OT: What should the Rams do about Goff?

[bamainatlanta]

5. Don't extend Jared Goff this offseason. Teams have the option of extending their first-round picks with long-term deals after the end of their third seasons in the league. In most cases, they wait a year and reap the benefits of a fourth season priced in at well below market value. The exceptions are generally for transcendent superstars such as J.J. Watt and Patrick Peterson.

The Rams are the exception to the exception: They've done several fourth-year extensions under GM Les Snead, including deals for Tavon Austin, Robert Quinn and, most recently, Gurley. You can see how those moves went. Austin was a disastrous contract from the jump. Quinn fell off dramatically after posting 19 sacks in Year 3, although he looked like an absolute star. Gurley was an MVP candidate for half of 2018, but he was struggling by the end of the season with a mysterious knee injury, and the Rams didn't skip a beat when they replaced Gurley with Anderson.


Jared Goff finished the regular season with 32 touchdown passes and 12 interceptions, but he struggled in Super Bowl LIII. AP Photo/Mark Humphrey
It's too early to evaluate the Gurley deal, but as we get to Goff's future, look no further than the Super Bowl. The Patriots flummoxed Goff in a way that might end up being telling. He made a few excellent anticipatory throws, but he spent most of the game out of rhythm waiting for somebody to get open.

Earlier this year, I brought up the idea of a team constantly remaining on the rookie quarterback cycle by drafting a quarterback, developing him into a star, and then trading him at the end of his rookie deal for a high draft pick to repeat the process. The right team would have a brilliant offensive mind for a head coach and oodles of offensive talent, players the team otherwise would have to let go to pay their quarterback a premium.

Peyton Manning: Detail | Goff & Brady

• Watch: Manning on Tom Brady »
• Watch: Manning on Jared Goff »
• More episodes on ESPN+: Full series »

The Rams are the most obvious example for this concept, although it's clear they believe Goff is a bona fide franchise quarterback. I don't think the Rams will hop back on the rookie passer cycle. I don't think they should trade Goff at the end of his rookie deal, either. I don't know whether any team will ever have the guts to do it, because getting that rookie quarterback evaluation wrong as a GM means you're getting fired and becoming the butt of jokes for a decade. It's too much pressure.

At the same time, I don't think Goff is such an obvious perennial Offensive Player of the Year candidate that the Rams need to start extending him immediately. It has to at least be a little concerning that Goff's numbers fell off once Kupp was injured, especially because Kupp is the exact sort of luxury the Rams would struggle to keep around at the going rate for wide receivers once they give Goff a raise.


There's no rush here. Get another year of information, and if Goff is the player the Rams think he is, they'll still have tons of leverage to extend him after Year 4. The Rams can use their cap space now to add veteran talent or roll it over to have extra money when Goff does get expensive. And if Goff does take a step backward in 2019, well, it could save the Rams from a Derek Carr-esque conundrum.



http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...ill-barnwell-predicts-trades-free-agency-cuts

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

People on this board begged for Chase to become the QB. Or to trade for another QB.

Outside of mick in a momentary rant, who called for Chase? One person does not equal "people". And not even mick said trade for another QB. I can't think of one poster who played the part of realist to the eager homers here who ever even hinted at that. Source?

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

5. Don't extend Jared Goff this offseason. Teams have the option of extending their first-round picks with long-term deals after the end of their third seasons in the league. In most cases, they wait a year and reap the benefits of a fourth season priced in at well below market value. The exceptions are generally for transcendent superstars such as J.J. Watt and Patrick Peterson.

The Rams are the exception to the exception: They've done several fourth-year extensions under GM Les Snead, including deals for Tavon Austin, Robert Quinn and, most recently, Gurley. You can see how those moves went. Austin was a disastrous contract from the jump. Quinn fell off dramatically after posting 19 sacks in Year 3, although he looked like an absolute star. Gurley was an MVP candidate for half of 2018, but he was struggling by the end of the season with a mysterious knee injury, and the Rams didn't skip a beat when they replaced Gurley with Anderson.


Jared Goff finished the regular season with 32 touchdown passes and 12 interceptions, but he struggled in Super Bowl LIII. AP Photo/Mark Humphrey
It's too early to evaluate the Gurley deal, but as we get to Goff's future, look no further than the Super Bowl. The Patriots flummoxed Goff in a way that might end up being telling. He made a few excellent anticipatory throws, but he spent most of the game out of rhythm waiting for somebody to get open.

Earlier this year, I brought up the idea of a team constantly remaining on the rookie quarterback cycle by drafting a quarterback, developing him into a star, and then trading him at the end of his rookie deal for a high draft pick to repeat the process. The right team would have a brilliant offensive mind for a head coach and oodles of offensive talent, players the team otherwise would have to let go to pay their quarterback a premium.

