Matthew Stafford gets injured is Wolford the best the Rams can do

[RamPower]

Bottom post of the previous page:

Jesus Mike...I haven't checked this site in a couple days and I come back to see good ol Mike is still crying. You don't get tired do you?

Seriously though, fumbles and false starts happen every game and QBs over come them. If the Wolford wives don't know this it would due then some good to actually watch the games. Regardless, Wolford in 5 qtrs looked like a serviceable back up at best. A good argument can be made I'm being overly generous with that statement.

Agreed--in the NFL, being a team's starting QB is a results-driven role, not an excuses-driven one. The best I can say about John Wolford's single complete-game start as a pro QB is that he didn't get in the way of our team's "D" basically winning that critical contest.

Jared Goff has been shinking away in the Rams' rear-view mirror for months, for better or worse he's with the Lions now, yet somehow anyone who currently has doubts and/or questions about our team's QB position must be a "Goff mom," hmmmm?

Diversions... :o :P

ram pathos...

--The Commish

Uhh, no. Question: did you actually see the game? Or just relying box scores/stats?

Yeah so, the Rams easily beat AZ earlier in the year with Goff, he thus would have produced the same results in week 17? That's an incomplete conclusion at best, esp. if you've studied common opponents playing multiple times during any given season. AZ was playing a play-off play-in game. Win and they were in. AZ has made the playoffs 5 times the last 33 years. Think they weren't peak motivated?

Here's a nice game synopsis from Fansided five months ago:

What went wrong for the Rams?

The Rams struggle to run the ball in this one. Rookie running back Cam Akers returned from an ankle sprain and rushed 21 times for a total of 34 yards. The Rams also committed five penalties, many of them false starts when the Rams were first and goal from the one-yard line. And that was just one red zone possess that resulted in the Rams kicking a field goal.
Another time, the Rams had the ball on the one yard line, but Cam Akers fumbled the ball which was subsequently recovered by the Cardinals at their own one-yard line. And of course, there were a number of drops by the Rams receivers. Not just the out-of-reach variety, but the in and out of the hands version. The worst offender was Gerald Everett, who caught two passes, but missed at least other passes that hit him right in the hands and bounced out. One such incompletion was a sure touchdown if he caught
it.

What went right for the Rams?

The entire game was ‘right’ for the Rams. With the exception of some misfiring on the offense (again, what else is new?), the entire team put in one of their most complete efforts of the season. The Rams generate four sacks on defense, many of which killed the Arizona Cardinals offensive drives. Samson Ebukam led the charge, getting two sacks on the day. And the Rams defense stifled the Cardinals all day, allowing just 166 net passing yards, and just 48 rushing yards.
Meanwhile the Rams were able to move the ball on offense. While John Wolford threw the ball for 22 of 38 passes for 223 net yards, he also added 6 rushes for 56 yards. Many of those rushes occurred on third and long, gaining a first down and allowing the offense to remain on the field. And that mobility allowed the Rams to use more empty backfield sets, as well as call some deep passing plays which Wolford seemed to nail with amazing precision.

Sound somewhat right? (yes, for those that watched the game). So ok, make the conclusion on Wolford's tiny NFL sample size that he's destined to be an NFL back-up - most NFL back-ups are as well so nothing earth-shattering there. But he was the best thing going on offense regardless that day. The O-line was pretty well-handled by AZ…so I guess they all should be NFL back-ups moving forward as well, right? Along with Akers. the receivers, coaches…

[NN1Badboy]

I’m not some Wolford homer, but I think the guy can be a good fill in spot starter.

Now obviously he is no Stafford, but after watching him last year, I believe he has the moxie to pull off a few wins for us if needed.

Heck, the 49ers beat US last year with some guy named Nick Mullens.

[Commish]

So ok, make the conclusion on Wolford's tiny NFL sample size that he's destined to be an NFL back-up - most NFL back-ups are as well so nothing earth-shattering there. But he was the best thing going on offense regardless that day. The O-line was pretty well-handled by AZ…so I guess they all should be NFL back-ups moving forward as well, right? Along with Akers. the receivers, coaches…

You're entitled to whatever "conclusions" you wish to draw, just so long as you 'own' them as yours exclusively, and thus refrain from falsely assigning them to anyone else who hasn't asserted them... :? :o

ram pathos...

