Quote
dzrams
There is an awful lot of irony here. I think what’s happening here is there is a reductionist or absolutist approach
I think people will invariably NOT contribute much to real, honest discussion if they actually believe there are "2 sides." Anyone who believes that is likely not reading posts. We see the effects of that when people make assumptions about what is being said based simply on their own stereotyping idea of who wrote it.
This is a very far-ranging discussion with lots of different positions in it. There are only a handful who are playing the "police the board and pile on the dissidents" game. Most are actually doing much better than that. For example I recently had an exchange here with Sagauro and James where I did not entirely agree with either them, really, but really got a lot out of the nuances and the "get into the gray areas" thinking they both showed on these issues.
Myself, my way of avoiding reductionist or hyperbolic claims is
to not make them. So if you notice, I say things like he had 4 bad games but they won because of him in some games, he was not consistent but many things contributed to the struggles he did have (including a non-communicating qb coach), it does not reduce to simplistic things like "processing speed" and other armchair myths, a guy does not have issues like "struggling to read defenses" who played some of the games he played in 2020 where they won because of him, that although he struggled in many games (primarily because of his biggest flaw which is pressing when he shouldn't), he was not a season-long collapse the way Wentz was, it is way too absolutist to say he always struggled in high pressure games in spite of the PFF narrative (and we have numbers to back it), it is not rare to have bad games in your 5th year (Stafford had the same number as Goff did), and so on. Goff left because there was a disconnect between coach and player. Don't factor the coaches own issues into this and you don't have the real story. The effort to write him off as a bust is so counter-factual that I am kind of amazed people try it. 'Oh and that in spite of some board warriors need to travel in gangs and police things, no, criticizing McVay does not come from "bitter" Goff defenders--read posts, don't attack posters (people who wrote that about McVay criticism being spillover, including you, should be embarrassed.) In this thread I disputed the idea that a Goff was this inherently deficient qb in this or that area because a guy who meets that definition is incapable of playing some of the games he played in 2020 where they won because of him.
What "side" is all that?
And I said the Rams ought to do well with Stafford, Stafford's experience makes a huge difference (9 years difference), and so there is no need to defend the trade with these reductionist takes on things, BUT that Stafford will no more make up for a problem OL in LA than he did in Detroit so let's not act like suddenly he's one of the very rare qbs who still plays well under those conditions.
What "side" is that?
....
