Can La'el Collins play RT?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll stand by that statement. I have no reason to want Collins to be a lesser player. I wish he could play tackle and give us an upgrade there. It's much easier to find a serviceable guard.

You can stand by unknowable, unprovable nonsense if it makes you feel better. It's posturing in place of analysis.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Watch the film yourself. The proof is there. You said yourself he can be a mess. Don't get pissy just because I disagree with you about the guy's ability to play tackle. You can make the "unknowable, unprovable" statement about your own statements. One thing working on my side is Collins' current employer appears to agree with my assessment at the moment

 

[Rogerthat12]

My argument was not RS12 is a sophist therefor he is wrong. That would be an ad hominem fallacy. You are still a sophist.

You namedropping scouts you think agree with you is a fallacy called an appeal to authority. You have tried ad populum trying to make it seem that no one agreed with me which was weak as hell.

In contrast my argument is that you cannot support your claim of slow feet. I've been calling you on it for two days. Your response is now this meme meltdown.

I do recall a similar argument about Bosa around this time a year ago. You were wrong then too and using similar arguments appealing to Broaddus' take ad nauseum. Try coming up with your own opinions.

You do not even know what a sophist is obviously, you need to take philosophy and logic 101 which apparently you have not based on the poor use of logic and terms which is precisely why we have logical informal fallacies to weed out poor thinking.

My argument is supported by the evaluator's which is the proper use of an "authority" but you have failed to demonstrate how this is invalid, it is not an appeal to authority but support of an argument.

Educated people can and do think for themselves but also actually research and engage professional resources when informing their opinions.

Jeremiah, Pauline and Brugler and many others see Collins as ideally-suited at G, no one denies he can play swing tackle.

In addition, I posted Brugler's complete analysis where he mentions limited kickslide, choppy footwork, lack of elite arm length, struggles with blitz recognition and with mulitple defenders and you either deny or ignore these facts of Collins game.

I have said less about slow feet than poor footwork, comprehension is your friend.

Not all of this is technique, he has some limitations which is why he is better suited inside where he has played the last two years.

Further, you are arguing from ignorance which in itself is a logical fallacy, you have no idea what Collins would be at RT, it is literally speculation based upon projection conjecture.

Premature miscalculation because you have nothing to ground your argument but speculation and opinion, no actually history of sucess playing RT in the NFL.

Your grounding from your argument has literally no foundation, other than your opinion.

You were 100% wrong about our argument about what Dane Brugler said about Spence being a better speed edge rusher even though he admitted Bosa was the better player.

Heck, I posted video after video of Dane Brugler saying Spence was the better pure edge rusher and just like right now, you denied what he actually said on video.

I can dig up the exchange, I agreed with Dane that Bosa was a better overall player but Spence was the better pure speed edge rusher.

The argument was never about Bosa, it was about what Brugler said about Spence, you denied something he said numerous times on video, even after the video was provided.

We are done here, you can call other peoples names now.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You do not even know what a sophist is obviously, you need to take philosophy and logic 101 which apparently you have not based on the poor use of logic and terms which is precisely why we have logical informal fallacies to weed out poor thinking.

My argument is supported by the evaluator's which is the proper use of an "authority" but you have failed to demonstrate how this is invalid, it is not an appeal to authority but support of an argument.

Educated people can and do think for themselves but also actually research and engage professional resources when informing their opinions.

Jeremiah, Pauline and Brugler and many others see Collins as ideally-suited at G, no one denies he can play swing tackle.

In addition, I posted Brugler's complete analysis where he mentions limited kickslide, choppy footwork, lack of elite arm length, struggles with blitz recognition and with mulitple defenders and you either deny or ignore these facts of Collins game.

I have said less about slow feet than poor footwork, comprehension is your friend.

Not all of this is technique, he has some limitations which is why he is better suited inside where he has played the last two years.

Further, you are arguing from ignorance which in itself is a logical fallacy, you have no idea what Collins would be at RT, it is literally speculation based upon projection conjecture.

Premature miscalculation because you have nothing to ground your argument but speculation and opinion, no actually history of sucess playing RT in the NFL.