--The Commish

[RamPower]

So ok, make the conclusion on Wolford's tiny NFL sample size that he's destined to be an NFL back-up - most NFL back-ups are as well so nothing earth-shattering there. But he was the best thing going on offense regardless that day. The O-line was pretty well-handled by AZ…so I guess they all should be NFL back-ups moving forward as well, right? Along with Akers. the receivers, coaches…

You're entitled to whatever "conclusions" you wish to draw, just so long as you 'own' them as yours exclusively, and thus refrain from falsely assigning them to anyone else who hasn't asserted them... :? :o

ram pathos...

--The Commish

Gee thanks Mr. "9 points". Tunnel vision much do you?

[RamPower]

Wolford’s presence in that AZ game really generated a very different vibe in the offense, even without a passing TD. Things felt so different, and it really showed that McVay needed someone other than Goff to open up the offense. I’m not sure what will happen with the Rams backup QBs this year, but I’m grateful to Wolford for what he did against AZ (minus his first pass), and I am very excited about Stafford.

Yep

[RamPower]

Uhh, no. Question: did you actually see the game? Or just relying box scores/stats?

Yeah so, the Rams easily beat AZ earlier in the year with Goff, he thus would have produced the same results in week 17? That's an incomplete conclusion at best, esp. if you've studied common opponents playing multiple times during any given season. AZ was playing a play-off play-in game. Win and they were in. AZ has made the playoffs 5 times the last 33 years. Think they weren't peak motivated?

Here's a nice game synopsis from Fansided five months ago:

What went wrong for the Rams?

The Rams struggle to run the ball in this one. Rookie running back Cam Akers returned from an ankle sprain and rushed 21 times for a total of 34 yards. The Rams also committed five penalties, many of them false starts when the Rams were first and goal from the one-yard line. And that was just one red zone possess that resulted in the Rams kicking a field goal.
Another time, the Rams had the ball on the one yard line, but Cam Akers fumbled the ball which was subsequently recovered by the Cardinals at their own one-yard line. And of course, there were a number of drops by the Rams receivers. Not just the out-of-reach variety, but the in and out of the hands version. The worst offender was Gerald Everett, who caught two passes, but missed at least other passes that hit him right in the hands and bounced out. One such incompletion was a sure touchdown if he caught
it.

What went right for the Rams?

The entire game was ‘right’ for the Rams. With the exception of some misfiring on the offense (again, what else is new?), the entire team put in one of their most complete efforts of the season. The Rams generate four sacks on defense, many of which killed the Arizona Cardinals offensive drives. Samson Ebukam led the charge, getting two sacks on the day. And the Rams defense stifled the Cardinals all day, allowing just 166 net passing yards, and just 48 rushing yards.
Meanwhile the Rams were able to move the ball on offense. While John Wolford threw the ball for 22 of 38 passes for 223 net yards, he also added 6 rushes for 56 yards. Many of those rushes occurred on third and long, gaining a first down and allowing the offense to remain on the field. And that mobility allowed the Rams to use more empty backfield sets, as well as call some deep passing plays which Wolford seemed to nail with amazing precision.

Sound somewhat right? (yes, for those that watched the game). So ok, make the conclusion on Wolford's tiny NFL sample size that he's destined to be an NFL back-up - most NFL back-ups are as well so nothing earth-shattering there. But he was the best thing going on offense regardless that day. The O-line was pretty well-handled by AZ…so I guess they all should be NFL back-ups moving forward as well, right? Along with Akers. the receivers, coaches…

Good work Ram Power. He may in fact be destined to be a backup Quarterback but I'd still rather have him than Goff, who, by the way, NO TEAM fears.

Hard to say with such a small sample size, but with last year's line-up, safe to say Wolford might very well have been better than Goff. Goff played his way out of town...

[Commish]

Gee thanks Mr. "9 points". 8-) :P

I'll stand by my "nine offensive points" statement in reference to our team's 2020 regular-season finale... :o :geek:

ram pathos...

--The Commish

[FelixTheStonerCat]

Wolfie is a very entertaining quarterback because of his charisma, leadership, and zeal. I'm going out on a limb here and I'm predicting that when he plays he might play well enough to start a bona fide quarterback controversy in the future it's likely a matter of time. I love betting on Long Shots and I'm all in on Wolfie even though we might see him remain a benchwarmer for quite some time. I can see him winning playoff games including the Super Bowl. His decisiveness is exceptional. Fire away!

You have something on your lips and it's name is John Wolford. Anyway, Mike why are you always in your feelings when people disagree with you? Lol. Didn't you call me a Goff mom for not giving a shit about Wolford? Whether you care to admit it or not, he was serviceable at best against the Cardinals. You act like he scored 3-4 touchdowns. He didn't. I watched that game. He did the same thing most successful back ups do. And that's lead us to a win. So stop crying.

