OT: What should the Rams do about Goff?

Huh? Rory missing the point again. Time to move on.

remydat said:

Huh? Rory missing the point again. Time to move on.

Click to expand...

If only that were the case!

Post #93! Post #102!

remydat said:

Yes FT did not join you in that instance of you interpreting things in the dumbest way possible. Just you. I stand corrected.

Click to expand...

Nice to see I'm occupying your dome rent free.

Visionman said:

I think this is one of those threads where people are going to see/read what they want to see. I did not change my stance. #endthreadplease

Click to expand...

I think that's generally true of everything and why more communication could clear that up rather than advocating for less.

You said why would you pay Goff top dollar if he doesn't grow.

airtime said he has already shown more growth than most any other QB in history at this point of his career.

I said that he is already elite vs. league average and also vs. Ds above average and that only a few Ds had the scheme/talent to stop him and he is already farther along than Stafford (your own comp) in QB performance.

I am pretty sure you are washing your hands of this dialogue because 1) you are tired of the chat altogether or 2) you have made some bad evaluations on whether Goff will be worthy of a big contract based on faulty reasoning and do not wish to double down on it or 3) a combo of both.

I however do not agree that we "only see/read what we want to". I think that's only true to a point and is NOT true the longer a chat goes.

You want out, that's cool, but do me a favor: don't chalk it up to a "misunderstanding" if you also terminate your end before the stances are all understood and analyzed on an agreed baseline of positions.

gwharris2254 said:

Personally, I think that you could rotate Top 25 QBs and be extremely successful. Two middling QBs and use them differently.

Let your #2 take over from the opponents 40 yard line and exclusively run "hurry up" or vice versa.

Use two QBs and then either one is not as irreplaceable.

Every team ? uses at least two RBs in every game.

There should be situational times when you bring in your "other" QB.

The league just has never worked this way before, but with a restrictive cap, teams might evolve into a QB by committee approach.

Injuries would be less destructive to have one QB hurt, as long as during practice and games each starter got their touches.

I know this sounds like nonsense but GUESS WHAT ? Who has actually done this before to actually DISPROVE its efficacy ?

Click to expand...

Closest I can think of is Pittsburgh in the Slash Stewart era. It worked wonders in their Super Bowl runs. Chicago got Slash in here and turned their perennial losing around.

Ok, asshole sarcasm off: it's not the way the game works. There is too much scheming and hiding things and learning tendencies of the opposing playcaller that requires consistency in analysis of the DC and communicating what the DC is doing and how to change up the attack by changing read progressions etc. If you add a QB2 to your QB1 to the chain of communication then you have double the workload but the same amount of time. It is impractical.

The only practicality is changing up a talent level (like when NO puts Hill in QB for extra athleticism - teams do that all the time). That is a momentary mixing up of what the D has to do, but even then I suspect it is to get the D out of rhythym for a play or two and try to dictate the O THROUGH QB1 (and still SOLELY QB1) from then on.

Outlaw Josey Cutler said:

I think that's generally true of everything and why more communication could clear that up rather than advocating for less.

You said why would you pay Goff top dollar if he doesn't grow.

airtime said he has already shown more growth than most any other QB in history at this point of his career.

I said that he is already elite vs. league average and also vs. Ds above average and that only a few Ds had the scheme/talent to stop him and he is already farther along than Stafford (your own comp) in QB performance.

I am pretty sure you are washing your hands of this dialogue because 1) you are tired of the chat altogether or 2) you have made some bad evaluations on whether Goff will be worthy of a big contract based on faulty reasoning and do not wish to double down on it or 3) a combo of both.

I however do not agree that we "only see/read what we want to". I think that's only true to a point and is NOT true the longer a chat goes.

You want out, that's cool, but do me a favor: don't chalk it up to a "misunderstanding" if you also terminate your end before the stances are all understood and analyzed on an agreed baseline of positions.

Click to expand...

It's not a misunderstanding, it's a deliberate misinterpretation to suit your own agenda.

You took my original comment our of context. I then replied telling you such, yet you then tried to tell me you know what I wrote better than I do, evidently.

You don't deserve further attempts at clarification, because you have no desire for a legit discussion.

#endthevortex

Visionman said:

It's not a misunderstanding, it's a deliberate misinterpretation to suit your own agenda.

You took my original comment our of context. I then replied telling you such, yet you then tried to tell me you know what I wrote better than I do, evidently.

You don't deserve further attempts at clarification, because you have no desire for a legit discussion.

#endthevortex

Click to expand...

So you evaluated Goff as a QB in context of being re-signed and being the answer for LA (even when you had "wait and see" you still framed it as if Goff needed a great offense and not Goff helping make the offense great which is why your position is doubtful to me and others).