Peyton Manning: Detail | Goff & Brady

• Watch: Manning on Tom Brady »
• Watch: Manning on Jared Goff »
• More episodes on ESPN+: Full series »

The Rams are the most obvious example for this concept, although it's clear they believe Goff is a bona fide franchise quarterback. I don't think the Rams will hop back on the rookie passer cycle. I don't think they should trade Goff at the end of his rookie deal, either. I don't know whether any team will ever have the guts to do it, because getting that rookie quarterback evaluation wrong as a GM means you're getting fired and becoming the butt of jokes for a decade. It's too much pressure.

At the same time, I don't think Goff is such an obvious perennial Offensive Player of the Year candidate that the Rams need to start extending him immediately. It has to at least be a little concerning that Goff's numbers fell off once Kupp was injured, especially because Kupp is the exact sort of luxury the Rams would struggle to keep around at the going rate for wide receivers once they give Goff a raise.


There's no rush here. Get another year of information, and if Goff is the player the Rams think he is, they'll still have tons of leverage to extend him after Year 4. The Rams can use their cap space now to add veteran talent or roll it over to have extra money when Goff does get expensive. And if Goff does take a step backward in 2019, well, it could save the Rams from a Derek Carr-esque conundrum.



http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...ill-barnwell-predicts-trades-free-agency-cuts

To my recollection, the dialogue here was whether Goff will be the guy in LA or not. A fourth-year extension would be to lock down a superstar earlier and cheaper in the long run. The fact that LA locked down Austin (lol) and Gurley does not mean that they won't do a fourth-year maneuver like that with Goff.

Something the article fails to mention: what if Goff is the same way next year? 100 + rating but only awesome against decent team to below average teams and ranges from ok to shit against top Ds.

Now do you pick up the fifth-year option? It would not be a savings since he was a top-10 pick, then on a fifth-year option, Goff would make Transition Tender money (the average of the top ten highest Prior Year Salaries for players at the same position.)

But it would be a one-and-done situation saying to Goff: "Prove you can get better and stay better no matter the level of D you face" while paying him as one of the best for THAT year.

But if LA lets Goff go then they would be saying: "McVay has a system SO amazing that even though Goff can run it well enough against most of the league, we believe we can find a new QB that can run it well against EVERY team in the league no matter what."

Again this has never happened in the history of the NFL.

Even when GB let Favre go when he clearly had gas left in the tank, they ALREADY had Rodgers and knew Arod would be fine.

Same with KC. They ALREADY had Mahomes and were fine letting A. Smith go.

The article goes into fantasy land when it says:

"Earlier this year, I brought up the idea of a team constantly remaining on the rookie quarterback cycle by drafting a quarterback, developing him into a star, and then trading him at the end of his rookie deal for a high draft pick to repeat the process. The right team would have a brilliant offensive mind for a head coach and oodles of offensive talent, players the team otherwise would have to let go to pay their quarterback a premium.

Another fan of the NFL that imagines QB development is as easy as adjusting sliders in a video game. Real life has never seen an example of this and probably never will.

 

[Visionman]

But if LA lets Goff go then they would be saying: "McVay has a system SO amazing that even though Goff can run it well enough against most of the league, we believe we can find a new QB that can run it well against EVERY team in the league no matter what."

But why would you pay a QB top dollar if you're almost certain heist good enough to beat those top defenses...at least without a great offense around him? And if you pay him like that...kiss any hope for that type of offense goodbye.

You would be resigning your team to be nothing more than mediocre. Example: Detroit and Stafford

 

[bamainatlanta]

Outside of mick in a momentary rant, who called for Chase? One person does not equal "people". And not even mick said trade for another QB. I can't think of one poster who played the part of realist to the eager homers here who ever even hinted at that. Source?

I'll take the time sometime later to look it up, and it was outside of the IGT. I know hawkbear was pulling for it.

 

[Visionman]

I'll take the time sometime later to look it up, and it was outside of the IGT. I know hawkbear was pulling for it.

I did say if we didn't see Mitch improving soon, it might be wise to have him learn from a different perspective for awhile behind Chase. But at that time earlier in the season, it didn't appear Mitch was growing in the offense, and may be wasting our elite defense waiting for it to click. The Tampa game pretty much squashed that.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

But why would you pay a QB top dollar if you're almost certain heist good enough to beat those top defenses...at least without a great offense around him? And if you pay him like that...kiss any hope for that type of offense goodbye.

You would be resigning your team to be nothing more than mediocre. Example: Detroit and Stafford

They would if they think Goff can learn enough that he would not need a fully developed Kupp, Gurley, etc. so that when they come up THEY would be the ones you replace with talent lower in the development stages.

