I feel like some of this is directed at me so I want to jump in here
1) I thought Foles played well in Chicago. Showed a ton of composure and didn't look like it was too big for him even when something bad happened. His demeanor and how he gathered the team especially late was impressive on the road against that kind of defense. As you know my comments were less about stats. I wasn't implying anything sinister about Goff when making comments about Foles other than the difference in the way they played in Chicago. I think I have been clear that I thought part of the problem against Chicago and Philly was not just Goff but McVay. That has since been corrected
2) I'm just a critical thinker. People used to accuse me of being hard on Bradford too... I always consider myself a lot more balanced than I ever got credit for
Quote
Saguaro
In a friendly way, I'd like to respond to a couple of things.
I saw Foles lauded mightily after his game in Chicago. That's fine by itself, but it was obvious to me, even if not to you, that it was meant in contrast to Goff.
Then he lays an egg and we get the proverbial crickets from Goff critics.
I'm not sure why pointing out that Foles is who he is refutes that in any way. So we know he's up and down, so that doesn't count?
And why not mention it to those praising him when he was the good Foles? Why save it for me?
You say that the Luck failure was noted. Oh? I didn't see that.
I didn't see anyone who had criticized Goff for errant throws come on the board and say "Geez, now that I've seen a Luck meltdown, maybe I've been a little too hard on Goff!". I didn't see that.
Could you point me to that post?
I'm happy that you don't sweat the Goff Public Perception.
I'm not going to cop to the obvious inference. If you didn't sweat my posts, that would be cool.
