[/zn/]

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.

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.

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

.

Okay.

First, we see the when Goff start’s thing very differently. And, people just have different opinions on it...mine in this case is that nothing you say here makes any sense at all in terms of when the guy should start. You assume where he is picked means a timetable. I assume no such thing. You assume that high-pick talent trumps experience. I make no such assumption. So in terms of just having different opinions, we will have to just agree to disagree on that issue. In terms of you trying to claim there’s a right or true view, I only see you strongly advocating an opinion. It’s a value judgment. You won’t turn it into a right/wrong contest, you can’t do that with value judgments. I happily agree to disagree.

Second, no you misread me. I never said he had to learn dedication. That has nothing to do with what I said. I assume he has details and surprising little ins and outs to learn from someone who is experienced and dedicated to knowing those things. It’s the “whats” he has to learn, not BEING dedicated. So you just misread.

We disagree on Keenum’s progress. In the last 2 years teams that started him went 5-2. There is no one else from an Air Raid college offense who has accomplished even that much .Foles is one of the big failures...in Kelly’s spread he was fine, but put him in a pro style offense and he fell apart, for whatever reason. Everyone else was an abject failure. Like it or not so far it is just true....Keenum is to this point the most successful college Air Raid to pros transition qb in existence. It means he has had to master details Goff is just now learning. (One way to do this is to go back through CK's different years and see the percentage of total attempts he spends in the shotgun. It goes way down.)

Nice match-up there. Give the talented rookie the only Air Raid qb to transition so far as his mentor/#2. That worked out nicely, having CK aboard when Goff was picked.

So another agree to disagree thing—I see more in Keenum than you do (and it’s primarily intangibles and the product of being smart about maximizing his game). In fact to me he’s the best #2 the Rams have had since Jamie Martin, and Martin was playing with the GSOT offensive personnel.

So yeah we do not see this one remotely the same. Different opinions again.

...

[moklerman]

First, we see the when Goff start’s thing very differently. And, people just have different opinions on it...mine in this case is that nothing you say here makes any sense at all in terms of when the guy should start. You assume where he is picked means a timetable. I assume no such thing. You assume that high-pick talent trumps experience. I make no such assumption. So in terms of just having different opinions, we will have to just agree to disagree on that issue. In terms of you trying to claim there’s a right or true view, I only see you strongly advocating an opinion. It’s a value judgment. You won’t turn it into a right/wrong contest, you can’t do that with value judgments. I happily agree to disagree.

It's far more than assumption. Realistically speaking, QB's taken #1 overall play sooner rather than later. You could extend that to first round QB's. And no, I don't assume high picked talent trumps experience. I assume that whatever little experience Keenum has shouldn't keep the talent and pedigree of Goff on the bench. Where do I claim there is a "right" or "true" view? To be blunt, please don't bring that bullshit to this conversation. You use it OFTEN and it's totally inappropriate here.

Second, no you misread me. I never said he had to learn dedication. That has nothing to do with what I said. I assume he has details and surprising little ins and outs to learn from someone who is experienced and dedicated to knowing those things. It’s the “whats” he has to learn, not BEING dedicated. So you just misread.

So, if you want a guy like Keenum as an example to Goff, what does that mean? Isn't that implying something?

We disagree on Keenum’s progress. In the last 2 years teams that started him went 5-2. There is no one else from an Air Raid college offense who has accomplished even that much .Foles is one of the big failures...in Kelly’s spread he was fine, but put him in a pro style offense and he fell apart, for whatever reason. Everyone else was an abject failure. Like it or not so far it is just true....Keenum is to this point the most successful college Air Raid to pros transition qb in existence. It means he has had to master details Goff is just now learning. (One way to do this is to go back through CK's different years and see the percentage of total attempts he spends in the shotgun. It goes way down.)

