[max]

yep, of course it is, add bias to the equation, or the inability to grasp numbers, and you walk around sounding like max, aping talking heads...

01.png

Your numbers are wrong (again). The total yardage should add to 3509.

And your passer rating numbers are wrong by extension.

I had to fire guys like you. Good thing you were never in aerospace. You'd kill people.

[moklerman]

Doesn't this all just boil down to "the numbers are lying"? Not to mention cherry-picking.

The 24th ranking and high turnovers aren't real and we shouldn't count his bad games. I mean, honestly.

[ramsman34]

9-4

[max]

Doesn't this all just boil down to "the numbers are lying"? Not to mention cherry-picking.

The 24th ranking and high turnovers aren't real and we shouldn't count his bad games. I mean, honestly.

There’s no denying that all numbers count and cherry picking is a consideration when you start massaging numbers. But the intent here is not so much to make Goff look better than his numbers say he is, rather how much better he could be if he cleaned up the atrocious performances against those types of defenses that give him the most trouble.

I try to be open minded about these types of analyses. But I also try to be honest and not go overboard on crediting a player because it fits a positive narrative that I may have. I don’t assume Goffs issues with turnovers against certain defenses have disappeared without definitive evidence. I am hopeful though.

[PARAM]

There’s no denying that all numbers count and cherry picking is a consideration when you start massaging numbers. But the intent here is not so much to make Goff look better than his numbers say he is, rather how much better he could be if he cleaned up the atrocious performances against those types of defenses that give him the most trouble.

I try to be open minded about these types of analyses. But I also try to be honest and not go overboard on crediting a player because it fits a positive narrative that I may have. I don’t assume Goffs issues with turnovers against certain defenses have disappeared without definitive evidence. I am hopeful though.

Your point is, if he had more bad games than good, we'd be pretty sure he sucked. If he had more good games than bad, we'd be pretty sure he didn't suck. If he's had twice as many good games as bad, we'd figure he was pretty good, but inconsistent. But if he was consistently bad against certain types of defenses, we might figure it was something else. It's not about cherry picking or claiming the numbers are lying. It's about the eye test AND the numbers that confirm it.

There are some (few) who see Goff play a bad game and say, "yeah, he sucks. Didn't you see him yesterday?" There are some who say, "man he had a terrible game yesterday, why?". And there are some who say, "terrible game? He's never had a terrible game." Max you post in multiple places. You can tell the difference between folks who want to have a serious discussion, folks who wear rose colored glasses and folks who are simply cheerios pissers. You can tell the difference between somebody posting legit numbers, somebody fudging the numbers and somebody ignoring the numbers. It ain't that difficult.

FWIW, those numbers Aeneas posted are accurate. You can add 87.5 to the 2nd column for Baker Mayfield (#12 rated after last night). The first column is Josh Allen and of course, the third column is Goff. Those numbers are accurate. 100%. I don't know what yardage numbers you're questioning in your previous post.

[aeneas1]

9-4

ha ha, yep... and when not playing the niners, a team seemingly in mcvay's head, or the dolphins and their all day 0 coverage / 6+ man fronts:

9-1
72.8% completion rate
103.3 qb rating
top 10 in lowest pick %
and an average of 26 offensive points per game

hopefully mcvay will "cherry pick" those games, those defensive looks, in an effort to finally figure out how to successfully attack them!

Your numbers are wrong (again). The total yardage should add to 3509.

ha ha, you're such an unsalvageable dolt...

i transposed a number that understated goff's pass yardage by 1.5%, which in turn understated his qb rating by 0.5%, ha ha... so, for max, against teams not coached by shanny, or the dolphins 6+ man fronts, goff's qb rating is actually 103.3, not 102.6.

I had to fire guys like you. Good thing you were never in aerospace. You'd kill people.

so many scary aspects about this statement, not the least of which is you held a position that allowed you to hire and fire people? god save us.

[aeneas1]

Your point is, if he had more bad games than good, we'd be pretty sure he sucked. If he had more good games than bad, we'd be pretty sure he didn't suck. If he's had twice as many good games as bad, we'd figure he was pretty good, but inconsistent. But if he was consistently bad against certain types of defenses, we might figure it was something else. It's not about cherry picking or claiming the numbers are lying. It's about the eye test AND the numbers that confirm it.

max wants to believe goff sucks, albeit for different reasons than mokler, in max's case he's just entirely dependent on media narrative and fumbles through numbers in an effort to support what he thinks he hears, poor guy.

FWIW, those numbers Aeneas posted are accurate. You can add 87.5 to the 2nd column for Baker Mayfield (#12 rated after last night). The first column is Josh Allen and of course, the third column is Goff. Those numbers are accurate. 100%. I don't know what yardage numbers you're questioning in your previous post.

he's referring to the post where i compared goff's production against mcvay's apparent kryptonite (sfo x 2, miami's 0 coverage / 6+ man fronts) to goff's other 10 games... i transposed a number that actually undermined, slightly, my case.

of course max saw that goff's numbers were even better than i posted against the 10 other teams, but he didn't post that, didn't mention that, instead he posted "you're numbers are wrong".

[max]

max wants to believe goff sucks, albeit for different reasons than mokler, in max case he's just entirely dependent on media narrative and fumbles through numbers in an effort to support what he thinks he hears, poor guy.


he's referring to the post where i compared goff's production against mcvay's apparent kryptonite (sfo x 2, miami's 0 coverage / 6+ man fronts) to goff's other 10 games... i transposed a number that actually undermined, slightly, my case.

of course max saw that goff's numbers were even better than i posted against the 10 other teams, but he didn't post that, didn't mention that, instead he posted "you're numbers are wrong".

Actually, I posted Goff's rating of 103.3 much earlier in this thread.

But hey, you go right on playing the bully role on your home board. I guess it works with some of your friends. Hopefully, the smarter more thoughtful posters here are more interested in the truth.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13388&start=30#p220955

OK. I'll go along with your premise. And I think you sold Goff short. If you take out the 2 SF games and the Miami game, Goff's passer rating is 103.3. That would put him tied with Allen at 7th best passer rating.

[max]

Your point is, if he had more bad games than good, we'd be pretty sure he sucked. If he had more good games than bad, we'd be pretty sure he didn't suck. If he's had twice as many good games as bad, we'd figure he was pretty good, but inconsistent. But if he was consistently bad against certain types of defenses, we might figure it was something else. It's not about cherry picking or claiming the numbers are lying. It's about the eye test AND the numbers that confirm it.

There are some (few) who see Goff play a bad game and say, "yeah, he sucks. Didn't you see him yesterday?" There are some who say, "man he had a terrible game yesterday, why?". And there are some who say, "terrible game? He's never had a terrible game." Max you post in multiple places. You can tell the difference between folks who want to have a serious discussion, folks who wear rose colored glasses and folks who are simply cheerios pissers. You can tell the difference between somebody posting legit numbers, somebody fudging the numbers and somebody ignoring the numbers. It ain't that difficult.

I am always interested in legit numbers. And I try to be as fair as possible with evaluating Goff. I'm just not sure what he is yet. But I am hopeful. As far as other posters, yeah, you're right PA, they fall into those categories you mentioned. I don't see myself as a blind critic, despite what some posters say.

[moklerman]

22nd ranked QB in 2019.
24th ranked QB in 2020.

I don't think it's some twisted agenda that says that isn't so good. Goff is the one who is putting up numbers that rank him at the bottom of the league, it isn't because I'm pointing them out.