It's not a Goff thing, Speed. I've done this for years. Since I was a child, I've always tried to find flaws in majority opinions.
I did the same thing a few years ago with the Golden State Warriors. There's at least two sides to everything, right?
Get this: people used to talk about how great the Golden State Warriors were, but I saw teams like the Thunder and the Rockets blow 3-1 series leads and I took that into consideration. I always think that the great teams and superstars are beatable.
Of course, the Warriors were good, but I had GSW fans tell me that the Cavaliers were fortunate to have wrecked the Warriors' 'Perfect Season' because Draymond Green was suspended (for one game) while ignoring the fact that, just the previous year, the Warriors had defeated the Cavaliers who were without BOTH Kyrie Irving AND Kevin Love. That idea, to me, reflected a kind of unbalanced notion that it was somehow fine for the Cavs to be short handed, but not the Warriors. So I brought, what for me amounted to a very specific bias, out into the open, into the light of day.
Most people don't like it, but for me, it doesn't matter if it's sports or politics or religion, I have these conversations all the time and it doesn't matter if it's with a friend or a foe.
So, when I point out that Aaron Rodgers makes a bad throw, I expose a flaw in the play of an athlete who is held up or revered. I don't do it to argue that Aaron Rodgers sucks, but to see what kind of arguments people might be willing to make to defend him. The usual argument, and it's a strange one, is that player X+, who is allegedly great, is allowed to make a tragic mistake specifically because player X+ is great, while player X-, who is allegedly not great, should not be allowed to make the same mistake because... well, this is where the reasoning falls apart.
But the important thing, the objective, for me, is not the specific player or team, it's, in general, the logic or thinking that I am trying to deconstruct.
