The “when things aren’t perfect” mantra is my issue. Give Goff the Patriots D and ST this year and we win 12-13 games easily…. Easily.
Josh Allen doesn’t consistently win game when his team allows 28 points and his RBs get 50 yards in the ground. Nobody does.
it’s amazing how Pat Mahomes can win a SB with 4100 yards 27 TDs and 14 Ints and people can say they won “because” of him.
Mahomes has had 14 since the start of 2023 with over 250 yards and 2 or more TDs…. 31% of his starts. Josh Allen 16 times or 32%. Stafford had 21 and this 43%. Goff has 21 such starts or 41%…
300 yard and 3 TD games since start of 23’? Mahomes 2!!! Allen 3!!! Stafford- 3!!! Goff 9!!!
so if their stats aren’t better…. They don’t have more wins… they all have better defenses…
Other they thinking mobility and arm strength are more fun to watch- what are we saying?
Other than Pat Mahomes and Tom Brady- Goff wins a higher percentage of games when his D shits the bed than anyone in the last 10 plus years.
This whole debate reminds me of the old arguments about whether guys like Chris Paul or John Stockton were better players than Isiah Thomas. If you only look at the stats, you might think it’s close. If you actually watched the games and paid attention to context like injuries, roles, and what Chuck Daly asked of Isiah, you knew it wasn’t. I am not saying anything about Goff’s abilities here, just pointing out there are some things stats don’t measure…
That’s really what’s happening here. You can throw out as many volume stats as you want, but they’re meaningless unless they actually measure the thing being discussed. I’m not arguing about 300 yard games or three touchdown games. Those stats don’t address my point at all.
What I’m talking about is how quarterbacks are evaluated by front offices. How do they perform when the original play call doesn’t work? When protection breaks down? When timing is disrupted? Can they create under pressure? Can they move, extend, or reset a play? Does their arm strength allow them to throw accurately off platform or into tight windows when the design fails? Those things matter, and you’re never going to find them cleanly on a stat sheet.
And this is where the “Goff needs everything perfect” pushback actually circles back to my point. If the argument is that Jared doesn’t need everything to be perfect, then by definition you’re saying he can operate when things go wrong, when structure isn’t clean, and when problems have to be solved. That’s playing out of structure to some degree.
Where I think the conversation goes off the rails is when defending Goff against that "needs evertyghiing to be perfect{caricature turns into dismissing the idea that out of structure play even adds value. You can reject the lazy version of that criticism without denying that the ability to consistently solve broken plays is a real and differentiating quarterback trait.
None of this is a knock on Jared Goff. I think he’s been playing really good football. Execution within structure is real value and extremely important. But it’s also obvious why teams still differentiate quarterbacks into tiers based on what happens when the plan is no longer enough. That distinction is real whether we like it or not.
Defenses matter for outcomes, but quarterbacks don’t play defense. On offense, the ability to make something happen when things aren’t perfect does matter. That’s the only point I’ve been making this entire time.
Goff DOES do that. You are right. I wouldn’t say that he can never make a play out of structure. He just doesn’t do it as consistently as some others. I wouldn’t say he does it A LOT. But he can make plays. And look, not every out of structure QB has to look like Josh Allen. Tom Brady was not physically gifted but the way he played out of structure was to be a savant at pre snap reads and reading defenses in the way that eliminated chaos before it even began.
So if “others” do it more consistently than Goff does, why doesn’t that then translate into more TDs, more yards, fewer Ints, etc than Goff? Or more Wins, for that matter. You and some others say that the stats aren’t the point, but if they’re doing things Goff can’t do, or doing they’re doing them “more consistently”, it still seems like that should affect objective measurements in their favor vs him.
Unless…unless…there are things Goff does better than they do, that even the scales or even tip them in his favor.
Farmerted’s points are well thought out and fair but your question is really the point.
If someone who can make more things happen off platform but still doesn’t have the stats OR the wins then who cares?
What Ive noticed is the people who think we should move on from Goff have no idea who that would be or how we would get them. They’re looking for a generational unicorn and as we know those are that for a reason. They usually don’t exist and if you just keep searching for that you will probably never find it.
Bottom line, Goff can win a Super Bowl with the Lions just like Stafford was capable of it but yeah, he’s going to need a solid OLine and a top 15 defense. I don’t think thats remotely too much to ask.
