Wyche: Rams getting Goff ready

[dieterbrock]

He's doing what they expected of him. Goff is fantasy land and untill he gets it together enough to convince Fisher to let him play that is all he can be.

I want him to be the guy for the next decade not the next 3 games and then be a pile of wasted potential

No he's not doing what's expected when Fisher said Keenum gave the best chance to win (they aren't winning) and that he doesn't turn the ball over (11 turnovers on the season)
Keenum isn't even on par with Clemens/Hill/Davis

 

[Faceplant]

And why would he digress - let alone say that? You can only get more comfortable with what you're doing by repping it in practice (which he also said).

I mean he can't very well say he's digressed can he?

He wouldn't, because that term does not make sense in this context.
He may regress, but I doubt that to be the case........but I digress.....

 

[Dieter the Brock]

He wouldn't, because that term does not make sense in this context.
He may regress, but I doubt that to be the case........but I digress.....

Damn Faceplant,
Ruining me on a monday

 

[-X-]

I'm saying that he's saying what he's supposed to be said. Almost cliché like.
The kid has been the starting QB since he was in middle school, there's no doubt he thinks he should be out there playing
All things considered, I don't take much stock in what is said about players, or what they say because for the most part its scripted. Supporting the HC and they way he's being brought along is no shock

Yeah, I get that. I know people are gonna interpret interviews the way they want and within the scope of their biases. That's nothing new. But what about the rest of my question to you. Are you suggesting that he's always been ready, had no issues or unfamiliarity with the system, and was ready to go from jump? Never had any trepidation, especially considering what we saw in preseason? Because if you agree that he was probably a little overwhelmed (and it showed), then his statement that he's gained confidence and comfort in the system would certainly have to be true.

 

[Merlin]

I never really bought the dropoff perception from Keenum to Goff. I do actually get why Fish went that route, due to his experience with QBs in the past as well as the fact he's in year 5 and has to win now. But back in camp I observed that the throws Goff made were ridiculous, I mean the guy just drops dimes all over the field. If you're a DB there's no real safe place/route for you to take a play off. The accuracy is night and day with him.

When Case bounced back from that terrible first start and had us 3-1 I was optimistic. But then of course things have gone south since, and I'm back to wondering where the dropoff is. I see it as a fair question, too. Only way Case deserves to be on that field is if he's NOT losing us games. He's gotta cut down on the INTs immediately. Otherwise, Fisher needs to realign his thinking on this subject and get Goff in there.

Because even if Goff struggles a bit as he comes online we will be using those losses for positive future growth. And yes, I realize that isn't fair for Fisher as he tries to save his job and/or prove he deserves to lead this team beyond this year. But when you consider his comments, or Snead's maybe it was, where they would have had deep playoff runs had they had Keenum in previous years, we're seeing his guy leading this team to a losing record. So maybe as the owner we are very soon reaching the point where you give the head coach an early offseason, and name the interim coach with the kid taking his lumps at the helm.

That truly might be the best direction for this team, particularly if they lose this weekend to Carolina.

 

[dieterbrock]

. But what about the rest of my question to you. Are you suggesting that he's always been ready, had no issues or unfamiliarity with the system, and was ready to go from jump? Never had any trepidation, especially considering what we saw in preseason? Because if you agree that he was probably a little overwhelmed (and it showed), then his statement that he's gained confidence and comfort in the system would certainly have to be true.

I think all rookies are overwhelmed at first, and I think they all gain confidence as the season goes on, whether playing or not.

 

[jrry32]

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

Yes, your assumption that I was implying that we would be undefeated if Goff starts was faulty. I already explained why that was an incorrect assumption.

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

I read and understand English just fine. I don't lack the comprehension to understand that phrase or its meaning. I don't agree with Fisher's philosophy. It's antiquated. How many rookie QBs does he need to see succeed before he realizes you're not setting up a guy to fail by starting him Week 1? Further, you can even take steps to ease the transition to keep him from being set up to fail. Unfortunately, Fisher doesn't believe in doing that. Which is why he's botched the handling of this situation.

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

And I have every right to call a spade a spade. His plan and methodology are antiquated. He's botched this.

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

Yes, it did. I don't know how anyone could say the plan has worked for us. We didn't start Keenum so he could throw away games with interception after interception.

I've looked at both the field and the stats. Keenum hasn't played well, especially in crunch time.

 

[-X-]

I think all rookies are overwhelmed at first, and I think they all gain confidence as the season goes on, whether playing or not.

Alright then. So he was speaking the truth.
That was a couple of laps around busy town to get to what I already said. lol.

 

[-X-]

Yes, your assumption that I was implying that we would be undefeated if Goff starts was faulty. I already explained why that was an incorrect assumption.

