(Poll) Goff or Wentz Part Deux. Who do YOU want?

[jrry32]

Not at all. Unless you've been closing your eyes...QBs are getting harder and harder to come by because of the spread offense college ball has gone to. This is why many are starting out of necessity...they don't have decent backup QBs.

The NFL isn't going to anything...they're adjusting out of the lack of NFL ready QBs because of the spread offense dominating college.

They only thing Goff is gonna see is preseason for the most part. If he sees action it'll be after week 12.

My eyes are wide open. QBs are not getting harder and harder to come by. And the "issue" that forces QBs to start out of "necessity" applies just as much to the Rams. The Rams don't have a viable starter besides Goff. That's why they traded up for Goff in the first place.(well, that combined with Goff's top level talent)

The NFL is going to something. You can't deny it. NFL offenses are growing more and more to resemble spread offenses which has made the transition easier for rookie QBs.(that and the more restrictive rules towards defenses which have opened up the passing game)

I'll place a bet with you right now that Goff becomes the Rams starter before Week 12 (barring injury).

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

Well, you can mischaracterize all you like.

It's not about Goff. I like Goff. It's not about Wentz. He's not a Ram. Haven't read a thing about him since days prior to the draft nor will I.

Why you want to maintain that even after I've clearly and repeatedly articulated my stance, I dunno.

I realize it's easier to believe that I'm anti-Goff than that there's systemic failures that will make it hard for anyone to succeed, but you do you.

I guess my point is you clearly seem to have no confidence in the organization...would that have changed had they chosen Wentz, if I'm interpreting you correctly then the answer is no, fair enough.

Looking at the theme of the draft the past two years "Shirley" you can see what they are building, I'm actually pretty excited.

 

[jrry32]

And without Wilson making plays at critical moments outside the pocket, where would they be??? If Wilson had to rely solely on Lynch and being in the pocket??? Yeah... in this division, not good. They've had to almost rely on the power running game AND being able to create outside the pocket. Super Bowl, at the goal line, stays in the pocket and? INT.

You're pretty much making my point...

No, I'm not. In fact, I refuted your point that WCOs don't work in this division. Carson Palmer doesn't win outside the pocket. He destroyed this division last year. Yes, I recognize that he does not play in a WCO but it certainly shows that the ability to scramble is not necessary for success in this division.

Russell Wilson's game revolves around his mobility. It helps him compensate for his weaknesses. You're NUTS if you're actually arguing that if the Seahawks replaced Russell Wilson with Tom Brady in that WCO, they wouldn't have been just as successful.

Wilson's mobility is irrelevant.(except to the extent it helps him be a top QB) He's a top QB. Replace him with prime Manning, Brady, Roethlisberger, Brees, etc. It doesn't change anything. Seattle is just as good if not better.

And did you really bring up the Super Bowl? The Patriots don't play in this division. Doesn't make any real sense for the point you were claiming you were making.

The simple point here is that any offensive system can work in this division. You just need a gifted QB to run it.

 

[Dodgersrf]

I'm not in disagreement there. The most disappointing thing I've seen Fisher do is swap Bradford for Foles...but I understand it because we watched Fole digress after the Rams beat Seattle last year. That game he was impressive...but he went downhill from there.

I will never understand why Mannion didn't get a shot last year.

It was sad to give up on Bradford, but I was also tired of seeing him on the sideline. I thought it was a good trade at the time. Getting the 2nd end pick sold me at the time.

Mannion was raw coming in.
I know he came from a pro offense, but he also took a beating behind a bad olone and team. I think starting him last year, if he wasn't ready would have sent the wrong message to the other 52 players.
The team didn't give up and clearly wanted to win every game.
Keenum gave us the best opportunity to win.

We all would have liked to see Mannion start late last season.
I just doubt the rest of the players agree.

 

[OldSchool]

So, now the Rams are a team with a historically great defense and a HoF QB?

It wasn't just that they got beat by a "type"... c'mon... don't do that... If that's the case, we had that in Case Keenum. You aren't saying that.

And the Seahawks, Panthers and Whiners didn't make it the Super Bowl just because they had that type of QB! Come on man look at your arguments they're straw men. It's not about just a QB it's a team the teams were built to make it to the Super Bowl. And just because those three teams made it to the SB that doesn't mean that every team needs to copy their QB type to get there.

