Quote
Coy Bacon
Quote
moklerman
If all of that is true, you're implying that McVay and Snead are making a mistake. That there's nothing really wrong with Goff, it was all the OL and playcalling that was just putting Goff in a bad position and leading him to force plays.
But, we have plenty of video that shows that the scheme and playcalling were sound and that Goff was either missing or not taking positive plays in favor of forcing bad passes.
We also have the Rams not drafting an OL in '21.
Not to mention, they paid a hefty price to jettison Goff.
So, are you arguing that in spite of all of that, Goff wasn't the issue the last few years? You're confident that your view from the couch is more accurate than McVay's? Goff was not only not a problem but he was actually good?
Wouldn't you agree that your opinion is a bit hard to accept considering everything involved?
Mok, your argument cuts to the bottom line: Rams' management felt that Goff wasn't good enough so they got rid of him. I liked Goff and hoped that McVay would continue to work with him, but McVay et. al. didn't see it that way and they have the bird's eye view. They have also earned the benefit of the doubt. There are so many variables in football, ultimately we have to trust the leadership that pulled us up out of the mud.
First some people are acting as if having a different take on Goff than they do means the people with the other position on Goff either resent or criticize the trade. Very few do that. Most of us say Stafford was a good acquisition, and that having a still physically talented smart 13 year vet is a good situation.
Where we differ is on the history. A lot of the criticism of Goff is hyperbole. Including the idea that management did not see him as a franchise qb. That's partly in itself an issue with management, not just Goff. Brad Holmes was Rams management for 5 years while Goff was there and he turned down chances to draft a qb to take Goff instead. So once again there's hyperbole where there could be a more toned-down, realistic view.
And what your hypothesis leaves out is the fact that McVay and Goff were in deep disconnect, which was made worse by the fact that in 2019 and 2020 McV was the qb coach--a role he never had before. At the end of the season McV admitted he did not communicate well with his qb. People who saw these things in the organization say McVay could tear the qb down--in front of the team no less--but did not know how to build him back up. They say that when the Rams had an actual qb coach in 2017 and 2018 (a different one each year) the qb coach acted as a buffer between the Goff and McV. By 2020 in a lot of games Goff played without confidence, and it was visible, especially when he pressed to make plays when he shouldn't have.
So what we saw was a disconnect between coach and qb. Which makes more sense because in order to paint Goff as this low-level performer you have to forget a lot of things--like the Tampa game (51 passes, no running game, on the road) and the Seattle playoff game (coming off the bench injured on the road).
So yeah there's a lot of hyperbole out there about Goff. Personally, I don't need to heap on the hyperbole on Goff because I don't feel the need to justify the trade. The trade is fine because Stafford is a good acquisition, so the rest is moot.
But the bottomline is, if you have a disconnect between coach and qb, it will be the qb who leaves, not the winning coach. Luckily Stafford was available.
I am not going to dive in every time there is another hyperbolic claim about Goff, but I like to discuss history and get it right. If someone said something inaccurate and overblown about Bulger today, chances are I would jump in then too. But not all the time. Sometimes it gets old.
....
