The Duece will be Cut loose

[kskboys]

I agree with you on his productivity in college. It's just that this team NEVER utilizes talent properly. Duece needs touches. If he was targeted for 5-6 screen passes in a single game, his impact would be appreciated. He's very dangerous in the open field, regardless of the competition.

It was shocking watching this staff try to use him as a regular RB last season.

 

[_sturt_]

You quoted me and then were talking about Debby Downers intent on bashing him.

So we still have no regular season examples of Vaughn making people miss.

But I'm the one who is "less and less credible."

Got it.

Mr. Credible, over here on planet earth, that is a "bash" since there is no context to the assertion... a more level-headed observation would have been to say something like

"So, while there is only a very limited number of touches in regular season in the midst of a competitive game to look at, it remains uncertain since we have no regular season examples of Vaughn making people miss."

Now you are claiming nothing is knowable

Yes. True. Absolutely. Pardon me, weren't you the guy who just said...

Why does it have to be either or?

I guess I gave you too much benefit of a doubt... I'm bad about that, but I'd rather presume the best of a person until there's evidence that severely counters that.

Let me, Mr. Credible, be so bold as to take you into my undergrad Research Methods classroom and help you with the concepts of power, confidence level, and sample size in world of statistics... well, not mine actually, but I'm sure this instructor won't mind me referring you to his...

https://explorable.com/statistical-significance-sample-size

So, once you've reviewed that, you'll understand why it is accurate to say nothing is "knowable" based on a handful of touches in one game where the kid had an actual starting O-line and the outcome of the game was still in doubt.

Hope that helps. Yes, I'm snarky, but I feel like I'm only answering snark with snark.

I never claimed certainty

I saw Deuce show bad timing multiple times in those snaps and after that game he was mre or less sat for the rest of the season.

Pardon the observation, but while technically the quote above indeed does not claim "certainty," it does necessarily infer that we can know he must not have been considered much of a player since, (a) you observed bad timing multiple times, and (b) he sat for the rest of the season.

I was talking about a range of outcomes which should have made that obvious.

Okay, I accept that... a fact which... maybe... should have been "obvious" when I responded with...

If you're sincere, there's nothing I wrote that should bother you.

I'm the one arguing that there is a far from sufficient sample size upon which to base judgment.

We good now?

 

[CCBoy]

Mix in Deuce and Turpin on the outside with a returned to strength Terence Steele and up to par 1st round pick - Tyler Guyton ... and paint this fan eager to just watch that element develop.

Add those receiver talents to an amped up Cooks who finished up with a 70+% completion rate in the second half and see if defenses aren't hard pressed now.

 

[Flamma]

Would that be interesting to see, He could be and kind of looks to me like the late great Jim Brown type back, if he were to be a running back. It is fun to think about but it is a pipe dream.

It is a pipe dream. But I'd like to see him play RB for just one game. He doesn't have to be DE for one week. He is a physically gifted individual. Or he could do spot duty at the position. His frame is fit to play just about any position except for OL.

 

[foofighters]

His name is Duece Vaughn. And would be such a Cowboy thing to switch him over to WR. The Boys have a bunch of WR who aren't good at WR. Why not use a RB who isn't good at WR.

The Jerry Jones way!!!!!

 

[Birch_Wood]

So now, instead of Dak going deer hunting he is quail hunting.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But I'm the one who is "less and less credible."

Got it.

Mr. Credible, over here on planet earth, that is a "bash" since there is no context to the assertion... a more level-headed observation would have been to say something like

"So, while there is only a very limited number of touches in regular season in the midst of a competitive game to look at, it remains uncertain since we have no regular season examples of Vaughn making people miss."

Yes. True. Absolutely. Pardon me, weren't you the guy who just said...


I guess I gave you too much benefit of a doubt... I'm bad about that, but I'd rather presume the best of a person until there's evidence that severely counters that.

Let me, Mr. Credible, be so bold as to take you into my undergrad Research Methods classroom and help you with the concepts of power, confidence level, and sample size in world of statistics... well, not mine actually, but I'm sure this instructor won't mind me referring you to his...

https://explorable.com/statistical-significance-sample-size

So, once you've reviewed that, you'll understand why it is accurate to say nothing is "knowable" based on a handful of touches in one game where the kid had an actual starting O-line and the outcome of the game was still in doubt.

