Week 17 - Rams vs Cardinals

[BStanRamFan]

1 minute ago, JonStark said:

They would have the same expectations because you are literally choosing which one to play. If they are both healthy, you get to pick which one you play, so their expectations on their performance in the next game should be the same. If they are not, then the choice is clear. Your logic here is just wrong.

And don't be butthurt because your arrogance has made it seem like everyone is ganging up on you. Having an opinion that differs from others' having a similar one is fine, but you need to pump the brakes with the condescending BS. 

 

12 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Nah, I wouldn't have been sold on him. But at least I wouldn't be here talking about how I prefer the guy for whom I have lower expectations. You're only undermining your own argument. It's become clear that this is more about grinding your ax with Goff than the Rams winning. You can get upset and defensive all you want, but that's not going to obscure the flaws in the arguments you're making.

This entire argument started by saying if Goff put up Wolfords stat line LAST WEEK we would riot. And we would because someone never having taken a snap before should not have the same expectations as a 5 year vet.

I think NEXT WEEK Wolford would play better. That is why I'm choosing him. 

[JonStark]

2 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

 

This entire argument started by saying if Goff put up Wolfords stat line LAST WEEK we would riot. And we would because someone never having taken a snap before should not have the same expectations as a 5 year vet.

I think NEXT WEEK Wolford would play better. That is why I'm choosing him. 

Then you have higher expectations for him this next week than you do a healthy Goff, which is fine. If he puts up a stinker, don't expect to come back here with the "well he was an UDFA in his second start" excuse. 

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, BStanRamFan said:

 

This entire argument started by saying if Goff put up Wolfords stat line LAST WEEK we would riot. And we would because someone never having taken a snap before should not have the same expectations as a 5 year vet.

I think NEXT WEEK Wolford would play better. That is why I'm choosing him. 

This basically says it all. Wolford's performance against Arizona wouldn't have been up to par for Goff, but you would choose him over Goff because he's not Goff. Basically, you hope he's better despite having no real evidence that he is. The playoffs are win or go home. I'd rather not gamble on a guy who wasn't good enough in his only start.

4 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

Oh I'm 1000% disappointed in Goff and his play down the stretch is why I'm supporting Wolf after just 1 game. My only concern is the Rams winning. I said multiple times yesterday if Goff is starting this week then let's roll I'm on board. 

But Rams twitter, fans outside our fanbase, and some media pundits are supporting Wolford because they've completely stopped supporting Goff. I'm not the only one with this view. If you don't like my arguments that's fine, but the notion that the Rams should start Wolford is not obscure; it's gaining traction. I am very excited to see what McVay decides to do for the betterment of this team. And your position on Goff as the president of the Jared Goff fan club is pretty telling in itself.

If you want to take a few jabs as upset and defensive be my guest, but you're grumpy old man act has been getting pretty old, imo. 

Change for the sake of change is something that pleases some fans, but it's not a smart move. You're throwing jabs because you know I'm right, and that upsets you. You know that you prefer Wolford because you're frustrated with Goff and just want something different. You don't prefer him because you think he's a better player. 

[jrry32]

3 minutes ago, JonStark said:

Then you have higher expectations for him this next week than you do a healthy Goff, which is fine. If he puts up a stinker, don't expect to come back here with the "well he was an UDFA in his second start" excuse. 

I wish Wolford had lit up the Cardinals. Then, I'd feel a whole lot better about him possibly starting. Goff may not be healthy enough to go. Or Goff may be healthy enough to go but may not be the same QB due to the injury. Had Wolford lit up the Cards, I'd be feeling a lot better about him starting until Goff is near 100%. But he didn't. I hope there aren't any excuses being made for our QB after the game, because that will likely mean we lost. Whether it's Goff or Wolford, I want a win.

[BStanRamFan]

2 minutes ago, JonStark said:

Then you have higher expectations for him this next week than you do a healthy Goff, which is fine. If he puts up a stinker, don't expect to come back here with the "well he was an UDFA in his second start" excuse. 

Give you my word I would not do that. I'd eat crow with a fork and knife.

 

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

This basically says it all. Wolford's performance against Arizona wouldn't have been up to par for Goff, but you would choose him over Goff because he's not Goff. Basically, you hope he's better despite having no real evidence that he is. The playoffs are win or go home. I'd rather not gamble on a guy who wasn't good enough in his only start.

Change for the sake of change is something that pleases some fans, but it's not a smart move. You're throwing jabs because you know I'm right, and that upsets you. You know that you prefer Wolford because you're frustrated with Goff and just want something different. You don't prefer him because you think he's a better player. 

I expect him to be better because his playing style is more appropriate for a PA offense then Goff and he has mobility. And in his only start I thought he looked good enough to play moving forward. You don't.

And Goff looked abysmal 2 weeks ago vs the team we're about the play this week. It's not change for the sake of change. Let's see what McVay thinks. I trust his judgement more than my own or yours.

