[snackdaddy]

Another thing to take into account, it isn't always about the numbers. Goff threw for only 120 yards on 14 completions. It was Gurley's day and Goff didn't need to do a lot. He only threw for 199 the week before. 319 yards in two games and they score 77 points. They're finding ways to score without the need to light up the passing game.

And its not like they can't light it up. He's had his 300 yard plus games. But it comes in the context of what is working. Last game Gurley was effective. They jumped out to a huge lead. After that it was a matter of protecting it and getting out of there cleanly.

Bottom line. Goff's pretty good. Gurley's really good. The Rams are really good. They know how to play together and get it done.

[dieterbrock]

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


...

Blah, blah blah....
Of course you dont, you'd rather stick with mindless stats like 31+ yard passes and 4th Q comebacks.
Fact is, they are ahead in the 4th Q and dont need to come back.
Dallas and Jacksonville prove he can bring the team back on the road, Seattle, New Orleans prove he can win the big game.

Keep up the flat earth stuff though, it really makes me laugh

[ramsman34]

Part of Brady's comeback drive in the horrid SB was the insanity of off coverage prevent D. also, he "drove" them to the outer edge of field goal range. It's not like he sliced and diced all the way into the red zone or end zone. That "drive" was as much or more on our D/D play calling than anything he did, IMO. And ya, I have watched several sickening times.

[Gareth]

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

Maybe we would if we old-time fans were playing. But none of these players have anything to do with those days. They were mostly around 10-years-old.

[/zn/]

1`

Another thing to take into account, it isn't always about the numbers. Goff threw for only 120 yards on 14 completions. It was Gurley's day and Goff didn't need to do a lot. He only threw for 199 the week before. 319 yards in two games and they score 77 points. They're finding ways to score without the need to light up the passing game.

And its not like they can't light it up. He's had his 300 yard plus games. But it comes in the context of what is working. Last game Gurley was effective. They jumped out to a huge lead. After that it was a matter of protecting it and getting out of there cleanly.

Bottom line. Goff's pretty good. Gurley's really good. The Rams are really good. They know how to play together and get it done.

Yeah, I know, they're handling Goff well for the most part.

But this is my bet. One day he will be the kind of qb who you can just count on to have a dominating passing game any time you want it.

[ramsman34]

1`

Yeah, I know, they're handling Goff well for the most part.

But this is my bet. One day he will be the kind of qb who you can just count on to have a dominating passing game any time you want it.

I tend to agree. This weekend we might see just that.

[snackdaddy]

1`

Yeah, I know, they're handling Goff well for the most part.

But this is my bet. One day he will be the kind of qb who you can just count on to have a dominating passing game any time you want it.

Yeah, its good when you don't need to and even better when they can if needed. I equate it to the 80's Lakers Showtime era. They loved to run and gun it but they were equipped to play half court if forced to.

When your team can win without lighting it up and still light it up when they're in a shootout, you have a good team. We won a shootout against the 49ers and almost won one against the Eagles. Defensive mistakes handed them points.

[/zn/]

I tend to agree. This weekend we might see just that.

To clarify, I should have said--against anyone. Tenn. has a tough run defense and a weaker pass defense, so it's no stretch to imagine they will pass on them.

You and I disagree on the extent to which Goff is "there" or "ready" yet, ie. how developed he is.

I stand by my view of that, but if you turned out to be right about that, I wouldn't be disappointed none, believe me.


...

[max]

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

.

Well, the cheating helped them tangibly, but they had excellent coaching. My guess is that they don't get to the SB without the cheating though, but they still make the playoffs.

Brady benefited greatly by the cheating. The game plan and play calling put him in almost perfect situations. Still, he was very good for a first year starter. But I do wonder if he would have been so "clutch" without the cheating and a lesser coach. My guess is no.

My point with all this is that I don't think its fair to say Brady was more clutch that Goff at the same stage.

[/zn/]

Well, the cheating helped them tangibly, but they had excellent coaching. My guess is that they don't get to the SB without the cheating though, but they still make the playoffs.

Brady benefited greatly by the cheating. The game plan and play calling put him in almost perfect situations. Still, he was very good for a first year starter. But I do wonder if he would have been so "clutch" without the cheating and a lesser coach. My guess is no.

My point with all this is that I don't think its fair to say Brady was more clutch that Goff at the same stage.

Well people really have no idea to what extent they stole signals and how many games they used them in. The assumption that they did it every game and that it impacted every game strikes me as extravagant. (And btw stealing signals doesn't violate NFL rules...just filming teams using them is.)

I didn't talk about whether Brady was clutch though. I didn't say anything in that post that addressed that issue. I just compared their general numbers. But if Brady is clutch now, he was then too. The Patz had comeback situations in 5 games in 2001, and won 5 of them.