Come on, bruh. You were just talking about Baker not showing improvement. I hate to do this but you're flip-flopping all over the place. This is you on
November 29th:
Now you're claiming he was improving week-to-week? If he was improving week by week in certain things, why would you imply he wasn't improving overall? And on top of that fantasizing about getting Matthew Stafford.
This is also you when I said Baker was slowly improving against the zone. I said if you watch the film, you would see improvement and that he was slowly progressing:
And another "if he improves"
There's a gold mine in the Baker thread - so yes, I do find it ironic that you're now claiming he was improving week-by-week. And hilarious that you're always name-dropping
@Jordan for some reason, as if it's supposed to give you some RCF cred. Come on, you're better than this.
Point out all of his deficiencies that you want, but you've clearly implied that he wasn't improving week-by-week. It's literally in your statements. You were not saying, "If Baker doesn't improve his accuracy" or specifying areas you thought he wasn't improving in. You were summarizing him in totality - "If Baker doesn't improve".
You quoting other posts of yours taking opposite stances is irrelevant.
Well this is a doozy. But hey, I like it. Come at me hard. I should be able to defend my takes--and if I can't, I better be able to admit when I'm wrong.
First, you are entirely correct. I discussed a hypothetical scenario based on the condition of "
if Baker doesn't improve."
So, why are you taking that to mean anything about what Baker is actually doing? If I said "If Barack Obama dies..." does that mean I think Obama is dying? Obviously not.
I think I've been pretty consistent with my thoughts on Baker. I've always been behind signing him to his fifth year. If he never improved from where he was earlier in the season, I was in favor of rolling the dice on another QB option rather than signing him to a 30 million dollar annual contract. I am currently in favor of signing him to that 30 million dollar franchise QB contract, and the only things that I still have questions about are the things outside the football fields that can't be known by fans.
I don't name-drop to bolster cred. I just want to make sure I'm giving credit where it's due. If a few people make the same observation, it wouldn't be right to say I was the only one who did it.
I'm sorry that not 100% of my posts were long-winded enough to state "If Baker doesn't improve in *insert specific area that we're discussing in-line, so it really shouldn't have to be regurgitated here* then..." but I doubt that's going to change moving forward. That seems like a pretty exorbitant standard to hold someone to. I hope my general thoughts are pretty clear.
If you think my posts have differences of opinion, that doesn't mean the ones that fit your narrative are relevant and the others are irrelevant. Surely you know that.
I think most people are saying that we HAVEN'T played well with OBJ on the field. This is an indisputable fact regardless of causation.
Agreed.
As a result, we wouldn't mind if the team did move on from him if it meant helping the defense and getting out of that contract
This depends on what "moving on from him" looks like. If it's trading him for a fourth round pick? That sounds awful to me and would be something I'm firmly against. So, when you bring out this hypothetical, what are the specifics where you'd be in favor of it?
That's not to say we CAN'T play well with him.
Of course not. I don't think anyone is implying this.
IMO, I think it's crazy that people so easily dismiss how a superstar player can have weight/gravity/impact that affects not only a young QB's decision-making, but a play-caller's as well.
I don't dismiss that. But, even if that WAS the case, I think highly enough of Baker, Stefanski, and Van Pelt that they can avoid making those same mistakes next year, and utilize OBJ to improve the team. If, for some reason, they cannot, then I would be more than fine with moving on from him for just a mid-round pick. But, it makes more sense to try to utilize the asset than to move on from it at its lowest value--right?
That ALONE can make the offense less smooth and natural when that player is on the field. It doesn't matter whose fault it is or whatever - it's a thing that actually exists, something even explained by a former NFL player.
Sure, and I think the whole concept of "fault" is being incorrectly used by both sides of this discussion to paint the other side. Fault doesn't matter here.
.gif "Fnd (2) :fnd (2):")