I prefer Wolford because I think he gives the Rams a better chance of winning then Goff does. 

I, in no way, think you're right and the jabs are just too damn easy to pass up. 

 

[JonStark]

2 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

I wish Wolford had lit up the Cardinals. Then, I'd feel a whole lot better about him possibly starting. Goff may not be healthy enough to go. Or Goff may be healthy enough to go but may not be the same QB due to the injury. Had Wolford lit up the Cards, I'd be feeling a lot better about him starting until Goff is near 100%. But he didn't. I hope there aren't any excuses being made for our QB after the game, because that will likely mean we lost. Whether it's Goff or Wolford, I want a win.

I'm actually fine with Wolford starting if Goff is still hurting. He brings an element that the Seahawks haven't seen yet, and hopefully last week was just nerves. He looked better as the game went on, so he could be able to do enough to get us the win as long as the defense stays strong and we can get a running game going. Wolf led us on some drives without much of a running game at all, so any upgrade in that department from last week would be huge. I don't see him crumbling under the pressure. He may not be the most talented QB, but all we need is for him to will us to a win this week and then JG should be back to 100%. 

I just hope when Goff is back, Mcvay keep the same type of playcalling he did last week. My dad and I were talking about how the first few drives were IDEAL calls for Goff (ie stand in the pocket and open up the field), which was weird because they didn't really fit the mobile QB as much. Once Mcvay started calling plays to utilize Wolford's legs, he started to pick things up. I like our odds with either QB this week, even if I'd prefer #16 being out there. 

[jrry32]

5 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

Give you my word I would not do that. I'd eat crow with a fork and knife.

 

I expect him to be better because his playing style is more appropriate for a PA offense then Goff and he has mobility. And in his only start I thought he looked good enough to play moving forward. You don't.

And Goff looked abysmal 2 weeks ago vs the team we're about the play this week. It's not change for the sake of change. Let's see what McVay thinks. I trust his judgement more than my own or yours.

I prefer Wolford because I think he gives the Rams a better chance of winning then Goff does. 

I, in no way, think you're right and the jabs are just too damn easy to pass up. 

 

Goff's passing numbers from his "abysmal" game against Seattle are actually only slightly worse than Wolford's passing numbers against Arizona. Difference is that Goff played a very good game against Seattle in our victory over them earlier in the season. It's change for the sake of change. Feel free to continue with your defensiveness. 😂

[jrry32]

2 minutes ago, JonStark said:

I'm actually fine with Wolford starting if Goff is still hurting. He brings an element that the Seahawks haven't seen yet, and hopefully last week was just nerves. He looked better as the game went on, so he could be able to do enough to get us the win as long as the defense stays strong and we can get a running game going. Wolf led us on some drives without much of a running game at all, so any upgrade in that department from last week would be huge. I don't see him crumbling under the pressure. He may not be the most talented QB, but all we need is for him to will us to a win this week and then JG should be back to 100%. 

I just hope when Goff is back, Mcvay keep the same type of playcalling he did last week. My dad and I were talking about how the first few drives were IDEAL calls for Goff (ie stand in the pocket and open up the field), which was weird because they didn't really fit the mobile QB as much. Once Mcvay started calling plays to utilize Wolford's legs, he started to pick things up. I like our odds with either QB this week, even if I'd prefer #16 being out there. 

If Goff isn't healthy enough to play effectively, we only have one choice. In that scenario, I hope Wolford is great. I want to win.

[NVRamsFan]

25 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

 

This entire argument started by saying if Goff put up Wolfords stat line LAST WEEK we would riot. And we would because someone never having taken a snap before should not have the same expectations as a 5 year vet.

I think NEXT WEEK Wolford would play better. That is why I'm choosing him. 

I expect a QB to win and perform well if he's starting in the NFL the draft status or contract status makes absolutely zero difference to me. If he's starting for the Rams I hope and expect the best performance. I judge them the same based with no biased towards draft or contract status. I don't give somebody a free pass for a mediocre performance with a handful of mistakes just because he's a UDFA on his 3rd team in 3 years. Goff has had some real stinkers. Wolford was barely acceptable for most of last Sunday. You're the one who has an issue with a Rams player not the rest of us. 

 

As for the Jrry and company comment get over yourself. You have some ridiculous ideas and comments sometimes and when 90% of this very small sub disagree with you it leads you attacking people and rarely discussing ideas. Your fondness also for moving goal posts and misquoting people lead a lot of us to not even want to interact with you. 

Now for the last time on Wolford I thought it was an ok performance. His INT was as bad as any Goff has been crucified for and they both deserve criticism for those bad throws. Wolford got away with 2 or 3 other bad throws that didn't get picked. He took 1 sack at least the one with Havenstein getting abused that showed no pocket awareness. The best thing he did was scramble and if I could give some of that ability to Goff we'd be in a much better spot QB. But you can't teach that athleticism just like we probably aren't going to make Wolford a better passer of the ball. If he starts I'll be rooting for him just the same as if John Doe or any other guys was starting for the Rams. 