Talk about an insignificant sample size. Not to mention the lack of validity. I don't know why you're trying to sell Keenum so hard, but let's not act like he's more than he is. You're giving him far too much credit. Couch, Weeden, Kolb and Foles all did more than Keenum has. And Foles didn't fail outside of Kelly. He played pretty well as a rookie in a WCO under Reid. He had a good start with the Rams but then tailspun. But was he injured? Was it all on him or did the OC getting fired play a part? Keenum is a relative nobody that only the DESPERATE Texans and hapless Rams have let start games. You keep making it out like he's transcended the curse and limitations of the Air Raid QB to be successful in the NFL. It's just not the reality.

Nice match-up there. Give the talented rookie the only Air Raid qb to transition so far as his mentor/#2. That worked out nicely, having CK aboard when Goff was picked.

5-10 as a starter, 56% passer, 79 rating. That isn't a successful transition and it's not any different than the other Air Raid QB's. They all struggle to win games, complete a high percentage and have an 80+ rating.

So another agree to disagree thing—I see more in Keenum than you do (and it’s primarily intangibles and the product of being smart about maximizing his game). In fact to me he’s the best #2 the Rams have had since Jamie Martin, and Martin was playing with the GSOT offensive personnel.

So yeah we do not see this one remotely the same. Different opinions again.

...

I don't really know how you can know any of the things you purport to be true. How do you know he maximizes his game, or for that matter, works harder than anyone else? As far as backups, I'd take Shaun Hill, probably Kellen Clemens and Gus Frerotte over Case Keenum just on their abilities. Two of them were very good backups and Clemens, as sad as it is, had a better arm than Keenum but was relatively equal in other areas.

[Elvis]

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. .

Your analysis is skewed by losing. Fisher's Rams teams are usually losing. They have to pass more than Fisher wants to.

And it's not even really about the run pass percentage at this point. It's about passing efficiency. The Rams are, year in and year out, a terrible passing team. Last year they were last in yards per attempt. Chicago was 13th...

[ramsman34]

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.


.

We can agree to disagree on Keenum's value to Goff. The fact is, Keenum is the only one in that position anyway. I am sure Goff is in his ear and vice versa quite a bit. And, I certainly think that will help. I will stick to my foundation premise that Goff will play when he is ready as decided by the staff. Continued debate of the merits of either scenario is interesting opinion. It has no bearing on what happens.

[/zn/]

I will stick to my foundation premise that Goff will play when he is ready as decided by the staff. Continued debate of the merits of either scenario is interesting opinion.

We absolutely agree on that.

.

[/zn/]

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. .

Your analysis is skewed by losing. Fisher's Rams teams are usually losing. They have to pass more than Fisher wants to.

And it's not even really about the run pass percentage at this point. It's about passing efficiency. The Rams are, year in and year out, a terrible passing team. Last year they were last in yards per attempt. Chicago was 13th...

For that (the point in red) to be true, then, they would have to come across as run heavy before 2015 while winning games. IS that the case, or an assumption? Personally I think that W/Ls even it out.

Either way Chicago was 6/10 last year. Mostly losing. Did they also pass more than intended? If so they only came out to 54% passes.

BESIDES, I don't assume there's something wrong with "run heavy" anyway. Certainly there are more run-heavy teams in the playoffs than pass-heavy. Of the 12 playoff teams last year, in fact, 7 qualified (by my definition) as run-heavy. Only 2 were pass-heavy.

The point in blue. Last year's SEASON AVERAGE yards per attempt for the Rams is deceptive. The problem is, Foles crashes so badly in his last 4 starts he drags the average down. To start the season in the 1st 4 games he avg.s 7.3 yards an attempt, which would have been 6th in the league.

Which gets us to the real difference between Chicago and St. Louis last year when it comes to that. Chicago had a consistent qb all year (well almost...Cutler misses 1 game). For the Rams, Foles started out okay, then melted down and crashed (playing so poorly in his last 4 starts that he drags down every single offensive average for the season, which is why general season averages are so deceptive. For example in his last 4 starts, Foles YPA was 4.9). Then they were forced to start their #2.

..

[aeneas1]

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...

