Football Outsiders
Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis

Rams Extend Goff

Details are thus far scarce, but several are reporting that the Rams have signed QB Jared Goff to a four year extension. 

We will update with more information as we learn of it, but an easy first impression is: why?

I can't think of any reason why doing this now is a good idea, even if they think more highly of Goff than I do personally. There was still plenty of time to wait and see if he became worthy of a massive paycheck, especially when there is so much evidence that he's more a product of McVay and the offense than his own talent.

The numbers on this one will surely be fascinating.

(And they're in: According Ian Rapaport, it's four years, $134 million. $110m guaranteed. Wow.)

View Full Article

Comments

74 comments, Last at 06 Sep 2019, 1:40pm

1 System QB

"especially when there is so much evidence that he's more a product of McVay and the offense than his own talent."

I've heard similar things before about Goff, and I, quite frankly, just don't understand. What part of Goff do you think is fake? I mean let's get specific. I'm far from someone who believes that passer rating is a QB only stat, and the rams have one of the best offensive lines, and one of the best receiver corps in the league. Having said all that, Goff did finish fourth in yards, and eight in passer rating last year.

He obviously struggles under pressure, and I think he can still get confused by some defenses, as the Bears, Patriots, and to a lesser extent Lions showed last year. That sounds like every young quarterback. And this is one who, I
might add, is six months younger than Mayfield, and just eleven months older than Mahomes.

For the positives, the arm talent is undeniable. I would challenge anyone to watch the Rams-Vikings game and come away unimpressed. I'm not sure how McVay's system is responsible for Goff throwing dart after dart to receivers 30+ yards downfield. Whatever that system is, boy everyone else sure needs to copy it. It apparently consists of "run this play then that one and your QB gets a +20 accuracy boost on downfield throwing." As a Rams fan, having watched him play every game, I can say that, barring a three game stretch down the year, and the super bowl, I have not seen a quarterback for the Rams play that well, ever.

(Link to the Vikings Game) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAzmQNUyVL4

The idea that Goff is throwing to some wide open windows all season long is just absurd, and not supported by the tape. This isn't a Shanahan offense, where occasionally Kittle is 10 yards open due to scheme. I have seen Goff consistently make accurate, quick throws into tight windows, that I see a very short list of QB's in the NFL making.

"System QB" just seems like lazy analysis, if it can even be called analysis. It's more like a buzzword that justifies hand-waving statistical success, without any actual justification. I've been wrong before though, so I'll be happy to hear what you have to say.

2 "System QB" just seems like…

In reply to by theTDC

"System QB" just seems like lazy analysis, if it can even be called analysis.

I would like it to be clear that I didn't say that.

Derrik has done film room work on Goff and what he does and doesn't do well. His arm, as you point out, fits in the former category. I don't really have time to get into it right now, but the "what he doesn't do well" roughly equates to "anything at all that makes his teammates better or helps the team succeed when his first read is covered or he is pressured." He's no Josh Allen, and that's quite useful, but he still makes mistakes. Frequently. 

Even if you don't agree with me about his abilities (I am pessimistic on most QBs, but moreso on him than most pundits; I think he's far closer to "not actually very good" than "decent and in a good environment and with potential to be really good" but I'll acknowledge that the latter could be right; obviously the Vikings game shows some solid work)... there was absolutely no reason to do this deal now. They still had two years of leverage over him.

They just paid top of market to a QB that they have won in spite of far more often than because of... he's the reason they lost the Super Bowl, but even if you don't overvalue that one game or its recency effect... there's nothing on the tape that suggests that he's worth paying top of market for.

And now this team, which succeeded largely because they had a passable QB on a cheap contract and surrounded him by talent, will have to surround him with talent that costs roughly 25-30 million dollars less per season. That means that for the Rams to have any hope, Goff HAS TO take another leap.

And that's possible, sure. But with the question marks this year (how to protect him with the OL disintegrating; Gurley's actual truthful health; what happens if/when Wade's defense drops off a bit) it made sense to wait and see how he handled it; the "downside" was owing him a few million a year extra if he turned out to be great and had lots of leverage. Big deal.

The freedom to walk away or replace him (I think it's not entirely unlikely that Mariota gets a raw deal in TEN and could be available for not even that much money... and can you imagine his field vision and skills in that offense? That pipe dream has had me salivating for months.) is well worth that. They're now chained to him for several years, with this 2019 season pretty much being their window to win before they have to start letting guys walk for cap reasons. It's one thing to do that because you were backed into a corner - a la Baltimore and Flacco - but another thing entirely to do it two years early. 

I just don't get it. Even if we ignore my assessment of his play entirely, and it won't offend me if you do that... it's still a head-scratching decision. 

3 I'll note here that while I…

I'll note here that while I am on the record (or will be, as of Thursday) as quite bearish about the Rams this year, I'm actually quite a fan of them, from Les Snead on down. I love McVay and his approach and everything that him replacing Fisher stood for, and am one of the world's biggest fans of the Son of Bum. (I can't stand Kroenke though.) If I'm wrong, I won't be upset by any stretch at all. In fact, I hope I am.

But unless he turns into Peyton Manning, I still don't see any reason to have done a deal this large at this time. 

4 The main incentive for the…

The main incentive for the Rams to do a deal with Goff now is that you can spread the cap hits from his new money across the two remaining years of his rookie contract. In most cases you only have one year to work with on an extension like this. If the Rams assumed it was very likely that they were going to extend Goff after 2019 anyway, this provides some extra cap flexibility as they enter a new phase where they won't have as much room to work with. Depending on how the structure works out, Goff may never even have a top-5 cap hit among QBs over the life of this deal.

I think it's perfectly fair to question what Goff's true ability is. But do you think it's especially likely that the Rams learn something about Goff in 2019 that they haven't figured out from two full seasons in McVay's system? Maybe he falls completely apart this year, and in that case they will obviously regret doing an extension now. But if he maintains his level of play, they're going to get it at a reasonable price, and if he is able to demonstrate growth (he's entering his fourth NFL season!) then they're almost certainly getting a discount.

8 Incentive

That's a good thought, but the Rams are not spreading out the new money, certainly not for the first year, where they currently have 2.5 million in cap space. My understanding is that next year will also be at 22.5 million, with the 33.5 million starting 2021 through 2024.

12 That makes sense given how…

In reply to by theTDC

That makes sense given how tight they are against the cap. The main advantage then is probably more what you point out in your other post that they've locked him up at the 2019 going rate. They also avoid being another year closer to the pending free agency/franchise tag dance, but for all we know that might look different next year.