You should probably go back and re-read what I said, because I didn't imply any such thing. You may have inferred that, but that's on you. I said that you're implying he would have won the games "Keenum lost", as well as winning the same games games the Rams won. I'm talking about them individually. Would he have had a 4 TD game against the Lions? Would he have had a better game than Keenum the first game of the season, despite the game plan? Lotta things go into these things that aren't on the QB. It's just as feasible that he would have won all the games the Rams lost, and lost all the games the Rams won.

I read and understand English just fine. I don't lack the comprehension to understand that phrase or its meaning. I don't agree with Fisher's philosophy. It's antiquated. How many rookie QBs does he need to see succeed before he realizes you're not setting up a guy to fail by starting him from Week 1? Further, you can even take steps to ease the transition to keep him from being set up to fail. Unfortunately, Fisher doesn't believe in doing that. Which is why he's botched the handling of this situation.

You're inferring again. I didn't imply you didn't understand English. I simply implied that you weren't getting the meaning as it relates to Fisher's philosophy. And Fisher's philosophy isn't antiquated. Lotta QBs don't start their first full season, and that goes back as early as 2014. Bortles didn't start until game 3, Bridgewater didn't start til game 3, Manziel didn't start until game 15 (and did horribly) after having spot-duty before that. QBs are played when they're ready. Not sooner (unless there's an injury to the incumbent).

And I have every right to call a spade a spade. His plan and methodology are antiquated. He's botched this.

And I can call and Ace an Ace. He didn't botch anything. He just isn't doing it the way you want.

Yes, it did. I don't know how anyone could say the plan has worked for us. We didn't start Keenum so he could throw away games with interception after interception.

I've looked at both the field and the stats. Keenum hasn't played well, especially in crunch time.

Well, I disagree. I know when a loss is on a QB only, and when it's a team loss. I've also seen every interception and I know when that's on someone other than the QB. In fact, we had a rather lengthy debate about one of them and you finally acquiesced that it wasn't on Keenum, but on Cooper. 3 of his interceptions were also on receivers in the last game. So, you're just not being objective anymore. MAYBE Goff would have done better, but it's also conceivable that he could have done worse. We'll never know. All we do know is that Goff was throwing a lot of picks with the scout team against our defense, so it was clear that he wasn't picking things up as immediate as everyone thought he would.

 

[blackbart]

No he's not doing what's expected when Fisher said Keenum gave the best chance to win (they aren't winning) and that he doesn't turn the ball over (11 turnovers on the season)
Keenum isn't even on par with Clemens/Hill/Davis

You are confusing giving them the best chance to win with actually winning. Donald gave them the best chance to win but they didn't should he be benched for someone else? How about Gurley?

 

[jrry32]

You should probably go back and re-read what I said, because I didn't imply any such thing. You may have inferred that, but that's on you. I said that you're implying he would have won the games "Keenum lost", as well as winning the same games games the Rams won. I'm talking about them individually. Would he have had a 4 TD game against the Lions? Would he have had a better game than Keenum the first game of the season, despite the game plan? Lotta things go into these things that aren't on the QB. It's just as feasible that he would have won all the games the Rams lost, and lost all the games the Rams won.

You may not have intended to say it, but you did. That's not on me. I'll quote you:

That implies that Goff would have won all the games the Rams lost, and nobody knows that.

You're inferring again. I didn't imply you didn't understand English. I simply implied that you weren't getting the meaning as it relates to Fisher's philosophy. And Fisher's philosophy isn't antiquated. Lotta QBs don't start their first full season, and that goes back as early as 2014. Bortles didn't start until game 3, Bridgewater didn't start til game 3, Manziel didn't start until game 15 (and did horribly) after having spot-duty before that. QBs are played when they're ready. Not sooner (unless there's an injury to the incumbent).

Fisher's philosophy is antiquated. Mike Zimmer follows the same philosophy. Bortles shouldn't have started at all his rookie year. Manziel didn't start for obvious reasons. The same reasons he's out of the NFL.

Bortles is the only QB drafted in the top 3 since 2008, other than Goff, who didn't start Week 1 of his rookie year.

Simply put, teams manage to get their QBs ready far quicker than the Rams have. That failure falls on the coaching staff.

And I can call and Ace an Ace. He didn't botch anything. He just isn't doing it the way you want.

He did botch it. He didn't do what I wanted nor what the majority of the NFL does now. How many rookie QBs have to play well this year for Fisher to recognize how silly he's being?

Well, I disagree. I know when a loss is on a QB only, and when it's a team loss. I've also seen every interception and I know when that's on someone other than the QB. In fact, we had a rather lengthy debate about one of them and you finally acquiesced that it wasn't on Keenum, but on Cooper. 3 of his interceptions were also on receivers in the last game. So, you're just not being objective anymore. MAYBE Goff would have done better, but it's also conceivable that he could have done worse. We'll never know. All we do know is that Goff was throwing a lot of picks with the scout team against our defense, so it was clear that he wasn't picking things up as immediate as everyone thought he would.