 

[Mackeyser]

No, I'm not. In fact, I refuted your point that WCOs don't work in this division. Carson Palmer doesn't win outside the pocket. He destroyed this division last year. Yes, I recognize that he does not play in a WCO but it certainly shows that the ability to scramble is not necessary for success in this division.

Russell Wilson's game revolves around his mobility. It helps him compensate for his weaknesses. You're NUTS if you're actually arguing that if the Seahawks replaced Russell Wilson with Tom Brady in that WCO, they wouldn't have been just as successful.

Wilson's mobility is irrelevant.(except to the extent it helps him be a top QB) He's a top QB. Replace him with prime Manning, Brady, Roethlisberger, Brees, etc. It doesn't change anything. Seattle is just as good if not better.

And did you really bring up the Super Bowl? The Patriots don't play in this division. Doesn't make any real sense for the point you were claiming you were making.

The simple point here is that any offensive system can work in this division. You just need a gifted QB to run it.

No, WCOs don't work in this division. New Orleans always struggles in this division expressly because of what WCOs try to accomplish and what it takes to defeat them and why and this division has that in abundance. So, just no.

No, WCOs don't work in this division. You can't just say Russell Wilson would be the same productive Russell Wilson if he'd just be a pocket passer with the same results...no. Wilson's mobility bails them out when they don't have any other answers. Have you not been watching the RAMS DEFENSE for the last few years??? Oh, and without Lynch, they're about to find out even more so about how the WCO doesn't work in this division. As are we...

And I didn't say pocket passers can't be successful, I said the WCO can't.

Just like I said we've been drafting perfectly if we were gonna run Pittsburgh's Earhardt Perkins offense.

I'm not gonna do the Tom Brady thing cuz that's just.... no.

 

[Mackeyser]

And the Seahawks, Panthers and Whiners didn't make it the Super Bowl just because they had that type of QB! Come on man look at your arguments they're straw men. It's not about just a QB it's a team the teams were built to make it to the Super Bowl. And just because those three teams made it to the SB that doesn't mean that every team needs to copy their QB type to get there.

I'm not even sure what people are objecting to.

Other than me saying Goff's not the messiah, he's an outstanding prospect who needs time to acclimate to the pro game and the WCO absolutely stinks in this division and Fisher's broken quasi-WCO is even worse. Seattle has made it work with a power running game AND a very resourceful, mobile QB who's unafraid to create when the play breaks down which, if you've watched any Seattle football HAPPENS OFTEN. This, as we've seen prior to Wilson, the Seahawks had a middling record. The offense didn't work. They tried having a pocket passer. It DID NOT WORK. Not in this division. Russell Wilson makes it work.

Thus, in this division, if a team wants to run a WCO with a pocket QB, it just doesn't bode well because... as we see and saw in Seattle and with our offense... there are a LOT of breakdowns...because defense will defense... and unless that QB can create outside of the pocket, the defense will collapse the pocket.

So... it's systemic. And I'm putting it out there now. It's not at all on Goff. I would have preferred Wentz because I think he had a chance to create, but he's not Wilson, either. Neither of them is. Not close. And neither would be successful purely in the pocket in this WCO in this division.

Pretty sure we're looking for another OC at the end of this year...but unless they change the offense, it'll be more of the same.

 

[jrry32]

No, WCOs don't work in this division. New Orleans always struggles in this division expressly because of what WCOs try to accomplish and what it takes to defeat them and why and this division has that in abundance. So, just no.

You continue to use New Orleans as your reasoning for why. We aren't New Orleans. New Orleans throws the ball 650 times a year. That's not the offense we're running.

On the other hand, Seattle proves that the run-first "quasi-WCO" can certainly be successful in this division.

No, WCOs don't work in this division. You can't just say Russell Wilson would be the same productive Russell Wilson if he'd just be a pocket passer with the same results...no. Wilson's mobility bails them out when they don't have any other answers. Have you not been watching the RAMS DEFENSE for the last few years??? Oh, and without Lynch, they're about to find out even more so about how the WCO doesn't work in this division. As are we...

That's not what I said. In fact, I said something completely different. Russell Wilson's game is reliant on his mobility to make up for his other weaknesses so you can't just take the mobility out of his game. What I did say is that if you replaced Wilson with a top tier pocket passer, Seattle would be just as good if not better. And I stand behind that statement.

And I didn't say pocket passers can't be successful, I said the WCO can't.

