Quote
Leoram
Quote
zn
No I don't buy the "it was all on Goff" story. Didn't during the season and not now. All sorts of things were going on, but one of them also was that McV was talking to the press about qb problems, the qb was saying he was surprised the coach had issues, and then after the trade McVay was saying he did not communicate.
This story does not add up to any nice simple tie it up with a ribbon conclusions.
There was clearly a disconnect and if you want to put that entirely on the qb, cool. I don't think it works. And I know when I say that it attracts a crowd of "correctors."
....
ZN, you and I have been in enough exchanges for you to know that you and I were generally on the same side of the Goff debate, namely that he was frequently blamed for issues beyond his control and the general lack of recognition for the many plays and games in which JG excelled. There's also a chance that since I've attempted to explain McVay's motivation for the trade that I'm exclusively a McVay apologist. This is an issue I wish to address here once again.
I've been on record throughout the '20 season that McVay's intent was to become more multiple in scheme and have Jared assume more responsibility at the line of scrimmage. This was a direct counter to what defenses had developed to thwart the core scheme that had success in 17 and 18. While I believe such an adjustment was necessary, the following were the negative consequences:
1. A good but not very good offensive line necessitated a contraction of the offense. McVay speaks out of both sides of his mouth when he insists on fewer turnovers but more attempts downfield. Additional time in the pocket with inconsistent protection is a recipe for disaster. ZN, you and I have been in lockstep that unless the good but not great OLine is improved, a new QB may not matter much.
2. By going to more varied personnel packages and different blocking schemes (which I definitely advocated myself) an increase of information to process promotes mistakes by multiple players. While it was necessary, it didn't come without risks which frequently came to bear with breakdowns.
3. By expecting Jared to process more at the line, he challenged Goff to grow and should have anticipated that growth would mean learning from mistakes. That's on Sean and may be what he meant by taking responsibility for communication issues. Even Tom Brady made a plethora of errors that resulted in interceptions during the season (including against the Rams and even the NFC Championship Game).
4. McVay waffled between abandoning the run and sticking to it too predictably. To be fair, this happens to every OC from time to time. The point is that the QB shouldn't be blamed for it unless he fails to make a check at the line when reading the defense (but ultimately that is the responsibility of the coach to prepare his QB to recognize). If there's a reason to question the QB trade, it's that Stafford has never led a decent running attack so we don't know how he will handle recognizing when to check to it rather than forcing something with the passing game.
5. I too don't buy the narrative that the issue was all Goff. Nor do I believe that every coaching loss was simply an opportunity for coaches to leave for greater opportunities. McVay is intense and sometimes that creates conflict, especially when his passion supersedes his responsibility to communicate with respect. Kromer is a master of developing a power running scheme and I felt McVay would have benefited from allowing Aaron to utilize it more frequently.
In the end, you are correct that it's all academic history. But I believe this history is relevant to developing the next chapter in the Ram's story. Stafford's experience and aggressive mentality has the potential to make the offense more effective. Nevertheless, the issues I addressed above remain and unless they are improved, simply trading QB's won't produce more wins.
