, but the calls are on Mcvay. 

[StLunatic88]

7 hours ago, rocky_rams said:

I get your point. But that’s still not 95% 

it’s about 6% other than us if we’re being accurate 

Its unfortunate that you can’t pick up on hyperbole, but if you want to be accurate, then you shouldn’t be using the entirety of the league. Because if that’s what you want to use for your pool to get that “6%” then I can find you most of the league with bad losses. 

If we are using comparable teams to the Rams then we are talking about Playoff Contenders, which seems fair to call any team still alive in Week 16 one of those. And to be extremely Fair, I’ll even exclude the entire NFC East (including whoever the eventual winner is). That would put us at 17 teams to look at. 

We’ve already identified the Rams loss to the Jets, the Steelers to the Bengals, and the Colts to the Jags, so expanding the “bad losses” to be one to teams who are projected Top 5 picks also seems fair. And that’s at minimum when looking at bad losses. So that also pulls in the Bengals win over the Titans, the Panthers over the Cardinals, and the Falcons wins over both the Raiders and the Vikings.

That’s 40%+ while excluding as much as possible. My point is that we are hardly the only team having these issues. I guess some of you have an issue that it was to an “0-for” team, but that’s irrelevant to me. Losing to a bad team shouldnt matter if they have one or two previous lucky wins. It’s just as bad of a loss, even if they had already picked up their first win two weeks ago against the Raiders. And that’s not even counting the Seahawks who lost to the Colt McCoy led Giants. 

Again, no excuses. This was a bad loss, and should make us pause about this team, DEPENDING on how we follow it up. But right now the sky is falling to most of you, so I guess have fun with your panic party for this week. I’m going to see what cajones this ENTIRE team has next week, not just one coach or player, because they were ALL bad this week.

 

[jrry32]

3 hours ago, JonStark said:

I don't have an issue with it once in a while. I do have an issue with doing it nearly every 3rd and long. It's basically conceding defeat. Also, why not do it to an actual WR, or have the RB line up in the backfield and do a screen from there? 

It's not. I'm trying to tell you that the result of a play is irrelevant when discussing if it was a good or a bad play call to begin with. You had two downs to get 4 yards. Calling two passing plays with deep first reads is bad playcalling. Goff screwed up too by not moving past his first read, but the calls are on Mcvay. 

We normally throw the screen to a WR.

[rocky_rams]

6 hours ago, StLunatic88 said:

Its unfortunate that you can’t pick up on hyperbole, but if you want to be accurate, then you shouldn’t be using the entirety of the league. Because if that’s what you want to use for your pool to get that “6%” then I can find you most of the league with bad losses. 

If we are using comparable teams to the Rams then we are talking about Playoff Contenders, which seems fair to call any team still alive in Week 16 one of those. And to be extremely Fair, I’ll even exclude the entire NFC East (including whoever the eventual winner is). That would put us at 17 teams to look at. 

We’ve already identified the Rams loss to the Jets, the Steelers to the Bengals, and the Colts to the Jags, so expanding the “bad losses” to be one to teams who are projected Top 5 picks also seems fair. And that’s at minimum when looking at bad losses. So that also pulls in the Bengals win over the Titans, the Panthers over the Cardinals, and the Falcons wins over both the Raiders and the Vikings.

That’s 40%+ while excluding as much as possible. My point is that we are hardly the only team having these issues. I guess some of you have an issue that it was to an “0-for” team, but that’s irrelevant to me. Losing to a bad team shouldnt matter if they have one or two previous lucky wins. It’s just as bad of a loss, even if they had already picked up their first win two weeks ago against the Raiders. And that’s not even counting the Seahawks who lost to the Colt McCoy led Giants. 

Again, no excuses. This was a bad loss, and should make us pause about this team, DEPENDING on how we follow it up. But right now the sky is falling to most of you, so I guess have fun with your panic party for this week. I’m going to see what cajones this ENTIRE team has next week, not just one coach or player, because they were ALL bad this week.

 

I’m def not on “the sky is falling” category. Not anywhere near actually. 

it may even work better for us in the playoffs that we don’t win the division. 
 

my point in all this that before this game, I thought Goff could still be the guy who’ll overcompensate for our shortcomings as a team. Who will lead the way with his play when all else isn’t going our way. 
 

this game has put it in perspective for me that Goff will never be that guy. Like Ryan Clark says, Goff’s just a guy. That’s fine and all, but with this coaching staff, the offensive weapons, this defense, we can be a potential dynasty if we even had a Top 5-7 QB 

thats all

[jrry32]

6 minutes ago, rocky_rams said:

I’m def not on “the sky is falling” category. Not anywhere near actually. 

it may even work better for us in the playoffs that we don’t win the division. 
 

my point in all this that before this game, I thought Goff could still be the guy who’ll overcompensate for our shortcomings as a team. Who will lead the way with his play when all else isn’t going our way. 
 

this game has put it in perspective for me that Goff will never be that guy. Like Ryan Clark says, Goff’s just a guy. That’s fine and all, but with this coaching staff, the offensive weapons, this defense, we can be a potential dynasty if we even had a Top 5-7 QB 

thats all

There aren't even five QBs who can do that. Can Goff lead us to a win if the defense doesn't have a good game? Sure. But that means the rest of the offense has to perform. Can Goff lead us to a win if the defense falters, the OL doesn't block well, and the WRs/TEs have underwhelming games? No. But I'm not really sure any QB could. Patrick Mahomes and Russell Wilson could compensate for faulty protection, but they're not going to drag a team that isn't performing to a win on their backs. Would it be easier if we had a top 5 QB? Of course. But there are only 5 QBs in the NFL at a given time who can be top 5. Goff isn't that right now. Whether or not he'll ever be that is an open question.