Honestly, it seems like there are a couple factions. Keeping in mind that I’m not seeing anyone saying fire Goff. Ones that SEE things happening, (me and others), look at the stats and are a bit surprised that the stats aren’t 100% validating what they see. But DO see “room” for improvement and it’s totally fair. ESPECIALLY when we are not calling for change. We are calling for “improvement” in certain areas that COULD be the difference in tight games, between a W and a L.
Then the other faction seems like ANY criticism of Goff (or BH, or DC) is immediately met with fury and stats and clown emojis. At least speaking for myself, I’m just asking for a wee bit of room to criticize some things I see. I’m old enough to remember when this entire board was laying the team, staff, braintrust etc. to waste daily. We have some success and it’s like you can’t dare say anyone needs to be better at anything.
Yeah, I’ve read a lot of your posts on this. You’re not calling for Goff to be replaced, but you see areas where he could improve. I think that’s fair enough in and of itself, and if that’s where it stops , fine.
But for a minority, he’s just not good enough no matter what.
Given how good Goff stats are NOW, imagine how good they would be if he started do what you complain he doesn’t do? Otherworldly.
Which means, some (not accusing you) will only really be satisfied if he plays at an absolutely incredible level. And maybe not even then because mobility.
Maybe not even that. Instead of a 70% completion rate, maybe it’s 68 and another 7 gets put on the board winning the game, as opposed to 4 and turnover because you were 2nd and 11 and ran on 3rd down. Not asking for JG to be a GOAT level QB. Top 5 right now, based on his pay and investment in the weapons surrounding him? Hell yes. Is he? Maybe. But maybe if he’s top 3 he both gets us to a SB ring AND is NOT quote otherworldly. Fair?
It’s fair and presented well, however, I think it’s splitting hairs. I also would bet the farm that Jared and the staff know all this and are constantly working to be the best he can be in all situations to be better. Nobody stands pat in the NFL and doesn’t try to improve. Is that fair?
I wouldn’t dispute that playing well in structure usually produces more yards and TDs. That’s exactly why box scores often favor those QBs. Out-of-structure value isn’t about replacing structure, it’s about keeping the offense alive when the play breaks down. Those plays don’t always add yards, they prevent losses, keep drives going, and matter way more in high-leverage moments, especially in the playoffs.
If you want a stat that even tries to capture that, QBR is probably the closest. I’m not a huge fan of it because the formula isn’t transparent, but at least it attempts to value situational football instead of raw production. Turning a nine-yard sack into a five-yard gain, escaping pressure to convert 3rd and long, or scrambling to keep a drive alive absolutely impacts games even if it doesn’t show up in the box score.
You can see this in the NFC title game against the 49ers. Goff and Purdy had almost identical stat lines: around 270 yards, a TD and an INT each, similar passer ratings. But Purdy’s out-of-structure plays in the second half mattered. The scrambles and pressure evasions extended drives and flipped momentum. That’s why the QBR gap in that game was huge. I wouldn’t even call Purdy a great out-of-structure QB but he did it enough to make a huge impact that game. And you also find that the really good out-of-structure QBs are consistently in the NFL semi-finals.
And none of this is a knock on Goff. He does a lot of things extremely well in structure, which has incredibly high value. He’s not an out-of-structure QB consistently, and that’s fine. You don’t need that trait if enough other things are right. My point is just that the ability to solve broken plays has value, and it’s easy to miss if you only look at aggregate stats. You don’t have to dismiss that to defend Goff.
I would hope so. But I’ve been seeing the hurried dirt ball when he is still protected for years now. I’ve seen no urgency to get to the LOS and run a play (any play) when we get a questionable (read likely to be challenged) first down. So one of two things is happening. One, the staff doesn’t think it’s any kind of deficiency or two, JG isn’t improving at those things.
I think this is where the conversation is getting crossed up, and it’s less about stats vs film than about what question is actually being answered.
Lyonfan made a very specific, outcome-based claim: that the idea “elite QBs consistently win when things aren’t perfect” is overstated, and that wins in those scenarios correlate far more with defense and team context than with some unique QB trait. He then backed that up by controlling for conditions (points allowed, run game support) and comparing Goff directly to peers like Mahomes, Allen, and Stafford. You can disagree with his conclusion, but that’s a coherent, evidence-based argument.
What your reply does is shift the frame. You move from “Do quarterbacks win more games under bad conditions?” to “How do front offices evaluate quarterbacks when structure breaks down?” That’s a goalpost shift. Those are related discussions, but they’re not the same question, and answering the second doesn’t refute the first.
