[Elvis]

The thing you never know is what kind of career David Carr or Ryan Leaf would've had if they had a chance to sit. Maybe the great majority of the time a bust is a bust and a hit is a hit either way?

[moklerman]

Of course each situation has to be viewed on it's own but I don't think David Carr going to an expansion team, that had lost it's prize FA LT and RT and didn't really have much in place yet, is the same situation as Goff. Yes, both were drafted #1 overall, but that's about it.

I'm looking at Goff as being in more of a Russel Wilson situation. He won't be asked right away to carry the team but there's no reason he can't be in there leaning on the running game, defense and special teams. And Keenum isn't even as good as Tarvarius Jackson or Matt Flynn so Goff should "win" the job on all fronts and be starting.

[aeneas1]

And I was using David Carr, of the Houston Texans, as an example of what can happen to a so-called highly talented QB who starts quite probably before he is ready. He was gun shy his sophomore season and he never lived up to his draft status. Maybe he never would have regardless. But there are serious risks starting a QB who A. isn't ready and B. isn't the team's best choice at the time to potentially win a game.

ha ha i guess it's probably best to read read thoroughly before jumping in, yes i immediately thought you were referring to derek, not david, even tho you wrote "david", i guess i saw derek.... anyway, pointing to david as a reason to sit goff is a reach imo, was david ever an effective nfl qb? and why should we assume he would have been successful, had a successful career, had the texans not thrown him out there his rookie season? who's to say he wouldn't have been another j.p. losman, a fist rounder who sat his rookie year then was mediocre at best when he became starter? or another jake locker, a first rounder who rode pine his rookie season and then went on to mediocrity when he got his chance to start? or another andre ware, dan mcgwire. tommy maddox, david klingler, jim druckenmiller, akili smith, sexy rexy, jamarcus russell, mark malone, mark wilson, rich campbell, todd blackledge, chuck long, jim harbaugh, chris miller, etc., etc., etc., first rounders who either rode pine their rookie season (or longer) or were played very sparingly their rookie season?

[/zn/]

Play him when the coaches think he is ready to give the team the best chance to win, whenever that may be. No on-the-job training for the sake of because everybody else has or because he was picked first overall. I get that "learning" behind journey man Case Keenum isn't a great school of exemplary QB play.

I agree that there are no hard/fast rules to this and it should not matter to people when they start Goff.

BUT I disagree that playing behind Keenum isn;t exemplary. Heck yes it is. Keenum knows who and what he is physically and he is capable of starting games for you because of everything in his head. He is a film junkie, student of the game, and self-maximizer who seizes on all the advantages you can get from just being smart and aware and well-studied and working on technique. That's EXACTLY who I want a young qb behind. (Or if JG starts game 1 that's exactly who I want as the #2.) I don't want Goff behind a guy whose play says, basically, talent trumps all. I want his example to be a hard-working, field-smart self-maximizer. Someone who works to get the most out of what he has.

Plus of course as of right now CK is the only qb to transition well from the college Air Raid system to the pros. That's a very similar transition to what Goff is going through.


.

[dieterbrock]

And I was using David Carr, of the Houston Texans, as an example of what can happen to a so-called highly talented QB who starts quite probably before he is ready. He was gun shy his sophomore season and he never lived up to his draft status. Maybe he never would have regardless. But there are serious risks starting a QB who A. isn't ready and B. isn't the team's best choice at the time to potentially win a game.

ha ha i guess it's probably best to read read thoroughly before jumping in, yes i immediately thought you were referring to derek, not david, even tho you wrote "david", i guess i saw derek.... anyway, pointing to david as a reason to sit goff is a reach imo, was david ever an effective nfl qb? and why should we assume he would have been successful, had a successful career, had the texans not thrown him out there his rookie season? who's to say he wouldn't have been another j.p. losman, a fist rounder who sat his rookie year then was mediocre at best when he became starter? or another jake locker, a first rounder who rode pine his rookie season and then went on to mediocrity when he got his chance to start? or another andre ware, dan mcgwire. tommy maddox, david klingler, jim druckenmiller, akili smith, sexy rexy, jamarcus russell, mark malone, mark wilson, rich campbell, todd blackledge, chuck long, jim harbaugh, chris miller, etc., etc., etc., first rounders who either rode pine their rookie season (or longer) or were played very sparingly their rookie season?