6 Solid Work

"Even if you don't agree with me about his abilities (I am pessimistic on most QBs, but moreso on him than most pundits; I think he's far closer to "not actually very good" than "decent and in a good environment and with potential to be really good" but I'll acknowledge that the latter could be right; obviously the Vikings game shows some solid work)..."

Is this the same Vikings game where he shattered the TNF record for most passing yards, with 465 yards and 4 TD's? If that's you definition of solid work, you aren't kidding when you say you're pessimistic on most QB's. Kirk Cousins after the game came over to Goff and said that it was the best game he had ever seen a QB play in person. But hey, if you're talking about some bizarro world alternate reality version of Rams-Vikings where Goff threw for 17/30, 180 yards, 1TD and 1INT, but showed some real promise and hey maybe the Rams have something here, then sure, I think your analysis is very reality based, in that world.

I'm trying to temper the snark somewhat here, but it's difficult to explain such casual dismissal of excellence. Goff is not some young QB with the potential to become a starter, he is the guy who has already broken the TNF record for passing yards, thrown for 4800 in a season, and torched numerous NFL defenses. That has already happened. And it has already happened at the same age Wentz was when he entered the league.

"I just don't get it. Even if we ignore my assessment of his play entirely, and it won't offend me if you do that... it's still a head-scratching decision."

Goff got 33.5 million per for 4 years. This contract does not set a new bar for QB contracts, it ties him with Rodgers for third highest APY. It also does not affect this year or the next, where they get him for <9 and 22.5 million respectively. Had they gone ahead and given him 40+ million per year, your point about leverage would stand, but they didn't. With the contract they gave, it absolutely does matter how good Goff is, because if you project him to be a top 5 QB, then you're saving quite a bit of money signing him now.

The prospect of Goff costing 40+ million two years from now is not some fantasy, it was a quite probable reality. Bringing in some outside analysis, the players voted Goff the 8th best QB last year, and PFF coincidentally graded him as the 8th best QB. You're acting like it's some crazy projection that Goff might one day become a top 5 quarterback, when he's already seen as clearly a top 10 quarterback, and is, as I said earlier, younger than Baker Mayfield.

If Goff never progresses and is only ever worth the eight highest QB contract, well that would give him Matt Stafford's deal at 27 million per year, for savings of 6.5 million per year. Nothing to sneeze at, but about what they're saving in the opposite direction by signing him now, should he go on to become a clear top 5 QB.

10 The only excellence that I…

In reply to by theTDC

The only excellence that I'll dismiss from that game is that it's a highlight reel from one single game, in which he faced no pressure whatsoever (that throw rolling right to the end zone corner to Kupp though... just marvelous) and I could just as easily find a bunch of others where he looked like a deer in headlights and didn't give his team a chance to win the game. 

Well, OK, I'll also dismiss "TNF record," because that's not really a thing.

Like I said, forget I said anything about his abilities. Give him a great environment and he certainly can look great, as that tape shows. He's certainly not going to Bortles up a play from a clean pocket. Paying him as much as a QB that excels even with nothing around him, though, is going to make it a lot more that he is going to have to do just that starting in 2020. 

And if, as I suspect, the run game and O Line struggle more this season, we'll see him get tested quite a bit more. If he elevates himself and the team under tougher circumstances and a year from now the cost to sign him is 38 a year instead... that's not a bad thing. 

They must expect that both the cap and the cost of QBs is going to get really absurd in the coming years. And while there are certainly reasons to think that Mahomes might get $50 a year... a shrewd organization really ought to welcome that. As other teams throw the market out of whack and overpay for resources, that just increases the smarter ones' advantage.

11 I really do think the owners…

I really do think the owners are quite confident that they are getting two more regular season games, and maybe an extra week of playoffs, and the networks are going to back up a dumptruck full of new cash, and pour it into the office on Park Avenue. The new cap numbers are going to swamp what appear right now to be large contracts.

25 Excellence

"from one single game"

Unlike the Superbowl of course, which you brought up.

"and I could just as easily find a bunch of others where he looked like a deer in headlights and didn't give his team a chance to win the game."

And you could even more easily find a bunch of games where he played extremely well and gave his team a great chance to win. See, when you never talk about rate, you can make any player be whatever you want. Not the point I thought I had to make on an analytics website.

"Well, OK, I'll also dismiss "TNF record," because that's not really a thing."

And apparently neither is the Rams record, where they went 13-3 with the 17th best Defense and Special Teams, and the 2nd best offense. Boy it sure is amazing how great the offense around Goff is, to elevate that offense to second best in the league despite Goff. And I want to be clear, you did say earlier that the Rams win most of the time "despite him", not because of him. Meaning that the Rams offense, their only non-average unit, somehow manages to be so good that the Rams win despite Goff. It's absurd.

"Like I said, forget I said anything about his abilities."

Why would anyone do that? If Goff turns into the best QB in the league, this contract is an absolute steal. If Goff takes a step back, or apparently is only as good as you think he is and never gets better, this contract is a large overpay. No one but you seems to think that player evaluation is unimportant for contracts.

"And while there are certainly reasons to think that Mahomes might get $50 a year... a shrewd organization really ought to welcome that."

Press X to doubt. I've said before that the absolute top tier of QB's are drastically underpaid. Nobody in their right mind would rather have 35 million in cap space, but not have a Wilson, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, and frankly even Goff at the evaluation 90+% of people put on him. If those QB's were paid to the point where you could take it or leave it they'd be getting around 60 million dollars, and teams without a top QB could try a strategy of "Sign Keenum, Bortles, McCown, have a competition and try not to get horrible QB play, then use the 45+ million in savings on the rest of the team" strategy and have a reasonable chance of success. Frankly, I think that's what 10+ teams should already be doing, but the odds of success are a lot smaller with QB contracts where they are now.

29 "Well, OK, I'll also dismiss…

In reply to by theTDC

"Well, OK, I'll also dismiss "TNF record," because that's not really a thing."

And apparently neither is the Rams record, where they went 13-3 with the 17th best Defense and Special Teams, and the 2nd best offense."

___

This is an incredible non-sequitur. As long as we can all agree that using "TNF record" in any argument is ridiculous. 

42 Any Argument

If I run that second sentence of yours through a translator, I believe what you were trying to say was:

"I think we can all agree that using 'TNF record' in any argument is ridiculous".