When presented with contradictory evidence, you lazily apply my position as disingenuous. What agenda do you imagine I have other than clear statements of what you say/what you mean? What does that even mean to say I am "deliberately misinterpreting to suit my agenda"? Huh?

You can't just dismiss my part in this dialogue as "remy-like" and a "vortex". Nice try.

That is dodging the issue that I (and airtime) had with what you yourself posted.

# Vortex ends when you re-engage and clarify your Goff remarks or just shrug and exit. Your call. I'm good either way.

Let's make this simple.

Outlaw Josey Cutler said:

I wonder if LA message boards have fans that only account for his performance vs. top Ds on the field and are actively rooting for Goff to be traded.

Fans that somehow think any old QB can do what Goff does vs. decent - below average teams but McVay needs to find a NEW QB to do it to the defenses that successfully take away the pocket as well!

Click to expand...

I will say what I said to you the first time. No one said the above. You took people speculating that IF Goff does not solve his pressure issues, the Rams should not re-sign him when his rookie contract is up and magically turned it into people advocating he be traded right now. It is the very definition of a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I repeat no one said the above and you should ask yourself why you chose to interpret what was said in a manner that made it easy for you to refute? Of course, anyone actually saying trade Goff now would look unreasonable so why would anyone actually say that? It is literally the dumbest interpretation of what Vision said which also makes it the easiest for you to refute. Hence the strawman.

remydat said:

Let's make this simple.



I will say what I said to you the first time. No one said the above. You took people speculating that IF Goff does not solve his pressure issues, the Rams should not re-sign him when his rookie contract is up and magically turned it into people advocating he be traded right now. It is the very definition of a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I repeat no one said the above and you should ask yourself why you chose to interpret what was said in a manner that made it easy for you to refute? Of course, anyone actually saying trade Goff now would look unreasonable so why would anyone actually say that? It is literally the dumbest interpretation of what Vision said which also makes it the easiest for you to refute. Hence the strawman.

Click to expand...

Need erstwhile CCS guru "Baba" to weigh in on this with his unique brand of intelligence...perhaps he will tell us something like "Brady is better than Goff".

It's kind of interesting that while you avoid sites like PFR (the one with all the facts, stats, and stuff), you won't hesitate to link to wikipedia for your usual semantic-driven 'debate'.

Rory Sparrow said:

Need erstwhile CCS guru "Baba" to weigh in on this with his unique brand of intelligence...perhaps he will tell us something like "Brady is better than Goff".

It's kind of interesting that while you avoid sites like PFR (the one with all the facts, stats, and stuff), you won't hesitate to link to wikipedia for your usual semantic-driven 'debate'.

Click to expand...

Pointing out a logical fallacy would typically require one establishing the definition of said logical fallacy. Considering you are perhaps CCS' greatest creator of strawmen, I could see why this would upset you.

remydat said:

Pointing out a logical fallacy would typically require one establishing the definition of said logical fallacy. Considering you are perhaps CCS' greatest creator of strawmen, I could see why this would upset you.

Click to expand...

Slippery Slope - Jared Goff loses to Patriots...Jared Goff will never win another game the rest of his NFL career!

False Dilemma - Jared Goff either wins the Super Bowl for the Rams, or he should be released outright!

Appeal to Ignorance - Jared Goff struggled against the Patriots...and others!

Ad Hominem - You and FT made Baba feel bad in a different thread!

Hasty Generalization - I just saw Goff play poorly in the Super Bowl...he sucks!

remydat said:

Let's make this simple.



I will say what I said to you the first time. No one said the above. You took people speculating that IF Goff does not solve his pressure issues, the Rams should not re-sign him when his rookie contract is up and magically turned it into people advocating he be traded right now. It is the very definition of a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I repeat no one said the above and you should ask yourself why you chose to interpret what was said in a manner that made it easy for you to refute? Of course, anyone actually saying trade Goff now would look unreasonable so why would anyone actually say that? It is literally the dumbest interpretation of what Vision said which also makes it the easiest for you to refute. Hence the strawman.

Click to expand...

Vision's stance started saying maybe Goff can do it and got progressively more hardline that he can't and should not get paid. His comp to Stafford was never let go despite being absurd and even provoked a reply from airtime as well as me that he was being way too harsh on a kid who has just posted 2 100 + rating seasons and two Pro Bowls and can only really be criticized for a few performances by SOME top D's (not even all he has faced).

While he did not say specifically Goff is not the answer, it is implied that is his belief:

Visionman Post 84: "“But why would you pay a QB top dollar if you're almost certain heist good enough to beat those top defenses...at least without a great offense around him? And if you pay him like that...kiss any hope for that type of offense goodbye.

