Re: Sounds more like your reacting than reading

Quote
dzrams
I'm skeptical of the source that says there were 24 pressures. That's not what I saw. I trust PFF more than whatever your source is and they say there were 13 pressures. That lines up more with what I saw.

Granted it's still a lot of pressure.

Off the top of my head, I'd say his 3rd down percentage was very good yesterday - at one point he was 6 for 12 or so. See I know this because I account for the whole picture as the game is being played.

OTOH, you look like you're giving Goff a pass because no one can win if he's under pressure that much but that doesn't account for the mistakes and bad decisions he made that have nothing to do with pressure.

So to say that it appears that you're excusing him is not entirely in my mind since you expressly state he's excused ("he cannot win" given the pressure.

The source is ESPN stats. Why you would personally prefer PFF over that is solely and purely a matter of personal taste and nothing else. I cited ESPN stats because I had access to it right away (this way):

Quote

Lindsey Thiry@LindseyThiry
The Seahawks pressured Jared Goff on 24 dropbacks Sunday, the most in Goff’s career and the Seahawks 3rd most under Pete Carroll (and most since 2015), per @ESPNStatsInfo

I don't know what the PFR numbers will be because they tend to put up pressure stats on Wednesday. I can't imagine ESPN stats being wildly wrong though and what I watched was a Rams line being dominated and the Seattle DL putting on pressure.

On 3rd down he was 47% which according to one provisional measure would across 15 games would be first in the league. But then the Rams D allowed Seattle to convert 3rd downs at a high rate too, which is why they could score so often in spite of fairly low time of possession numbers.

I don't use the word "excuse" because to me it's a phony issue. I just say what I believe is the analytic truth--with very rare exceptions qbs do not play well under massive pressure. I regard that as a reason--it's an agenda to turn "reasons" into "excuses." That's why I rarely if ever use the word "excuses.'" It's too loaded and is more rhetorical and than analytical and at its heart, it's a motives slur. As in, hey you're just rationalizing.

As for your motives slur here , an actual argument would be that "yes qbs can play well under massive pressure behind faltering OLs...(I never said win or lose which is different)...and I know they can because here are examples." I ask for examples all the time on this issue and never get any. I myself introduced the examples of Brady and Wilson to this discussion a long time ago--I said they are mostly but not always exceptions. Your own personal belief that it is otherwise just gets noted by me as what you personally believe--it's not an argument. Over the years I have made arguments that faltering or problematic or injury depleted OLs do lead to diminished qb play and I provided examples (the most recent examples I offered were Rivers and Ryan in 2019).

To say I am "excusing him" is a motives slur. When in fact we just have different analytic approaches to a major issue. I say, with good reason and based of facts, that qbs do not play well when their OLs are critically compromised. I've been saying that since 2007.

I always account for the effects of OL play on a qb and an offense. That's not a simple issue but it is one that can be discussed in informed ways.

....