Which is now an English sentence, and one that is completely wrong. The debate was whether or not Goff's Thursday Night Football performance should be accurately categorized as "solid work", or something more charitable. In that context, pointing out that he shattered the previous record for yards on TNF, throwing for 465 yards, with 4 touchdowns and no interceptions, and somehow looking even better to the eye than the stats would have you believe, is absolutely relevant to an argument over his performance in that thursday night game.

On top of that, bringing up an excellent performance by a quarterback with the shorthand of 'TNF record', is a completely fair way of contextualizing his performance. There have been 57 TNF games, and 114 quarterback-games, and his was the best. I'm not talking about some 15 year veteran who, through a total fluke, happens to have some obscure records, we are talking about the game itself.

Good god.

58 Why would you try to…

In reply to by theTDC

Why would you try to evaluate a QB on his TNF performance when you have his entire body of work to work with? Why would the TNF, MNF, London, opening day or any other kind of fragmented performance record is a deliberately incomplete way of looking at things.

61 Strawman

Goff threw for 4600+ yards last year, and a rating of 101.1, good for fourth and eighth respectively. His entire body of work last year, statistically, has him as the QB of the eight most efficient passing offense last year. Additionally, the players voted him as the eight best QB last year, and PFF graded him as the eight best QB last year. That's the totality of his 2018 season, or at least the regular season. 

Don't pretend like I ever said "let's ignore all that and look at this one game in total isolation". The arguments against judging the totality of Goff's season are "yeah but super bowl though, and historically great Bears, oh and 3 game stretch of 1 TD and 7 Ints." 

I have never discounted that some players can show things in a single game that would cause great cause for concern or optimism, but I am not the one who started the conversation about individual games. If the discussion becomes about individual performances, then pointing out his best individual performances is completely appropriate, and in fact necessary. 

37 " Goff at the evaluation 90+…

In reply to by theTDC

" Goff at the evaluation 90+% of people put on him. "

 

I like Goff and the Rams, and hope Goff succeeds.  But, I don't think anywhere close to 90% of fans/experts have much faith in Goff.  The sample size is small, but when he has some of his worst games on a big stage (Sunday night vs. Bears, Super Bowl), and looks completely lost; people are going to question him.

55 "No one but you seems to…

In reply to by theTDC

"No one but you seems to think that player evaluation is unimportant for contracts."

You put words in my mouth a lot. Your entire issue with me is the difference in our evaluation of the player, and I am by no means alone in that. There's a reason anyone who ever shook McVay's hand got hired this offseason; it's what he has done with two pretty obviously imperfect QBs in a row. There's every reason to believe he could do it again too. That's not to say Goff isn't super talented or that QB is as fungible as RB is... but if anyone was set up to succeed by trading a borderline QB for picks and getting another one a small contract, it's him. Which shouldn't even be arguable, but no matter how many times I try to steer it back to that, you reframe again with "Why would anyone do that," the answer to which is "because I don't even care to argue about how you and I scout him (other than to laugh at your contention that "90% of people" agree with you) and because I'd rather talk strictly about the economics and leverage here."

"Nobody in their right mind would rather have 35 million in cap space, but not have a Wilson, Rodgers, Brees, Brady..."

For about the fifth time, that's NOT what I said. Building strawmans out of some assumed extreme end of my position is a tactic we see in Facebook political arguments, not something we should see here.

What I will say is that anyone who would put Goff in that top tier of quarterbacks - one who will still win if his team is not optimally built, one who you can expect to elevate teammates and dominate a game and who is still capable of winning against superior competition even on their good day - strikes me as very willfully ignorant.

"Unlike the Superbowl of course, which you brought up."

The Bears game through the Super Bowl is a seven game sample, and yeah, he lost Cooper Kupp (who is huuuugegely important to that offense)... but that's exactly the type of scenario wherein a top of market QB should still reasonably be expected to look good. I'll be kind and leave it at "Goff did not."

It's also the type of scenario that it's not unreasonable to expect might happen more often going forward. If not because of plain old regression from historic running game heights, or from the loss of Saffold or Gurley's knee being an issue, but because of the fact that starting in 2020 they'll be far less able to field the quality of team around him that they have.

Disagree all you want. Just please stop twisting my words. There shouldn't be anything controversial at all about that last paragraph. And I'm hardly upset that you'd be more optimistic about Goff than I am. I don't agree (and I think claiming that 90% of people agree with you is a bit of a stretch too), but that's fine. I won't be upset if I'm wrong. And it's certainly possible that I will be. 

It is still a gamble.

65 Words in my mouth...

It is quite interesting how quickly you seem to forget the very words you've written down in this very comments section. Here's a fun little refresher.

"I can't think of any reason why doing this now is a good idea, even if they think more highly of Goff than I do personally."
"There was still plenty of time to wait and see if he became worthy of a massive paycheck, especially when there is so much evidence that he's more a product of McVay and the offense than his own talent."
"I just don't get it. Even if we ignore my assessment of his play entirely, and it won't offend me if you do that... it's still a head-scratching decision."

I was being much more cordial earlier, but all of these statements were, to be quite frank, totally idiotic. It 100% does matter how we evaluate Goff, just like for any other player at any other position. You are explicitly saying that your evaluation/assessment of Goff can be 100% ignored, and this contract is still terrible, which is just a really stupid thing to say. In fact, it's such an obviously stupid thing to say that you can be seen walking this back in this next exchange.

"No one but you seems to think that player evaluation is unimportant for contracts."

"You put words in my mouth a lot. Your entire issue with me is the difference in our evaluation of the player, and I am by no means alone in that."

Oh, so which is it, does evaluation/assessment matter now? You did say above that, no matter the evaluation of Goff, this was still a "head-scratching decision." That statement is, quite simply, absolutely idiotic. It's quite heartening to see you switching from "we can ignore my evaluation of Goff" to "well we can't just ignore the evaluation of Goff, and yours is wrong."

I'm going to do you a solid here, and change your original arrogant and idiotic statements to something defensible and reasonable.
"I can't think of any reason why doing this now is a good idea, even if they think more highly of Goff than I do personally."
Becomes:
"If they agree with my assessment of Goff, then this was clearly a terrible move. They must think much better of him then I do."

"There was still plenty of time to wait and see if he became worthy of a massive paycheck, especially when there is so much evidence that he's more a product of McVay and the offense than his own talent."
Becomes:
"There was a risk of his cost escalating drastically if he becomes what the Rams clearly think that he will become. I disagree, and believe there is much evidence that he's more a product of McVay and the offense than his own talent."

