[max]

But "after the game" is the key. Under normal circumstances, I don't think he looked as sharp as his old self and under normal circumstances, the Rams would have lost that game.

Which would be unusual for Goff against the Saints. Even in his rookie year when he was generally struggling, he did well against 1 team: the Saints. Goff had played the Saints 3 previous times and had a 100+ career rating against them. That dropped to 83 in the playoff game. Yes, the stakes were different but it was the same team he had faced multiple times and had success each time.

So IMO, he had some good moments and got the win but he wasn't as good statistically as he'd been against them in the past. That doesn't mean he was bad or struggled but the point is that since the bye, he just hasn't been as good as he's shown he's capable of.

I put so much weight on performance under duress that it meant more to me the way he performed in the clutch in that environment than his 158.3 game against the Vikes under ideal conditions.

[aeneas1]

This clearly supports my argument that Goff has more variability in his performance than the top QBs.

and rosen had less statistical variability (lower standard deviation) in his 2018 performances than brady, rodgers, luck, rivers, roethlisberger, wilson, watson, etc., etc.... perhaps the rams should deal for rosen instead throwing a lot of money at goff?

[moklerman]

I put so much weight on performance under duress that it meant more to me the way he performed in the clutch in that environment than his 158.3 game against the Vikes under ideal conditions.

I think it's difficult to separate the good feelings and the miraculous way the Rams found a way to win and Goff's actual performance. Putting up an 83 rating with 1 TD isn't particularly impressive or up to his own level IMO. Regardless of venue and situation.

I happen to think a QB that drops a significant amount in the playoffs from his regular season numbers is deserving of criticism. That's why Kurt Warner was so special. As good as his regular season numbers were, he actually got even better during the post season.

Goff is on the other side of that so far.

[max]

I think it's difficult to separate the good feelings and the miraculous way the Rams found a way to win and Goff's actual performance. Putting up an 83 rating with 1 TD isn't particularly impressive or up to his own level IMO. Regardless of venue and situation.

I happen to think a QB that drops a significant amount in the playoffs from his regular season numbers is deserving of criticism. That's why Kurt Warner was so special. As good as his regular season numbers were, he actually got even better during the post season.

Goff is on the other side of that so far.

How good was Warner at 23 years old?

You’re way too hard on Goff.

[moklerman]

How good was Warner at 23 years old?

You’re way too hard on Goff.

His age has nothing to do with it though. We've got 3 other games against the same opponent and 2 seasons worth of games against the rest of the league.

Like I said, Goff didn't play poorly but he didn't play up to his own standards. He did not play better or even as good as usually does in general or in particular against the Saints. Whether he was 23, 33 or 43, that's something deserving of criticism.

[PARAM]

All I can say at this point is WOW!

[dieterbrock]

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.

Try to follow along, it’s not that difficult.
The discussion, was a “statistical analysis” with cute graphs and data points. And the data points are skewed by 2 data points, 1 ridiculously high, 1 low.
I wasn’t throwing out any thing, but in accounting it is quite common to work off of a mean average which does what I had said.
I don’t need to exclude anything. Not a damn thing.
No Rams QB has thrown more td in their first 3 seasons than Goff.
He’s #8 already on career td
#2 in career qb rating 94.7
#1 in lowest int% for qb with more than 5 starts
2 pro bowls
Staged comeback in NFC championship game from 13-0 down without Todd Gurley
Yep, no need to exclude a damn thing but I am amazed at how there is a need by alleged Rams fans to knock him.

[moklerman]

Try to follow along, it’s not that difficult.
The discussion, was a “statistical analysis” with cute graphs and data points. And the data points are skewed by 2 data points, 1 ridiculously high, 1 low.
I wasn’t throwing out any thing, but in accounting it is quite common to work off of a mean average which does what I had said.
I don’t need to exclude anything. Not a damn thing.
No Rams QB has thrown more td in their first 3 seasons than Goff.
He’s #8 already on career td
#2 in career qb rating 94.7
#1 in lowest int% for qb with more than 5 starts
2 pro bowls
Staged comeback in NFC championship game from 13-0 down without Todd Gurley
Yep, no need to exclude a damn thing but I am amazed at how there is a need by alleged Rams fans to knock him.

Well, if you don't need to exclude a damn thing, quit excluding things! I don't really care what is common in accounting because we aren't talking about accounting. As far as the data points skewing because of one high and one low example, that doesn't make sense either. If anything, they would balance each other out and would be an example of why you wouldn't exclude them.

In averages and statistics the number of examples is important. With less than 20 pieces of data, I question the validity of excluding any of the data. There is precious little of it to begin with. Maybe that is actually enough for statisticians but it's gotta be close to the minimal line. I mean, if you have 3 pieces of data, you wouldn't throw out the high and the low extremes, right?

So, maybe you don't agree that less than 20 pieces of data is too few to exclude examples, that doesn't warrant you being a condescending jerk that acts as if I don't understand the concept of a mean average.

[aeneas1]

All I can say at this point is WOW!

i'll see your wow and raise you a couple of more... truly unbelievable.

[moklerman]

i'll see your wow and raise you a couple of more... truly unbelievable.

Why is it so unbelievable to criticize a player who played 20+ points below his average? Is Goff above any criticism?