[Elvis]

I think the right answer is: He's already there and he can (and most likely will) improve. He's a franchise QB who still has a lot of upside potential. Not a bad spot to be in.

I merged the two Sando threads since they really never needed to be separate and they're both having the same conversation/argument at this point...

[max]

I think the right answer is: He's already there and he can (and most likely will) improve. He's a franchise QB who still has a lot of upside potential. Not a bad spot to be in.

He’s already where?

[Elvis]

He’s already where?

He's already a franchise QB who can get you to the SB...

[max]

He's already a franchise QB who can get you to the SB...

Of course. He’s already proven that. So is Matt Ryan.

He’s just not in the top tier yet, with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Wilson. And probably Mahomes (fair to say he needs more than one amazing year).

In a year or 2, Brady and Brees will be out of equation, so will Ben and Rivers, but other young guys will challenge like Watson and Mayfield. And if Luck stays healthy, he’s in the mix of the top tier.

I’ll go out on a limb and say when the Rams play in Hollywood Park, Goff will be in the top 5 with Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, and Luck or Watson.

[Elvis]

Matt Ryan was the NFL MVP, that's pretty high up there. But yeah, the next tier probably means winning a SB. A lot of it is resume driven, and rightly so...

[/zn/]

I think the right answer is: He's already there and he can (and most likely will) improve. He's a franchise QB who still has a lot of upside potential. Not a bad spot to be in.

That's how I feel in general though depends on what "there" means and to be fair it can mean different things to different fans. To me he is getting "there."

He is abolutely a franchise qb and does have a ton of upside...just needs seasoning and experience. He most likely will improve.

I have a couple of criteria that go beyond the numbers. None of this is original, it's just my 2 cents. Does he have unique physical gifts? Yes he has such a supple, flexible arm and can make uncanny throws. Is he clutch? I think he already proved he is. Is he consistent? I think that's a maturity issue and that all that will smooth out with experience. Is he elite? That's a tough one for me because I reserve that term for very rare qbs. Warner, Brady, Montana etc.--guys who routinely demonstrate you can put it all on them against anybody and they routinely thrive in that position. I think Goff has the toolkit to become elite, but with him I think it will come from mellowing like a good wine. But even if he just stays very good, that's enough.

[moklerman]

Actually your chart shows exactly what all you data manipulators have as your golden goose. The Chicago game.

Data analysis 101 is constantly focusing on the mean. Looking at Goff’s data where you throw out his high game and his low and wow. Different story.

Would think an engineer would be capable of that kind of thought process.

I still question the validity of throwing out 12%+ of your data. 2 out of 16 games is pretty significant.

Also, what does it mean that we keep having to throw out some of Goff's numbers? Can't count his rookie year, count can't the Chicago game, can't count the Super Bowl...something doesn't feel right about having to keep excluding things.

[/zn/]

I still question the validity of throwing out 12%+ of your data. 2 out of 16 games is pretty significant.

Also, what does it mean that we keep having to throw out some of Goff's numbers? Can't count his rookie year, count can't the Chicago game, can't count the Super Bowl...something doesn't feel right about having to keep excluding things.

Plus the problem is that the mean excluces variations. Averages and means hide those things. If you ask, did Goff play at a consistenly high level for all of 2018? then the answer, quite simply, is no. He had a rough up and down patch at the end. Even if you exclude the Chicago game, that's 4 combined games with a completion percentage of 56.6%, 1 TD v 3 INTs, & an avg. qb rating of 69.2. Even setting aside the Chicago game, 4 below avg games out of 7 means inconsistent play. He did not sustain his best level play and did not play to his own mean in those 4 games.

You don't ignore big trends like that in talking about a football player's season.

[max]

Actually your chart shows exactly what all you data manipulators have as your golden goose. The Chicago game.

Data analysis 101 is constantly focusing on the mean. Looking at Goff’s data where you throw out his high game and his low and wow. Different story.

Would think an engineer would be capable of that kind of thought process.

Actually, I did plot the data without the 2 extremes. And Goff still had a negative trend. It doesn't change the fact that Goff had a negative trend caused by good early games and bad later games. But the point remains that those 2 games contribute to the variability in Goff's performance.

[max]

Goff's numbers weren't all that great in those two games. Not much over 200 yards per game. But they scored a lot of points because of the run game. You see, Goff didn't have to win with his arm. Those games he became more of a game manager. Did what was needed to win games.

Some times a quarterback has to throw more to win. Sometimes he has to be smart and do what is needed. The 4 games before the Superbowl they averaged 33 points per game and won all 4. Goff averaged around 225 yards per game. Well below his first half numbers. But they still scored points and won. All part of what winning quarterbacks have to do to win games. And he has proven they can win with him. We saw that in New Orleans.

You bring up an important point. A bad QB rating is worse when you lose a game than when you win a game. For example, Wilson had a bad passer rating against the Vikes last year, but his team won big, he didn't have to do much since the running game went for over 200 yards and he only threw the ball 20 times.