Hope that helps. Yes, I'm snarky, but I feel like I'm only answering snark with snark.



Pardon the observation, but while technically the quote above indeed does not claim "certainty," it does necessarily infer that we can know he must not have been considered much of a player since, (a) you observed bad timing multiple times, and (b) he sat for the rest of the season.


Okay, I accept that... a fact which... maybe... should have been "obvious" when I responded with...

We good now?

I suggest you read the part in your link with confidence levels, research it a bit more, and the reconsider your spew.

The only thing I have insisted on as being factual is there is no NFL regular season film of Vaughn making people miss. There is not any.

I have described my outloook on Vaughn as a range including a ceiling I describe as high. Yet your brain thinks all I want to do is bash him. Nice.

 

[CCBoy]

I suggest you read the part in your link with confidence levels, research it a bit more, and the reconsider your spew.

The only thing I have insisted on as being factual is there is no NFL regular season film of Vaughn making people miss. There is not any.

I have described my outloook on Vaughn as a range including a ceiling I describe as high. Yet your brain thinks all I want to do is bash him. Nice.

I'm watching the receivers for sure...

 

[deerhunter11]

It is a pipe dream. But I'd like to see him play RB for just one game. He doesn't have to be DE for one week. He is a physically gifted individual. Or he could do spot duty at the position. His frame is fit to play just about any position except for OL.

Oh I agree I think he can do it, and like you I would like to see it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So now, instead of Dak going deer hunting he is quail hunting.

A Cole Beasley type whip route master slot receiver would be great for Dak or any other QB. Easy reads are where it is at especially when the pressure is on. I was hoping Cooks could doo some of that like Cooper used to but to this point nothing.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm watching the receivers for sure...

The preseason is going to be awesome. I get all the angst now but the preseason provides answers that cut through the noise.

 

[_sturt_]

Yet your brain thinks all I want to do is bash him.

Yet your eyes have... twice now... gotten to see, and your brain reflect on this... in total contradiction to that conclusion...

I've acknowledged what is useful of your posts, and I've challenged what is not. That just seems to be what we do around here. No apologies from me. Like this...

The only thing I have insisted on as being factual is there is no NFL regular season film of Vaughn making people miss. There is not any.

... to which I'd already said...

that is a "bash" since there is no context to the assertion... a more level-headed observation would have been to say something like

"So, while there is only a very limited number of touches in regular season in the midst of a competitive game to look at, it remains uncertain since we have no regular season examples of Vaughn making people miss."

And...

So, once you've reviewed that, you'll understand why it is accurate to say nothing is "knowable" based on a handful of touches in one game where the kid had an actual starting O-line and the outcome of the game was still in doubt.

Hope that helps

Seemingly it didn't (ie, help), or you may have made an actual astute observation instead of just pretending to be above it all.

For some other readers' benefit, though, as one may anticipate, confidence levels can grow to the degree that your sample size is more and more like the population under study. The point here is that, of the population of RB touches in games when the starting O-line was in and when the game was still in doubt, Deuce's touches were miniscule, and so... the statistical power of whatever numbers you would want to look at is, consequently, especially low. No, the jury is still out, and neither positive nor negative conclusions have any solid support. Even to say "maybe he can improve," then, is to perhaps suggest some decent idea of his capabilities in the first place--a baseline from which to improve. But other than just the general "he's young, and he's probably going to get better just as a matter of experience" like one could say about any player regardless of any assessment of his current performance capacity, it's a misread to infer that Deuce currently grades out at, say, a 5 out of 10 and could improve to, say, a 7... rather, he grades out as an "incomplete"... we don't have enough good data from which to assign a grade.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yet your eyes have... twice now... gotten to see, and your brain reflect on this... in total contradiction to that conclusion...

I've acknowledged what is useful of your posts, and I've challenged what is not. That just seems to be what we do around here. No apologies from me. Like this...


... to which I'd already said...



And...

Seemingly it didn't (ie, help), or you may have made an actual astute observation instead of just pretending to be above it all.

