Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: kingm56 on November 10, 2024, 01:40:05 PMWhat does the trade have to do with my opinion, which has been consistent for years?  Also, the trade also proves the reverse.  Apparently, a team thought he was good enough to trade for, including giving up a 1st round pick.

You don't appear to understand the trade. The Rams gave the Lions a first-round pick for a 30-something Matt Stafford. They also threw in Goff, and pundits speculated that the third-rounder was thrown in because the Lions were taking Goff's salary off the Rams' hands.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 10, 2024, 01:42:25 PMYou don't appear to understand the trade. The Rams gave the Lions a first-round pick for a 30-something Matt Stafford. They also threw in Goff, and pundits speculated that the third-rounder was thrown in because the Lions were taking Goff's salary off the Rams' hands.

That's fair, but still doesn't negate the response to your query.  You asked if we were surprised; I'm not surprised...I've always believed Goff was a good QB and the data supports that supposition. 

Quote from: kingm56 on November 10, 2024, 01:54:23 PMThat's fair, but still doesn't negate the response to your query.  You asked if we were surprised; I'm not surprised...I've always believed Goff was a good QB and the data supports that supposition. 

So if the "data supports that supposition," one needs to believe that none of the 32 teams in the NFL was capable of analyzing said data. Otherwise, he would have had more trade value.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 10, 2024, 02:03:44 PMSo if the "data supports that supposition," one needs to believe that none of the 32 teams in the NFL was capable of analyzing said data. Otherwise, he would have had more trade value.

Your reasoning is flawed. Not all 32 teams showed interest in Goff, nor did each team have a franchise quarterback available to trade. Even if they did, we cannot be certain that Los Angeles would have pursued anyone other than Stafford. Therefore, it remains unclear how the other 31 teams valued Goff. In this situation, both teams were right. 

IMO, Goff has always been a good QB and provided data that supports that supposition. 

Quote from: kingm56 on November 10, 2024, 02:24:52 PMYour reasoning is flawed. Not all 32 teams showed interest in Goff, nor did each team have a franchise quarterback available to trade. Even if they did, we cannot be certain that Los Angeles would have pursued anyone other than Stafford. Therefore, it remains unclear how the other 31 teams valued Goff. In this situation, both teams were right. 

IMO, Goff has always been a good QB and provided data that supports that supposition. 

Your assumptions are badly flawed.  The Rams needed to trade away Goff to free up the salary cap to take on Stafford.   The Rams could have just as easily made the Goff trade separately with another team.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 10, 2024, 02:26:56 PMYour assumptions are badly flawed.  The Rams needed to trade away Goff to free up the salary cap to take on Stafford.   The Rams could have just as easily made the Goff trade separately with another team.

You're confused. I didn't make any assumptions; I merely pointed out the flaw in your reasoning. You, on the other hand, are the one making assumptions—such as the notion that Detroit would have gone through with the trade for Stafford even without Goff. Do you have any evidence to support that assumption?

Quote from: kingm56 on November 10, 2024, 02:34:18 PMYou're confused. I didn't make any assumptions; I merely pointed out the flaw in your reasoning. You, on the other hand, are the one making assumptions—such as the notion that Detroit would have gone through with the trade for Stafford even without Goff. Do you have any evidence to support that assumption?

The problem was there was no "flaw" in my reason (with the exception of your odd perceptions).  To make your argument that my reasoning was flawed, you have to use the assumptions you denied making.

As for your efforts to rewrite history and the perception of the trade, here is one of literally dozens of trade breakdowns at the time that all essentially said the same thing

QuoteJared Goff deal implications
The Lions undoubtedly did the Rams a favor by taking Goff's deal off their plate. It almost certainly got the Lions more draft capital in return, though, which is what they are more interested in, since this is a rebuild for the future. Eating cap for the next two years is worth it to them if it means more young players on rookie deals. But how much cap, exactly, are they eating?

The Rams were in a situation where they were going to have to eat cap hits of $35, $33, and $32.5 million over the next three seasons with Goff, and cutting him would have only made matters worse. Instead, they'll be assuming a $22.2 million cap hit by trading him, earning $12.75 million in cap space in the process.

https://www.turfshowtimes.com/2022/12/13/23507491/rams-lions-matthew-stafford-jared-goff-trade

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 10, 2024, 02:42:23 PMThe problem was there was no "flaw" in my reason (with the exception of your odd perceptions).  To make your argument that my reasoning was flawed, you have to use the assumptions you denied making.

As for your efforts to rewrite history and the perception of the trade, here is one of literally dozens of trade breakdowns at the time that all essentially said the same thing


https://www.turfshowtimes.com/2022/12/13/23507491/rams-lions-matthew-stafford-jared-goff-trade

One last time, do you have ANY data to suggest that Det would have executed the trade for Stafford without Goff?  If you do, I will concede your point.

You provided some obscure quote from an unsourced pundit, which doesn't relate to how the other 31 team's valued Goff, or if Det would have executed the trade without a QB they valued.

Quote from: kingm56 on November 10, 2024, 02:46:13 PMOne last time, do you have ANY data to suggest that Det would have executed the trade for Stafford without Goff?  If you do, I will concede your point.

You provided some obscure quote from an unsourced pundit, which doesn't relate to how the other 31 team's valued Goff.

You are the one GUILTY of attacking me and calling me "intellectually dishonest."  If you are not guilty of accusing me of your crimes, you can provide proof that the Lions would only make the trade if Goff was included.  I have provided proof that Detroit considered Goff a favor to take his salary cap hit off the Rams.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 10, 2024, 02:55:54 PMYou are the one GUILTY of attacking me and calling me "intellectually dishonest."  If you are not guilty of accusing me of your crimes, you can provide proof that the Lions would only make the trade if Goff was included.  I have provided proof that Detroit considered Goff a favor to take his salary cap hit off the Rams.

You're the one making assumptions about how Det and the other 31 teams valued Goff; I'm simply asking for data to support the former.  If don't have it, perhaps Det placed a very high value on Goff, which led to them trading thier all-time leader in passing to secure his services.

Regardless, even at the time of the trade, I thought Goff was a Pro Bowl caliber QB, because that's exactly who he proved to be in his first 30 games.  I explicitly stated it was a good trade for both teams...

Quote from: kingm56 on November 10, 2024, 03:12:33 PMYou're the one making assumptions about how Det and the other 31 teams valued Goff;

That's not an "assumption".   Much like Parcell's famous quote, a player's worth to the NFL is what another team is willing to give to that player.  At that point, with Goff's salary, taking him was considered trade compensation, not payment