There is an awful lot of irony here. I think what’s happening here is there is a reductionist or absolutist approach that both sides are using to garble the other side's positions. There is hyperbole in dismissing the supposed “hyperbolic takes.”
For example, there is no “can’t process” myth. No one is saying Goff can’t process. Some are saying that he didn’t excel there or struggled in that regard but usually that position gets reduced to an absolute extreme of “can’t process…[at all].” I don’t think anyone can find any examples of someone who believes that.
Another example is, I don’t think anyone is erasing Stafford’s 13 years of experience. It’s just that people don’t care why he’s better. It’s not that the experience is erased, it’s that it’s not emphasized because it’s irrelevant to measuring the
current differences between the two QBs.
Same thing with Goff’s performance under pressure. Some people express that he is not so great at it. Of course, there is some hyperbole used to make that case. Other people then attack those people for believing that Goff was never good under pressure when there are no examples of someone saying he was “never good…” Thus, we have a hyperbolic take attacking another hyperbolic take.
I’m with you though in that there is no reason for the hyperbolic narratives…on either side.
All that aside, we don’t really have a difference of opinion on Goff and Stafford. It seems you agree that Stafford is better at mental processing. We may disagree slightly on the reasons why but we’re agreed on the underlying premise. Nothing else matters.