For some other readers' benefit, though, as one may anticipate, confidence levels can grow to the degree that your sample size is more and more like the population under study. The point here is that, of the population of RB touches in games when the starting O-line was in and when the game was still in doubt, Deuce's touches were miniscule, and so... the statistical power of whatever numbers you would want to look at is, consequently, especially low. No, the jury is still out, and neither positive nor negative conclusions have any solid support. Even to say "maybe he can improve," then, is to perhaps suggest some decent idea of his capabilities in the first place--a baseline from which to improve. But other than just the general "he's young, and he's probably going to get better just as a matter of experience" like one could say about any player regardless of any assessment of his current performance capacity, it's a misread to infer that Deuce currently grades out at, say, a 5 out of 10 and could improve to, say, a 7... rather, he grades out as an "incomplete"... we don't have enough good data from which to assign a grade.

You also wrote "Mr. Credible, over here on planet earth, that is a "bash" since there is no context to the assertion..." and all of the passive aggressive posturing and quoting that we have talked about. I get that you are trying to demure with your throwaway line but you should understand I do not find you credible because of it.

I am making no certain predictions but in the range of outcomes allowed by the sample we have what I am talking remains apt. That is what I was getting at when I mentioned your need to study the confidence interval more. Of course you blithely just repeat yourself.

BTW I did not make it through most of that post. I suggest brevity and passing on the line by line.

 

[America's Cowboy]

I did watch the videos. You should watch when the first one was posted. It was before the season.

The second one does not show him making anyone miss. We have already established that.

If you want to pretend that Vaughn was playing well but the OL just wouldn't let it show you go right ahead.

Emmitt Smith ran through a wide open hole created by the great Larry Allen. I didn't see Emmitt make any tackler miss. Not even a slither of an attempt. Emmitt probably sucked. Right, @FuzzyLumpkins ???

 

[_sturt_]

passive aggressive

I do not find

I suggest

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

'I do not find you credible' is a direct statement and the suggestion was legit. No one reads walls off text.

Now compare that with saying "if you are acting in good faith, then you should agree with me," or "anyone coherent, lucid, and coherent would agree with me."

BTW, generally speaking when you try for the tit for tat thing it implies that the root comment already found a home.

 

[_sturt_]

You win, Fuzzy. Absolutely. Whipped me good. I'm so done.

 

[cowboyschmps3]

It could be this, but it does have a smell of uncertainty about where he fits or if he fits.

Last year was gonna be tough especially with Pollard and Rico up front, there was never really a competition for RB2 even though he played better in the preseason, but because of his size I think they let him pretty much redshirt, he got a feel for it, & now with Pollard gone there’s not another back but maybe the UFA we got that offers the scatback type. Everybody else is big bodied strong runners. I think it will be, Zeke, Royce & Deuce and at fullback of course Hunter. Rico’s hips really worry me.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

But I'm the one who is "less and less credible."

Got it.

Mr. Credible, over here on planet earth, that is a "bash" since there is no context to the assertion... a more level-headed observation would have been to say something like

"So, while there is only a very limited number of touches in regular season in the midst of a competitive game to look at, it remains uncertain since we have no regular season examples of Vaughn making people miss."

Yes. True. Absolutely. Pardon me, weren't you the guy who just said...


I guess I gave you too much benefit of a doubt... I'm bad about that, but I'd rather presume the best of a person until there's evidence that severely counters that.

Let me, Mr. Credible, be so bold as to take you into my undergrad Research Methods classroom and help you with the concepts of power, confidence level, and sample size in world of statistics... well, not mine actually, but I'm sure this instructor won't mind me referring you to his...

https://explorable.com/statistical-significance-sample-size

So, once you've reviewed that, you'll understand why it is accurate to say nothing is "knowable" based on a handful of touches in one game where the kid had an actual starting O-line and the outcome of the game was still in doubt.

Hope that helps. Yes, I'm snarky, but I feel like I'm only answering snark with snark.



Pardon the observation, but while technically the quote above indeed does not claim "certainty," it does necessarily infer that we can know he must not have been considered much of a player since, (a) you observed bad timing multiple times, and (b) he sat for the rest of the season.


Okay, I accept that... a fact which... maybe... should have been "obvious" when I responded with...

We good now?

I for one, appreciate the work that went into this. Darn near masterpiece.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Emmitt Smith ran through a wide open hole created by the great Larry Allen. I didn't see Emmitt make any tackler miss. Not even a slither of an attempt. Emmitt probably sucked. Right, @FuzzyLumpkins ???

Emmit absolutely had gòod blocking and holes. He could make some o line miss, but his expertise was at the 2nd level.