"I just don't get it. Even if we ignore my assessment of his play entirely, and it won't offend me if you do that... it's still a head-scratching decision."
Becomes:
"Clearly the rams do not agree with my assessment. Assuming I am correct, this is a head-scratching decision."

The below versions are what you seem to be pretending you were saying all along. Don't you dare pretend that I'm strawmanning you when I say that you were (an apparently no longer are) pretending that an evaluation of Goffs ability and projection was somehow unimportant in evaluating the decision making process behind this contract and the deal itself, which it so obviously is. 

Moving on.

"Nobody in their right mind would rather have 35 million in cap space, but not have a Wilson, Rodgers, Brees, Brady..."

"For about the fifth time, that's NOT what I said. Building strawmans out of some assumed extreme end of my position is a tactic we see in Facebook political arguments, not something we should see here."

The irony of this statement. Where did I claim that you said this? "Nobody in their right mind" is equivalent to "Of course you would", not "OMFG DAVE JUST CLAIMED THAT...". Could you possibly have thinner skin? I am explicitly saying "we agree that top tier QB's are underpaid." Therefore, if the evaluation of Goff puts him in that top tier, then this is a fantastic contract, period. Meaning, the evaluation of Goff 100% matters, and we can't say things like "Even if we ignore my assessment of his play entirely, it's still a head-scratching decision.." You keep trying to pretend that you didn't explicitly say that, but you did.

"You put words in my mouth a lot. Your entire issue with me is the difference in our evaluation of the player, and I am by no means alone in that."

Wrong. 90% of my issue with you is that you explicitly said that any differences we have in our evaluation of this player, do not matter. I know you want to backtrack on "Even if we ignore my assessment of his play entirely, it's still a head-scratching decision..", but that is a quote of yours. That is something you said. 

What you said originally was as stupid as saying. "Matt Ryan is garbage who shouldn't be starting. Ignoring my evaluation of him, his contract for 30 million per year is obviously ridiculous".
And my response was "Why should I ignore your evaluation of him when evaluating his contract?! And oh btw, I think he's pretty good, why do you think he's garbage?"

As it just so happens, I also disagree somewhat with your evaluation of Goff, and I started by trying to have an honest back and forth, picking your brain as to why you have evaluated Goff as being "closer to not very good than 'good if in the right environment'". You have responded to this by completely strawmanning me while, absurdly, accusing me of doing what you yourself are doing. If that's not the prototypical "Facebook political argument" style then I just don't know what is.

32 Just for fun, I keep a…

In reply to by theTDC

Just for fun, I keep a little spreadsheet of great QB stat games, and assign a score to each game.  A perfect score would be a game with 554 yards, 7 TD, 100% completions, 20.53 yards/attempt and 0 interceptions.  Goff had the 4th-best score of all time in that game (80.5), behind 2014 Roethlisberger, 2013 Foles and 1962 Tittle.

5 What gets me is that whole…

In reply to by theTDC

What gets me is that whole thing where McVay always stays on the radio with him until the last possible second.   The only interpretation of that that makes any sense to me is to think that McVay doesn't trust Goff's judgement at all which is not what I want in a QB making top of the market money.

7 Meh, I think it says McVay…

Meh, I think it says McVay is taking advantage of every second he can. If we found out Bill Belichick or Josh McDaniels did this (and does anybody know that they don’t?) nobody would say they didn’t trust Tom Brady.

15 This is really interesting;…

This is really interesting; The corollary being if his success is due to being a mute puppet of McVay, why were so few teams able to exploit that during the season. Are NFL coaches really that dumb? If not what was so different about Bears & Pats did to them - neither was some kind of historically talented defense. My take is that it's a straightforward case of a QB unable to adapt when the O-line gets whipped/recievers get defeated at the LOS. There are a lot of QB's you could say that about and not call them a product of a system - Kurt Warner for one.

51 Well, I don't know how they…

Well, I don't know how they rank historically, but the Bears were by far the best defense in the NFL last year. 

 

The Pats of course weren't so talented, but were coached by probably the single greatest game-planner in NFL history, with 2 full weeks to prepare. 

 

There were of course other games late in the year in which Goff flopped without such clear excuses. 

 

Overall I do agree with your take about the inability to adapt once conditions become imperfect. I hadn't realized until I read FO Almanac recently just how dominant the Rams' run game was most of last year. I know we are supposed to dismiss the value of the run game these days, but when it is as good as the Rams' was last year, by Jove, it makes life easier for the QB.

9 Well, look, both the Vikings…

Well, look, both the Vikings game and the Super Bowl are one game samples, but I suppose there is a tendency to give greater weight to the more revent game, no matter the wisdom of doing so. I do know that the Super Bowl was about the most predictable outcome (for me) of any Super Bowl in the last 25 years, and the Vikings defense was on the road on a short week, at a bad point of the season for them.

I've yet to see Goff do anything exceptional under very adverse circumstances, which to me is the mark of a top 10, certainly top 5, qb. Having said that, Goff's very young, so it wouldn't be surprising if he became a lot better, and the fact is we could be looking at really big jumps in the cap over the next few years. Combine that with what the market pays for qbs these days, and the deal's defensible, even if I'm not a huge fan of Goff as of yet.

I will maintain that there is a fair amount of irrationality in the qb market now, but that may not apply in this particular signing.

14 What this (and similar)…

What this (and similar) contract says to me is that the owners expect a huge windfall out of the new CBA & associated distribution contracts causing the cap to substantively rise. I wish I knew where that confidence came from - with ratings fairly stagnant and weak key demographic growth numbers over the last three years. Maybe they think they can sever off streaming and make a fortune there, or that they'll get a big score out of an additional couple of games (playoff or regular season), or are anticipating getting thrashed by the players in the CBA negotiation??

At any rate, I'm glad my team isn't paying a transitioning QB right at the moment, I'm fascinated to see what the brave new world after the new CBA will be.

16 I think the networks are…

I think the networks are going to pay huge sums for 3 more weeks of football in February, with two more regular season games in January, and an another playoff weekend. Toss in an extra bye week, I don't think it is crazy to suggest that the Super Bowl could fall on the first Sunday in March, meaning 4 more weekends of the NFL, compared to now, in a very important month in the television industry, for a product that is time shifted less frequently by viewers, meaning the commercials get watched more often, relative to other programming. That'll be a mountain of new cash.