And yet it is. In fact, we played a WCO in Washington last year and they had no issues throwing on our defense. Why? Because they were running the ball effectively.

Just like I said we've been drafting perfectly if we were gonna run Pittsburgh's Earhardt Perkins offense.

Well, didn't they bring in Groh to incorporate concepts from that offense?

But I don't think the base offense really matters. The Rams can run the ball effectively and throw vertically, like they did at times last year, despite being in an offense named a WCO.

You're kind of ignoring that you, yourself, have called it a "quasi-WCO" because it's pretty clear that they're not running a traditional WCO.

 

[Mackeyser]

I guess my point is you clearly seem to have no confidence in the organization...would that have changed had they chosen Wentz, if I'm interpreting you correctly then the answer is no, fair enough.

Looking at the theme of the draft the past two years "Shirley" you can see what they are building, I'm actually pretty excited.

Not at this point. Very early on, I was very excited about Wentz, but once I started spending much more time not only on both QBs, but how they would integrate into the offense (since we know that other than Groh is merely integrating some "passing concepts", not changing Boras' offense), it became abundantly clear that both Goff was the choice AND that neither was going to be much different in this offense.

I'm glad people are excited, wish I could share in it and I hope I'm totally wrong about all of this...

 

[jjab360]

Not at this point. Very early on, I was very excited about Wentz, but once I started spending much more time not only on both QBs, but how they would integrate into the offense (since we know that other than Groh is merely integrating some "passing concepts", not changing Boras' offense), it became abundantly clear that both Goff was the choice AND that neither was going to be much different in this offense.

I'm glad people are excited, wish I could share in it and I hope I'm totally wrong about all of this...

So no matter what we did, we're going to fail. Good to know.

Also interesting that you know exactly what kind of offense we're going to run and how effective it's going to be in Boras' first season as OC and with a new passing game coordinator.

 

[OldSchool]

I'm not even sure what people are objecting to.

unless that QB can create outside of the pocket, the defense will collapse the pocket.

People are disputing this line of thought. The Niners went to the Super Bowl and were beaten by a team that is run by a QB who does not create outside of the pocket.
Seattle went to the Super Bowl and was beat by a QB who does not create outside of the pocket.
Carolina went to the Super Bowl and was beat by a QB who does not create outside of the pocket.

We went 4-2 in division and 3-1 vs Arizona and Seattle with a couple shitty QB's who do not create outside of the pocket.

I'm not sure why you insist on trying to make Arizona and Seattle invincible and insist that they can only be beat by QB's who create outside of the pocket.

o... it's systemic. And I'm putting it out there now. It's not at all on Goff. I would have preferred Wentz because I think he had a chance to create, but he's not Wilson, either. Neither of them is. Not close. And neither would be successful purely in the pocket in this WCO in this division.

Nobody but you seems to think this is all on Goff. We again went 3-1 vs Seattle and Arizona with shitty QB's who don't create outside of the pocket, have mediocre arms, very little between the ears (compared to Goff) and have horrible ball placement. Yet you insist we think it's all about Goff. We already compete with the teams in our division.

 

[Mackeyser]

You continue to use New Orleans as your reasoning for why. We aren't New Orleans. New Orleans throws the ball 650 times a year. That's not the offense we're running.

On the other hand, Seattle proves that the run-first "quasi-WCO" can certainly be successful in this division.

That's not what I said. In fact, I said something completely different. Russell Wilson's game is reliant on his mobility to make up for his other weaknesses so you can't just take the mobility out of his game. What I did say is that if you replaced Wilson with a top tier pocket passer, Seattle would be just as good if not better. And I stand behind that statement.

That's just nonsense. Leave any pocket passer behind that Seattle OL and in that offense with that playcalling and those weapons and the QB would be DEAD. Not better...DEAD. Have you not seen the Rams Defense??? Do you REALLY not think we wouldn't set sack records if they had a pocket passer? Holy Cow!!! Let them do it!!! Please!!!

And yet it is. In fact, we played a WCO in Washington last year and they had no issues throwing on our defense. Why? Because they were running the ball effectively.

That's such an oversimplification that I'm just not gonna. Really? Washington=WCO, so now all WCOs that can run are successful because they beat us with one? That's now an argument? Wow...

Well, didn't they bring in Groh to incorporate concepts from that offense?