[Hangtime]

Stafford vs Wolfie

Wolfie more mobile...

Staffie more everything else....

[toast49]

If Stafford gets injured we are screwed. Wolford is just a slight step up from sucktitude. Let's hope one of the other QB's steps up in Pre Season.

[RamPower]

Gee thanks Mr. "9 points". 8-) :P

I'll stand by my "nine offensive points" statement in reference to our team's 2020 regular-season finale... :o :geek:

ram pathos...

--The Commish

And I'll stand by my view that your NFL player analysis is limited.

That is, Kurt Warner was only good for 9 points of offense in the 2000 NFC Champ game vs. Tampa Bay right? Which means…next to nothing IMO within its small sample size. Regardless, he was still the best thing offensively for the Rams that day (even with the 3 picks), similar to Wolford against AZ. Or again tell me, who on the Rams offense looked better in the Card win? I'll take a continued "no answer" as all I need to know. What I do know though is that it seemed likely McVay would have in fact rolled Wolford out against Green Bay had he been cleared to play...but we'll never know.

Me? Yes, my speculation based on what I saw from AZ winning the battle in the trenches against our O-line (week 17) would have led to the 2020 version of Goff having wilted similar to the Miami game, etc. Goff is gone for good reason, and I believe that reason is foremost the fact that he's likely the worst starting NFL QB when pressured…and that's based on a lot more than one game.

[RamPower]

Amazing people actually think Wolford did anything special. Truly, it is.

Who on offense looked "amazing" to you that day? No run game, poor pass pro, dropped passes (one for a TD), blatant penalty and fumble from the the 1 yd line... Wolford was the only one doing fucking anything for the most part. Not a Mom, just an observer. If that's too much for anyone to comprehend, I'm fine with that

Goff couldn't punch his way out of the position he was placed in during 2020 season. Wolford in his first NFL action/NFL play-in playoff game did, despite the offensive ineptitude all around him.

[Jack85Youngblood]

I like Wolford; and I think he proved he can play. I'm confident in him as the back-up.

[Commish]

That is, Kurt Warner was only good for 9 points of offense in the 2000 NFC Champ game vs. Tampa Bay right? Which means…next to nothing IMO within its small sample size.

Hmmmm, I'm thinking that the New York Giants won the 2000 NFC championship game.

Kurt Warner did hit on the critical game-winning TD pass during the Rams' come-from-behind victory in the 1999 NFC championship game (as he did also in Super Bowl XXXIV).

However, I'd venture that our team's "D" was basically responsible for that win over the Buccaneers, holding them to six points.

Warner was then the league's regular-season Most Valuable Player and he became the Super Bowl MVP a couple weeks later, so I certainly don't assess him based on just that contest.

Given the remainder of Warner's NFL career, there's no reason to be uncertain about his play at QB based on a single game, is there...?? ;)

ram pathos...

--The Commish

[RamPower]

That is, Kurt Warner was only good for 9 points of offense in the 2000 NFC Champ game vs. Tampa Bay right? Which means…next to nothing IMO within its small sample size.

Hmmmm, I'm thinking that the New York Giants won the 2000 NFC championship game.

Kurt Warner did hit on the critical game-winning TD pass during the Rams' come-from-behind victory in the 1999 NFC championship game (as he did also in Super Bowl XXXIV).

However, I'd venture that our team's "D" was basically responsible for that win over the Buccaneers, holding them to six points.

Warner was then the league's regular-season Most Valuable Player and he became the Super Bowl MVP a couple weeks later, so I certainly don't assess him based on just that contest.

Given the remainder of Warner's NFL career, there's no reason to be uncertain about his play at QB based on a single game, is there...?? ;)

ram pathos...

--The Commish

Lol, whatever - the 1999 NFC Champ game was played Jan. 23, 2000.

My point was you are basing Wolford as a future back-up on the smallest of sample size. Like I said, that's not really going out on a limb there, as most undrafted back-ups are likely to stay non-starters. My point with Warner (as with Wolford) is yes, positive play can certainly go beyond the simplest game stats (8 or 9 point for instance). Here's the deal with Wolford:

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/lists/ ... t-week-17/

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/lists/ ... t-week-17/


Studs and duds. Stud from offense, only Wolford, otherwise all defense. Duds? All from the offense. Not bad for a kid's first game via suddenly thrown into play-off intensity while getting virtually no offensive support. It could be argued he carried that offensive unit. But yeah, describe it all simply by "9 points".