There’s also a false equivalence baked in when “doesn’t need everything to be perfect” gets treated as synonymous with “elite out-of-structure creator.” A quarterback can succeed under adverse conditions through anticipation, processing, protection identification, and timing — not just scrambling, arm elasticity, or off-platform throws. Winning when conditions aren’t ideal does not automatically mean winning by improvisation.
The argument also leans heavily on appeal to subjectivity: basically “these traits matter, even if they can’t be measured cleanly.” That may be true for scouting and tiering, but it doesn’t invalidate data about outcomes. Saying “stats don’t capture it” isn’t a counter-argument unless you show how those unmeasured traits are actually producing different results in the scenarios being discussed.
Finally, there’s a bit of a strawman in how Lyonfan’s point is characterized. He’s not denying that out-of-structure play adds value, nor is he claiming Goff is Mahomes. He’s pushing back on the caricature that quarterbacks like Mahomes or Allen routinely drag bad defenses to wins while guys like Goff cannot — and the comparative data simply doesn’t support that narrative.
So I don’t think this is about dismissing film, context, or quarterback traits. It’s about recognizing that:
1. defenses and team context drive wins far more than we like to admit, and
2. the gap between “elite creators” and high-level execution quarterbacks is often exaggerated when we talk about outcomes instead of aesthetics.
You can believe out-of-structure ability matters and still acknowledge that Lyonfan’s core point about wins under imperfect conditions is logically and empirically sound.
TBH, I think the goalposts moved when Lyon’s original argument got overstated.
What Lyon was really saying, in my view, is closer to this: team context and overall quality matter more than QB traits, and fans overstate how often elite QBs carry bad teams. I can get behind that idea to an extent. It’s not the same thing as saying elite QBs don’t meaningfully change win probabilities once conditions are controlled, which is how it’s now being framed.
I already did that by pointing to the NFC Championship game. Goff and Purdy had almost identical passing stats, but Purdy’s out-of-structure plays in the second half clearly mattered. Those scrambles and pressure evasions extended drives and flipped the game.
And I don’t buy that this is some mystical, unmeasurable thing. NFL teams don’t sit in draft rooms saying “yeah he can scramble, has a cannon, throws off platform, but we’re gonna ignore all that because the win rate data doesn’t isolate the value of out-of-structure skills cleanly.” They scout those traits precisely because they change how offenses function when the plan breaks down. That’s why quarterbacks are tiered in the first place.
I disagree with that characterization. Lyon’s post very clearly minimizes the difference between QBs like Mahomes and everyone else by framing wins almost entirely around defense and context. That’s fine as an opinion, but it does implicitly argue that QB traits don’t really matter at the margins.
And this is the point I keep coming back to: there is no QB dragging a bad defense. QBs don’t play defense. Offenses help defenses by staying on the field. QBs with elite out-of-structure traits help offenses when the scheme stops working. They extend drives, avoid losses, and turn dead plays into something usable. That value doesn’t always show up cleanly in raw stats, but it absolutely shows up on film.
If there’s overlap in agreement here, great. I don’t think I’ve moved the goalposts at all. Front offices evaluate how QBs perform when structure breaks down because they’re trying to win football games.
What I’ll keep pushing back on is this idea that QB play doesn’t really matter once you control for enough things. When you get to a place where it supposedly doesn’t matter whether you have Mahomes or Goff statistically speaking, I think the framework has lost the plot.
Good morning! This seems a little like a logic loop. The issue with using that NFC Championship as proof is that it assumes the conclusion. Goff played very well, and the two biggest swing moments were a dropped interception that turned into a TD and a critical RB fumble. If we’re excluding defensive and turnover variance as “not QB-driven,” then Purdy’s biggest positive play in that game can’t simultaneously be used as proof of elite QB differentiation. That’s circular.
Out-of-structure play can add value without being the primary explanation for outcomes — and Lyonfan’s point is about how often that value actually shows up in wins once context is controlled, not whether the trait exists.
The fact that Purdys biggest play was a dropped pick for a TD argues more for the importance for a competent defense than illustrating the importance of a QB who runs around more
My biggest concern when extending Goff was whether or not he could succeed without Ben Johnson… This season has answered that question with an unequivocal YES!!
Well I’ll tell you right now that if Drake Maye is MVP or runner up this year (deservingly so), Jared Goff is going to be in that boat next year. The schedule we play is laughable. You can call me an optimist, but I expect us to win 12+ games and win the division after fixing this OLine. And Goff is going to put up Drake Maye 2025 stats at minimum.