 

(edit) working it out, we now have 21 weeks of regular season and playoff  fooball. I could easily see getting to 25 weeks adding significantly more than a linear 20% bump in t.v. revenues. 30%? 35%? It wouldn't surprise me.

40 With the way all other…

With the way all other television ratings are falling, I think flat ratings for NFL isn't a bad thing at all.  I assume it's still the best way for advertisers to reach their customers, by far.  Personally, I record and time shift just about everything else I watch except the NFL, and playoff MLB.

43 "I think flat ratings for…

"I think flat ratings for NFL isn't a bad thing at all" - this is true as a measure relative to other TV content; but the NFL is ultimately competing for advertising dollars not a fixed pool of TV dollars. This is why all I can figure here is that the NFL thinks they have a good plan for generating serious money from other forms of media to offet what figures to be a decline in the revenue generated from TV over the next decade (a TV contract meanifully larger than the current contract for the next cycle would really surpise me). The obvious caviot is the potential for the NFL to increase the hours of available content it sells to TV without the expectation of attention dilution - if they can do that theres a clear path forward to large increases in TV revenue. It really surprises me that most people think that either the increase in TV revenue or the generation of large sums of alternate-distribution revenue are a forgone conclusion.

17 "...he's more a product of…

"...he's more a product of McVay and the offense than his own talent"

There's that word again: talent.

You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

If Goff is good enough to put up the numbers he has in this system ["McVay and the offense" = system], it really doesn't matter if he would not put up as good numbers in a hypothetical other system. "Talent" in the NFL means "talent that we can make use of to win games". He has that in spades.

I doubt seriously there are a ton of QBs that would be available in two years that would be as good or even close to Goff. They're not going to have a high draft pick, and who, exactly is going to hit the free agent market at the exact right time?

Locking him up for a few more years is a great move. Could they have gotten a better price? Who knows? Would the price have been higher if they waited a year? Almost certainly.

18 "if Goff is good enough to…

"if Goff is good enough to put up the numbers he has in this system ["McVay and the offense" = system], it really doesn't matter if he would not put up as good numbers in a hypothetical other system. "Talent" in the NFL means "talent that we can make use of to win games". He has that in spades"

 

I pretty much disagree with this. Just because a player puts up numbers or performs well in one setting doesn't mean it will transfer to the next. We see this time and time again when players switch teams. 

Not to belabor the obvious, but if golf is a product of his offensive line,  coach and receivers, two of those things are finite in terms of his career. The Rams with this contract are betting that his performance is not conditional on the elements listed above

24 You raise a semi-valid point…

You raise a semi-valid point: if his performance is unusually sensitive to some aspect of the system, and you have reason to believe that the system is unusually unsustainable, then that would be a problem.

However, there's not much reason to think either of those. McVay's sticking around. McVay is not about to strip the offense for some weird rebuilding project. McVay's offense is not predicated on superstar weapons (although they always help). It's not an offense that depends on the line stonewalling the defense while the QB holds the ball a long time (although a good line always helps).

I'd say that Goff's performance is likely to be just about as sensitive to surrounding talent as is normal. I'd say the quality of his weapons and protection will be about as variable as is normal. I'd say the quality of his coaching is likely to be very stable at a high level.

His prospects look good.

26 The argument here is…

The argument here is basically that a blueprint for attacking that offense got put on tape in the playoffs, and that other teams will follow it and use undeclared formations and stunt pressure to disrupt the pre-snap reads from McVay that are such a big part of that offense. There are a couple of issues I have with this thesis; #1 the NFL is infamous for the "we do what we do" mentality, there are a lot of teams that just wont (or can't) change the way they play defense to attack the Rams; #2 it's unclear to me that there are a lot of teams capable of executing that game plan without making mental/coaching coverage mistakes and giving up big plays; #3 Gurley was ineffective in the playoffs apparently as a result of injury, that seems unlikely to be repeated. I don't have a strong view on the prospects of the Rams, but I think the question of why so few teams had defensive success against them last season when the Pats virtually shut them out is underexamined.

36 Blueprint

More than that, in 2017 McVays' offense got totally shut down by the Vikings. In 2018, they put up 38 points on them. I feel like McVay really is full value for being the hard working genius that people say he is, and if anyone can bounce back, and come up with an answer for the problems the Rams Offense faced sometimes in 2018, it's him. 

50 The Vikings last year…

In reply to by theTDC

The Vikings last year against the Rams were changing two time zones on a short week, in the midst of their defensive captain and leader being in the midst of a full blown psychiatric crisis that would require his hospitalization, a couple months after their offensive line coach suddenly dropped dead. The year previously, they played the Rams in Minnesota, they were healthy, and they were blocking well for the 1st time in a decade. I think McVay is terrific, but those two games were very, very, different circumstances.

47 His offensive line performed…

His offensive line performed exceptionally well last year and the receivers were deep and talented. If the offensive line declines to average - how much of a drop off will we see from Goff? That becomes the major question. I agree, that is open for debate - but my major disagreement came from the idea that once a player produces, it doesn't matter when, how or why they produced what they produced. 

27 Your point about replacing…

Your point about replacing him is a good one, but the way you define talent isn't.

The problem with defining talent relative to his system is that the system could change.  If the Rams do have a bad luck year or two, and McVay gets fired, the system changes?  Hell, their 2018 QB coach was hired away, that's already a change to the system.

And what about when they can't afford to bring back some of their strong offensive lineman or wide receivers due to cap constraints from this contract?  The system will change.

And Belichick and the Patriots showed that teams can also adapt their defensive schemes to the system.

Goff's clearly a quality starting QB; you don't produce like he did if you're bad.  But the very best QBs, the ones worth record-breaking contracts, have shown historically they keep up the same production as their system changes.  Peyton Manning played with several different coaching staffs, and was always great.  Tom Brady's had the same head coach, but that offense has changed many times over the years (from dink-and-dunk to Moss-and-Welker to TE-dominant).

28 You mention one of the key…

You mention one of the key parts of why the Rams were virtually always going to re-sign Goff - they likely don't have the resources to go out and get another QB. They've been very aggressive taking advantage of this window of contention and traded away a bunch of high draft picks, so between their own success and what they've given away, they would have a very difficult time putting a package together to move up to draft a highly-regarded QB.

(I also don't think they'd be able to flip Goff alone for a high 1st rounder because they'd likely end up sabotaging his market by choosing to move on, and because he would be far more expensive to their trading partner than whoever they could use that 1st round pick on.)