You would be resigning your team to be nothing more than mediocre. Example: Detroit and Stafford”

Visionman Post 88: "Buy its not about if they have anyone better. The goal is to contend for the playoffs and SB. If Goff isn't good enough to beat the top teams without an elite team around him, then he is not going to be the QB they need to achieve their goals...period.

Is it hard to find and develop decent QBs? Absolutely. But the only thing harder than trying to find a good one is to pay top dollar for an ok one. In that case, paying Goff would ensure they NEVER get there."

The bolded implies it is "almost certain" Goff isn't the answer and that he is an "ok" QB not deserving of "top dollar".

This goes farther than his earlier post where he said maybe McVay can turn Goff into the real deal and seems to suggest that Vision thinks Goff doesn't have "it" and shouldn't get paid when the time comes.

To Vision: if I am mischaracterizing your stance, let me know. I do not want to misrepresent you. All good here.

To remy: You seize on the fact that I wonder if any Rams fans want Goff to be traded and hammered on saying "Vision didn't say 'now'!" despite the fact that if Vision had changed in the SUBSEQUENT posts after the "maybe" one, and NOW didn't think Goff would end up BEING the answer then it would have to be a trade if LAR were to get anything in value for a ROI on Goff before end of rookie deal.

remydat said:

Let's make this simple.



I will say what I said to you the first time. No one said the above. You took people speculating that IF Goff does not solve his pressure issues, the Rams should not re-sign him when his rookie contract is up and magically turned it into people advocating he be traded right now. It is the very definition of a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I repeat no one said the above and you should ask yourself why you chose to interpret what was said in a manner that made it easy for you to refute? Of course, anyone actually saying trade Goff now would look unreasonable so why would anyone actually say that? It is literally the dumbest interpretation of what Vision said which also makes it the easiest for you to refute. Hence the strawman.

Click to expand...

I didn't say Visionman was doing these things. I was wondering if any Rams fans shared his view on Goff, would they follow the logic train to say move him while he has peak value?

So no. No strawman.

Also, you are such a jackass.

Rory Sparrow said:

Slippery Slope - Jared Goff loses to Patriots...Jared Goff will never win another game the rest of his NFL career!

False Dilemma - Jared Goff either wins the Super Bowl for the Rams, or he should be released outright!

Appeal to Ignorance - Jared Goff struggled against the Patriots...and others!

Ad Hominem - You and FT made Baba feel bad in a different thread!

Hasty Generalization - I just saw Goff play poorly in the Super Bowl...he sucks!

Click to expand...

Yeah all of those are strawmen.

I think he should go back to college, but focus on a worthwhile degree.

Gustavus Adolphus said:

I think he should go back to college, but focus on a worthwhile degree.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about Goff, or remydat?

Outlaw Josey Cutler said:

I didn't say Visionman was doing these things. I was wondering if any Rams fans shared his view on Goff, would they follow the logic train to say move him while he has peak value?

So no. No strawman.

Also, you are such a jackass.

Click to expand...

Except when I called out this post earlier you didnt say you were referring to Rams fans. You said you werent talking about me and then offered up Vision as sacrificial lamb.

Outlaw Josey Cutler said:

Read the whole thread. Visionman was saying he is Stafford-like and LAR will sink out of playoffs under his contract like DET.

Not everything is about you and you had no need to assume as such.

Click to expand...

Yeah but you weren't strawmanning, lol. You just brought up Vision for no reason and then gave the impression people were talking about trading Goff now or that it was easy to do what Goff did.

Rory Sparrow said:

Are you talking about Goff, or remydat?

Click to expand...

Goff. Go back to Cal, maybe get a degree in Geology. Seems like a better use of his time.

remydat said:

Except when I called out this post earlier you didnt say you were referring to Rams fans. You said you werent talking about me and then offered up Vision as sacrificial lamb.

So yes you were strawmanning as you would not have brought up Vision in your intial response.



Yeah but you weren't strawmanning, lol.

Click to expand...

Vision inspired my tongue-in-cheek response.

There is no strawman since I never put words in his mouth and have since QUOTED HIM DIRECTLY as to the implications inherent with his statements.

An implication can be inferred without a straw man occurring and that is what I did (and airtime too). I have even asked him several times now to clarify if he feels that I am in error about those implications. He has declined to clarify based on the fact that I am "deliberately misinterpreting to further my own agenda".

LOL As if posting on Goff is some kind of a political hot issue that I am maneuvering in order to create a narrative when his re-election comes up. LOL

Goff is young and not a finished product. He helped get the team to the Superbowl. He is still young, finished as a top ten, maybe top 5 quarterback last season, and has improved his stats year over year for his whole NFL career.

How is this a discussion right now?