But I don't think the base offense really matters. The Rams can run the ball effectively and throw vertically, like they did at times last year, despite being in an offense named a WCO.

You're kind of ignoring that you, yourself, have called it a "quasi-WCO" because it's pretty clear that they're not running a traditional WCO.

It's important because at it's root, they're still trying to stretch defenses horizontally. Which...just isn't going to work. The horizontal stretch actually worked to Gurley's benefit because with the box stacking going on, when we blocked effectively, he was...gone. However, teams wised up and started to account for that. Without those long runs, I don't think Gurley broke 80 yards for the next 6 games after his record breaking streak and most games were around 50.

I'm not exactly sure which concepts Groh will incorporate because he's been exposed to several.

Do they change the focus of stretching the D horizontally? Do they focus on creating mismatches? Do they focus on attacking various zones of the field? Do they incorporate timing routes?

We'll just have to see about how much and what kind of passing concepts Groh introduces and what effect it has on the overall offense.

Fisher's MO tells me that it's much more likely to be about adding flavor than a major retool, but we'll see. They went from Schotty to Cignetti to Boras and the offense had blips, but hasn't substantially changed in any meaningful way since Fisher got here.

 

[jrry32]

That's just nonsense. Leave any pocket passer behind that Seattle OL and in that offense with that playcalling and those weapons and the QB would be DEAD. Not better...DEAD. Have you not seen the Rams Defense??? Do you REALLY not think we wouldn't set sack records if they had a pocket passer? Holy Cow!!! Let them do it!!! Please!!!

That's exactly what I think. Kind of like how Manning's sack rate was minuscule no matter what OL was in front of him.

Roethlisberger and Rodgers played behind some terrible OLs and still played great football. You replace Wilson with a top pocket passer and the Seahawks are just as good if not better.

That pocket passer would just kill us by getting the ball out quickly instead of running around behind the LOS.

That's such an oversimplification that I'm just not gonna. Really? Washington=WCO, so now all WCOs that can run are successful because they beat us with one? That's now an argument? Wow...

Mack's argument: We destroyed New Orleans. WCO's can't succeed in our division.
Jrry32's rebuttal: Washington runs a WCO and destroyed us when they ran the ball effectively.
Mack's Counter: HOW CAN YOU USE ONE EXAMPLE TO PROVE A POINT?

Come on, Mack. I hope you see the hypocrisy here.

It's important because at it's root, they're still trying to stretch defenses horizontally. Which...just isn't going to work. The horizontal stretch actually worked to Gurley's benefit because with the box stacking going on, when we blocked effectively, he was...gone. However, teams wised up and started to account for that. Without those long runs, I don't think Gurley broke 80 yards for the next 6 games after his record breaking streak and most games were around 50.

Seattle, like the Rams, are not running it at its root. They run a run-heavy more vertically-oriented WCO. I have a feeling we plan to do the same.

I'm not exactly sure which concepts Groh will incorporate because he's been exposed to several.

Do they change the focus of stretching the D horizontally? Do they focus on creating mismatches? Do they focus on attacking various zones of the field? Do they incorporate timing routes?

We'll just have to see about how much and what kind of passing concepts Groh introduces and what effect it has on the overall offense.

Fisher's MO tells me that it's much more likely to be about adding flavor than a major retool, but we'll see. They went from Schotty to Cignetti to Boras and the offense had blips, but hasn't substantially changed in any meaningful way since Fisher got here.

I don't know what they plan to do. But I think you're generalizing when you say the offense can't work because it's a WCO. That's it.

Yes, the Rams need to make changes. They need to shape up. But having Goff behind Center rather than Foles and Keenum will make a world of difference.

 

[Mackeyser]

So no matter what we did, we're going to fail. Good to know.

Also interesting that you know exactly what kind of offense we're going to run and how effective it's going to be in Boras' first season as OC and with a new passing game coordinator.

Well, firstly, we've already seen Boras' offense and Fisher's been super excited about it all off season. The only thing he's been more excited about this off season is drafting Goff. Seriously. And while we aren't sure to what degree Mike Groh will make any changes as Passing Coordinator, I don't think Fisher is kidding when he plays the fan favorite "we were only a few plays from being 10-6".

I don't think that no matter what we did, we're going to fail.