Your grounding from your argument has literally no foundation, other than your opinion.

You were 100% wrong about our argument about what Dane Brugler said about Spence being a better speed edge rusher even though he admitted Bosa was the better player.

Heck, I posted video after video of Dane Brugler saying Spence was the better pure edge rusher and just like right now, you denied what he actually said on video.

I can dig up the exchange, I agreed with Dane that Bosa was a better overall player but Spence was the better pure speed edge rusher.

The argument was never about Bosa, it was about what Brugler said about Spence, you denied something he said numersous times on video, even after the video was provided.

We are done here, you can call other peoples names now.

Sophists are named after Sophocles and were jurist in Hellenic Greece. They would argue for a conclusion fallaciously as opposed to for the sake of truth as Plato and Aristotle argued for. Compare and contrast with your blanket dismissal based on nothing.

Still waiting for something saying it was physical ability. Brugler and your other guys never said that.

And a fallacy is a specious argument. Calling me ignorant and making that the basis of your argument is ad hominem. Hypocrisy suits you.

Brugler said he was the best pure speed rusher. Nuance is a struggle for you. Go ahead and dig it up. I would love to revisit the Bosa arguments to make a point.

You said you were done hours ago. Your word is meaningless.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Watch the film yourself. The proof is there. You said yourself he can be a mess. Don't get pissy just because I disagree with you about the guy's ability to play tackle. You can make the "unknowable, unprovable" statement about your own statements. One thing working on my side is Collins' current employer appears to agree with my assessment at the moment

I'm not speaking for all the teams in the NFL. Nothing I have claimed is comparable. Nice false equivalency.

You also mischaracterize my disposition. I am enjoying myself. I think it is amusing you have to speak for others in attempt to prop yourself up for example. It is unknowable and unprovable. The I know you are but what I am routine is nice and juvenile though.

And now you are speaking for the Cowboys. Please show where the Cowboys state he is physically limited. You cannot.

 

[Rogerthat12]

Sophists are named after Sophocles and were jurist in Hellenic Greece. They would argue for a conclusion fallaciously as opposed to for the sake of truth as Plato and Aristotle argued for. Compare and contrast with your blanket dismissal based on nothing.

Still waiting for something saying it was physical ability. Brugler and your other guys never said that.

And a fallacy is a specious argument. Calling me ignorant and making that the basis of your argument is ad hominem. Hypocrisy suits you.

Brugler said he was the best pure speed rusher. Nuance is a struggle for you. Go ahead and dig it up. I would love to revisit the Bosa arguments to make a point.

You said you were done hours ago. Your word is meaningless.

Sophistry is in reality what you are engaging in because your argument is based on ignorance and is thus invalid and your conclusion can not be proven to be true.

You have absolutely no way to prove your conclusion to be true and your argument is invalid because it is grounded in ignorance and speculation.

You have grounded your argument in ignorance, speculation and upon something that you can not know.

You have no way of knowing what Collins would be at RT in the NFL but your own speculation and opinion, you can not prove any conclusion and the argument structure is invalid because your proposition and argument is based upon ignorance.

What I have is not only a truthful proposition that Collins is ideally suited to play G in the NFL and the actual proof that he has flourished in the position in reality, not speculation.

Further, he was moved from RT in OTA's to play G by the Cowboys staff and they never looked back.

Brugler mentions specifically limited kickslide range, lack of elite arm length and issues with footwork. Blitz recognition and issues with multiple defenders is mental, wow, how can you fail to comprehend these statements.

Nuance has nothing to do with what Brugler said, he said point blank that he believed that Spence was a better pure edge rusher, not player, than Bosa.

Our argument was over the fact that Brugler said this numerous times, which he did on video over and over again and even then you denied that Dane said this and meant this fact after doing so again and again, that is pure denial.

Further, another lack of comprehension, I never said "you" were ingorant like you called the other poster but a simple disctinction that your argument is from ignorance, not the same thing so again, poor logic.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sophistry is in reality what you are engaging in because your argument is based on ignorance and is thus invalid and your conclusion can not be proven to be true.

