Quote
merlin
You have a group of posters on every Rams board
There's also a group of posters on every Rams board who takes anything said about the Rams they don't like as being about Goff. They openly do mindreading numbers like pretending (to themselves) that things being said they disagree with about the Rams are really being driven by "don't accept the trade" motives.
When, oddly, there may be more of those types than there actually are people who actually do not "accept the trade."
I don't agree with all of Ram49's points but he raises some I do agree with.
And agreed with long before the Stafford trade.
McVay's success so far is obvious and he is the Rams 2nd best coach behind Vermeil since I started following them, which goes back more than 4 decades, but I was critical of Vermeil too when I thought it was warranted, and I also I think McVay is a work in progress and has certain flaws as a leader and teambuilder I would like to see him iron out. (Again, no different from DV.)
I also think a lot of the criticism of Goff was hyperbolic, even though now that point is mostly just academic and a discussion about history. I say the same things to people who believe Bulger tanked in 2007 without in any way shape or form accounting for what happened to the Rams OL that year. Either way it is still a discussion of history.
And for the record I flat said the Stafford trade doesn't need to be justified because as a very experienced, still very talented vet, Stafford is a great acquisition. So I basically never argue against the trade.
Going around dismissing people's arguments by slamming the poster's "motives" is never a good thing.
Just argue the points, if you're invested enough to argue. The ersatz Sherlock Holmes stuff about people's "motives" is just an unnecessary and very questionable distraction.
...
....
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2021 04:54PM by zn.