I do think that this existing offense is just schematically broken and needs to be ditched. So, yeah, IF Fisher is going to stick with this offense, no matter who is QB or OC, yeah, it's going to stink. Differing levels of stink and maybe a year or two of lesser stink or maybe things come together and a couple of things work out, but this is NOT an offense that will allow sustained success.

Seattle's WCO only works because of Wilson. AZ doesn't run a WCO. SF...well... who knows?

Also, I talked about decision matrices before. When you go through the process, it's not all that difficult to drill down to a relatively probable conclusion. Is it certain? No. Is it pretty likely? Yep. So, it's not about making anything up or pretending that I "know" anything... It does take time to be able to identify relevant variables and how to weight them, but it's amazing stuff.

There's a reason why every major organization is hording data and metadata and using analytics and all sorts of MCDM or Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods... it's so much bigger than "knowing" shopper are pregnant based solely on a few things they buy...

You all have me all wrong and that's fine....

 

[Mackeyser]

That's exactly what I think. Kind of like how Manning's sack rate was minuscule no matter what OL was in front of him.

Roethlisberger and Rodgers played behind some terrible OLs and still played great football. You replace Wilson with a top pocket passer and the Seahawks are just as good if not better.

That pocket passer would just kill us by getting the ball out quickly instead of running around behind the LOS.

Manning and Roethlisberger don't play in WCOs. Manning is one of if not the greatest QBs of all time. Roethlisberger and Rodgers are KNOWN for creating outside of the pocket even if they don't run. Heck, there were multiple breakdown articles this year detailing how Mike McCarthy's WCO offense was stalled, the WRs weren't helping Rodgers and that they relied far too much on Rodgers creating outside of the pocket. All very similar to Wilson, btw.

Thus Manning was the ONLY pure pocket passer you mentioned. Brady (who I'll add) and Manning both played in different variants of the Earhardt Perkins offense which gives the QB other options and stresses the defense in other ways. Part of the reason they are able to BE pocket passers is that the EP offers horizontal and vertical challenges and as we've seen maddeningly rooting against Brady, options under pressure and situational options.

You simply can't just say, "Manning in any ol' WCO is still Manning". Um...no. Manning was special because he was the perfect fit for that offense. Brady perfectly fits what Weis and McDaniel loved to do in NE. It's not just "pocket passer=good" because maybe the greatest of all time was a pocket passer in an offense we don't run.

Wilson, Rodgers and Roethlisberger to a lesser degree all create outside of the pocket. NONE would be nearly as effective solely inside of the pocket. Not even close. Moreover, none of them hides from it nor diminishes it. Why would you? Heck, Pete Carroll at times emphasizes it. The idea that we can just drop in a pocket passer and viola...better... just misses the point.

Mack's argument: We destroyed New Orleans. WCO's can't succeed in our division.
Jrry32's rebuttal: Washington runs a WCO and destroyed us when they ran the ball effectively.
Mack's Counter: HOW CAN YOU USE ONE EXAMPLE TO PROVE A POINT?

Come on, Mack. I hope you see the hypocrisy here.

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that WCOs have had a hard time with all of the teams in our division as a general rule. Seattle has dealt with it in the way that I was suggesting we do it by having a QB that can create outside the pocket (what's funny is that I totally wasn't focusing on Seattle's WCO, it completely slipped my mind, what with IRL stuff happening and all). Seattle, prior to Wilson struggled like we did and it didn't take them long of watching Wilson compared to Matt Hasselback in pre-season to see that he fixed a lot of the issues with the WCO and created a LOT of problems for defenses.

And he has.... thus, nothing hypocritical about what I'm saying at all.

Moreover, I dunno that anyone's done what we're going to try to do since the 90s...try the WCO with a pocket passer... Even Montana and Young were more mobile. Well, Young was very mobile. Goff is slippery in the pocket, but he's not someone who's going to confuse anyone with Wilson or Rodgers in a WCO. Teams aren't going to have to spy him.

I'm trying to think of a successful WCO since Montana with a pure pocket passer. Like I just noted, can't even count the Young 9ers cuz Young was more of a mobile Rodgers/Wilson type (or they were a Young type, don't wanna be disrespectful).

I honestly can't think of one successful WCO with a pure pocket passer since Montana. All the rest have been with mobile QBs. Please correct me.

Wait... Maybe New Orleans with Brees... Although I dunno that one can dismiss the innovation of Payton in that. Still, that might be one.

