Re: no I think that's a convenient fiction

Quote
zn

Quote
Rams43
I’m referring to the ‘17 thru mid-‘18 Goff as opposed to the mid-‘18 thru ‘20 Goff.

It’s as if they were two different QB’s, really. It becomes a context thing, right?

Therefore, criticism of Goff’s recent processing speed, reading of D’s, willingness to throw deep, whispers of game prep shortcomings, etc seems entirely justified, if you ask me. And why McVay made the decision to move on to Stafford despite the high cost that entailed.

I’ve been at peace with the Stafford decision after thinking about it in the first 5 minutes.

Again it's simple. Goff was inconsistent and had 4 bad games. This led to theories like yours which I think oversimplify everything. A lot gets put on the qb that isn't the qb.

Plus the premise is that a qb is supposed to be there and not be inconsistent in year 5.

Here's Stafford in year 5. Counting a bad game in 2013 as any with a qb rating under 70, he had 4 bad games. Those 4 bad games including 9 INTs (with 4 in one game). He was ranked 30th in completion percentage, 19th in qb rating, 25th in INT%, and 16th in TD%.

Why did Holmes in Detroit turn down a # 8 pick for a qb with bad processing speed, "rumors" (lol) of game prep issues, and so on?

Could it be he knew those things were hyperbole?

Personally I don;t care if the trade is "justified." Stafford is a good qb and this is not the first time the Rams moved on from a qb since I started following them. I look forward to seeing Stafford play as a Ram.

But also--on the stories about Goff we're getting from people who feel the need to justify the trade? They look to me like hyperbole.

Especially this strange idea that what he was in year 5 is what he will always be. That wasn't true of Stafford. If Stafford were a Ram in 2013 and played the way he did that year. you would have argued that he was not worth keeping.

.



....

tenor.gif