The saying is "The perfect is the enemy of the good".
And what it expresses is that the pursuit of a perfect which may never be obtained can result in the discarding or the wasting of the good.
You turned that on it's head.
Which may be apropos to the situation. Have the Rams paid a big price trying to replace the good with the perfect?
What I question at this point is whether the Rams gave up a ton of draft capital to make a move that will be
in essence cosmetic.
That is to say, analysts/fans may be able to point to better statistics from Matt, or say "wow, he just made a play that Goff never made!".
But in the meta sense, will there be more WINS? And to the real goal, more playoff wins, all the way to the top.
The key premise of this whole move is that the Rams good record with Goff at QB was in spite of Goff, and that the Lions bad record with Stafford at QB was not his fault.
Did Matt Stafford really have nothing to do with his 0 for 3 playoff record? Nothing he could have done better?
In 2011, he threw for 380 yards and three touchdowns in a wildcard loss to Brees’ Saints, but also forced two fourth-quarter interceptions that ended the game.
In 2014, he threw for 323 yards and 1 touchdown in a wildcard loss to the Cowboys, but also lost 2 fumbles in the final 3 minutes. (turnovers, anyone?)
In 2016, he threw for only 205 yards in a loss to the Seahawks.
Here's the link to the 2018 article where I found that stuff:
Stafford legacySometimes, the perfect that is "the enemy of the good" is actually not all that perfect.
Ramily!