Or if they think McVay has to cover for Goff too much, then it's all different and they would continue having to extend Kupp himself and Gurley himself and the key pieces while finding a new QB that can grow the way they need to for the system.

You keep harping on Stafford but he hasn't put up the numbers Goff has at all in the last two years. As a matter of fact, Stafford has never had 100 + rating for a season once while Goff has already done it twice.

The LAR need to look at if Goff can get over the limits of needing a clean pocket that great D can take away. If he can, he is worth it. If he can't, then it's a decision for them that they have to weigh in on who ELSE can do that for them when the pocket breaks down

... while simultaneously maintaining such a top level of QB play while HAVING a clean pocket that Goff ALREADY can do better than most anyone else.

 

[Visionman]

They would if they think Goff can learn enough that he would not need a fully developed Kupp, Gurley, etc. so that when they come up THEY would be the ones you replace with talent lower in the development stages.

Or if they think McVay has to cover for Goff too much, then it's all different and they would continue having to extend Kupp himself and Gurley himself and the key pieces while finding a new QB that can grow the way they need to for the system.

You keep harping on Stafford but he hasn't put up the numbers Goff has at all in the last two years. As a matter of fact, Stafford has never had 100 + rating for a season once while Goff has already done it twice.

The LAR need to look at if Goff can get over the limits of needing a clean pocket that great D can take away. If he can, he is worth it. If he can't, then it's a decision for them that they have to weigh in on who ELSE can do that for them when the pocket breaks down

... while simultaneously maintaining such a top level of QB play while HAVING a clean pocket that Goff ALREADY can do better than most anyone else.

Buy its not about if they have anyone better. The goal is to contend for the playoffs and SB. If Goff isn't good enough to beat the top teams without an elite team around him, then he is not going to be the QB they need to achieve their goals...period.

Is it hard to find and develop decent QBs? Absolutely. But the only thing harder than trying to find a good one is to pay top dollar for an ok one. In that case, paying Goff would ensure they NEVER get there.

 

[Penny Traitor]

I'll take the time sometime later to look it up, and it was outside of the IGT. I know hawkbear was pulling for it.

You mean that dorkchop that wants to give Benny Cunningham more snaps?

That dude seems like a wealth of football knowledge.

I did say if we didn't see Mitch improving soon, it might be wise to have him learn from a different perspective for awhile behind Chase. But at that time earlier in the season, it didn't appear Mitch was growing in the offense, and may be wasting our elite defense waiting for it to click. The Tampa game pretty much squashed that.

So three games in, you thought the better option was a QB with three career starts to "teach" Trubisky how to play in the offense?

Jeepers.

Suddenly Hawkbear seems little smarter.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Buy its not about if they have anyone better. The goal is to contend for the playoffs and SB. If Goff isn't good enough to beat the top teams without an elite team around him, then he is not going to be the QB they need to achieve their goals...period.

Is it hard to find and develop decent QBs? Absolutely. But the only thing harder than trying to find a good one is to pay top dollar for an ok one. In that case, paying Goff would ensure they NEVER get there.

You seem confused. It IS about finding someone better. They can't rationally just punish Goff blindly no matter who ELSE is available. Punishing Goff for not being able to develop while ASSUMING whatever next guy WILL develop is stupid.

It is amazing to me that McVay's system gets touted highly enough that Goff can just be let go and plug in next guy ... while simultaneously ignoring the fact that would mean Goff would have failed IN THE VERY SYSTEM that is apparently so great that any old QB can come in and do well! What?

 

[airtime143]

Buy its not about if they have anyone better. The goal is to contend for the playoffs and SB. If Goff isn't good enough to beat the top teams without an elite team around him, then he is not going to be the QB they need to achieve their goals...period.

Is it hard to find and develop decent QBs? Absolutely. But the only thing harder than trying to find a good one is to pay top dollar for an ok one. In that case, paying Goff would ensure they NEVER get there.

Goff is in year 3, made it to a super bowl, and has been a pro bowler twice. Yet people are hitting alarm bells because he tossed a couple stinkers this year.

A couple things to consider- 1-Brady had a worse game vs the bills in december than Goff had vs any of the "top teams" in the playoffs- including the super bowl. I dont hear anyone freaking out about that.

2- on the Brady point... look at what he did the first few years. Game manager at best, surrounded by an elite defense with an incredible head coach.

3- A QB with a record of 24 wins, 7 losses, 60 tds, 19 picks, 8500 yards, and a 100 rating in his first 2 full seasons as a starter is ABSOLUTELY someone a team should work with. It would be complete idiocy to NOT work with that. For reference, That is a better stat line across the board by a pretty big margin that Russel Wilson in his first 2 years as a starter, who I would say had the best couple years to open up a career in recent memory.