Is that enough? I mean Brees is working with an offensive genius and innovator in Asshole Face. Goff will have??? Boras and Groh tinkering with the vestiges of an offense left over from Brian Schottenheimer and Frank Cignetti?

Even if we equate Goff and Brees, which I most certainly do not, those situations don't seem all that similar to me. Kinda..maybe...I guess.

Enough to bet it all? Fisher apparently thinks so.

Seattle, like the Rams, are not running it at its root. They run a run-heavy more vertically-oriented WCO. I have a feeling we plan to do the same.

I don't know what they plan to do. But I think you're generalizing when you say the offense can't work because it's a WCO. That's it.

Yes, the Rams need to make changes. They need to shape up. But having Goff behind Center rather than Foles and Keenum will make a world of difference.

Firstly, Seattle may be running a more vertical oriented WCO, but we haven't. Lots of reasons why and not half of them QB related.

I'm saying the ONLY reason a WCO works in this division is because Wilson makes it work. Otherwise, it's had a hell of a time in the division. Seattle gave Green Bay what for in Seattle and in Green Bay when both were at the top of their games because the defenses in this division do well against that offense. Heck, WE did pretty well against GB if I recall and we didn't have all that great a year. (Oh, and OOK Clay Matthews in the DOOKER).

I realize you're totally high on Goff and he's Superman who can do no wrong right now. Fine. But he doesn't change Fisher, the rest of the coaching staff or the playbook.

You should read your old critiques maybe and realize that maybe I'm not as far off as you think...

 

[jrry32]

Manning and Roethlisberger don't play in WCOs. Manning is one of if not the greatest QBs of all time. Roethlisberger and Rodgers are KNOWN for creating outside of the pocket even if they don't run. Heck, there were multiple breakdown articles this year detailing how Mike McCarthy's WCO offense was stalled, the WRs weren't helping Rodgers and that they relied far too much on Rodgers creating outside of the pocket. All very similar to Wilson, btw.

Thus Manning was the ONLY pure pocket passer you mentioned. Brady (who I'll add) and Manning both played in different variants of the Earhardt Perkins offense which gives the QB other options and stresses the defense in other ways. Part of the reason they are able to BE pocket passers is that the EP offers horizontal and vertical challenges and as we've seen maddeningly rooting against Brady, options under pressure and situational options.

You simply can't just say, "Manning in any ol' WCO is still Manning". Um...no. Manning was special because he was the perfect fit for that offense. Brady perfectly fits what Weis and McDaniel loved to do in NE. It's not just "pocket passer=good" because maybe the greatest of all time was a pocket passer in an offense we don't run.

Wilson, Rodgers and Roethlisberger to a lesser degree all create outside of the pocket. NONE would be nearly as effective solely inside of the pocket. Not even close. Moreover, none of them hides from it nor diminishes it. Why would you? Heck, Pete Carroll at times emphasizes it. The idea that we can just drop in a pocket passer and viola...better... just misses the point.

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that WCOs have had a hard time with all of the teams in our division as a general rule. Seattle has dealt with it in the way that I was suggesting we do it by having a QB that can create outside the pocket (what's funny is that I totally wasn't focusing on Seattle's WCO, it completely slipped my mind, what with IRL stuff happening and all). Seattle, prior to Wilson struggled like we did and it didn't take them long of watching Wilson compared to Matt Hasselback in pre-season to see that he fixed a lot of the issues with the WCO and created a LOT of problems for defenses.

And he has.... thus, nothing hypocritical about what I'm saying at all.

Moreover, I dunno that anyone's done what we're going to try to do since the 90s...try the WCO with a pocket passer... Even Montana and Young were more mobile. Well, Young was very mobile. Goff is slippery in the pocket, but he's not someone who's going to confuse anyone with Wilson or Rodgers in a WCO. Teams aren't going to have to spy him.

I'm trying to think of a successful WCO since Montana with a pure pocket passer. Like I just noted, can't even count the Young 9ers cuz Young was more of a mobile Rodgers/Wilson type (or they were a Young type, don't wanna be disrespectful).

I honestly can't think of one successful WCO with a pure pocket passer since Montana. All the rest have been with mobile QBs. Please correct me.

Wait... Maybe New Orleans with Brees... Although I dunno that one can dismiss the innovation of Payton in that. Still, that might be one.

