- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,081
- Liked Posts:
- 38,088
Huh? Rory missing the point again. Time to move on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Huh? Rory missing the point again. Time to move on.
Nice to see I'm occupying your dome rent free.Yes FT did not join you in that instance of you interpreting things in the dumbest way possible. Just you. I stand corrected.
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
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 ?
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.
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
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!
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I think he should go back to college, but focus on a worthwhile degree.
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.
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.
Are you talking about Goff, or remydat?
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.