Great post.
And keep in mind, we're talking about Goff just beginning on the bench, so even by sitting for a couple games will magically save his career....
Fact is with Carr, he wasn't very good. He wasn't very accurate coming out of college and that isn't something that improves in the NFL
Heck, Tony Banks played better with that Houston squad than Carr did.
But you nailed it, the list of QB that just busted is long and its due to them just not being good enough

I'd have no issue with Goff riding the pine if he were in an Aaron Rodgers/Brett Favre situation or a Philip Rivers/Drew Brees deal.
But sitting for Case Keenum? Cmon...

[/zn/]

Yes it is a complex system actually. The qb calls protections, the qb audibles into and out of pass/run plays, and the passing game depends heavily on sight adjustments, which means that the WRs and qb have to be reading the defenses the same way.

I want to return to this point because IMO there are a lot of misconceptions when topics like this come up.

I want to stress stomething about about Chicago and the Gase offense Fisher likes. Something a lot of people don't realize.

First a set-up. I generally (and crudely) group offenses into pass heavy, balanced, and run heavy. In the passing era, balanced no longer means 50-50.

These numbers are not arbitrary. I get them from looking at pass play percentages.

A pass heavy offense throws 60% of the time or (obviously) more. Last year that included New England, New Orleans, and Indianapolis.

A balanced offense throws anywhere from 56-60% of the time. Last year that included Green Bay, Washington, and Arizona.

A run-heavy offense runs the ball 44% of the time or more. Last year that included Kansas City, Seattle, and Carolina.

Guess where the vaunted Gase offense was located.

It was run-heavy. They passed about 54.3% of the time (last year the Rams passed about 53.4% of the time).

I mention this for a reason.

Often in conversations about all this people assume a few things that hold up. First, people assume that Fisher offenses are traditionally run-heavy. Actually no, last year was an exception. They are usually balanced (by my definition). For example in 2012 they threw the ball about 59% of the time (11th in the league) and in 2013, even with Clemens for half the season, they threw the ball about 56% of the time (right at the cusp). In 2014, even with Hill and Davis, they threw the ball 58.7% of the time. Last year's pass percentage of 53.4% of the time is the lowest in the Fisher years.

Not only do people often think that Fisher's offense is predominantly run heavy (when it was that way only once), they mistakenly assume that the more you throw, the more sophisticated your passing game is, and the less you throw, the more primitive it is.

No.

Groh comes from Gase's sophisticated passing offense. That's why Fisher liked him---he has openly praised Chicago's passing offense, particularly how they handled Cutler. Fisher tried to hire Gase himself. So I assume we all agree that Groh brings some of that smart Chicago Gase-style offense with him. BUT the Chicago offense last year was run heavy, not pass heavy. In fact in terms of pass percentage it ranked 25th.

So in other words, having a run-heavy offense does NOT mean "lack of sophistication."

In terms of whether Fisher will be more run-heavy or balanced in 2016, I assume that with Gurley and the qb situation (including a rookie) they will be more run-heavy. BUT I also assume, based on the history, that when Goff is fully up to par, they will go back to being a more balanced type of attack.

.,..

[moklerman]

I agree that there are no hard/fast rules to this and it should not matter to people when they start Goff.

Why not? For many people, Goff is of particular interest and they want to get his career started. For them, it matters. But I don't think any of them are arguing for him to be on the field if he isn't capable. Which is the point. Even an inexperienced Goff should be at least as good as whatever Keenum is. Sure, he's got a few starts under his belt but you don't impede the rookie because, sticking with the Seattle comparison, Matt Flynn's on the roster.

