[ramsman34]

ZN,

Was the win over the Seahawks last Sunday a landmark win?

Sure was in my book.

[/zn/]

ZN,

Was the win over the Seahawks last Sunday a landmark win?

Sure was in my book.

Obviously. It wasn't just a game, it was a turning of the tide. It had significance that went past basic W/L stuff. It was this team's big arrival. It includes a half of football that rivals the 3rd quarter of the 99 Minnesota playoff game.

And, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone.

...

...

[max]

Obviously. It wasn't just a game, it was a turning of the tide. It had significance that went past basic W/L stuff.

Clearly it was a “turning of the tide and had significance that went past basic W/L stuff”, but the big question still remains are they ready?

I mean, they can win the SB and still not be ready.

Then again, they can be ready next year and not make the playoffs.

It is a puzzlement.

The more I think about it, for me personally, I’d rather win the SB and not be ready, than be ready and not make the playoffs.

Just maybe this whole readiness thing is a bit overrated.

[PARAM]

Obviously. It wasn't just a game, it was a turning of the tide. It had significance that went past basic W/L stuff. It was this team's big arrival.

Not on the same level.....Sunday was a changing of the guard within the division......but much like the Patriots SB win over TGSOT was on the Championship level. TGSOT was no longer the big boys on the block. The bullies who blew everybody away and danced down the sidelines in tandem for scores were no more. There would be very few 40 point games (4 in the next 15 years), something they accomplished with regularity (13) from 99-01. They'd have 1 winning season in the next 15 years while the Patriots would have 15 more winning seasons (17 straight and counting) and go to 6 more Superbowl's winning 4. But if the Rams make it that far, wouldn't it be nice if we get a chance to face New England?

I mean, they can win the SB and still not be ready.

Then again, they can be ready next year and not make the playoffs.

It is a puzzlement.

The more I think about it, for me personally, I’d rather win the SB and not be ready, than be ready and not make the playoffs.

Were the Patriots "ready" in 2001? Was Brady "ready"? They won and he drove them downfield in the last couple of minutes to win. But were they ready? Not like they were starting in 2003.

[/zn/]

Clearly it was a “turning of the tide and had significance that went past basic W/L stuff”, but the big question still remains are they ready?

I mean, they can win the SB and still not be ready.

Then again, they can be ready next year and not make the playoffs.

It is a puzzlement.

The more I think about it, for me personally, I’d rather win the SB and not be ready, than be ready and not make the playoffs.

Just maybe this whole readiness thing is a bit overrated.

Well it depends on what you mean. Goff is obviously still developing. Not that he's stumbling around out there by any means. But as he's developing, he is surrounded by playmakers, has a solid (and predominantly injury free) OL, has a great offensive scheme, has Gurley at his best, and the great new head coach inherited the league's best special teams units plus hired Wade Phillips plus inherited great defensive talent.

Roethlisberger wasn't really a finished product in 2005, and Goff is arguably playing better than BR did that year.

...

[max]

Not on the same level.....Sunday was a changing of the guard within the division......but much like the Patriots SB win over TGSOT was on the Championship level. TGSOT was no longer the big boys on the block. The bullies who blew everybody away and danced down the sidelines in tandem for scores were no more. There would be very few 40 point games (4 in the next 15 years), something they accomplished with regularity (13) from 99-01. They'd have 1 winning season in the next 15 years while the Patriots would have 15 more winning seasons (17 straight and counting) and go to 6 more Superbowl's winning 4. But if the Rams make it that far, wouldn't it be nice if we get a chance to face New England?

The Pats would be fun to face in the SB. I think we’d have an intangible advantage.

[max]

Well it depends on what you mean. Goff is obviously still developing. Not that he's stumbling around out there by any means. But as he's developing, he is surrounded by playmakers, has a solid (and predominantly injury free) OL, has a great offensive scheme, has Gurley at his best, and the team inherited the league's best special teams units plus hired Wade Phillips plus inherited great defensive talent.

Roethlisberger wasn't really a finished product in 2005, and Goff is arguably playing better than BR did that year.

...

Where was Brady in 2001?

[/zn/]

You know, and you probably agree, you could see that team develop that year. It wasn't as if they started out as the legendary Patz but it was getting there. In the first 10 games they went 5-5, and Brady had some excellent games and a few more average ones. Though Bledsoe was the qb when they lost 2 of those games, so in the first 10 they went 5-3 with Brady.

Interesting to compare Brady in 2001 to Goff 2017, though, there are a bunch of asterisks. The Patz had less overall talent, a more experienced head coach, and also cheated that year too.

I am not saying these guys are equivalent, it's way too soon to wonder about that, and Brady did come from a college pro system. Still, it;s interesting to compare them though.

Brady 2001, 14 games: 264 of 413, 63.9%, 18 TDs (4.4%), 12 INTs (2.9%), 6.9 YPA, 41 sacks, 9% sack percentage, qb rating of 86.5
Goff 2017, 14 games: 274 of 439, 62.4%, 24 TDs (5.5%), 7 INTs (1.6%), 8.0 YPA, 24 sacks, 5.2% sack percentage, qb rating of 98.9

.

[dieterbrock]

Goff was 6/7 with 2 TD on 3rd down while the Rams were building their insurmountable lead.
So yes, he proves once again that he can lead the team in a big game

[/zn/]

Goff was 6/7 with 2 TD on 3rd down while the Rams were building their insurmountable lead.
So yes, he proves once again that he can lead the team in a big game

I want a better example than that. He's capable of it but hasn't quite turned the corner yet on that.

So for example, they lose to Phil in a winnable game. There were a lot of reasons for that, but, just focusing on Goff, the offense didn't seal a win toward the end, and he was part of that.

Against Seattle, with Gurley running strong and playing against a beat up secondary, they basically played the whole first half inside the Seattle 50, with the Seattle offense so stymied by the Rams defense that they were not a threat to score. That was very much a team win. Tremendous defense (Rams always play Wilson tough), tremendous special teams, the offense on a roll. It was just not a game where qb play stood out as the most significant part of the win.

Goff showed his strengths on a lot of those plays but still, my bet is that in the next season or 2 he will be even more effective and playing closer to his real peak, even when there are less favorable game conditions.

At the same time anyone CRITICIZING Goff at this point is just clearly not watching.

This is what I think will happen. Goff is just one of those guys who is going to be better with experience (and another off-season)...granted everyone improves with experience, but I am saying it will be especially visible in his case. It will stand out.

...