Goff no

tommie317;842207575 said:

---

Goff no

---

Goff has looked good. Some of you spend too much time ball watching. To steal/modify a joke from Clueless, much like your social life.

tommie317;842207575 said:

---

Goff no

---

The line is undermanned.

Period.

:tedford

grandmastapoop;842207603 said:

---

Goff has looked good. Some of you spend too much time ball watching. To steal/modify a joke from Clueless, much like your social life.

---

Lol if you think that was looking "good"

Bobodeluxe;842207607 said:

---

The line is undermanned.

Period.

:tedford

---

Both lines. And the defensive backfield, too.

grandmastapoop;842207603 said:

---

Goff has looked good.

---

Is this the stanfurd grade inflation special?

Tedford;842207609 said:

---

Lol if you think that was looking "good"

---

Nice argument.

grandmastapoop;842207603 said:

---

Goff has looked good. Some of you spend too much time ball watching.

---

This is looking good? Don't let some pretty passes fool you. 5 yards per attempt, some poor decision making should have been intercepted, numerous 3 and outs.

Goff occasionally makes a really nice throw, but he does not look good. Very inconsistent, and not a lot of pocket presence, and lots of bad decisions which could easily have been ints.
And not a lot of leadership.

He might be good in two years, but we will not win any games this year, and I am not sure will win a lot next year, and then we will have a new coach most likely, and two really bad years of recruiting. Soon the Tedford years will be forgotten, and but that I mean the good parts. Those 7 and 8 win seasons, with minor bowls, will look really -- good really soon.

grandmastapoop;842207603 said:

---

Goff has looked good. Some of you spend too much time ball watching. To steal/modify a joke from Clueless, much like your social life.

---

Goff has basically looked not terrible. It's sad that we're at the point with Goff that if he goes a half without an INT or fumble putting up 1 score that now people think he looks "good."

grandmastapoop;842207603 said:

---

Goff has looked good. Some of you spend too much time ball watching. To steal/modify a joke from Clueless, much like your social life.

---

^This. Goff isn't the reason we're losing. 371 yards given up in a half, THAT'S why we're losing.

Goff has looked mediocre.

Not even close to being good, but mediocre...at least no turnover from him so far today.

BeachyBear;842207656 said:

---

^This. Goff isn't the reason we're losing. 371 yards given up in a half, THAT'S why we're losing.

---

Goff has made some great plays under much duress.

BeachyBear;842207656 said:

---

^This. Goff isn't the reason we're losing. 371 yards given up in a half, THAT'S why we're losing.

---

We are definitely not going to win when we put up 7 points and Goff keeps going 3 and out

NYCGOBEARS;842207659 said:

---

Goff has made some great plays under much duress.

---

even the suckiest qb makes a great play every now and then.


these great plays matter little when he can't string them (or even decent pass completions) together. he is wildly inconsistent.

StillNoStanfurdium;842207643 said:

---

Goff has basically looked not terrible. It's sad that we're at the point with Goff that if he goes a half without an INT or fumble putting up 1 score that now people think he looks "good."

---

Thank you. Someone gets it. If he doesn't implode, he looks good, very good even to some. 57% is not good and especially with 35 passes in a half, with an offense that is predicated upon chain-moving drives, it sucks. He's had a couple nice throws, and couple or more that were just bad, pick-able ones.

The D has given us ample opportunities to stay in this one, and the O has failed repeatedly. The D has done this in several games now, starting at UCLA.

It would be completely out of character for SD / TF to bench Goff simply for lack of production. Putting in the #2 to spark the offense, trying to find a way to win the game does not seem all that important to them. It's about sticking with their guy, getting him game reps.

Maynard was more consistent than Goff. But he had better coaching.

Cal89;842207687 said:

---

Thank you. Someone gets it. If he doesn't implode, he looks good, very good even to some. 57% is not good and especially with 35 passes in a half, with an offense that is predicated upon chain-moving drives, it sucks. He's had a couple nice throws, and couple or more that were just bad, pick-able ones.

The D has given us ample opportunities to stay in this one, and the O has failed repeatedly. The D has done this in several games now, starting at UCLA.

It would be completely out of character for SD / TF to bench Goff simply for lack of production. Putting in the #2 to spark the offense, trying to find a way to win the game does not seem all that important to them. It's about sticking with their guy, getting him game reps.

---

Yes, I don't care about who "looks" good and who doesn't. I want production. The bottom line - cold hard fact, not angry internet ranting - is that offensive production under Goff has been nonexistent since the Wazzu game. It may not be entirely his fault, but why not try someone else to see if we can get a little production? But again, it's another blowout before you even think of trying it.

