denisdman wrote:
Vegan, I would like you listen to Goff on Parkins’ show on Friday. Then I want you to tell me the flawed logic with Goff’s main arguments.
I know the answer already but would like another similar thinker to confirm.
Please.
Heard some of it, super annoying. Here's what I could gather:
Herb Howard:
Quote:
Fields is fine, why go out and get another QB when the one we got is just fine. He has a lot of highlights demonstrating things other QBs can't do. He's better than Caleb because I feel that he's better than Caleb.
Again, more argument by assertion bullshit rather than using facts and data. Howard starts from the position that Fields is dope but never establishes why Fields is dope. Later on he alludes to Fields evading sacks and being really athletic as some reasons for why he thinks highly of Fields, but that's a subjective point of view. He never acknowledges, for example, that Fields had to take otherworldly evasive action at times to avoid sacks because he missed 2-3 possible throws on that same play. You're going to miss throws when you spent 3.8 seconds or whatever it is in the pocket waiting for Moore to get NCAA-open since Fields doesn't want to throw when Moore is NFL-open. Actual research would tell you that, but apparently Howard's view of "all of Fields' snaps" was obstructed by the 4-5 Fields posters Howard hung in his basement.
Pointing to highlights as to why someone is good is a terribly sophomoric point of view. There is no engagement at all with 40 games of datapoints meticulously detailing where Fields excels (rushing) and where he falls short (everything else). At best this is just lazy and at worst this is dishonest.
Goff took this annoyingly fatalistic position that since Chicago is QB-cursed you can't just drop a phenom in here and expect things to change overnight. When Parkins rightfully pointed out how things changed overnight in Cincy when Burrow was drafted both guests just tried to pivot/move the goalposts. But Parkins is right and he could have went further - yes, Burrow in Cincy, but also Stroud in Houston, Manning in Indy, Brady in TB, etc., is the checkmate to this kind of argument. None of those franchises were considered to be the gold standard in anything until they were transformed into contenders by elite QBs. Moreover, you can easily disprove Goff's lazy point by mapping out the post-Bears careers of prior Bears QBs. If Goff is correct, once these QBs left the QB hellhole that is Chicago and moved to franchises with "better infrastructure," they should have blomossed. Did they? No.
Cade McNown - bust in Chicago and elsewhere
Grossman/Orton - performed more or less the same as they did in Chicago
Tr.ubisky - performed the same if not worse than he did in Chicago
If Goff is correct, these QBs should have seen better days once hooking up with better franchises. They did not. What does it mean? Chicago just didn't hit on those picks. These QBs' lack of appreciably different performance outside of Chicago undermines narratives that paint Chicago as a city that doesn't "develop QBs." Moreover, the argument also assumes that if you're a high draft pick as a QB you must necessarily perform at some above average level by virtue of being a hight draft pick (like Fields). it never considers the possibility that perhaps you were actually overdrafted, and that your college skills didn't translate neatly to the pros (like Fields)
What did you think?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