Is that enough? I mean Brees is working with an offensive genius and innovator in Asshole Face. Goff will have??? Boras and Groh tinkering with the vestiges of an offense left over from Brian Schottenheimer and Frank Cignetti?

Even if we equate Goff and Brees, which I most certainly do not, those situations don't seem all that similar to me. Kinda..maybe...I guess.

Enough to bet it all? Fisher apparently thinks so.



Firstly, Seattle may be running a more vertical oriented WCO, but we haven't. Lots of reasons why and not half of them QB related.

I'm saying the ONLY reason a WCO works in this division is because Wilson makes it work. Otherwise, it's had a hell of a time in the division. Seattle gave Green Bay what for in Seattle and in Green Bay when both were at the top of their games because the defenses in this division do well against that offense. Heck, WE did pretty well against GB if I recall and we didn't have all that great a year. (Oh, and OOK Clay Matthews in the DOOKER).

I realize you're totally high on Goff and he's Superman who can do no wrong right now. Fine. But he doesn't change Fisher, the rest of the coaching staff or the playbook.

You should read your old critiques maybe and realize that maybe I'm not as far off as you think...

No. You're as far off as I think. You did a lot talking to barely address my points. If you think guys like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, etc. couldn't succeed in Seattle (in their primes), I really have nothing left to say to you. It tells me that there is no middle ground here.

As for your request, here are some successful WCO pocket passers off the top of my head:
Drew Brees
Matt Hasselbeck
John Elway (under Mike Shanahan)
Matt Schaub
Kirk Cousins
Brad Johnson (under Jon Gruden)
Brett Favre (under Brad Childress)

I recognize that Elway and Favre were scramblers for most of their careers but Favre and Elway did not have a lot of mobility left at the end of their careers. Especially in 2009 when Favre had one of the best years of his career and 1998 for Elway.

Plus, Jared Goff actually is a pretty mobile QB. We're not talking about Drew Bledsoe here. It's kind of odd how you're mixing QBs who can buy time with their feet with actual scrambling/running QBs. Goff can buy time with his feet. He's not some sitting duck in the pocket.

But I'll state for the tenth time, this isn't a true WCO. So stop treating it as such and using these ridiculous and lazy generalizations. You don't like Fisherball? Me neither. But Fisher seems to be open to change and the Rams are attempting to inject life into the pass offense.

 

[Mackeyser]

Nope, no middle ground at all. I don't think you just drop any old guy anywhere and system doesn't matter and surrounding personnel doesn't matter and coaching doesn't matter...

Lawrence Taylor was great, but would he have redefined the game without Parcells? You could do that all day and in almost every case, the difference between good/very good and truly great amounts to serendipity. The potential to be great has to meet with the opportunity as well as the resources. It all has to come together, which is why it's so special when it does. To just say that "that guy would be great anywhere, anytime...". Well, that just misunderstand how, when, where and why greatness happens.

So, no. No, I don't think Brady behind that mediocre Seattle OL would have fared as well as Wilson. If anything, we've seen Brady when his OL wasn't holding up and he looked downright pedestrian. He wasn't BRADY...he was Brady...And they couldn't have run those bootlegs and other things they do to take pressure off of Wilson because Brady just can't do that. Manning was even more of a statue than Brady. Brees could potentially do it because a) he's already in a WCO and b) I've already stipulated that he's a future HoF exception to the rule.

But wait...

I mentioned Brees. My point was that he was the EXCEPTION to the rule. And he is an exception, your guys below only show that.
Elway was totally a mobile QB. No way you get to count him just because he threw a shoe at the end of his career.
Favre was a gunslinging madman who ran all over the damn place. You're out of your mind if you think that because he was slightly less mobile as a greybeard that THAT's an argument for how to direct a franchise.

Which leaves you with the totally all-star cast in the last 30 years of?

Matt Hasselback
Matt Schaub
Kirk Cousins
Brad Johnson

Of all the offenses... of all the possibilities with the #1 franchise overall... These are the guys you stake the argument on...

/shrug. Okay.

You think Goff will save the day.

I think Fisher's setting Goff up to be a freakin' Crash Dummy and it's terrible because Goff deserves better. Frankly, the only thing that should prevent him from being David Carr'd is our OL can pass protect a bit and that Gurley is a damned beast.

But outside of Brees coupled with a very innovative Asshole Face, there have been ZERO examples of successful pocket passers.