[rocky_rams]

9 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

There aren't even five QBs who can do that. Can Goff lead us to a win if the defense doesn't have a good game? Sure. But that means the rest of the offense has to perform. Can Goff lead us to a win if the defense falters, the OL doesn't block well, and the WRs/TEs have underwhelming games? No. But I'm not really sure any QB could. Patrick Mahomes and Russell Wilson could compensate for faulty protection, but they're not going to drag a team that isn't performing to a win on their backs. Would it be easier if we had a top 5 QB? Of course. But there are only 5 QBs in the NFL at a given time who can be top 5. Goff isn't that right now. Whether or not he'll ever be that is an open question.

He won’t be. By year 5 hes already who he is. 

He’s even regressed from his 2017 and 2018 form. 

[jrry32]

13 minutes ago, rocky_rams said:

He won’t be. By year 5 hes already who he is. 

He’s even regressed from his 2017 and 2018 form. 

Take a look at Peyton Manning's career. You'll quickly see that he wasn't what he was in Year 5. Neither was Drew Brees. Neither was Ben Roethlisberger. (The list only goes on.) In fact, Peyton Manning regressed from his Years 2 and 3 form in Years 4 and 5 (just like Goff). Simply put, you don't know any better than I do what Goff will or won't be.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GoffJa00.htm

Oddly enough, Manning's and Goff's fifth years had a lot of similarities. Check out the completion percentage jump and the YPC drop. I'm not saying Goff will be Peyton Manning, but I am saying that your certainty isn't warranted.

[Flounch]

10 hours ago, LeotheLion said:

McVay said both were the first reads. 

I just saw his press conference, he said that there was a high read and a low read if Goff didn't like the high read he could take the low read. 

Guess he liked the high read...

[LeotheLion]

4 hours ago, Flounch said:

I just saw his press conference, he said that there was a high read and a low read if Goff didn't like the high read he could take the low read. 

Guess he liked the high read...

Well yeah, McVay didn't say he necessarily should have thrown either ball but acknowledged what was designed.

From McVay's response on the McVay show, I think he takes significantly less issue with the 4th down throw than the 3rd down one. Everett had good position. Even a perfect throw doesn't give Akers a chance. 

[rocky_rams]

10 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Take a look at Peyton Manning's career. You'll quickly see that he wasn't what he was in Year 5. Neither was Drew Brees. Neither was Ben Roethlisberger. (The list only goes on.) In fact, Peyton Manning regressed from his Years 2 and 3 form in Years 4 and 5 (just like Goff). Simply put, you don't know any better than I do what Goff will or won't be.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GoffJa00.htm

Oddly enough, Manning's and Goff's fifth years had a lot of similarities. Check out the completion percentage jump and the YPC drop. I'm not saying Goff will be Peyton Manning, but I am saying that your certainty isn't warranted.

You can tell P Manning was a lot more advanced mentally than Goff. They’re not even in the same league. 
 

you’re going based off stats only. But the eyeball test has a much different story. Peyton Manning was still considered among the best in the league and he knew how to go through his progressions. 
 

the only similarity Goff and Manning have are arm talent.  
 

if that version of Manning was playing under Goff’s current circumstances...well I’ll let you figure that out 

Edited December 23, 2020 by rocky_rams

[jrry32]

12 minutes ago, rocky_rams said:

You can tell P Manning was a lot more advanced mentally than Goff. They’re not even in the same league. 
 

you’re going based off stats only. But the eyeball test has a much different story. Peyton Manning was still considered among the best in the league and he knew how to go through his progressions. 
 

the only similarity Goff and Manning have are arm talent.  
 

if that version of Manning was playing under Goff’s current circumstances...well I’ll let you figure that out 

Goff doesn't know how to go through progressions? Dear god, man, just stop. And you can tell Manning was a lot more advanced mentally because you saw his entire career. You can talk to me about the "eyeball test," but we both know that's a cop-out here. There's no way to prove what you did or didn't think of Manning or Brees or a number of other top QBs that far back. The whole "Goff is what he is by Year 5" take is bullcrap. And I just proved it. Pocket passers don't stop growing in their fifth year.

