Quote
Florida_Ram
Further you continue to talk about THE WAY the divorce occurred. IMO thats a non story. I watched both videos and the nastiness you attribute to both mcvay and snead just wasn't there. That's MY opinion. If yours is different again that's fine. But thats YOUR opinion. Not fact.
2 things.
1.You are factually wrong in your assertions about how it ended. The actual issue (which you are not mentioning) is that no one complained about how the trade was handled (everyone who gets this issue wrong, gets
that wrong). It was about the fact that Goff learned through public not private communication, well before the trade, that the qb position was open. Many qbs through the years have been put in that position--where the regime does not see the qb as the franchise qb going forward. And they NEVER
not say it to the qb first. That's just how business is done and R2K is right, the way the Rams handled it is a bad look. Listen to other coaches and GMs when they talk about that kind of thing. They all say we've communicated with our qb about this. QBs do not find this out through public comments. They are told first. Anything else is just classless and I agree with R2K--it seems obvious now that the Rams kind of realize that. My bet is this regime never does that again.
In this thread what got discussed was what quoted sources in the Thirry article said--that McV was too impatient and harsh as a qb coach. Since that's well documented in a lot of other ways, it is pretty well established. Misrepresentations of my position aside, and bad junior psych 101 babble aside, I think it is pretty clear that McV did not handle being a qb coach very well. Let's put it this way--no one Thirry talked to said he DID handle it well. That is so revealing.
2. You are making the classic "my opinion is truth" move by calling other positions than yours "excuses." We are not in a situation where I have an opinion but then you're just mouthing "truth." If one is an opinion so is another. That's why the "e" word is so pointless in these discussions. Saying someone is "making excuses" is just a bad translation of the following: "I disagree with your interpretation and prefer my own."
I can back up for post after post the argument that a lot of Goff criticism is hyperbolic and does not give an accurate picture, which is much more mixed and complicated than the hyperbole people want it to be. The problem is, you do not show much of a sign of actually having read what was posted. You think you know what is being said...and, you don't. Either that or you read it poorly through the lens of your own bias.
My main point is to keep showing how a lot of the criticism is hyperbolic---and that's not hard to do, because a lot of it is. I think you are mistaking that position for the idea that Goff deserves no criticism. That might be because you believe (and I won't use the word "excuses" ) that McV deserves no criticism. Even HE does not think that (he openly said he had communication issues.)
Well I don't think it is this simple either/or thing that way. As I said it is easy to demonstrate that criticism is hyperbolic when it is. Because it is. The funny, bizarre thing is seeing all these hyperbolic criticism types thinking that saying that means Goff does not warrant
any criticism. Naw that's projection. As I said--better to actually read people.
This is why I say the conversation gets better the more people actually
read each other and acknowledge the gray areas. I don't have much to say to simple "yay" or "nay" arguments--they are way too simple and don't make for good conversation. And the "police the board for dissidents" syndrome which has the same few people trying to enforce Goff conformity. There are a lot of conversations on the board that are waaaaaaaaaaay better than that. As I said before, there are more than "2 sides" on this. And there are more people with positions different from yours on this than you seem to realize.
....
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2021 03:14PM by zn.