Wolford = McVay game ball.

[Commish]

Not bad for a kid's first game via suddenly thrown into play-off intensity while getting virtually no offensive support. It could be argued he carried that offensive unit. But yeah, describe it all simply by "9 points".

Yes, "nine points" from each Rams unit, both offense and defense, if I recall correctly.

I'm not going to share your exalted opinion of John Wolford based on that one game, so I'll leave it at that... ;) 8-)

ram pathos...

--The Commish

[RamPower]

Not bad for a kid's first game via suddenly thrown into play-off intensity while getting virtually no offensive support. It could be argued he carried that offensive unit. But yeah, describe it all simply by "9 points".

Yes, "nine points" from each Rams unit, both offense and defense, if I recall correctly.

I'm not going to share your exalted opinion of John Wolford based on that one game, so I'll leave it at that... ;) 8-)

ram pathos...

--The Commish

9 points by the Rams (vs. TB) getting to the Super Bowl in '79 as well - it's called the playoffs...but sure, move the goal posts around as much as makes you feel better about your point = nothing "exalted" about my view on Wolford. It's just the one game I had to evaluate from, you know, just like McVay before he presented him with a well deserved game ball...

[FelixTheStonerCat]

Lol, whatever - the 1999 NFC Champ game was played Jan. 23, 2000.

My point was you are basing Wolford as a future back-up on the smallest of sample size. Like I said, that's not really going out on a limb there, as most undrafted back-ups are likely to stay non-starters. My point with Warner (as with Wolford) is yes, positive play can certainly go beyond the simplest game stats (8 or 9 point for instance). Here's the deal with Wolford:

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/lists/ ... t-week-17/

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/lists/ ... t-week-17/


Studs and duds. Stud from offense, only Wolford, otherwise all defense. Duds? All from the offense. Not bad for a kid's first game via suddenly thrown into play-off intensity while getting virtually no offensive support. It could be argued he carried that offensive unit. But yeah, describe it all simply by "9 points".

Wolford = McVay game ball.

Anybody here who knocks Wolford's game against Arizona is simply a bad judge of Football. Either that or protecting their 17-year old girl-like broken heart about their failed 1st overall pick. Another example of them being bad judges of Football.

Whatever dude. You're just acting like a baby when people disagree with you lol. We moved on from Goff. Obviously you haven't because you bring him up in nearly all of your posts. And like I said in a previous post, he was serviceable at best.

[Commish]

Whatever dude. You're just acting like a baby when people disagree with you lol. We moved on from Goff. Obviously you haven't because you bring him up in nearly all of your posts. And like I said in a previous post, he was serviceable at best.

Well, I'd certainly take Jared Goff's best performances for the Rams over John Wolford's, however Goff is now immaterial to any discussion of our team's current QB situation.

It's mind-boggling how *any* expression of uncertainty toward either Matthew Stafford or John Wolford immediately involves Goff, at least in some people's perceptions... :? :P

ram pathos...

--The Commish

[FelixTheStonerCat]

Well said Felix! Don't understand the constant whining by some. Mike got what he wanted and he's still acting like a baby. Pretty embarrassing if you ask me.

The only embarrassment here is the folks like Hell, Commish, D-Gen-X and others who say Wolford played poorly against Arizona.

I never said he played poorly. So I don't know where that came from. I said he was serviceable. He played well enough to get us a win.

[Commish]

Nobody said Wolford played poorly. We're just not enamored with a QB who struggled to produce points in 5 QTRs. This notion you have that everything is either great or terrible is nonsense. Wolford played solid as I said at the time. This idea we know what we have in Wolford by 5 QTRs of okay QB play just isn't a pragmatic way to look at things. I'd imagine your disdain for anything Goff related also helped boost your praise in Wolford as well. But hey that's okay. Just quit being a jerk to anyone who says something you don't agree with.

Agreed!

As I've stated before, I don't believe that John Wolford played "poorly" against the Cardinals--he made a few flashy-looking plays, more importantly he didn't do anything to get in the way of the Rams notching a defense-dominated victory.

However, I'm not going to get excited over Wolford based on nine offensive points in his only full game starting at QB for our team.

The internet isn't 'magical,' it won't change anyone's basic character and personality traits, rather it often reveals them... ;) :?

ram pathos...