[rocky_rams]

19 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Goff doesn't know how to go through progressions? Dear god, man, just stop. And you can tell Manning was a lot more advanced mentally because you saw his entire career. You can talk to me about the "eyeball test," but we both know that's a cop-out here. There's no way to prove what you did or didn't think of Manning or Brees or a number of other top QBs that far back. The whole "Goff is what he is by Year 5" take is bullcrap. And I just proved it. Pocket passers don't stop growing in their fifth year.

Goff does go through progressions but not consistently.  
 

Manning was way more advanced. At that time he was still considered a top QB, at a time where it was more difficult to play QB. Manning was considered top 5. Goff is seen as top 15-17. Goff has McVay. Manning didn’t have anyone as good. Arians wasn’t as good as McVay. Mora wasn’t either. Manning had a defensive coach for most of his career. 

Even Kurt Warner broke down Goff and said he is good but he doesn’t ever see him being elite  

if stats matter then Drew Brees is the best QB of all time. But the eyeball test will tell you different. 
 

stats don’t measure IQ and intangibles. 
 

I’m so convinced Goff is who is at this point that I’m willing to place a bet on it if you’re down 

[Flounch]

Quote

“I’m just concerned about this offense because they’re really good when they do what they want to do,” Warner said. “Again, that’s not a newsflash there – most teams are good when they do what they do best. When the Rams run the football and play-action, they’re really good, Jared Goff is really good in that type of scenario. When they fall behind and they have to drop-back throw, when they have to spread it out and he’s got to drop back and read the defense and pick a team apart, that is where this team and that is where Jared Goff struggles.”

Even Kurt Warner said the same thing than me and he's a professional, he knows what he's talking about.

He's not telling all time BS like Jerry32.  

[jrry32]

29 minutes ago, rocky_rams said:

Goff does go through progressions but not consistently.  
 

Manning was way more advanced. At that time he was still considered a top QB, at a time where it was more difficult to play QB. Manning was considered top 5. Goff is seen as top 15-17. Goff has McVay. Manning didn’t have anyone as good. Arians wasn’t as good as McVay. Mora wasn’t either. Manning had a defensive coach for most of his career. 

Even Kurt Warner broke down Goff and said he is good but he doesn’t ever see him being elite  

if stats matter then Drew Brees is the best QB of all time. But the eyeball test will tell you different. 
 

stats don’t measure IQ and intangibles. 

Look at the top QBs at that time. It's not surprising. Here are the top 10 QBs in passer rating in 2001 and 2002:

2001

Kurt Warner

Rich Gannon

Jeff Garcia

Brett Favre

Steve McNair

Tom Brady

Donovan McNabb

Peyton Manning

Mark Brunell

Chris Chandler

2002

Chad Pennington

Rich Gannon

Brad Johnson

Trent Green

Peyton Manning

Matt Hasselbeck

Drew Bledsoe

Donovan McNabb

Tom Brady

Mark Brunell

Outside of Kurt Warner in 2001 and Rich Gannon in both years, you had a few impressive names playing, but they were either not yet in their primes (Brady and McNabb) or past their prime (Favre). I guess you could say this was Steve McNair's prime, but outside of one year, McNair's career wasn't particularly impressive. Goff is playing in the Golden Era of QBs. He's playing with six surefire HOFers (Brady, Brees, Mahomes, Big Ben, Wilson, and Rodgers). Rivers and Matt Ryan have had better careers than almost every QB on the 2001 and 2002 list. And then you have young QBs like Deshaun Watson, Lamar Jackson, Kyler Murray, Josh Allen, etc. Hell, Dak Prescott is every bit the player that McNair was imo, and Dak isn't a top 10 QB in this era (whereas McNair was quite arguably a top 5 QB from 2001 to 2003).

As far as Manning not having offensive minds, he had Tom Moore as OC, who is a legend, and Bruce Arians as his original QB Coach.

Quote

I’m so convinced Goff is who is at this point that I’m willing to place a bet on it if you’re down 

And what are the parameters of this supposed bet? Because if it's something like Goff becoming a top 5 QB, it's not worth my time. That's subjective. If we're making a bet, it needs to have objective marks.

Edited December 23, 2020 by jrry32

[LeotheLion]

20 minutes ago, rocky_rams said:

Goff does go through progressions but not consistently.  
 

Manning was way more advanced. At that time he was still considered a top QB, at a time where it was more difficult to play QB. Manning was considered top 5. Goff is seen as top 15-17. Goff has McVay. Manning didn’t have anyone as good. Arians wasn’t as good as McVay. Mora wasn’t either. Manning had a defensive coach for most of his career. 

Even Kurt Warner broke down Goff and said he is good but he doesn’t ever see him being elite  

if stats matter then Drew Brees is the best QB of all time. But the eyeball test will tell you different. 
 

stats don’t measure IQ and intangibles. 
 

I’m so convinced Goff is who is at this point that I’m willing to place a bet on it if you’re down 

I don't know why you are so obsessed with perceived rankings of players/coaches. When Manning was a QB there were not that many good QBs. This is a different time where over half the teams have a franchise caliber QB.

Stats don't measure IQ. Wonderlic test sort of does that and Goff scored very high among starting QBs. He's not stupid like most media try to paint him as.