Also agree that betting on free agency would almost certainly not work out. I guess the other alternative would be to try to make a trade like Denver for Joe Flacco or Washington for Alex Smith? Maybe we see that thought experiment play out if Goff gets hurt this year and we get Bortles in extended action...

54   You keep saying that word…

 

You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

You know, it really annoys me that you continue to say things like this then have the nerve to whine about site standards.

Fine. Change the word. I'm not going to argue with you about semantics. Go watch tape of Goff from the Chicago game through the Super Bowl last year (which is more than one game, and also, it should be mentioned, is the most recent larger sample we have) and tell me that that's a QB that's going to win you games in any situation other than the absolute most perfect one. Calling that player "something other than one of the best in the league" would be charitable.

It astounds me that anyone who has watched more than highlight reels can sit here and claim that this contract is warranted. If you want to say that yeah, the market is moving in a very pro-QB direction and that it'll soon eclipse $40 and even $50m, and that it's a gamble worth taking... well, fine. I think the best team-builders would disagree with the marginal value of paying anyone other than an actual superstar QB that kind of money. I think the Ravens showed us the flaws in that approach... and they had a LOT less leverage than the Rams did.

I will admit that part of me really just hoped the Rams would be that first team to break the mold, let a borderline QB go and take picks back for him rather than pay him, and then move on with a very low % of the cap spent on the QB position. Given what we've seen of Kirk Cousins since McVay, and given what we've seen of Goff when things are good... I really thought they were the perfect team to take that stand.

 

56 "You keep saying that word…

"You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

You know, it really annoys me that you continue to say things like this then have the nerve to whine about site standards."

Stop impugning him, it's annoying - He's making what's a fundamentally important distinction about what qualifies as talent; Apparent potential vs. what is demonstrably realized on a football field (which tends to disproportionally weight a players worst moments because in football mental mistakes usually cost substantially more than even a fairly large sample of correct executions, includes the ability to take direction and work within a system etc...). It's a counter-cultural conception of "talent", but it has a lot of utility especially at the QB position. It's a reasonable thing for a reader to look at a concept presented in an article and directly critique it arguing that the author is wrong (and wrong in a patterned way), it's unreasonable for the author to snap back and call the reader uncivil. 

On the second clause I agree wholeheartedly; The currently available efficiency in the football market as I see it is the over-pay of the 5-20th best QB's in football (at least the ones that have non-rookie deals), and I would love to see this inefficiency attacked by a mechanism other than underpaying Aaron Rogers, Tom Brady, & Drew Brees - the Rams were in a great position to do that and I think instead they will blow up their roster unless a new TV deal bails them out.

66 Second "Tier"

I think most people would agree, in broad strokes, that the Flacco's and Dalton's of the NFL are massively overpaid, and that almost every team would be better off doing the equivalent of signing a Bortles, Keenum, and a bunch of UDFA's, having some competition, and seeing who comes out on top. In other words, the strategy of "Not horrible QB play for the absolute cheapest amount", as opposed to massively overpaying for "slightly better than that but for 20+ million."

But the devil is in the details, and talent evaluation is everything. Goff had the eighth highest passer rating (team stat I know) last year, he was voted eighth best QB by NFL players, and he graded out as the eighth best QB by PFF. Whatever you think all of that is worth, it's sort of hard to put him in that "clearly mediocre QB who is obviously not worth top tier money." The guy is six months younger than Baker Mayfield, and has shown clear and consistent improvement every year that he's been in the league. The problems in his game are entirely mental, he's young, he's getting better, and he's already shown a tremendous arm talent. If you accept that he was truly the eighth best QB last year, it seems almost absurd to complain about this contract specifically. If you don't believe he was truly that good last year, or just won't improve, and you believe that McVay could make some <6 million quarterback give you "hey this is decent QB play", then you shouldn't agree with this contract. 

The Prescott, Winston, and Mariota situations, on the other hand, are totally different. Those are QB's that have clearly shown themselves to be mediocre, and contracts for them have the capability of crippling an organization, and for coaches who aren't McVay. Then again, if you disagree with the evaluation of them...

57 It's a Princess Bride quote!

It's a Princess Bride quote. I guess it went over your head... Nothing to get upset about.

I'd agree that from the Chicago game on, Goff and his offense did not look as impressive as they did for the first three-quarters of the regular season. I'd disagree that we have to interpret this as his being some kind of a fraud, a system QB, a borderline QB, whatever you want to call it.

FO studies from the past point to the full year DVOA as a better predictor of future play over any selection weighted toward the end of the season or the playoffs. Ask Aaron to confirm this, if you want. I might be mis-remembering. The same logic would apply to eyeball tests: you're better off considering the whole season, not just a selection of games, and certainly not a selection picked to start with his worst game.

I'd say IMO that the weight of the whole season of evidence points to Goff being the real deal...a QB mostly in the top half, and often enough in the top quarter of the league to be worth an investment. He may turn out to be less than that. But that's true for any QB on his first contract. At some point you have to make a judgment call and re-up the contract or risk having to pay a lot more later or let him walk. 

You're certainly free to disagree.

63 " At some point you have to…

" At some point you have to make a judgment call and re-up the contract or risk having to pay a lot more later or let him walk.  "

A comparison might be Tom Brady.  In his first few years, many people felt he was more of a system QB who rode the coattails of a good team to one or more (I'm not sure at what point he got a second contract) Super Bowl wins.  Winning the Super Bowl(s) gave him a lot of gravitas, but his regular season statistical profile was just a little above average in the early years.  At some point the Patriots made a judgment call to extend his rookie contract.  It has helped the Patriots out a little bit in the long run.

69 Tom Brady is a terrible…

Tom Brady is a terrible comparison to make for any qb not named Joe Montana. He was(to begin with) a game manager and system qb who then grew into a capable,  probowl passer circa 2003-2004 and then turned into one of the greatest singular talents in nfl history. He's a tremendous outlier in the nfl and I hate that people(not you, but people) use him as an example of a try hard guy who made. No, Tom Brady has a lot of innate talent, it just wasn't obvious at the time. 

59 I don't think its as easy to…

I don't think its as easy to bite the bullet and jettison your qb even if it has a huge amount of downside risk.

Let's think about Flacco. He was just entering his prime and had a postseason for the ages. The ravens were in a poor negotiating position, yes, but at the time, you could talk yourself into thinking that he was at best a solid starter and maybe had a chance to be much more. It turns out, he became a disaster after that contract, but you couldn't know that at the time.

