Edge-to-edge - unlike what PDX wrote, in my experience the BG is MUCH more nimble and and quick - absolutely no contest. I know car analogies are a bit tired, but it is like an open wheeler/Indy (BG) compared to a Nascar (T. Rice).
Also, to me the BG is damper. I know people consider the T. Rice to be pretty damp too, but I believe it is mostly because with a mid-wide deck there is just sooo much board...
As PDX mentioned, float in pow might be another point - but that could be result of the set-back on the BG.
To me, the BG always felt more freeride-ish and the T. Rice more big-mountain freestyle-ish. Maybe the marketing is shaping my perception, but that is honestly how I feel about it.
The problem I'm having in comparing is the different sizes and profiles. What I'm saying is I can work the edge much easier on the 157 T. Rice vs. the 162 Goat.
Exactly why, I can't say for sure. However I'm thinking it's because while even though the BG has less effective edge in the 162 vs. the T. Rice 157 the board length is still board length. It's extra 'meat' to throw around.
Let me clarify-- My comparison is based on the 162 vs. the 157 T. Rice and that is it. Based on specs and tons of reading I think if I had been on a 159 BG it might have been less of gap between the two boards.
The BG should
be the more agile, nimble board. But the boards are so different length for length it's hard for me to compare.
Part of the reason I started to look at a different board was because the BG was turning too easy for me, IE too agile.
What I'm finding though is the even though it's a more agile board the extra length was requiring extra work from me that was not needed. Again, it's so hard to say without riding a shorter BG and even then the profiles are so different.