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.

so much bad logic and, by extension, bad conclusions going on here... based on the way you determine if a team is pass heavy, balanced, or run heavy the 1999 gsot rams weren't really that much of a passing team, instead they were more of a "balanced" team, because they ranked 18th in pass ratio... but here's the rub - the 1999 gsot rams ranked 1st in pass ratio for quarters 1 through 3, on 1st and 2nd downs, and dead last for the 4th quarter. in fact they passed the ball so infrequently in 4th quarter, on 1st and 2nd downs (just 34% of the time), that it made their total pass/run ratios appear "balanced"...

btw when determining what a team likes to do offensively (pass, run, balanced) you have to first throw out 3rd downs - why? because all teams pass on 3rd down, even in short yardage situations, it has nothing to do with whether a team likes to pass or run, and for teams like the rams that run so few offensive plays, 3rd down pass attempts can skew the numbers. you also have to throw out the 4th quarter because score and clock dictate play calling, not offensive philosophy.

so what sort of offensive philosophy has fish brought to the rams? run-heavy. to argue otherwise is plain silly, about as silly as arguing the 1999 gsot rams weren't really a pass-heavy offense, but instead balanced...

last year the rams ranked 29th in pass % for quarters 1 through 3, on 1st and 2nd down, in 2014 they ranked 27th, in 2013 they ranked 28th, and in 2012 they ranked 22nd.... for the 4-year stretch, i.e. since fish has been head coach, the rams rank 29th in pass % for quarters 1 through 3, on 1st and 2nd down. but guess what? for the same stretch the rams also rank 11th in pass % for the 4th quarter, on 1st and 2nd down. i wonder why? and i wonder if this impacts, skews, their overall pass % ratio?

[/zn/]

so much bad logic and, by extension, bad conclusions going on here... based on the way you determine if a team is pass heavy, balanced, or run heavy the 1999 gsot rams weren't really that much of a passing team, instead they were more of a "balanced" team, because they ranked 18th in pass ratio..

Or bad reading.

My entire point in that post is simply to debunk the idea that "run heavy" automatically means lack of passing sophistication. So what about the 2015 Bears, and Gase's offensive approach, and the kinds of ideas that lends to the Rams? That was all.

I am not sure what you made out of that, but it was way off my own track. Plus it's fun to see you be your normal charming, affable self when in disagreement. So I get misreading, AND adult civility. Nice.

And actually the 99 team was MUCH more balanced than the 2000 team. Vermeil had them do it one way, Martz did it another. Still, even given that, 2000 was different because the defensive collapse put them in a position to try to rev the whole game to keep ahead.

99: 56.6% passing
2000: 62.2% passing
2001: 58.7% passing

The 99 Rams WERE a more balanced offense, at least in part because Vermeil insisted on it. Now I know saying that apparently pushes the limits of your civility, but it's still the case nonetheless. They passed to get ahead and held the win rushing. They openly said that was their approach. But then they were capable of doing that, and took advantage of it. They took advantage of a strong rushing attack to close games where they had gotten up early leads (though that was not ALWAYS true...the defense won a couple of those games where the offense couldn't take off early).

As for your other points---in 2012 the Rams won 4 4th quarter games (actually, 1 was a tie not a win) with comeback wins, and you do not do that without a passing attack. So yeah they were much more balanced. You don't do something unless you are capable of doing that something. Comeback wins was a strength of theirs. That just gets wrapped into the general numbers to make a general point.

Moreover an actual realistic description of a Fisher Rams offense is that they tend to combine running and ball control passing to set up big plays (and those aren't always play action and in fact they aren't always even passing plays). That's why if you go look, the Rams are always in the top 3rd of percentage of total passes that are thrown 31 yards or more.

When making a simple determination about pass heavy v. balanced you don't have to throw out anything (let alone 3rd down) because those things even out. So for example yes all teams pass on 3rd down so those numbers will even out from team to team. The widest disparity out there in terms of 3rd downs per game is the difference between about 15 and about 12. A rough determination is therefore good enough to make the point I was making. Moreover the teams with the least third downs vary widely in their offensive effectiveness, so it's just not a heavy determination. I will take 3 plays a game as not presenting a heavy variable and as basically evening out from team to team.

