- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 44,679
- Liked Posts:
- 39,309
My favorite teams
remy:
Please answer my question.
Please answer my question.
Rory Sparrow
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 4,850
- Liked Posts:
- 3,735
But you were wrong because the thread you referenced had zero postings by FT. Empty barrels make the most noise, and so forth....
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,163
- Liked Posts:
- 38,172
I answered it in the other thread you asked me about it. Yes I visit other message boards but I post most frequently here.
Already conceded FT did not post in that thread. However, the overall point remains. You guys have a routine which you employed over the years. Others may not have been aware because you spend so much time banned but now the band is back together.
- Joined:
- Sep 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 41,612
- Liked Posts:
- 13,639
I would think Bears' fans, in particular, are tired of hearing about QBs with "potential".
- Joined:
- Nov 5, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,300
- Liked Posts:
- 2,527
- Location:
- NJ
My favorite teams
I'm on cowbell.
- Joined:
- Sep 28, 2014
- Posts:
- 8,622
- Liked Posts:
- 10,249
- Location:
- Chicago, IL
NFL Films just came out with a brilliantly made video on the Super Bowl...
[video=youtube_share;7gpTzVGqBuQ]https://youtu.be/7gpTzVGqBuQ[/video]
[video=youtube_share;7gpTzVGqBuQ]https://youtu.be/7gpTzVGqBuQ[/video]
- Joined:
- Nov 5, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,300
- Liked Posts:
- 2,527
- Location:
- NJ
My favorite teams
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!
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,163
- Liked Posts:
- 38,172
Is someone advocating getting rid of Goff now? I thought the suggestion was let's see how he performs by the time his rookie contract is up.
Let's say over the next 2 years, the Rams continue to get knocked out of the playoffs with Goff choking. Does that not call into question whether he is the right man for the job despite his regular season numbers?
The dude has a career 73.6 QB rating in the playoffs. Small sample of course hence why the comment about let's she how he performs the next 2 years. However at this point, it is fair to question his lack of success in the playoffs.
- Joined:
- Nov 5, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,300
- Liked Posts:
- 2,527
- Location:
- NJ
My favorite teams
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.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,163
- Liked Posts:
- 38,172
Vision also said that maybe he can improve so I still don't see where he is saying get rid of Goff now. I think he was saying don't extend Goff now until he shows he can in fact improve.
But if there is a post in this thread where Vision actually said to dump Goff right this minute then let me know as all I see is him saying he doesn't think Goff has proven he can beat top defenses not that Goff should be dumped right now. Whether you agree with that assessment, he is not saying what you claim. He said he may be Stafford like IF he doesn't develop not that he is DEFINITELY Stafford like.
I think the bold is pretty clear he is not advocating dumping Goff right now. Just expressing his doubts and saying if Goff doesn't develop that ability to you want to pay him like Stafford.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,163
- Liked Posts:
- 38,172
Also it would probably help if you just focused on the argument being made and not make assumptions that I thought you were referring to me. Unlike you guys I simply debate the points in front of me. I don't go around inferring things about posters or what they assume unless provoked. I questioned you not because I thought you were referring to me because I simply did not recall anyone saying what you claimed in this thread. All I saw was people saying they were not sure if Goff was the answer given his visible struggles against the Pats and others.
Don't fall into the habit of some of these other guys that look at who made a post and then decide whether they will respond in good faith or be antagonistic based on whether they like the poster or not.
Don't fall into the habit of some of these other guys that look at who made a post and then decide whether they will respond in good faith or be antagonistic based on whether they like the poster or not.
- Joined:
- Jun 20, 2010
- Posts:
- 38,462
- Liked Posts:
- 33,218
- Location:
- In the mod forum planning your ban
The bold doesnt advocate that. The bold is wondering if Goff can improve on develop reading defenses or if Mcvay believes in him. Not sure how you got anything else out of that
Visionman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 28, 2017
- Posts:
- 7,995
- Liked Posts:
- 4,451
This pains me to say, but Remy is right...
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,163
- Liked Posts:
- 38,172
No Vision made the Stafford like comments in other posts. I just didn't feel like quoting those as well since Outlaw was already aware of them since he referenced them.
- Joined:
- Aug 16, 2011
- Posts:
- 22,159
- Liked Posts:
- 13,395
- Location:
- Favorite Corner Bar
My favorite teams
I still don't feel that the Rams had a playoff worthy offense. They were exposed mid-season.
- Joined:
- Nov 5, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,300
- Liked Posts:
- 2,527
- Location:
- NJ
My favorite teams
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.
[[TLDR: Visionman, if you weren't saying you had the thought that Goff would not be the answer and be like a West Coast Stafford, I'll take it back but I trust you can see how I honestly thought that was what you were saying.
Remy, you're a jackass braying about in all directions.]]
Last edited:
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,163
- Liked Posts:
- 38,172
Lol I love how at the end you want Vision to see how you honestly thought that was what he was saying but yet seem oblivious to the fact that one could easily read your exchange and honestly think no one made the claim you said they did.
It goes both ways. He doesn't have to keep repeating in subsequent posts that maybe Goff can improve because he already established that.
Maybe just maybe people should follow along and read future posts in the context that came before and if it seems like his posts were getting more hardline then just ask for clarification instead of disreagarding his previous comments to argue against an argument that is easier to refute. That is called creating a strawman. That may not have been your intent but that is precisely what you did as you chose to interpret his argument in a way that made it eaiser for you to refute. Then when I pointed it out, you decided to launch an ad hominem attack at me.
All I am telling you is I don't see where anyone made any claim about trading Goff now. That was a leap in logic you made however convinced you may have been about it. Not sure why you got upset that I did not reach the implication you did upon reading Vision's posts.
It goes both ways. He doesn't have to keep repeating in subsequent posts that maybe Goff can improve because he already established that.
Maybe just maybe people should follow along and read future posts in the context that came before and if it seems like his posts were getting more hardline then just ask for clarification instead of disreagarding his previous comments to argue against an argument that is easier to refute. That is called creating a strawman. That may not have been your intent but that is precisely what you did as you chose to interpret his argument in a way that made it eaiser for you to refute. Then when I pointed it out, you decided to launch an ad hominem attack at me.
All I am telling you is I don't see where anyone made any claim about trading Goff now. That was a leap in logic you made however convinced you may have been about it. Not sure why you got upset that I did not reach the implication you did upon reading Vision's posts.
Visionman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 28, 2017
- Posts:
- 7,995
- Liked Posts:
- 4,451
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
gwharris2254
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Nov 6, 2012
- Posts:
- 6,555
- Liked Posts:
- 1,967
My favorite teams
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 ?
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 ?
Rory Sparrow
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 4,850
- Liked Posts:
- 3,735
HUH? An NFL QB struggled against more than one team? Time to move on.