You have absolutely no way to prove your conclusion to be true and your argument is invalid because it is grounded in ignorance and speculation.

You have grounded your argument in ignorance, speculation and upon something that you can not know.

You have no way of knowing what Collins would be at RT in the NFL but your own speculation and opinion, you can not prove any conclusion and the argument structure is invalid because your proposition and argument is based upon ignorance.

What I have is not only a truthful proposition that Collins is ideally suited to play G in the NFL and the actual proof that he has flourished in the position in reality, not speculation.

Further, he was moved from RT in OTA's to play G by the Cowboys staff and they never looked back.

Brugler mentions specifically limited kickslide range, lack of elite arm length and issues with footwork. Blitz recognition and issues with multiple defenders is mental, wow, how can you fail to comprehend these statements.

Nuance has nothing to do with what Brugler said, he said point blank that he believed that Spence was a better pure edge rusher, not player, than Bosa.

Our argument was over the fact that Brugler said this numerous times, which he did on video over and over again and even then you denied that Dane said this and meant this fact after doing so again and again, that is pure denial.

Further, another lack of comprehension, I never said "you" were ingorant like you called the other poster but a simple disctinction that your argument is from ignorance, not the same thing so again, poor logic.

Dane Brugler point blank has said on numerous occasions during the draft show that Noah Spence is a better pass rusher than Bosa and that he is the best pure pass rusher in this entire draft class which includes Bosa.

I have provided an abundance of evidence, showing him saying these things literally and point blank on video, you can not reasonably and with integrity explain these comments away

He said speed rusher. Like I said then, nuance is a struggle for you. You were wrong then and now you are just all over the place. Your memory is poor.

You don't know what a sophist is. It has nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

Read up and learn something.

Calling my argument ignorant without basis is not a legitimate argument. What is ignorant or speculation? Be specific. I know my posting his tape at LSU was neither of those. You won't even discuss it. You keep appealing to authority like you lack an original thought for yourself.

Brugler also said that he had initial quickness. This goes back to your difficulty with nuance. Again, his issue is with technique and focus and not physical ability. You sure like to repeat yourself I will say. Try responding to the rebuttal this time.

And like I said your word is worthless. You are still here.

 

[Rogerthat12]

He said speed rusher. Like I said then, nuance is a struggle for you. You were wrong then and now you are just all over the place. Your memory is poor.

You don't know what a sophist is. It has nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

Read up and learn something.

Calling my argument ignorant without basis is not a legitimate argument. What is ignorant or speculation? Be specific. I know my posting his tape at LSU was neither of those. You won't even discuss it. You keep appealing to authority like you lack an original thought for yourself.

Brugler also said that he had initial quickness. This goes back to your difficulty with nuance. Again, his issue is with technique and focus and not physical ability. You sure like to repeat yourself I will say. Try responding to the rebuttal this time.

And like I said your word is worthless. You are still here.

I have a PHD in logic and philosphy from Duke University, I definitely know what sophistry is accordingly, welcome to my field.

Further, your argument is invalid because your premise is false and it is grounded on ignorance, something you can not know, that is, how Collins will play RT in the NFL.

You have a false premise, invalid argument based upon and grounded in ignorance and speculation with no actual way to prove your conclusion about Collins playing RT in the NFL.

False proposition, invalid argument and a false conclusion, sophistry is arguing for a conclusion which can not be proven true and is unsound, that is your entire argument summed up.

Further, you have nothing to ground your argument but ignorance which is unproven speculation.

You have no memory, you said Brugler did not say Spence was a better edge speed rusher than Bosa even after I showed you on video in several clips, you went in denial.

There is no nuance, he said as a speed edge rusher and pure pass rusher, you disputed he said this instead of simply just disagreeing with the guy.

So limited kickslide range and lack of elite arm length are somehow not physical to you, really?

If you are in denial about this you have literally buried your head in the sand.

Honestly, I am thinking this is a psychological issue at this point, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

I'm not speaking for all the teams in the NFL. Nothing I have claimed is comparable. Nice false equivalency.

