[aeneas1]

hopefully, someday, goff will prove to be nails in cold weather like, well, peyton manning - until then goff is just another jag in search of top 10 status.

peyton manning's career numbers in sub 25 degree games:

[PARAM]

hopefully, someday, goff will prove to be nails in cold weather like, well, peyton manning - until then goff is just another jag in search of top 10 status.

peyton manning's career numbers in sub 25 degree games:

VirtualBox_2018-12-06_08-47-35.png

It's not surprising how when somebody is "looking for something" they can find it in a variety of interpretations of the same numbers. Max is looking for trends. To more exact, Max is looking for negative trends when it comes to Goff (on the road against good defenses). Should be easy to find, no? Some good quarterbacks have a harder time of it on the road against good defenses. So he might be like some other "good quarterbacks"? Or not.

And numbers can be misleading. Like you pointed out sans the 1 hail mary Goff has a 101 rating. That's one less attempt and one less interception. Not a significant number of passes right? As I pointed out earlier (before ZN came to defend Max giving his lesson in 'adult conversation' and 'internet behavior'), Goff could go 21 for 31 with 235 yards, 2 TD's and a pick for a rating of 98.2. Sure it's under 100 but should be good enough to win with a decent performance from the defense and Gurley.

And on paper it doesn't look like a "bad day" for Goff. Not 70% plus on the completions. Not 300 yards passing. Not 3 or 4 passing TDs. Not even 8.00 yards per attempt or more. But not a bad day either. Then again, not the numbers to get him "there" wherever "there" is.

[HAL 9000]

Sorry to interrupt but I just wanted to add my two cents.

Lets get something straight right off the bat, as A1 pointed out, the first Seattle game this season was a Goff masterpiece, if you think otherwise you are clueless and there is no debating that.

That leaves two games in question this season, both of which Rams won. The first game, I blame the play calling (McVay) as the main factor and not a "Goff" issue, heck the Broncos admitted they ignored the run to just defend the pass, in other words, they had total respect for Goff and the passing game.

The second game in question, Goff could have been more accurate on a few plays, but I attribute that more to the Detroit D. The Rams coaching staff admitted, "it was as if the Lions were in the huddle" (where have we heard that before). In other words there was nobody open, as a result, Goff had to hold onto the ball longer than he wanted, resulting in rushed passing on the run, off target passes and more sacks than usual.

To put the sole blame on Goff is not looking at the whole picture and just putting the blame solely on "the QB" which isn't accurate.

In a nut shell, I consider Goff to be a top five QB. Just like any QB he can be a little inaccurate, but in general top five (sometimes top one or two depending on the game).

Carry on....

[AvengerRam]

"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits - 25 hits in 500 at-bats is 50 points. There's six months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - you get a ground ball with eyes, you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week ... and you're in Yankee Stadium."

- Crash Davis

[max]

It's not surprising how when somebody is "looking for something" they can find it in a variety of interpretations of the same numbers. Max is looking for trends. To more exact, Max is looking for negative trends when it comes to Goff (on the road against good defenses). Should be easy to find, no? Some good quarterbacks have a harder time of it on the road against good defenses. So he might be like some other "good quarterbacks"? Or not.

And numbers can be misleading. Like you pointed out sans the 1 hail mary Goff has a 101 rating. That's one less attempt and one less interception. Not a significant number of passes right? As I pointed out earlier (before ZN came to defend Max giving his lesson in 'adult conversation' and 'internet behavior'), Goff could go 21 for 31 with 235 yards, 2 TD's and a pick for a rating of 98.2. Sure it's under 100 but should be good enough to win with a decent performance from the defense and Gurley.

And on paper it doesn't look like a "bad day" for Goff. Not 70% plus on the completions. Not 300 yards passing. Not 3 or 4 passing TDs. Not even 8.00 yards per attempt or more. But not a bad day either. Then again, not the numbers to get him "there" wherever "there" is.

If Goff goes something like 21 for 31 with 235 yards, 2 TD's and a pick for a rating of 98.2, that would be a nice game and the Rams should win.

I'm worried about a rating under 70.

[aeneas1]

I'm worried about a rating under 70.

and what would a rating under 70 tell us about goff?

[dieterbrock]

"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits - 25 hits in 500 at-bats is 50 points. There's six months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - you get a ground ball with eyes, you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week ... and you're in Yankee Stadium."

- Crash Davis

[max]

and what would a rating under 70 tell us about goff?

It would tell us that he's had 3 out of 7 bad games on the road this year.

Do you think that's good?

[dieterbrock]

It would tell us that he's had 3 out of 7 bad games on the road this year.

Do you think that's good?

If they win the game, it's still a bad game?
Denver and Detroit sold out on stopping Goff, and Gurley shredded them. If we have a repeat in Chicago, I'll gladly take the win.

Just my .02, but its only a "bad game" when the QB costs the game, and Goff hasn't come close to doing that

[snackdaddy]

I sincerely wonder who you are arguing with. No one I have read in this thread thinks Goff is only as good as his last game. The "it happens" view is shared by everyone. No one questioned Goff the way you seem to think.

Unless I missed something? Is there a quote from someone in this thread which genuinely requires the response "for some people you're only as good as your last game"?

Cause I don't think there's anything of that kind at all.

...

Well, I don't see many "He's not there" threads when he has a good game. So yeah, I'm pretty sure the "He's not there" is a reaction to his less than stellar outing. Which coincidentally was his last game.

Hey, some people aren't sold on Goff. I get it. Most of us see it differently. To each his own.