[AvengerRam]

No one is doing any of that.

Yeah, it’s all in my mind.

I swear...I think that some fans, upon seeing the Rams score on three consecutive 80 yard passes, would lament the lack of sustained drives and low time of possession numbers.

[pmill66]

Goff is executing the plays. He is good, very good. Have noticed he does say "we" alot too. Sharing the credit. All is well with the Rams QB.

[/zn/]

Yeah, it’s all in my mind.

I swear...I think that some fans, upon seeing the Rams score on three consecutive 80 yard passes, would lament the lack of sustained drives and low time of possession numbers.

Not to be provocative, but different people have different reactions to the same thing. I see a years long Rams fan (whether he likes the word fan or not) who takes one side in a debate about the differences between Cooks and Watkins. That's always okay with me if the discussion is good...people are going to see things like that differently. And I think it is also true that the Rams did not do as consistently well against top opposition last year (Vikes, Eagles, Falcons, Jags). I personally see that as growing pains, but I have no issue with someone who is more skeptical than I am.

I can't speak for you but from where I sit you seem to see debates like that as someone being "negative." I don't think the things I mentioned are "negative" at all. I see them as honest differences among Rams fans who are never all going to think alike about everything.

And I don;t even agree with LA on all of this. I have no dog in the Cooks/Watkins debate. I think they're different guys and I want to see the Rams take advantage of whichever one they have, so now I am glad to see Cooks being active. I think the Rams did play less well against the 4 teams I mentioned but then I personally see that as growing pains (for the team, for McVay, for Goff). I am a big Goff advocate and have been all along through everything (including 2016) but then I don't see a Rams fan who is more of a Goff skeptic as unwelcome, I just disagree, while also supportive of him or her openly expressing that view.

I think it's one thing to label a poster ("you're negative") and it's another to disagree.

And bear in mind I have the exact same relation to your posts too. We see some things in similar ways, some not, but I think conversation is better when people can speak their minds about the team (and coaches and management) and it's okay to do it.

I thought for example that the Cooks/Watkins discussion was a good one. And I didn't agree with every word said in it, not by a longshot.

I am trying to just express a different way of seeing all this as opposed to giving a lecture on how one MUST see it. I am hoping to persuade people to be more open to divergent views and differences, and failing that, to at least make a decent case for that perspective.

And, go Rams.

[laram]

Yeah, it’s all in my mind.

I swear...I think that some fans, upon seeing the Rams score on three consecutive 80 yard passes, would lament the lack of sustained drives and low time of possession numbers.

Nah I'm just not as quick to jump to a concrete conclusion as some.

I want to see the Rams team vs better competition and I want to see Goff have that "moment" before I am convinced that he's there.

He's not yet. But I am also not saying that he cannot get there.

I want to see IT. I haven't seen it yet.

I need more data.

[AvengerRam]

I don’t think anyone wants a board where everyone agrees on everything.

That doesn’t mean all criticism is valid, or that all debates are worthwhile.

I think most people know where the line is, and some cross the line.

Whether it’s deliberate...that I can’t tell you.

[AvengerRam]

Nah I'm just not as quick to jump to a concrete conclusion as some.

I want to see the Rams team vs better competition and I want to see Goff have that "moment" before I am convinced that he's there.

He's not yet. But I am also not saying that he cannot get there.

I want to see IT. I haven't seen it yet.

I need more data.

You can set the bar wherever you wish, but it’s not hard to find objective data that is extremely favorable. If you choose to doubt, that’s your prerogative.

[/zn/]

I don’t think anyone wants a board where everyone agrees on everything.

That doesn’t mean all criticism is valid, or that all debates are worthwhile.

I think most people know where the line is, and some cross the line.

Whether it’s deliberate...that I can’t tell you.

Yeah I see it differently. On issues regarding the Rams, there are no lines and all debate is valid.

I know many many people who do not share the idea that there is a line in terms of what views are permissable, so no, I don't agree that all see that the same. Not everyone "knows where it is" because not everyone thinks there is such a thing. In fact I know an entire board where every regular poster thinks that way.

I of course mean real debate about football issues. Obviously someone who insisted that Kurt Warner was a child molester would be crossing a moral/ line. But I mean football issues among fans of the same team.

If someone is far more skeptical of Goff than I am, for example, as long as they kept the discourse clean I would debate them heavily but if it went nowhere then fine...I would just think such a poster had a right to that view, whether I agreed or not.

...

[AvengerRam]

Yeah I see it differently. On issues regarding the Rams, there are no lines and all debate is valid.