So the point of looking closer and being tactless in the process? (As opposed to just disagreeing without the kid's stuff?) All you did, IMO, was try to magnify some things to no effect. To which I was always say, I was making a simple general point AND that OVERALL point stands.

Gase's Chicago offense was run heavy and that's while going 6-10, which means even with a low pass percentage they passed more than their own ideal, yet that offense was also rightly praised for having a sophisticated passing attack and giving Cutler one of his best years.

[aeneas1]

sorry you took it that way, was just being honest, bad logic there, which led to bad conclusions... to say the rams weren't run heavy based on their overall pass % ? to say you judge teams as pass-heavy, run-heavy, or balanced based on their overall pass % ? it just doesn't make sense.

And actually the 99 team was MUCH more balanced than the 2000 team. Vermeil had them do it one way, Martz did it another. Still, even given that, 2000 was different because the defensive collapse put them in a position to

99: 56.6% passing
2000: 62.2% passing
2001: 58.7% passing

The 99 Rams WERE a more balanced offense, at least in part because Vermeil insisted on it.

there you go again, using total pass % instead of looking at what drove those ratios.. do you know why the rams' ratio was so much higher in 2000? because they fielded a historically bad defense, it ranked dead last in offensive points allowed... so rather than rank dead last in pass ratio in the 4th quarter as they did in 1999, or second to dead last as they did in 2001, the 2000 rams had to throw the ball more in the 4th, that's how it works, and that's what drove up the ratio...

honestly, are you really going to double down and argue that the 1999 gsot rams fielded a "balanced" offense? really? in your post i quoted you claimed "A balanced offense throws anywhere from 56-60%". that's just nonsense.. using that yardstick the 1999 gsot rams were "balanced", but they clearly weren't, they were a pass-heavy team (as if anyone needed a stat to confirm this), no team, i repeat no team, threw the ball more through the first 3 quarters of play on 1st and 2nd downs than the rams in 1999, how on earth is that balanced? because they ran the ball to death in the 4th, to milk their leads, which lowered their overall average? that makes them balanced?

the 1999 rams ranked 1st in pass % through the first 3 quarters of play, the 2000 rams ranked 2nd, and the 2001 rams ranked first... they were called the greatest show on turf for a reason, instead of the greatest balanced show on turf.

and your pass % yardstick fails when it comes to fish's offensive philosophy - the rams have been a run-heavy team (again, as if anyone needed a stat to confirm this). last year only 3 teams ran the ball more through the first three quarters of play on 1st and 2nd down, in 2014 only 5 teams ran it more, in 2013 only 4 teams ran it more... since fish has been hc, i.e. for the last 4-year stretch, only 3 teams have run the ball more than the rams, i.e. only 3 teams own a higher run ratio than the rams through the first 3 quarters of play on 1st and 2nd downs. in what world does that not constitute a run-heavy offense?

[/zn/]

sorry you took it that way, was just being honest, bad logic there, which led to bad conclusions... to say the rams weren't run heavy based on their overall pass % ? to say you judge teams as pass-heavy, run-heavy, or balanced based on their overall pass % ? it just doesn't make sense.

And actually the 99 team was MUCH more balanced than the 2000 team. Vermeil had them do it one way, Martz did it another. Still, even given that, 2000 was different because the defensive collapse put them in a position to

99: 56.6% passing
2000: 62.2% passing
2001: 58.7% passing

The 99 Rams WERE a more balanced offense, at least in part because Vermeil insisted on it.

there you go again, using total pass % instead of looking at what drove those ratios.. do you know why the rams' ratio was so much higher in 2000? because they fielded a historically bad defense, it ranked dead last in offensive points allowed... so rather than rank dead last in pass ratio in the 4th quarter as they did in 1999, or second to dead last as they did in 2001, the 2000 rams had to throw the ball more in the 4th, that's how it works, and that's what drove up the ratio...

