[/zn/]

QB's like Brees and Brady get the benefit of the doubt if they have an off day.

Yeah cause they've earned it. Are you saying Goff is in that place now? That he has already crossed that line where everyone should give him the same kind of benefit of the doubt people give Brees and Brady?

I personally have no doubt that he will get there.

Meanwhile on the other side of the coin, who is actually writing Goff off? Who has said that off days by Goff means he's a bust, or average, or will never turn the corner, or doesn't have what it takes? Well that I see...no one.

[/zn/]

Goff went to Seattle and put up a rating of 88.2 there. Not a bad game, 2 picks didn’t help. The following week he went to Denver and put up a rating of 58.8. He was bad in that game.

Last week he put up a rating of 68.6 in Detroit. If he puts up a stinker in Chicago, I think it’s fair to say he’s still stumbling against good defenses on the road.

So yeah, it will be interesting to read the comments after the Chicago game.

Well the comments after that game won't change no matter what happens. I mean remember, when it was said that "at this point" (a while back) he didn't have much in the way of comeback wins, the response was that comeback wins don't mean anything and paying attention to them is silly (that stuff stopped after it was clear that he was 50% in comeback situations...then, that stuff wasn't silly anymore).

In terms of how Goff will actually look, loaded discussions of it aside, I don't see any scenario where he can be seriously questioned.

Personally I don't like to measure a guy game by game by game. Each game is taking place inside a larger picture. You have to be realistic about each game, but at the same time there is the larger picture.

For me the larger picture includes this.

First, good qbs have had off games---I just did the numbers for Brees in 2004. They have more of them early in their careers, it seems, and fewer of them when they are more seasoned. That guarantees nothing when it comes to Goff but it is a reminder that off games are not always these heavy warning signs.

Second, I look at Goff's career overall. He came through in the longrun at Cal in spite of them having nothing around him and the whole team starting out badly his first year. He has bounced back from off games in 2017 and 2018 and he has never had more than 2 off games in a row. For example, 2 games after Denver he threw 3 TDs against GB in spite of being sacked 5 times. Those kinds of tendencies are "have em or you don't" quality and I think it's clear he has em.

If he doesn't play well on the road against the Bears D, I am not going to start having doubts about his upward trajectory. He would need to have a few in a row like that before I even entertain that thought.

If he plays well in Chicago then I wouldn't say the story is over. I would say that he can still become more consistent across long stretches but that doing well against the Bears is a very very good sign. I just think his trajectory is real and that as far as he has come so far, he already shows he has it in him to be even better.

I actually expect the Rams to be up for this game the way they really weren't for Detroit. There's HFA, there's it being a national game, there's Detroit to make up for, there's the sense that now's the time to peak.

[aeneas1]

QB's like Brees and Brady get the benefit of the doubt if they have an off day. They've got the years and hardware that Goff doesn't have.

of course they do, get the benefit of the doubt, and deservedly so, but they didn't earn their wings dominating the top defenses in the league, dominating teams in arctic temps, which seems to be the metric some want to use to gauge goff's "development" ... instead they've won a lot more than they've lost over time, been consistent more than inconsistent over time, which led to a lot of wins and the biggest stage... from where i'm sitting goff seems to be on the right track, regardless of what he does in chicago but, hey, that's just me.

[/zn/]

of course they do, get the benefit of the doubt, and deservedly so, but they didn't earn their wings dominating the top defenses in the league, dominating teams in arctic temps, which seems to be the metric some want to use to gauge goff's "development"

In other words earlier in their careers even Brady and Brees were not consistently good in tough situations especially. And we assume that that's par for the course.

So then what's wrong with someone saying the same thing about Goff. Early on he is still not consistently good under certain tough conditions---yet not a single soul is saying he WON'T improve and become more consistently good.

I mean do you think he's as good now as he will be in his prime? Brees wasn't in 2004 and it's okay to say it in his case. He's even a measuring stick for how that can go. Starts out with obvious high talent, is not consistently good early on, develops. Heck he was having noticeably "off" games in his 4th year. In other words, no big deal.

[dieterbrock]

In other words earlier in their careers even Brady and Brees were not consistently good in tough situations especially. And we assume that that's par for the course.

So then what's wrong with someone saying the same thing about Goff. Early on he is still not consistently good under certain tough conditions---yet not a single soul is saying he WON'T improve and become more consistently good.

I mean do you think he's as good now as he will be in his prime? Brees wasn't in 2004 and it's okay to say it in his case. He's even a measuring stick for how that can go. Starts out with obvious high talent, is not consistently good early on, develops. Heck he was having noticeably "off" games in his 4th year. In other words, no big deal.

Are you paying attention at all? Or are you just going to disagree with posts without staying in context?
The point is a poster using the Bears game as a barometer.
Look it up.
Or continue being a jackass
Pretty sure I know which way this goes...

[aeneas1]

In other words earlier in their careers even Brady and Brees were not consistently good in tough situations especially. And we assume that that's par for the course. So then what's wrong with someone saying the same thing about Goff.

re-read your post. think about it. re-read it again. maybe take a break and come back to it.

Early on he is still not consistently good under certain tough conditions..

and who is exactly?

[/zn/]

and who is exactly?

No one. Which was my point, one we apparently agree on. So where's the harm in pointing out the off game stuff when it happens? He is nowhere near leveling off and I think when he's more seasoned that off game stuff will happen less and with more games in between. Till then it's no put-down of Goff just to be realistic about the (few) times it does happen at this stage.

[aeneas1]

No one. Which was my point.

no it wasn't.

[/zn/]

no it wasn't.

In other words earlier in their careers even Brady and Brees were not consistently good in tough situations especially. And we assume that that's par for the course.

[FMulder]

Getting back to the weather. Mid/upper 20s with minimal wind is not a California beach but what makes Chicago so tough is the wind, espcially when it comes off Lake Michigan.

I grew up near Chicago and a mid/upper 20 degree night with no real wind is not horrible vs a 35/40 degree day with a 15 MPH lake wind. You get all that gear and adrenaline and sideline heaters and coats etc and they should be fine including Goff. If he comes out with gloves on I’ll be very concerned.