I'm really not debating that
| August 18, 2020 10:02PM |
Quote
JamesJM
Here's the rebound... WHY do I do this? There is NO chance of any reconciliation. Yup.. I have a sadomasochism trait apparently. And YES, it DOES have to with this particular point. NOT the rest.
This will go NO WHERE... You are so SET in your determination to use your OL theory, (in part very true, IMHO) this will no doubt lead to you repeating it yet again.
First of all.. a 'regression in stats' is no argument AT ALL... that's BS, ZN, and you know it. You SAY it yourself this reply. Stats.. I do not define that as 'regression' in the same sense YOU wish to utilize the term.
Ok, an 'interlude', this is Not personal to me..but you keep replying as if it is. I can't deal with that... have at it.. but I won't play that game.
To continue.. YEAH... I GET you were stating your opinion on Goff... and NOT the main point I was hoping for about 'board consensus'.... I acknowledged that, or tried to anyway. Hell, and again, I ASKED for that.... but when I tried to get you to opine on that.. we get THIS instead. And I'm lost.
Speed's argument had NOTHING to do with regression, (whether or NOT that occurred), it dealt ENTIRELY with faults in Goff's game that have been extant since day one... and don't take my word for it.. READ him... back to Goff's rookie year. He has been amazingly consistent. Doesn't mean he's RIGHT... it DOES mean he didn't invent this due to 2019. so does this relate to your reply in MY thread?
Of course it does. As to your opinion... but, and as yet, we have NOT dipped into 'board consensus'... which, honestly, I'd iike to hear.
To where we absolutely agree... while I do NOT agree he regressed, but rather exemplified faults present since day one, Speed's point, I DO agree that... well, he doesn't just have 'good' traits'.. he has 'elite' traits... traits we've seen, for those paying attention, (IMHO), that show what he is capable of when all things come together. That does NOT make him an elite QB today, or even in the future, however, unless the puzzle pieces fall into place.
Here, in my original response to you in this thread, I made a series of points about the team (where I was not arguing with your ideas of a board consensus, on the contrary I took your ideas about that for granted. In fact where I thought I differed was with parts of that consensus, as you spelled that out. I wasn't going no that's not the consensus, which you seem to think I was, I was going yeah I don't always share that consensus...but then really I just took off into my own views without even thinking about the "consensus" part too much. I just grabbed a chance to yak away about the Rams.)
One of the points was (adding in italics for the invisible, unstated, taken for granted parts) the way I see it Goff regressed, but as regressions go the way I see it it wasn't that bad, in fact the way I see it he showed good things in a bad stretch there, so the way I see it Goff's rebound I think will be fun to see.
I am not sure why saying that leads to all sorts of conflict, however minor. As for debating the meaning of "regression" and who meant what in former debates, I honestly don't want to argue about that. I was only doing this. I said something that got taken the wrong way and just wanted to clear it up. That's all.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition.
That's a dig too but it's friendlier than the last one, which wasn't unfriendly in its own right....
