[PARAM]

and if wentz does well against dallas it means what exactly, that he's "there", is that the idea? even though he's led the eagles to a 5-5 record this season and a 20th ranking in offensive scoring? even tho he put up an average of 14 offensive points against the vikes and saints while losing both games, the same teams goff hung an average of 36.5 offensive points on? wentz gets your nod for maybe being there, maybe not, let's see what he does in dallas, while goff is dismissed out of hand, stamped "not there yet"?

you claim "The whole concept is about where Goff is in his development." but stuff like the above seems to undermine your objectivity.

goff owns a 22-5 record in his new system, and is looking at his second consecutive pro bowl, and second straight postseason appearance, despite being saddled with a defense that has given up a huge amount of points. embrace it.

I think Max has indicated he's already "there". He's just looking for further affirmation in Dallas on Sunday. Hell Wentz is a Superbowl QB.....no wait, that wasn't him. That was Foles. Wentz has taken the defending Superbowl Champs to a healthy 5-5 (under him; 6-6 overall). Wait, that doesn't have a resounding ring to it either does it? Okay, he's pretty good. Let's just leave it at that.

I like Wentz. I like the way he goes mobile and extends the play (not exactly but ala Russell Wilson). Goff subtly tip toes around the pocket to do the same thing. Wentz has a knee brace thanks to his "mobility" and the damage that sometimes accompanies it. His mobility is already on the decline.

Right now Goff is one of the better QBs in the NFL. He may not be "there" yet, but that "there" isn't a place experts and other fans define as making him one of the better NFL QBs. He's clearly already considered as having "arrived". Does he have room to improve? Absolutely. Like some have said, he will get better with experience. But he's already made that "huge" jump and now the differences are much more minute. Fine tuning if you will. I'm not sure where "there" is but I'm glad he's in L.A..

[Elvis]

Goff says it will be a game time decision whether he wears the gloves or not, will see how it feels on Sunday...

[/zn/]

Wow. You really are the biggest hypocrite I've ever encountered on a forum, and that's saying a lot.

The original poster has criticized Goff by asserting that he has trouble in the cold (pretty much based on one example), that he's not a Top 10 QB, that he's not "there," and that other young QBs, such as Carson Wentz, may be "there." Several people have disagreed and refuted these points, and the discussion has been cordial.

Despite this, you (as seems to be your habit) feel the need to defend the right to post criticism (a right nobody is challenging) and then have the gall to tell others to "discuss the issues."

You Sir, are ridiculous.

Wow. That remark acts like hyperbolic name-calling makes up for posting a bad argument.

Bad argument? I never said don't disagree with people or don't criticize arguments. If you actually thought I said that, then, you did not read me very well. In fact I said:

On any given topic there will be a range of views, that is IF it is a good discussion you will, and that is always good. I say let it happen. Forget about trying to make it about the poster and his or her presumed mindset. Discuss the issues.

How did you take THAT as saying don't disagree? (?) In fact all of the statements you ascribe to the OP, I disagreed with...and disagreed with in this thread. I addressed and discussed the points. I managed to do it without attacking the guy or making up paranoid stuff about his motives or acting like attacking someone personally is real discussion.

Making it personal fucks real discussion up. There's no need for it. It doesn't accomplish anything. It's a waste of time.

And a minor point.

Some of this (about Goff) is factual. But a lot of what Max said can't be "refuted," because they're value judgments and in the case of value judgments the idea that you can "refute" them is just narcissistic nonsense ( ie. the idea that our own opinions are truths). On value judgments and opinions, they can be disagreed with, but with V.J.s people can agree or disagree only on the basis of their OWN opinion. Like the idea about whether he is "there" yet (which I take as meaning, is he consistently and dependably elite yet). It would take years to answer that with anything other than just another opinion.

[aeneas1]

I see the entire thing differently.

namely, wrongly, as usual.