The rams letting Goff walk is a hard pill to stomach. Its easy to say, hey, we can take a Fitzpatrick and make a good offense - but that has a short shelf life and finding a reasonable upgrade from Goff is pretty hard. 

60 Flacco post-SB contract - a failure of recency bias

Flacco was kind of an anti-Goff when he got his huge contract after the 2012 season. His whole body of work painted him as a mediocre QB. But if you focused your eyeballs on the stretch of games where he got hot, he looked like the best QB ever. Besides, it would have been hard to say "goodbye" to the hero of your SB win.

If FO has taught us anything, it is to distrust recency bias and to distrust the hot or cold streak. Eli got hot in the playoffs. But he was still Eli. Flacco got hot, too. But he was still Flacco.

Goff is still Goff.

They may have paid too much for him. But it's hard to see how they could have landed a better long term QB for less, short of getting lucky on a late draft pick.

67 Better QB

"They may have paid too much for him. But it's hard to see how they could have landed a better long term QB for less, short of getting lucky on a late draft pick."

Yeah, I think the odds of them ever getting better QB play than Goff are pretty remote. Especially considering Goff's age and improvement thus far. However, the odds of getting only slightly worse QB play than Goff, at vet minimum, with McVay as coach, are less remote. It's not unreasonable for people to think that Goff wasn't worth 33.5 APY, especially with McVay as coach, I just don't agree with them.

21 Goff is a polarizing figure…

Goff is a polarizing figure right now, for good reason. If you have followed Dak Prescott's career thus far, you'll realize the perils that come with assessing how good your qb is in a vacuum.

I am with David in that I am similarly pessimistic about the Rams upcoming season. They profile as a team that had a dream season a year ago and will face growing pains that inevitably rise from regression to the mean. How they navigate those pitfalls will say a lot about Goff and McVay.

22 But what makes them profile…

But what makes them profile as "dream season" a year ago? Their defense already took a step back in 2018 to 17th, which is likely to either be just as good or better under Philips. The special teams also took a step back to average, and the offense went from good to great, with a third year quarterback playing very well. I'm not sure why that's the archetype of coming regression, unless you think the offense is going to take a huge step back this year.

23 I do think their offense…

I do think their offense takes a step back.  I've been trying to square in my head what is fundamentally different about the Rams offense and the Chiefs offense(who I similarly expect to fall off some). It really comes down to - Goff is more dependent on good blocking and good receivers than I believe Mahomes is. Maybe its the Superbowl thats coloring my vision(I thought he played well in the New Orleans game btw). 

31 Sure, although I don't agree…

Sure, although I don't agree, it's reasonable to expect offensive regression. But why does 2018 profile as a "dream season" then? When I hear "dream season" I think team that's actually 7-9 talent wise that just keeps winning close game after close game and getting great turnover luck, and a whole bunch of other things that are unsustainable, including decent/lucky/streaky QB play. I think if you're predicting the Rams to go 10+ wins, then calling last year a "dream season" is a bit of hyperbole.

Myself, I think the Defense will regress back to Wade Philips mean, which is as a top 10 unit. The Special Teams will regress back to John Fassels mean, which is a top 10 unit, and the offense is going to continue to take a step forward with a very young quarterback and coach getting better. It's impossible for fans to correctly evaluate their own team, but I'm looking at this Rams squad as being full value for another 13-3 season.

WRT Mahomes versus Goff comparison, again, sure. I think we are all forgetting too soon that Andy Reid and this KC offense made Alex Smith a pro bowler, and that version of the KC offense had less talent than this version. If I was to start a team with a fantasy draft, I'd probably pick Mahomes over Goff, but let's not pretend that he hasn't also benefited from great coaching and surrounding talent.

35 Mahomes definitely has…

Mahomes definitely has benefitted from terrific coaching, but given a choice between him and Goff, it's not even close, on the basis of having frequently demonstrated the ability to make big plays in the face of pressure. This is not a harsh criticism of Goff, to be clear.

41 I disagree with this…

I disagree with this assessment; Mahomes didn't make big plays in pressure appear, Tyreek Hill did. Put Tyreek Hill (and accompanying cast) on a team with Arron Rodgers and he will put up 2,500 yards & 20+ TD's (IMHO). I get that Mahomes is great at getting the ball downfield under pressure, but that's only a good thing because he had the best set of downfield offensive talent in Hill, Hunt, Kelce & Watkins that I can ever remember in one place, that same attribute produces turnovers when paired with crappy offensive players. He might be better than Goff, but I don't think it's actually self-evident.

44 Well, yes, qb production is…

Well, yes, qb production is dependent on receiver production. I don't think I stated or implied otherwise. The point is that I've seen Mahomes do things while under pressure that I've not seen Goff produce under pressure, and it isn't because Mahomes receivers have been that much better.

45 Skill Position

Again, I would preface this by saying I think Mahomes is better than Goff. However, the skill position group the Chiefs have is absolutely the best in the league, and the only one that you can say is clearly better than the Rams. The Saints have Thomas and Kamara, but then no one else. The Eagles have a lot of talent, but it could go either way. The Chiefs have an absurdly talented group of receivers, who are clearly much better than the group that sent Alex Smith to the pro bowl. The Chiefs have a straight up Pro Bowl receiver group.

EDIT: This was in reply to the comment above Will Allen.

46 Pressure

"it's not even close, on the basis of having frequently demonstrated the ability to make big plays in the face of pressure."

I think that "big plays in the face of pressure" is the less wrong version of "he just has that clutchness". There's clearly some truth there, but every sober analysis ever, statistical or grading, has shown that performance in a clean pocket is a much better predictor of future success than performance under pressure. Not that there's no correlation year to year, just that there's much less than people believe. To support what sbond101 said, it's easier to make that clutch throw under pressure when the guy you're throwing to is actually open. And it's easier for there to be an open guy if you're throwing to a Pro Bowl receiver group.

48 I would say - can Goff adapt…

In reply to by theTDC

I would say - can Goff adapt to where he is not reliant on the expectations of a clean pocket. Every qb performs poorly under pressure, but how they react to anticipated pressure is what counts. Can they speed up their progressions, audible into correct plays, utilize motion and varying formations to get themselves into a good situation rather than a poor one.

Goff to this point feels like a preprogrammed player. McVay ensures the right play design and the talented offense mitigates the rest of his weaknesses. But if you take those two things away, can he adapt?