BUT I disagree that playing behind Keenum isn;t exemplary. Heck yes it is. Keenum knows who and what he is physically and he is capable of starting games for you because of everything in his head. He is a film junkie, student of the game, and self-maximizer who seizes on all the advantages you can get from just being smart and aware and well-studied and working on technique. That's EXACTLY who I want a young qb behind. (Or if JG starts game 1 that's exactly who I want as the #2.) I don't want Goff behind a guy whose play says, basically, talent trumps all. I want his example to be a hard-working, field-smart self-maximizer. Someone who works to get the most out of what he has.

That's fine if we're talking about Jeff George or Tony Banks. But your argument presumes that Goff has something to learn in terms of dedication and habits. Have you heard anything to suggest that he's deficient in these areas? Anything I've heard has been all very complimentary in those regards. Plus, I think you're over-selling Keenum just a bit. Okay, a lot.

Plus of course as of right now CK is the only qb to transition well from the college Air Raid system to the pros. That's a very similar transition to what Goff is going through.

I'm not sure I see how. Yes, he's gotten into games and had some starts due to some extreme circumstances but that really doesn't mean he's transitioned well to the NFL. He isn't a starter and anything he's done or will ever do in the NFL pales so far in comparison to what he did in college that he's just another example of a guy who benefited from a gimmick offense vs. sub par competition. He's a lot more Max Hall or Kliff Kingsbury than he's even Kevin Kolb. And I don't think even you would argue that those guys should keep Goff from probably starting right away.

[/zn/]

Moke--as a rule I don't respond to divided point by point posts. (It's not personal...I have been saying this for years now.) I don't for 2 reasons. (1) it's a nightmare formatting the response, and (2) if you look at the times people get into them, almost invariably it's because they're over obsessing and getting into a one-on-one minutia clash. (Honest, watch the net...that's usually true).

Later I will try to reconfigure your post so I can respond to it.

[dieterbrock]

These numbers are not arbitrary. I get them from looking at pass play percentages.

A pass heavy offense throws 60% of the time or (obviously) more. Last year that included New England, New Orleans, and Indianapolis.

A balanced offense throws anywhere from 56-60% of the time. Last year that included Green Bay, Washington, and Arizona.

A run-heavy offense runs the ball 44% of the time or more. Last year that included Kansas City, Seattle, and Carolina. [/i]


.,..

These numbers are false
KC ran the ball 45.6%, Carolina 50% and Seattle at 48.% is due to Beast mode missing most of the season.
In Wilson career Seattle is typically well over 50% running the ball 51.4% in 2014 and 52.3% in 2013.
Of course a knowledgable football fan realizes that the historical comparison doesn't fly due to the influx of short passes which in effect are a vertical rushing attempt, particularly in the case of KC who utiliza the dink and dunk with the best of them
As for the Rams rushing %?
Surely you understand that teams trailing in games have to throw more and that skews the $
Then again, maybe not....

[moklerman]

Moke--as a rule I don't respond to divided point by point posts. (It's not personal...I have been saying this for years now.) I don't for 2 reasons. (1) it's a nightmare formatting the response, and (2) if you look at the times people get into them, almost invariably it's because they're over obsessing and getting into a one-on-one minutia clash. (Honest, watch the net...that's usually true).

Later I will try to reconfigure your post so I can respond to it.

Well, you could just "quote" the whole post and respond to whatever you want to respond to. But I find it much more clear to separate each point. The quote boxes compartmentalize the post nicely and keep it easier to read. Granted, longer posts can have a number of points but I don't find that creating a new post for each point/response too efficient and just writing a paragraph responding to all the points at once makes it less clear what was originally said.

Anyway, the way I do it that seems pretty easy is to just hit the quote button on the post, when the editor opens I highlight and "copy" the brackets containing the user name and then right click and paste it at the front of each paragraph I want to feature. Then do the same with the brackets containing the closed quote. I put my response right after the end quote bracket and it's all clean and organized and only a few clicks to set it up.