I think Todd Gurley is a bust. Let’s debate.

I know many many people who do not share the idea that there is a line in terms of what views are permissable, so no, I don't agree that all see that the same.

Who said anything about what is “permissible”?

Not everyone "knows where it is" because not everyone thinks there is such a thing. In fact I know an entire board where every regular poster thinks that way.

The “unnamed source” tactic? Seriously?

If someone is far more skeptical of Goff than I am, for example, as long as they kept the discourse clean I would debate then heavily but if it went nowhere then fine...I would just think such a poster had a right to that view, whether I agreed or not.

...

Nice strawman... but I don’t have an issue with skepticism of Goff or anyone else. I have an issue with people who repeat the same chery-picked negative data to justify their position, while ignoring or disregarding positive data that supports a contrary view.

[/zn/]

I think Todd Gurley is a bust. Let’s debate.



Who said anything about what is “permissible”?



The “unnamed source” tactic? Seriously?



Nice strawman... but I don’t have an issue with skepticism of Goff or anyone else. I have an issue with people who repeat the same chery-picked negative data to justify their position, while ignoring or disregarding positive data that supports a contrary view.

It's hard to respond to point by point posts both because formatting a response in kind takes so much work, but also because (and watch this with others) they tend to show up when people are getting a little dug in and not dialoguing. So I just have to make due and respond this way.

The problem is that no one ever actually says anything clearly outrageous like Gurley is a bust after he was offensive MVP. Saying I like Watkins better than Cooks should not set off the same alarms as "Gurley is a bust" said after he earned offensive MVP. People will say the former and no one in their right mind in real discussions says the latter.

I have no idea how you're using the "unnamed source" routine, but it's not applicable. I was referring to personal experience. I;ve posted about the Rams with hundreds of people since 1997 and I know so many I can't count who just simply do not do the "there's a line" routine about what a loyal Rams fan can say without being labelled "negative." That's real in my experience and continues to this day. I also know and have known many who call opinions they don't like or don;t agree with "negative," or some other such word. To me that means there actually is no "line"...but some think there is, and some don't.

I have no problem with someone liking Watkins more than Cooks. To me, that's a different opinion, not a "line." I have no problem with someone being more skeptical of Goff. To me that's a different opinion, not a "line." I have no problem with someone having some issues with McVay's coaching in certain games. To me, that's a different opinion, not a "line." And I also don't agree with any of it.

That last bit, the strawman thing, you completely misread me. I was referring to me not you. I was using my own experience as an example. Taking that as aimed at you was a mistake. I was speaking from experience as a longstanding Goff guy who has encountered people who were far more skeptical or in 2016 were doing the "he's a bust" routine. I was just describing how I personally approach things, making the point that there are different ways to take these things.

In fact when it comes to that, I didn't see anyone "cherry pick negative data." I saw a debate about what data is more revealing or what data counts more and so on. (And that's real.)

For example, here's a stat on Goff from 2017. %Passes Completed, Late & Close.. With that, in 2017 Goff was 45.3% which ranked 31st. To be fair that covers just 53 of his 477 passes but still. That's an area where he can improve and it relates to 4th quarter comebacks (though it's not just him, it's the entire team). Is that the whole story of Goff or the Rams? Well I don't think so. (But it's part of the story.) But what if that data led someone to be more skeptical about Goff than I am? (Which on other boards I actually have gotten into. On precisely this issue. And some posters rejected the data and some thought it was the most important thing and that it supported their skepticism.) When debates like that don't go anywhere, I don't assume the debate opponents see it differently because they had these condemnable motives. Sometimes debate just doesn't' go anywhere.

Mostly those debates were really about the significance of the data. It means this, no it means that, it's balanced out by this, no it's not balanced out by that. That kind of thing. Those discussions are okay with me unless they backslide into being about the posters. Then I think they're useless.

[AvengerRam]

Your long-winded posts notwithstanding, I think it’s clear that an am far from the only person here who has found laram’s recent comments on Watkins, Cooks and Goff to be narrow-minded, snide , repetitive, and/or oddly negative, particularly in the face of the overall success of the Rams’ offense.

I also think it’s pretty clear that you are working very hard to defend him, not because you necessarily agree with his views, but because you perceive a threat to your right to be an opinionated contrarian. Of course, nobody it’s infringing upon your rights...we’re just two guys talking.

And, hey...if I’m off the mark regarding your motivation, you can always fall back on telling me to “fuck off” again.