I have this same question for Mahomes btw. Its why declaring a qb elite takes years imo. Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Manning - the four horseman maintain a pretty standard level of play even as teammates come and go. 

 

A step below might be someone like Matt Ryan or Tony Romo. Their performances are more erratic than the four above when the talent dips, but they are still consistent enough week to week. 

 

We just don't know which category Goff is in at this moment is my assertion.

52 I'm not putting Romo on the…

I'm not putting Romo on the same level as Brees or Brady, but it is a fact that neither Brees or Brady have ever had the chance to prove they could qb an efficient passing offense with bad pass protection, like Romo did more than once. Anybody who says they have high confidence, or even average confidence, that Romo would not have been a 1st ballot HOFer, had he benefitted from being in the situations that Brees and Brady did, is watching a different game than I'm watching. Romo got lucky to be signed by a Parcells coached team; there's a chance that none of us would have heard of him if he'd signed with a team with a bad coach.  After Parcells left early in his career, however, Romo had pretty bad organizational luck. 

49 You go ahead and make your…

In reply to by theTDC

You go ahead and make your bet on, say, Drew Bledsoe,  getting the ball to the best available option when given poor protection, at the same rate as the guy that followed him, Tony Romo. My bet is that Bledsoe is considerably worse. To take another hypothetical which illuminates another aspect of passing efficiency with bad pass blocking, if Jared Goff had started for the Vikings in 2016 there isn't a chance in hell the Vikings passing DVOA would have been as good as it was with Sam Freakin' Bradford taking the snaps, under any coach with a clue. Goff can't process with the extreme speed that was required of Bradford that year, when the Vikings had one of the worst injury outcomes ever for an offensive line. The idea that maximizing efficiency, meaning still being able to make big plays,  while pass protection is bad, is anywhere close to "clutchness", in terms of validity, is itself invalid. The fact that a clean pocket is the best predictor of passing success is a nonsequitur.

68 Clean vs Pressured

"You go ahead and make your bet on, say, Drew Bledsoe,  getting the ball to the best available option when given poor protection, at the same rate as the guy that followed him, Tony Romo."

Why would I do that, when there's no reason to believe that Romo would not drastically outperform Bledsoe from a clean pocket?

"To take another hypothetical which illuminates another aspect of passing efficiency with bad pass blocking, if Jared Goff had started for the Vikings in 2016 there isn't a chance in hell the Vikings passing DVOA would have been as good as it was with Sam Freakin' Bradford taking the snaps, under any coach with a clue. Goff can't process with the extreme speed that was required of Bradford that year, when the Vikings had one of the worst injury outcomes ever for an offensive line."

You know, I've seen plenty of Bradford when he was with the Rams. Do you know what Rams fans used to say about him? That he was great from a clean pocket, and absolutely terrible when pressured. He got happy feet. He missed throws. He would go down and take a sack when he could have stepped up. It wasn't just Rams fans, this was his reputation around the league.

Once again though, I will completely accept that 2016 Bradford would be better under pressure than 2018 Goff. I would also completely accept that 2016 Bradford would be better from a clean pocket than 2018 Goff. Bradford had one of the most accurate arms I have ever seen in a quarterback. 

"The idea that maximizing efficiency, meaning still being able to make big plays,  while pass protection is bad, is anywhere close to "clutchness", in terms of validity, is itself invalid."

The fact that your go-to example of solid play under pressure is a guy who absolutely sucked under pressure every year except the one you mention is almost a better counter-example proving my point than I could have come up with myself. Bradford was horrible under pressure, until he suddenly became amazing, but he was always consistently good from a clean pocket. Pressure makes plays high-variable, and sometimes things just work out and sometimes they don't. It helped that Bradford went from throwing to garbage in St Louis, to throwing to Diggs and co. Minnesota. It also helped, I'm sure, that he was a little bit older and more experienced. I'm sure at least some small part of his improvement is completely on him.

"The fact that a clean pocket is the best predictor of passing success is a nonsequitur."

I may be reading this wrong, but I think you misunderstood me. Statistically speaking, passing rating from a clean pocket is very predictive of future passer rating from a clean pocket. Passer rating when pressured is not very predictive of future passer rating when pressured. This has been found statistically by this very website, and even subjective grades given by PFF say the same thing. I wasn't making a comment on the importance of the value of pressuring the QB to overall team success.

70 Nevertheless, Goff has has…

Nevertheless, Goff has has two years of success and that still makes it small sample size theatre. Goff has had great teammates and a smart coaching staff. I think this year will be a great litmus test for just what kind of qb he is. I don't think he's a bum and I've defended him on this site including after the sb. I just think he's a polarizing figure and I don't think anyone can proclaim with any degree of certainty what he will become, which encompasses everything from average to hall of fame. 

30 The offensive line had the…

The offensive line had the same 5 starters for 16 games, two years in a row, which is incredibly rare. When your qb doesn't have a track record of handling pressure well, that's an area to be concerned about. If the Rams strart having to make typical NFL o-line adjustments during the season, that might easily translate into a significant decline in offensive efficiency.

33 That's a good point. There's…

That's a good point.

There's no question that offensive line regression should be expected, with the excellent Saffold departing. Sullivan was below average, but even assuming full health, there's no reason to suspect that the two second year players Bryan Allen and Joseph Noteboom are going to step in and play as well on average. On top of that, the inevitable injuries are just bound to occur, and father time has been eyeing Whitworth for quite a while now.

38 Sullivan has been the most…

Sullivan has been the most overrated center (not by all, to be sure) I can ever remember, mostly by having had some good fortune in surrounding talent and coaching for most of his career. Having said that, there's a reason he lasted 11 years (if he is done) despite getting overpowered not infrequently; he was pretty solid at line calls.

34 Risky

The advantage is since the QB market keeps rising each year, the Rams save probably $3 million per year on a deal than if they waited two years. The downside is immense, if Goff struggles like he did in the playoffs and the Rams want to move on they are stuck with him for many years taking around $30 million cap hits.

71 I remember reading on this…

I remember reading on this very site that Goff's rookie season was so historically bad that if he turned into even a mediocre starter, it would be impressive: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/hope-jared-goff.

Obviously he has achieved that level of improvement already, but it makes me very skeptical that Goff will ever be a top QB in the league. And if McVay's system somehow does elevate him to a level where his turnaround from his rookie year is basically unprecedented in NFL history, you'd still have to question whether he's worth all that money or if McVay could achieve similar results with any decent QB.