 

[remydat]

Goff has two years to work out his issues with pressure. So let's see if he can do that or not.

McVay may also need to diversify his offense. It seems good DCs with D talent can figure out how to stop it so the Rams may be able to beat up on lesser teams running that O but if they continue to struggle against better Ds then it is time for them to adjust.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

McVay may also need to diversify his offense. It seems good DCs with D talent can figure out how to stop it.

Good stuff. Yes, good defenses have a way of stopping good offenses. Very few offenses in NFL history were literally unstoppable. Rams put up 459 yards and 0 turnovers against Dallas in the postseason, and 378 yards and 1 turnover on the road against NO. In the regular season they put up 556 yards and 38 points against Minny's 9th ranked D, and 521 yards and 35 points against LAC's 8th ranked D.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Good stuff. Yes, good defenses have a way of stopping good offenses. Very few offenses in NFL history were literally unstoppable. Rams put up 459 yards and 0 turnovers against Dallas in the postseason, and 378 yards and 1 turnover on the road against NO. In the regular season they put up 556 yards and 38 points against Minny's 9th ranked D, and 521 yards and 35 points against LAC's 8th ranked D.

Dear Remy,

I imagine you are eager to reply here. You want to point out the crap numbers Goff put up vs. the Bears, Lions, and Patriots (maybe 1 or 2 other teams I honestly don't remember). You have this urge to be correct and smart that you will look and find some article somewhere where somebody writes "Rams would be out of their mind to extend Goff now".

There will be points made/countered as to whatever stats that writer has to prove his point but then it will denigrate into the very definition of words themselves.

IMO THAT is the vortex that belongs solely to you and no one else. It does take two (or more) to debate but the vortex goes deeper than mere debate and gets into linguistic and semantics.

In short, if you wish to reply, cool. But if you ever wonder why you are least regarded among posters it is when you take the talk so far that it borders on naval-gazing on the meaning of words itself.

Just my two cents from someone who likes you are here vs. when you are not.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

IMO THAT is the vortex that belongs solely to you and no one else. It does take two (or more) to debate but the vortex goes deeper than mere debate and gets into linguistic and semantics.

[video=youtube;EVCrmXW6-Pk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVCrmXW6-Pk[/video]

Figured this was appropriate...

 

[remydat]

Good stuff. Yes, good defenses have a way of stopping good offenses. Very few offenses in NFL history were literally unstoppable. Rams put up 459 yards and 0 turnovers against Dallas in the postseason, and 378 yards and 1 turnover on the road against NO. In the regular season they put up 556 yards and 38 points against Minny's 9th ranked D, and 521 yards and 35 points against LAC's 8th ranked D.

And was last seen struggling against the Pats using a blueprint from the Lions/Bears. That he seemed so incapable of adjusting to a gameplan he struggled with before is why he MAY need to diversify his offense. Bold on the qualifier of my statement. Let's see how teams play them next year and whether he needs to adjust or not which is all I was saying.

 

[remydat]

Dear Remy,

I imagine you are eager to reply here. You want to point out the crap numbers Goff put up vs. the Bears, Lions, and Patriots (maybe 1 or 2 other teams I honestly don't remember). You have this urge to be correct and smart that you will look and find some article somewhere where somebody writes "Rams would be out of their mind to extend Goff now".

There will be points made/countered as to whatever stats that writer has to prove his point but then it will denigrate into the very definition of words themselves.

IMO THAT is the vortex that belongs solely to you and no one else. It does take two (or more) to debate but the vortex goes deeper than mere debate and gets into linguistic and semantics.

In short, if you wish to reply, cool. But if you ever wonder why you are least regarded among posters it is when you take the talk so far that it borders on naval-gazing on the meaning of words itself.

Just my two cents from someone who likes you are here vs. when you are not.

My comment said McVay MAY need to diversify his offense. It was not a definitive statement. Just pointing out that the Pats used a similar gameplan that the Lions and Bears used to great effect against them. So it is possible that next year teams will use that same blueprint in which case McVay will need to adjust. It is also possible that it was a momentary blip and the Rams will be fine. Hence the qualifier MAY.

Rory and FT have the same routine they always perform whenever both of them happen not to be banned. They just did it to Baba in another thread. They take what is said and interpret it in the dumbest way possible and then pretend that is what someone was arguing. When that doesn't work, FT will then use his mod powers to get the last word in and lock the thread.

And no I don't ever wonder that because how people on the internet feel about me does not concern me.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Let's see how teams play them next year and whether he needs to adjust or not which is all I was saying.

Not sure how/why that even needs to be said, but ok!

 

[Rory Sparrow]

They just did it to Baba in another thread.

Please cite.

 

[remydat]

Not sure how/why that even needs to be said, but ok!

Nothing on a message board needs to be said including your response but ok.