Nope. That never happened. I acquiesced in accepting that Cooper ran a poor route. The pick six was still on Keenum. His pass lacked velocity and was poorly placed.

Three of his interceptions were not on WRs last game. Two of them were.

Regardless, every QB has that happen to them. Keenum is throwing interceptions at an unacceptable rate, and he's fallen apart three games in a row in crunch time.

The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of Goff doing better. You're not being objective anymore.

 

[jrry32]

You are confusing giving them the best chance to win with actually winning. Donald gave them the best chance to win but they didn't should he be benched for someone else? How about Gurley?

We really comparing one of the worst QBs in the NFL with two of the best players in the NFL?

You're simply misconstruing Dieter's point. Dieter's point is that Keenum doesn't give us the best chance to win as evidenced by his bad player which is costing us games. In that scenario, it's foolish to delay Goff's development so Keenum can keep throwing games away.

 

[-X-]

The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of Goff doing better. You're not being objective anymore.

I never stated otherwise.
In fact, I'm counting on it.


The rest of that stuff is just going around in circles again.
You don't relent, I don't relent, so let's just say I win and call it a day.

<thread locked> lol.

 

[fearsomefour]

I love these discussions.
Each point can be counter pointed by just speculating in the other direction. It's all speculation.
I have known a couple of elite (professional) athletes. Neither of them ever lost their confidence. They may have struggled at times or had to adjust how they do things, but lost their confidence to play or do their thing? No.
The concept that a young QB would lose his confidence by sitting....not buying it.
I do enjoy the conversation though.

 

[blackbart]

We really comparing one of the worst QBs in the NFL with two of the best players in the NFL?

You're simply misconstruing Dieter's point. Dieter's point is that Keenum doesn't give us the best chance to win as evidenced by his bad player which is costing us games. In that scenario, it's foolish to delay Goff's development so Keenum can keep throwing games away.

If you are going to blame Keenum for the loss in the game where he threw for a new Rams record for consecutive completions and 3 TDs, yes the rest of the starters especially on defense get the same treatment. What were Donald's stats for that game? Did he make any game changing plays? He lost the game more than Keenum did.

 

[jrry32]

If you are going to blame Keenum for the loss in the game where he threw for a new Rams record for consecutive completions and 3 TDs, yes the rest of the starters especially on defense get the same treatment. What were Donald's stats for that game? Did he make any game changing plays? He lost the game more than Keenum did.

We're 7 games in the season. That's 1 out of 7 games where Keenum stepped up and the defense didn't.

 

[blackbart]

We're 7 games in the season. That's 1 out of 7 games where Keenum stepped up and the defense didn't.

If you want to pick and choose the stats then Keenum has played poorly the first game and because his surrounding cast including Gurley have played poorly you could say that in the Buffalo game and the NYG game. But much oof the poor offensive play he gets blamed for has come form other players.

 

[jrry32]

If you want to pick and choose the stats then Keenum has played poorly the first game and because his surrounding cast including Gurley have played poorly you could say that in the Buffalo game and the NYG game. But much oof the poor offensive play he gets blamed for has come form other players.

Outside of Detroit and Tampa Bay, what games can you point to as quality performances from Keenum? Maybe Arizona?

That's 3 out of 7. That's not good enough.

 

[blackbart]

Outside of Detroit and Tampa Bay, what games can you point to as quality performances from Keenum? Maybe Arizona?

That's 3 out of 7. That's not good enough.

Which stat do you want to use? How about QBR? Only three games under 85 and yes Ariz was 111. I don't have the All 22 how many screw ups do you see other than the drops from the WRs that are detracting from Keenum's stats? Austin has 5 drops and we got to see one of them go for a pick six last week. Of course its just a drop for TA but one of those 4 ugly Ints that count against Keenum's QBR. How many plays has Gurley left on the field that has put the offense in a bad position? How many times has the Oline whiffed on protection that got Keenum whacked?

 

[jrry32]

Which stat do you want to use? How about QBR? Only three games under 85 and yes Ariz was 111. I don't have the All 22 how many screw ups do you see other than the drops from the WRs that are detracting from Keenum's stats? Austin has 5 drops and we got to see one of them go for a pick six last week. Of course its just a drop for TA but one of those 4 ugly Ints that count against Keenum's QBR. How many plays has Gurley left on the field that has put the offense in a bad position? How many times has the Oline whiffed on protection that got Keenum whacked?

How about points scored?

It's amusing year after year to see people deflect blame onto other offensive players to absolve the under-performing QB. Hopefully, that will become unnecessary. when Goff becomes the starter.