Quantifying Quarterbacks: Cal’s Jared Goff Intrigues vs. Texas

To this point, the Quantifying Quarterbacks series has highlighted underwhelming performances. This week ends that streak as we delve into Jared Goff’s outing versus Texas. This may be the first quality performance of the series, but, as the series was intended to expose, there is a lot more to Goff’s statline than the surface shows.

By: Derrik Klassen

Key:

• ADJ = Adjustment
• DE = Drop w/ effort or defended pass
• DB = Dropped blatantly
• TD = Touchdown
• TO = Turnover (Interception)

Total: 27/37 (72.97%)

Rush Breakdown:

• 4 Man Rush: 19/23 (3 ADJ, 2 DE, 1 ADJ/TD, 1 TD)

• 5 Man Rush: 7/13 (2 DE, 1 TD, 1 Throwaway)

• 6 Man Rush: 1/1 (1 ADJ)

Passing When Pressured: 7/13 (1 DE, 2 ADJ, 1 ADJ/TD, 1 TD)

Play Action: 14/19 (2 DE, 2 ADJ, 1 TD)

Rollouts:

• Roll to Field: 1/4 (1 DE)
• Roll to Boundary: 0/0

3rd Downs: 6/8 (1 DE, 1 ADJ, 1 ADJ/TD, 1 TD)

Red Zone: 4/7 (1 DE, 1 ADJ/TD, 2 TD)

Route Break Key:

• S = Screen, Shoot, Swing
• O = Out-breaking
• I = In-breaking
• V = Vertical
• C = Crossing

Target Distribution:

The 2016 quarterback class continues to look worse as the season unfolds. One of the few quarterbacks left to not have a disturbing performance is Cal’s Jared Goff. Quite contrary of many of his fellow quarterback prospects, Goff’s two games this season were rather successful and wreak of efficiency. That said, therein may lie Goff’s downfall.

Goff is mighty efficient. Vs Texas, he completed over 70% of his 37 passes, found the end zone three times and his only turnover was a strip-sack that was largely the fault of the offensive line. It is rare for Goff to throw poorly into coverage, and even Goff’s management of space in the pocket is timely and, to be repetitive and redundant, efficient. Where the debate with Goff gets interesting is not with his keen awareness and knack for avoiding turnovers, but with his simple task as Cal’s passer and the cooperative lack of aggression that comes with the role give reason for pause.

Eric Stoner, who now writes for mattwaldmanrsp.com, dubbed last year’s top spread quarterback prospect Marcus Mariota as “task-oriented”. To summarize a lengthy explanation, being task-oriented means that the quarterback is not much of a creator, instead focusing their game on being an exceptionally precise mental weapon and sticking to what they know. Another way of framing this situation is that there are “executive” quarterbacks that create, take risks and make things interesting, for better or for worse, and then there are “yes man” quarterbacks who do little more than follow the script. A “yes man” sounds like an ideal leader, but football is not an ideal environment.

What Goff was asked to do against Texas was very minimal and seldom put him under any sort of pressure. For the most part, Cal’s offense is a set of RPOs- run/pass options. Most frequently, Cal runs what is a blend of inside zone and a bubble screen, all depending on what the defense shows Goff. If the defense gives even numbers on the playside of the screen call, Goff hands the ball off. If the defense shows a cushion to the playside of the screen call, Goff pulls the ball and throws the screen. This same RPO design is also common to see with Cal’s flats concept, which will shoot out one of the receivers lined up closer to the formation toward the sideline. Plays such as these, or very similar, accounted for just over half of Goff’s 37 attempts against Texas. By nature, all of these throws were equal to or less than five yards away from the line of scrimmage. Of 37 attempts, having 19 of them be thrown shorter than five yards from the line of scrimmage is a staggering rate.

On these throws, as with most of his other throws in this game, Goff does not read the defense post-snap at all. He reads the numbers advantage prior to snapping the ball and makes his decision, then simply executes when the ball is in his hands. This makes Goff’s job easy, theoretically making him a better cog in Cal’s machine, but there is no going back once these decisions are made and that leads to problems. Vs Texas, Goff completed three passes that either went for a loss or no gain, one of which was on third down. Goff placed all of these throws just fine, but because RPOs are “if-then” type plays, the defense was able to show pressure in the box to divert the running play and still react quickly to the bubble screen.

Is Goff to blame for this scheme? No, not entirely. More than anyone, it is the fault of Cal’s offensive line that would not be able to keep Goff upright if it weren’t for these quick hitting throws. At the same time, one has to wonder how well Goff is able to process a defense. Cal opened up their passing attack a bit more vs a softer SDSU defense, but reverted back to their simplistic attack when faced with a more troubling defense like that of Charlie Strong’s Texas team. Of course, it is unfair to assume Goff can’t process defenses post-snap, though it is just as unwise to assume that he can.

Lo and behold, Goff does have a handful of redeeming qualities to offer. Goff has adequate athleticism, both in tight quarters and in open field, and has a sharp sense of how to get the most out of it. When presented with space in front of him or around him (a rarity at Cal), Goff moves into that spot for a clearer throwing lane. These occurrences are few and far between because of the nature of Cal’s passing offense and their horrendous offensive line, but this ability can be found in any of Goff’s performances, including vs Texas.

Goff can also find yards with his feet. Granted, he is not going to outrun defenders or make many of them miss, but if the coverage leaves a gaping hole near the line of scrimmage, Goff has enough giddy-up to pick up a handful of yards and not have to risk a throw. Against the Texas defense, Goff took off running a handful of times, netting 14 yards on the ground.

As should be expected of the quarterback, Goff’s best quality is not his athletic presence, but his ball placement. Aside from out-stemming routes near the line of scrimmage- a tough angle to throw without a superb arm- Goff consistently puts throws on the money. In the short and intermediate range, Goff puts throws out in front for his receivers to snag while keeping their stride, allowing for explosive plays after the catch. Deeper down the field, Goff has his fair share of struggle, though he is not flat out bad.

As opposed to missing his targets deep, Goff often leaves the ball up in a spot for his receiver to go and make a play on it. Considering the prowess some of Cal’s receivers have, especially Kenny Lawler, this tended to work out in Goff’s favor vs Texas as his receivers hauled in four passes beyond 15 yards that required adjustments. In all areas of the field, Goff finds ways to put his receivers at an advantage and let them further the play or complete a tough play. If nothing else, Goff gets the ball where it needs to be.

Jared Goff is not bad by any stretch. Rather, judging him is more a matter of how good he truly is and what he is capable of at his peak. Between his nurtured lack of aggression, frail frame, accuracy excellence and adequate athleticism, Goff falls somewhere on the spectrum of Alex Smith and Sam Bradford. The Bradford scenario rings truer if Goff’s arm continues to improve and his slight frame ends up haunting him, whereas the comparison to the lesser, Smith, is more evidently true if Goff can not break his shell of conservative passing. Regardless, Goff will end up as a respectable quarterback and stick around in the league for quite some time, though at this stage, it is tough to project him as the next franchise savior.