Kirk Cousins got Washington all the way to 9-7 in that beastly NFC East division. Okay, well if that's the pinnacle of expectation, then okay... I suppose Goff might get a few more breaks and we might get that. Maybe. Matt Schaub in the AFC South? Another beastly division...

Goff would be set up if we set him up.

This? This is buckling him in for a crash... Everyone's all excited like we're about to watch something special. I sure hope so, because the alternative is...grizzly.

And as we've seen from being Rams fans a LOOONG time, realism usually wins out. Fisher came in and realistically we could expect him to build a dominant D. And he did. And his offense.... Well, we got that, too.

I'm just not ready to suspend reality because they went to the post office and filed a forwarding address card. It's still the same guys running the place.

 

[jrry32]

Nope, no middle ground at all. I don't think you just drop any old guy anywhere and system doesn't matter and surrounding personnel doesn't matter and coaching doesn't matter...

I think you can with some limited exceptions. I think a team like the 1999 Browns would have ruined any rookie QB you dropped on it. But barring the limited examples of truly terrible teams (hell, Steve Young played on one and the 49ers were able to help him turn his career around), the true greats would have been greats anywhere.

Peyton Manning would have been Peyton Manning if he landed elsewhere. Peyton Manning was the system.

So, no. No, I don't think Brady behind that mediocre Seattle OL would have fared as well as Wilson. If anything, we've seen Brady when his OL wasn't holding up and he looked downright pedestrian. He wasn't BRADY...he was Brady...And they couldn't have run those bootlegs and other things they do to take pressure off of Wilson because Brady just can't do that. Manning was even more of a statue than Brady. Brees could potentially do it because a) he's already in a WCO and b) I've already stipulated that he's a future HoF exception to the rule.

Yet, Brady's OL always seemed to improve, like magic, and then Brady would turn it on. Almost like somebody adjusted to the situation.

And Manning, the statue, was consistently one of the least sacked QBs throughout his career. Do you mean to tell me that's just coincidence? Let me remind you that Manning was sacked only 16 times in 2010 behind an OL comprised of:
LT: Charlie Johnson (a guy who was a mediocre starting LG and never a NFL quality LT)
LG: Kyle DeVan (you should be saying, "WHO?")
C: Jeff Saturday (at 35 years old)
RG: Mike Pollak (a backup G/C on Cincinnati)
RT: Ryan Diem (a decent starting RT)

Manning is the opposite of Russell Wilson. His style of play minimizes sacks. Prime Manning would have barely been sacked behind that Seattle OL. Not because the Seattle OL was good. Because Manning was that good.

But wait...

I mentioned Brees. My point was that he was the EXCEPTION to the rule. And he is an exception, your guys below only show that.
Elway was totally a mobile QB. No way you get to count him just because he threw a shoe at the end of his career.
Favre was a gunslinging madman who ran all over the damn place. You're out of your mind if you think that because he was slightly less mobile as a greybeard that THAT's an argument for how to direct a franchise.

I don't get to count Elway after he lost his mobility due to age because he was mobile prior to that? Same with Favre? Isn't the crux of your argument that non-mobile QBs don't succeed in the WCO?

Which leaves you with the totally all-star cast in the last 30 years of?

Matt Hasselback
Matt Schaub
Kirk Cousins
Brad Johnson

Of all the offenses... of all the possibilities with the #1 franchise overall... These are the guys you stake the argument on...

/shrug. Okay.

Well, no, I stake my argument on Jared Goff. I stake my argument on the Rams not running a true WCO, a point you already conceded. I stake my argument on your WCO argument being illogical and ineffective in the first place. What do you stake your argument on? Lazy generalizations? Certainly seems like it.

This idea that pocket passers can't succeed in WCOs is beyond insane. But it's not even that relevant. You've already told us that the Rams don't run a straight WCO.

But hey, it's always entertaining when people try to tell me what "reality" is. I'm glad to know that you think your opinion is "reality." Meanwhile, over here in my "reality," I'm just going to keep on thinking that your outlook is inaccurate.

 

[RamzFanz]

I'll place a bet with you right now that Goff becomes the Rams starter before Week 12 (barring injury).

Week 12? Don't go out on a limb there.

 

[jrry32]

Week 12? Don't go out on a limb there.

He said Week 12. I'd place a bet by the 5th game. Not 100% sure on Week 1. More like 60%. But I am certain he'll be starting by the 5th game.