--The Commish

[Commish]

Hmmm, Like when you might admit you were wrong in calling Kevin Greene just a LB for the Rams?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... roster.htm

Feel free to check it out for yourself, what position the Rams' roster described Kevin Greene as playing... 8-) :idea:

ram pathos...

--The Commish

[Commish]

‘From 1985 through 1987, Greene played on left defensive end in the Rams nickel defense and was second on the team in sacks in both 1986 and 1987. His first sack came in 1985, in a playoff game against the Dallas Cowboys, and it was in the defensive end role that the sack came. In 1988, Greene became the starting left outside linebacker in the Rams base defense that was enhanced by defensive coordinator Fritz Shurmur's Eagle 5-Linebacker defense which he used extensively from 1988 to 1990’.

If you desire to consider Kevin Greene to be a DE, that's your personal option.

Greene's most productive seasons, especially 1988 and '89, came when he played as the Rams' LOLB, so if I were to assign him a primary position on our team in its history, that's the one which I would go with.

The guy wasn't a starter for the Good Guys until the '88 season.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... roster.htm

8-) :idea:

ram pathos...

--The Commish

[Commish]

I was stating the facts of both his positions while with the Rams. So if it is your desire just to think of him as a LB and not take notice that he was a DE for 3 YEARS before he was MOVED to the LB spot… that’s your personal issue.

The guy immediately became a star player as an OLB, after three years as a backup at DE.

Based on his first three years (1985-87) with the Rams, Kevin Greene certainly wouldn't be considered one of our team's top D-linemen, not by anyone who'd been paying attention.

However, I do consider him one of the best OLBs to ever play for the Good Guys.

So yes, personally I would describe his primary position as a Rams' players to have been OLB, for purposes of creating a ballot listing our team's all-time top D-linemen.

I'd definitely include Greene on a ballot for the Good Guys' top all-time LBs though... 8-)

ram pathos...

--The Commish

[toast49]

Greene played on the edge regardless if it was in the base defense or nickel package. So you can call him either a DE or OLB. They tried him on the right side too, but Robinson felt he was much more effective off the left side. He never lined up at DE in the Rams base defense which was a two gap for the 3 down linemen.

[NorCal RF]

I like Wolford; and I think he proved he can play. I'm confident in him as the back-up.

100% agree.

[NorCal RF]

Lol, whatever - the 1999 NFC Champ game was played Jan. 23, 2000.

My point was you are basing Wolford as a future back-up on the smallest of sample size. Like I said, that's not really going out on a limb there, as most undrafted back-ups are likely to stay non-starters. My point with Warner (as with Wolford) is yes, positive play can certainly go beyond the simplest game stats (8 or 9 point for instance). Here's the deal with Wolford:

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/lists/ ... t-week-17/

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/lists/ ... t-week-17/


Studs and duds. Stud from offense, only Wolford, otherwise all defense. Duds? All from the offense. Not bad for a kid's first game via suddenly thrown into play-off intensity while getting virtually no offensive support. It could be argued he carried that offensive unit. But yeah, describe it all simply by "9 points".

Wolford = McVay game ball.

Anybody here who knocks Wolford's game against Arizona is simply a bad judge of Football. Either that or protecting their 17-year old girl-like broken heart about their failed 1st overall pick. Another example of them being bad judges of Football.

This^

[NorCal RF]

This^

Anyone who thinks a passer rating in the 60's is good is obviously clueless about the NFL and how offense works. ;)

Let’s relive that game over again for the upteenth time............

Being called clueless in here by a few is a huge bleeping compliment................

[toast49]

If Stafford goes down the Rams are screwed. Wolford blows and with McVay adjusting his Offense to fit Stafford I don't see how it can function without number 9 in there. Hopefully he stays healthy and we win.

[Commish]

Greene played on the edge regardless if it was in the base defense or nickel package. So you can call him either a DE or OLB. They tried him on the right side too, but Robinson felt he was much more effective off the left side. He never lined up at DE in the Rams base defense which was a two gap for the 3 down linemen.

I'm merely going by the roster listings employed by the Rams franchise, which identify Kevin Greene's position as being LOLB during his excellent years with our team, particularly the 1988 and '89 seasons, during both of which he notched 16.5 sacks.

The fact is that he couldn't break into the Good Guys' starting lineup as a DE ('85-87), yet once switched to OLB (primarily in Fritz Shurmur's 'Eagle' defense) he became a defensive superstar... 8-) :idea:

ram pathos...

--The Commish