You also mischaracterize my disposition. I am enjoying myself. I think it is amusing you have to speak for others in attempt to prop yourself up for example. It is unknowable and unprovable. The I know you are but what I am routine is nice and juvenile though.

And now you are speaking for the Cowboys. Please show where the Cowboys state he is physically limited. You cannot.

That he is playing guard and not tackle is statement enough. You don't see Dallas (or other teams) moving good tackles to guard unless there are limitations (or an emergency). It's common knowledge and common sense given the difficulty finding good tackles in this league. I don't have to find a public statement because the actions speak for themselves and they speak volumes.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have a PHD in logic and philosphy from Duke University, I definitely know what sophistry is accordingly, welcome to my field.

Further, your argument is invalid because your premise is false and it is grounded on ignorance, something you can not know, that is, how Collins will play RT in the NFL.

You have a false premise, invalid argument based upon and grounded in ignorance and speculation with no actual way to prove your conclusion about Collins playing RT in the NFL.

False proposition, invalid argument and a false conclusion, sophistry is arguing for a conclusion which can not be proven true and is unsound, that is your entire argument summed up.

Further, you have nothing to ground your argument but ignorance which is unproven speculation.

You have no memory, you said Brugler did not say Spence was a better edge speed rusher than Bosa even after I showed you on video in several clips, you went in denial.

There is no nuance, he said as a speed edge rusher and pure pass rusher, you disputed he said this instead of simply just disagreeing with the guy.

So limited kickslide range and lack of elite arm length are somehow not physical to you, really?

If you are in denial about this you have literally buried your head in the sand.

Honestly, I am thinking this is a psychological issue at this point, we will have to agree to disagree.

You can claim what you like. Sophistry is not ignorance. It is what it is. Sophocles was the head of a group of jurists and teachers in 5th century BC Athens. They would advocate and teach for a fee and then argue for a conclusion much like modern day lawyers to settle disputes. Plato and Aristotle both believed in truth in and of itself. That was part of where their whole thing about forms and categories derived from.

They reviled the Sophists for lack of ethics in particular a disregard for the truth. I agree with them. It has nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with their behavior and methods. Sophists are not inherently wrong either but the method will not necessarily lead to the truth and lends to inequity.

Perhaps you should review your old coursework if you are not just lying to prop yourself up.

My argument is based on logic. Again his footwork is inconsistent because of technique issues not because of ability. It explains the disparate reports on it. You know very well that there are reports that support that plus I linked game footage that showed it too. I don't mindlessly let Dane Brugler think for me. That is you.

Further the burden of proof has been on you to support your claim for the basis of the Cowboy's coach's decision which you have claimed to know. You failed. An assertion without basis is to be disregarded. That is simple skepticism. If you want to believe something without proof or basis then have at it but it is unscientific amongst other issues.

And speak for yourself I have stated explicitly my argument about Collins several times. He has the physical traits and abilities but needs to work on his technique. I have no idea where he is in all that but I would not be against the coaches working towards it if they decided.

I am not the one that feigns certainty where there is none and I am comfortable with uncertainty. You should try it.

And finally as for Spence/Bosa, we both know that you were not just claiming that Brugler said that. You picked up what you thought Broaddus and he were selling too. It would be consistent with what you are doing here.

Brugler said all kinds of things and had Bosa in his top 2 or 3 the whole time leading up to the draft. He would equivocate a lot but if you think the difference between his #3 prospect and his #15 prospect was run stopping in today's NFL I think youre delusional. That is not even the point though.

The point is not whether or not I would admit such and such. Well maybe it is to you but you are blinded by your ego and getting some meaningless point of fact right. The point is that last year proved that Bosa was the superior player as a pass rusher or any other metric. Broaddus and Brugler if he indeed thought that were wrong.

Broaddus has no issue admitting it and Brugler claims that Bosa was his guy now. You should try honoring the truth.

 

[RoboQB]

Fuzzy Lumpkins violates rules 8 and 9 of this board at every turn yet nothing is done about it. Odd.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That he is playing guard and not tackle is statement enough. You don't see Dallas (or other teams) moving good tackles to guard unless there are limitations (or an emergency). It's common knowledge and common sense given the difficulty finding good tackles in this league. I don't have to find a public statement because the actions speak for themselves and they speak volumes.