StillNoStanfurdium;842207643 said:

---

Goff has basically looked not terrible. It's sad that we're at the point with Goff that if he goes a half without an INT or fumble putting up 1 score that now people think he looks "good."

---

I think what folks are referring to is his avoiding sacks and potential safeties and turning them into gains, sometimes big gains. He hasn't been all that accurate or consistent but not bad either.

Have you seen the game, Kline fanboys? The defense is giving away TDs

Thank God Kline hasn't played. He must be terrible if he all you think Goff is bad and he can't beat him out.

BeachyBear;842207716 said:

---

Have you seen the game, Kline fanboys? The defense is giving away TDs

---

Do you know kline and goff play offense?

I'm sure huskies being held to 24 totally changes the way we think how goff still doesn't look good

BeachyBear;842207716 said:

---

Have you seen the game, Kline fanboys? The defense is giving away TDs

---

At this rate we'll score 7 points tonight and your posts will be the stupidest of the night

tommie317;842207754 said:

---

These goffers are sure classy

---

That post was really really messed up.

KoreAmBear;842207710 said:

---

Yes, I don't care about who "looks" good and who doesn't. I want production. The bottom line - cold hard fact, not angry internet ranting - is that offensive production under Goff has been nonexistent since the Wazzu game. It may not be entirely his fault, but why not try someone else to see if we can get a little production? But again, it's another blowout before you even think of trying it.

---

Honestly KAB, the offense showed signs of having issues in the early games too. All of those gaudy yards yielded remarkably few points. You mention the Wazzu game, this is the one after Oregon, and I found that one a rather poor game for Goff and the offense. All-time passing yards for a game, but only completed 55% and the O got just 20 points.

Seeing Kline causes this staff grief as he has done relatively well. He has only gone into games when Goff got yanked for excessive, inexplicable TO's. Goff hangs onto the ball, we don't see Kline again, minus maybe the last few minutes of a game. With the yards Goff is getting this game, he is still very much alive to get the freshman passing yards record. A big woopty-doo, but not to TF.

tommie317;842207667 said:

---

We are definitely not going to win when we put up 7 points and Goff keeps going 3 and out

---

What you meant to type is "We're not going to win when we consistently give up over 40 points to the other team."

Kline isn't changing that, no matter how much people try to convince themselves that he will.

Intermezzo;842207988 said:

---

What you meant to type is "We're not going to win when we consistently give up over 40 points to the other team."

Kline isn't changing that, no matter how much people try to convince themselves that he will.

---

Dude kline doesn't play defense i get it guys. This is not the first football game I've ever seen. I'm not saying putting kline in will stop their offense from scoring, that's not the objective of replacing goff. The objective of replacing goff is to score more points. When you score more, you have a better chance of winning. Get it?????

The D got some nice stops in the first part of the game, and the O failed repeatedly. It is demoralizing. Capitalizing with some points, through time-consuming drives is not only inspiring, it also rewards the D with some time to rest. The D is bad, but improving in some respects, and can use all the help it can from an offense doing its job. If we can score more early, it can change the dynamics of the game. We not only don't score early, we generally don't score much at all. For a supposed plug-n-play offense, one that can and should produce an abundance of points, we are very bad.

Man every sat night it's the same thing around here. Lol! Mayhem.

tommie317;842208017 said:

---

Dude kline doesn't play defense i get it guys. This is not the first football game I've ever seen. I'm not saying putting kline in will stop their offense from scoring, that's not the objective of replacing goff. The objective of replacing goff is to score more points. When you score more, you have a better chance of winning. Get it?????

---

:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo

I grew up a Dolphins fan, started in 1981. Despite the fact we went to a Super Bowl in 1982, we swapped QBs in 1983 for someone that....no matter how bad the defense was, always had you in the game.

This is the MO of great QBs...Marino, Favre, Young, Montana. No one is saying this is necessarily Kline. All people are saying is...it is POSSIBLE. Especially if they are an Elite 11 QB (read: top rated QB).

Now, those ratings mean nothing. But...we'll never know until he gets...in...the....frigging...game.

If we were 7-0 and headed for the Rose Bowl, and had a D like the 2000 Ravens, then yes..."Goff can't get in the end zone, but we're winning." But, at 1-6 and losing by 28 each game...what can it hurt?

**And yes, while I liked Kline in spring, I was 110% behind Goff after I saw the thread from the guy that went to Loggy's show in SF and gave the Boston Market that Goff was better in practice. Was all behind Goff up until WSU.