honestly, are you really going to double down and argue that the 1999 gsot rams fielded a "balanced" offense? really? in your post i quoted you claimed "A balanced offense throws anywhere from 56-60%". that's just nonsense.. using that yardstick the 1999 gsot rams were "balanced", but they clearly weren't, they were a pass-heavy team (as if anyone needed a stat to confirm this), no team, i repeat no team, threw the ball more through the first 3 quarters of play on 1st and 2nd downs than the rams in 1999, how on earth is that balanced? because they ran the ball to death in the 4th, to milk their leads, which lowered their overall average? that makes them balanced?

the 1999 rams ranked 1st in pass % through the first 3 quarters of play, the 2000 rams ranked 2nd, and the 2001 rams ranked first... they were called the greatest show on turf for a reason, instead of the greatest balanced show on turf.

and your pass % yardstick fails when it comes to fish's offensive philosophy - the rams have been a run-heavy team (again, as if anyone needed a stat to confirm this). last year only 3 teams ran the ball more through the first three quarters of play on 1st and 2nd down, in 2014 only 5 teams ran it more, in 2013 only 4 teams ran it more... since fish has been hc, i.e. for the last 4-year stretch, only 3 teams have run the ball more than the rams, i.e. only 3 teams own a higher run ratio than the rams through the first 3 quarters of play on 1st and 2nd downs. in what world does that not constitute a run-heavy offense?

I don't know why you're not getting the point here. I said, and proved, that "having a run-heavy offense does NOT mean lack of sophistication." That was all set up with Gase's offense in Chicago, which is both run-oriented and acknowledged as a sophisticated passing attack. To make that point I only needed the simplest determinations.

Now to your points such as they are.

Do I know why they threw so much in 2000? Yes and I said so. My exact words were: "2000 was different because the defensive collapse put them in a position to try to rev the whole game to keep ahead." You repeat that point back to me as if I didn't say it myself. (?) So we said the same thing on that. See even in disagreement usually posters have some overlap and common ground. Disputes are rarely the life and death rivalries posters sometimes try to act like they are.

Yes I will say straightforwardly that they had a balanced offense in 99, because they planned to pass and run, they did pass and run, and the went into games with the intention of getting ahead then holding the ball by running. You can't do that unless you CAN do both things and plan on doing both things. That's very different from Martz just dismantling SD by passing the entire game in 2001 and then afterward saying why should we run the ball just to say we can.

For one thing there's no such thing as "one kind of" any attack. You always have to look at context. Teams will do the same GENERAL things differently. So for example the 2012 Rams were always about controlling the ball while putting up big plays, BUT when the game was close at the end they took charge passing (and did that very well, especially considering how few weapons they had on offense). That's the opposite of the 99 Rams scoring first then controlling the clock and playing defense the rest of the way. In general yes those are just 2 different kinds of balanced offense. But each was capable of using its players to do either thing as required by circumstances, and the result is that the numbers will even out to show that.

BUT a general claim about basic parameters for run-heavy v. balanced is all I needed to make my real point---as the example of the 2015 Bears demonstrates, it is not automatically true that a run-heavy offense must therefore have a primitive passing attack. Which, all your side roads aside, was the basic point.

But again, once you get past that, though, yes there are of course different ways to be pass-heavy or run-heavy.

I also tend to resist the idea that run-heavy is automatically inferior offense. Most of the playoff teams last year were run-heavy. Some say to that sometimes, well that's because they had leads. Unh-hunh. In their case they had leads because they had superlative running games (often combined with top defenses.) So I think it's a mere prejudice to dismiss that.

Heck for that matter to turn it around, if you look at the top 10 most pass-heavy offenses, there's only one last year with a winning record.

Anyway back to more of your side-road points.

Yeah the Rams have been a balanced team that tended to control the ball and limit mistakes AND take shots, but when they needed to win in the 4th quarter passing they could and did. In terms of everything else it tends to even out. That';s why, before looking at the details and differences between and among different offensive approaches, the general point always stands.

And if all we're doing is each of us repeating ourselves for the sake of some minutia war contest, then, not interested. I gladly accept that we agree to disagree on this and I stand by my original points and their elaboration. Minutia wars just look like ego contests to me. Let others chime in.

..