There have been several examples of young players starting at guard and then moving to tackle who end up playing at an elite level. Flozell Adams and Branden Albert are two examples that immediately come to mind.

You should really stop speaking in absolutes. It's a good way to be wrong a lot. You notion of common sense is awful too.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy Lumpkins violates rules 8 and 9 of this board at every turn yet nothing is done about it. Odd.

Way to violate rule #1. And of course you give his psychobabble a pass.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

If I'm wrong I'll own it just fine. I certainly don't need a lesson in speaking in absolutes.

For every guard that was eventually moved to tackle there are college tackles that were permanently moved to guard. Usually for good reason. Dallas has one on the right side, too.

 

[CCBoy]

I have a PHD in logic and philosphy from Duke University, I definitely know what sophistry is accordingly, welcome to my field.

Further, your argument is invalid because your premise is false and it is grounded on ignorance, something you can not know, that is, how Collins will play RT in the NFL.

You have a false premise, invalid argument based upon and grounded in ignorance and speculation with no actual way to prove your conclusion about Collins playing RT in the NFL.

False proposition, invalid argument and a false conclusion, sophistry is arguing for a conclusion which can not be proven true and is unsound, that is your entire argument summed up.

Further, you have nothing to ground your argument but ignorance which is unproven speculation.

You have no memory, you said Brugler did not say Spence was a better edge speed rusher than Bosa even after I showed you on video in several clips, you went in denial.

There is no nuance, he said as a speed edge rusher and pure pass rusher, you disputed he said this instead of simply just disagreeing with the guy.

So limited kickslide range and lack of elite arm length are somehow not physical to you, really?

If you are in denial about this you have literally buried your head in the sand.

Honestly, I am thinking this is a psychological issue at this point, we will have to agree to disagree.

You haven't proven squash beyond conjecture...and ring tapping. You deny elements presented in argument by Fuzzy, and present no real logic beyond agenda. Philosophy? No, bias...

Fuzzy presents topical consideration which is ignored by yourself. Agenda? Not philosophy, which has merit and stated...not a witch hunt and insult.

 

[CCBoy]

Way to violate rule #1. And of course you give his psychobabble a pass.

Funny how, when the season is over, and facts fully functional...the ring tappers arrive with personal agenda and insult. They don't have to do anything but present a personal bias and ignore all else.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I'm wrong I'll own it just fine. I certainly don't need a lesson in speaking in absolutes.

For every guard that was eventually moved to tackle there are college tackles that were permanently moved to guard. Usually for good reason. Dallas has one on the right side, too.

So you have proven nothing by your own admission. Them starting him out at guard could mean anything. You are the one making the claim not me.

You can do what you like but absolutes are easy to disprove and nigh impossible to prove. You don't dispute that, you just complain that I am the one doing the telling. The male ego is certainly predictable.

 

[CCBoy]

So you have proven nothing by your own admission. Them starting him out at guard could mean anything. You are the one making the claim not me.

You can do what you like but absolutes are easy to disprove and nigh impossible to prove. You don't dispute that, you just complain that I am the one doing the telling. The male ego is certainly predictable.

...and if a frog had wings, he wouldn't always bump his arse.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

So you have proven nothing by your own admission. Them starting him out at guard could mean anything. You are the one making the claim not me.

You can do what you like but absolutes are easy to disprove and nigh impossible to prove. You don't dispute that, you just complain that I am the one doing the telling. The male ego is certainly predictable.

I stand by my assessment of Collins because it's accurate. And I'm not the only one who has made that assessment, as I have proven.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I stand by my assessment of Collins because it's accurate. And I'm not the only one who has made that assessment, as I have proven.

You can do what you like. You have not supported your claim and have admitted to my rebuttal. An assertion without basis is to be disregarded is my method.

And yes I know you like to cherry pick scouting reports that you think agree with you. Your issue is that it is not mutually exclusive with my argument that his issue is focus and technique and not ability.

Then of course there is the game footage I provided to support my claim which I have tried to rejoin several times. Neither of you have any interest in that.