[dieterbrock]

@/zn/
We have moderators here, and you aren’t one of them.
Why do you insist on trying to turn every damn thread in to your pathetic nonsense?
Good grief. Makes me miss HJackson

[/zn/]

Welp... you can refute value judgements using the basis for those value judgements.

It's pretty easy, actually.

Nope. Works this way. Value judgments are based on interpretations of facts. The key is the added part--interpretations. (If the facts are wrong in the first place it's a different ballgame.)

So here's a fact. Goff has not consistently played well against a top defense on the road.

Okay. So. What does that mean? (The interpretation part.)

* does it mean he has not proven yet that he is a top qb?

* does it mean he's still fairly young and inconsistent but will improve on that with more seasoning?

* does it mean nothing and to even bring it up is just a motivated effort to bash Goff?

* is it irrelevant because the team won most of those games anyway? (they actually won in Jax and Seattle, lost in Minn).

And etc.

You can't PROVE any of those views, you can only make a case for them (except for one, which I deliberately wrote as being silly).

None of those statements are "truths," they're all value judgments and opinions and interpretations. of facts. All you can do with that stuff is agree or disagree, based on different value judgments and different opinions about what the facts mean.

[/zn/]

Nah.

It's easy to show. Being wordy doesn't change that.

Lol. Having no argument and relying on personal digs doesn't change anything either.

You cannot prove/disprove value judgments or matters of opinion. If you think you can show me an example. Pick one of my example interpretations or "Goff on the road against a top defense" and "disprove" it as opposed to just having a different opinion.

....

[/zn/]

It's bizarre that you keep going for the "personal" thing in my posts.

I'm describing your post. It's wordy and worthless to me.

I don't know you, you don't know me.

If you want some insight to my perspective, read "The Death of Expertise" and you'll understand why opinions and "value judgements" can, in fact, be completely wrong.

You don't seem to get the word "personal." If you slam a poster in any way shape or form or comment derisively on their post as an attempted put down instead of actually engaging the content, you're being personal. It's a way of evading having to make a real argument.

And if it were true that reading a book means you have a leg up on this issue, you could demonstrate that by easily disproving (or proving) one of the sample statements I put up.

[/zn/]

Now... *that* is a value judgement.. your interpretation of the meaning of personal.

Simply doesn't mean anything close to that to me. I'm responding to a post on the internet.. not a person.


personal adjective
per·​son·​al | \ˈpərs-nəl, ˈpər-sə-nəl\
Definition of personal (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : of, relating to, or affecting a particular person : PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL
personal ambition
personal financial gain
2a : done in person without the intervention of another
also : proceeding from a single person
b : carried on between individuals directly
a personal interview
3 : relating to the person or body
4 : relating to an individual or an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs often in an offensive manner
a personal insult
5a : being rational and self-conscious
personal, responsive government is still possible
— John Fischer
b : having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction
a personal devil
6 : of, relating to, or constituting personal property
a personal estate
7 : denoting grammatical person
8 : intended for private use or use by one person
a personal stereo

As for the rest of your take? I don't really have an interest in proving it. I've done it with other things and found it fruitless.

I'm good with just pointing out that the post is wrong.

Except...you're wrong. You have no argument. If what you say were true about how good you are, you could take one of the value judgments/interpretations I listed and "refute" it.

As for "being . personal" it means this:

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The point of an ad hom attack is an attempt to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

An ad hominem argument (or argumentum ad hominem in Latin) is used to counter another argument. However, it's based on feelings of prejudice (often irrelevant to the argument), rather than facts, reason and logic. An ad hominem argument is often a personal attack on someone's character or motive or style, rather than an attempt to address the actual issue at hand.

Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "argument to the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim. There are many subsets of ad hominem, all of them attacking the source of the claim rather than countering the claim or attempting to counter the arguments.

[Hacksaw]

On a simpler note, the weather in LA is giving the team a chance to acclimate early. Cant hurt...