I think it's simple. I will make excuses for Watson if I believe he is good and his play is being brought down by those around him. I did not believe Baker was good or that his play was being brought down by those around him. I believe Baker brought down the play of others. There is overwhelming evidence, both objective and subjective, of Baker being a bad QB. If the overwhelming evidence of this is still not convincing to some I can only file that away as an emotional investment in the guy that belies any kind of objectivity at all. I know you don't like the emotional label, but it's the only thing that applies when faced with the mountain of evidence compared to the molehill of contrary evidence (Baker had some good moments and stretches for sure).
This is not rocket science. Most people who watch football and can be objective can tell if someone is good and how they are impacting or being impacted by the play of those around them.
| 
