I hate to do this.

But in this case, I;m not going to question the writer's football analysis.

It's the writer's use of "narrative."

There's no such thing as the "unfair power of narrative." There's just the "power of narrative."

Cause once you raised the issue of narrative, you're stuck with a problem. There's no such thing as "a narrative" v. "the truth." There's only different narratives. So what the writer has done is object to one narrative, and in its place uphold a different narrative.

Nothin wrong with that. We can say, for these reasons this narrative isn't as good. So here's a narrative I like better. But you didn't get rid of narrative. You just defend narrative B over narrative A.

If you don't like those implications--that you didn't escape narrative, you just offered a different narrative--then it's best not to use the term "narrative" at all.

Anyway. There's a way for Goff to fight misperceptions. Get up off the mat, come out fighting, and do well in the last games. That'll change the narrative.