Quote
zn
Quote
Billy_T
Quote
zn
Quote
Billy_T
But if that's the context, then his play shouldn't really be all that erratic, with all kinds of highs and lows. It should be fairly consistent in being consistently rotten -- one would think. .
It's not clear to me why you would say that. I am not sure why you would think it would be THAT way. For one thing, we have absolutely no idea what the plays are, what the progressions are, or what defense they expected to see, or whether or not there was a sight adjustment that a WR missed out on, or whether or not there was a lazy route run disrupting the timing, and so on.
In other words, I am not sure, exactly, how we're supposed to look for the consistency in inconsistency.
Bulger used to have long streaks where his accuracy was off. Some claimed he was streaky under pressure. When in fact if you watched that wasn't the case at all---sometimes he was streaky without pressure, and sometimes he was dead-on accurate under pressure. In the end you just had to say "Bulger can be streaky."
So to me, a rookie qb with a lot of passing talent can be inconsistent when the protection isn't holding up and there's no running game so the entire offense is on his shoulders. Plus there's the fact that for their last 3 games, regardless of the qb, SF just seems to have the Rams number the way the Rams have Seattle's number.
..
I think the Rams' line is horrible. And I've been a critic of their drafting for that line, especially under Fisher. They can't open holes, consistently, for Gurley, and they can't give their QBs adequate time to throw.
Okay, then. Swiss cheese line, as mentioned. So what's the logical effect of this? Goff being consistently terrible when he drops back to pass. He's a rookie, after all. Lousy coaching, scheme, blocking, no running game, etc. etc.
But I see him make really good throws under pressure, after the line has broken down -- as is its wont. But I also see him make terrible throws in the rare times he does have time . . . in the rare times his line actually does give him a solid pocket. So in that case, cause and effect is out of kilter. He shows moxy and sharp passing at times when the line breaks down . . . . but makes dumb decisions and poor throws when the line does its job.
That tells me it's not
just about the rotten situation he fell into it. That tells me, on his own,
Goff is making bad decisions and lousy throws, or good decisions and great throws, when one would think the "cause" would produce the opposite.
\\\
Question: how come they could run with that OL last year?
And anyway on Goff, he's a rookie---rookies are inconsistent. That's just what an inconsistent rookie does. The "cause" in the cause and effect is being a rookie.
Last year? I think Gurley made a lot out of very little. He would get stopped, then stopped again, then stopped again, usually due to the absence of holes, but then would find a crease and take it to the house or for long runs. The Rams, even last year, if memory serves, never consistently opened holes for him or anyone else. It was usually "boom or bust" and mostly bust.
As for rookies. Of course, it's going to be rough for them. But in that roughness you can see if this or that guy has "it," despite the obstacles. And what I'm saying is that I see "it" from Goff and then I see "it" completely disappear. And that's often regardless of his time in the pocket, or the lack thereof.
The "it" thing should carry through more than it has for Goff, even as a rookie. And, again, I in no way expect it to happen even "often" in his first year -- especially given his team -- much less all the time. I'm saying that I see too little of it, for the first player chosen, regardless of his context.
You and I just aren't going to agree about this one, ZN. I see what I see. You see what you see. Not much more to be said beyond that.