[LeotheLion]

The one thing with Wolford I love is it gives the offense more variety. With Goff, if we went shotgun it was always a pass. It seemed like a silly tell when the whole McVay offense is built on deception. The read options or RPO (thought they were RPOs live but maybe not) can get easy yards to get out of ruts. 

From what I saw from Wolford he can beat Seattle. But I also don't think Seattle is a great team and our defense obviously matches up well against them. 

[rocky_rams]

14 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Except for the fact that Goff's and Winston's careers aren't remotely comparable to this point, outside of both being #1 overall picks.

Of course their careers aren’t comparable. Goff has a top 5 coach with a stacked offense AND defense led by HOF Wade Phillips which played a big part in Goff’s “career” 

 but their individual make up is similar. A first overall pick with plenty of arm talent who cant consistently read defenses and have become turnover machines 

[rocky_rams]

1 hour ago, JonStark said:

I'm actually fine with Wolford starting if Goff is still hurting. He brings an element that the Seahawks haven't seen yet, and hopefully last week was just nerves. He looked better as the game went on, so he could be able to do enough to get us the win as long as the defense stays strong and we can get a running game going. Wolf led us on some drives without much of a running game at all, so any upgrade in that department from last week would be huge. I don't see him crumbling under the pressure. He may not be the most talented QB, but all we need is for him to will us to a win this week and then JG should be back to 100%. 

I just hope when Goff is back, Mcvay keep the same type of playcalling he did last week. My dad and I were talking about how the first few drives were IDEAL calls for Goff (ie stand in the pocket and open up the field), which was weird because they didn't really fit the mobile QB as much. Once Mcvay started calling plays to utilize Wolford's legs, he started to pick things up. I like our odds with either QB this week, even if I'd prefer #16 being out there. 

Do you think McVay is scared to open up the playbook because of Goff’s turnovers?

by the way, one of Goff’s biggest weaknesses is staying in the pocket and consistently picking defenses apart out the pocket 

He’s much better when the pocket moves 

Edited January 5, 2021 by rocky_rams

[jrry32]

21 minutes ago, rocky_rams said:

Of course their careers aren’t comparable. Goff has a top 5 coach with a stacked offense AND defense led by HOF Wade Phillips which played a big part in Goff’s “career” 

 but their individual make up is similar. A first overall pick with plenty of arm talent who cant consistently read defenses and have become turnover machines 

Yes, their careers aren't comparable. But it's not because of what Jameis lacked. It's because Goff has been a far superior QB. Jameis has had Mike Evans his entire career. His secondary targets throughout his career have included DeSean Jackson, Chris Godwin, Vincent Jackson, Adam Humphries, Cameron Brate, and O.J. Howard. In 2018, he had Mike Evans, DeSean Jackson, Chris Godwin, Adam Humphries, O.J. Howard, and Cameron Brate, yet he ended up benched for Ryan Fitzpatrick. In 2019, he turned the ball over 35 times while playing for Bruce Arians, despite having one of the best groups of weapons in the NFL and Todd Bowles coordinating the defense.

Meanwhile, Jared Goff's best year for the Rams (2018) came with a defense that ranked around 20th in the NFL. And Wade never gave us a top 10 defense during his entire time coordinating the Rams. Goff and the offense led us to 13 regular season wins and a Super Bowl appearance in 2018. Jameis Winson has never led his team to double-digit wins once in his career. He has led his team to an above .500 record only once (9-7 in 2016). Swing and a miss.

Edited January 5, 2021 by jrry32

[LeotheLion]

3 minutes ago, rocky_rams said:

Do you think McVay is scared to open up the playbook because of Goff’s turnovers?

I don't think it was that. The 2 deep shots that Wolford hit were due to corners trying to jump the underneath routes. Wolford recognized those and fired the deep shots for big gains. Part of me thinks the Cards were jumpy due to expecting Wolford to go with conservative throw. 

The other deep shots Wolford took weren't connected. I like that he took them but it's a low percentage throw. Goff has shown this year he prefers the easier completion. I'd expect if Wolford actually goes this week he'd look more for Kupp underneath than jump balls to single coverage. 

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, LeotheLion said:

I don't think it was that. The 2 deep shots that Wolford hit were due to corners trying to jump the underneath routes. Wolford recognized those and fired the deep shots for big gains. Part of me thinks the Cards were jumpy due to expecting Wolford to go with conservative throw. 

The other deep shots Wolford took weren't connected. I like that he took them but it's a low percentage throw. Goff has shown this year he prefers the easier completion. I'd expect if Wolford actually goes this week he'd look more for Kupp underneath than jump balls to single coverage. 

He also had Van Jefferson behind the defense deep. I am hopeful Van plays over Reynolds this week.