but in PHL Foles had some protection and a good running game. And although I think Chip was kind of a joke, he at least had a twist that the defenses had to contend with... (and I don't think the Rams ever won a game against Chip... probably the only team who never figured it out I guess)

Anyway, my point is that if Bradford, Foles or Hill had been granted an effective OL and running game and some quality receivers, (along with good coaching) I don't think they would have been as ineffective. So its easy to say Foles or Hill sucks and never mention their names again... just like it was easy to say Goff sucked last year. Now all of a sudden Goff has "turned it around" and he is great, instead of "he has been put into a position to succeed"... and he has and he is.

Would Goff be effective with GRob and crew with Fisher/Boras playing a LOS offense? And if he isn't effective does that mean he sucks? lol... I posted this argument in the preseason when the pundits were crapping on the Rams and Goff.