FSN: Most difficult player for Gophers to replace: David Cobb

Donate To GopherHole
Pompous Elitist said:
If your default is the team has no flaws that is not reality. Not sure why you're taking this position doll. Do you really want to make that argument?
Click to expand...

You didn't ask me, but let me just point to one example of your using "garbagey" "facts" to support an opinion. You say 54% of Cobb's yards came after contact as an argument to support your claim that the offensive line was not very good. That sounds like and interesting fact, but if you examine it, it's meaningless. There's no frame of reference. Is 54% yac exceptional? How did other backs compare. Does Cobb gaining 46% of his yards while being untouched reflect at all on his offensive line? How is contact defined? If a would be tackler got a hand on Cobb's ankle while being pancaked by an offensive lineman and Cobb shook loose for 50 yards more, is that considered yards after contact? And if so, shouldn't the line get just a bit of credit for that yac?

If it was me, I'd just say that Cobb had a very impressive year, ran very hard, broke a lot of tackles and benefitted from a decent offensive line. A nice team effort. I'd just leave it at that.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Explain why he is wrong. What would prompt the coach to say this. Have you considered it is your reality that is fallacious?

SOURCES TELL US "I'm hoping we get him. He can step right in and play because he runs tough and he knows how to pass protect. His offensive line was bad too. He's a way shiftier runner than he gets credit for." - AFC running back coach.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/david-cobb?id=2552376
Click to expand...

I can see that you don't understand the definition of "appeal to authority". Put simply, just because he's an NFL coach, it doesn't mean that his opinion is Gospel truth. It's what's known as a logical fallacy. And it's your entire argument thus far, which is why your argument thus far sucks.

I'm not the one making claims. I don't owe you anything. Since you're the one making the claim that our offensive line is bad, why don't you explain why you're right? And try using something other than someone else's argument.
 

You just wrote it down. For someone that prides himself on pedantry you quickly forget your own posts.

You implied that my and others legitimate criticism is not " reality". I shouldn't have to spell this out for you.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
You just wrote it down. For someone that prides himself on pedantry you quickly forget your own posts.

You implied that my and others legitimate criticism is not " reality". I shouldn't have to spell this out for you.
Click to expand...

How does one make the logical leap from that fact (your opinion is not "reality") to the asinine conclusion that I've said that the team is without fault?
 

dpodoll68 said:
I can see that you don't understand the definition of "appeal to authority". Put simply, just because he's an NFL coach, it doesn't mean that his opinion is Gospel truth. It's what's known as a logical fallacy. And it's your entire argument thus far, which is why your argument thus far sucks.

I'm not the one making claims. I don't owe you anything. Since you're the one making the claim that our offensive line is bad, why don't you explain why you're right? And try using something other than someone else's argument.
Click to expand...

There you go again. Where did I say the offensive line was bad? Your reading comprehension is sub-par.
 


dpodoll68 said:
How does one make the logical leap from that fact (your opinion is not "reality") to the asinine conclusion that I've said that the team is without fault?
Click to expand...

Criticizing my opinion, and others with vastly more knowledge than you would imply you feel the opposite? No? Are you saying the offensive line might have some flaws?

Just say it.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
There you go again. Where did I say the offensive line was bad? Your reading comprehension is sub-par.
Click to expand...

Pompous Elitist said:
Criticizing my opinion, and others with vastly more knowledge than you would imply you feel the opposite? No? Are you saying the offensive line might have some flaws?

Just say it.
Click to expand...

Changing the subject and argument won't change what has been exposed. Most posts aren't debating anything about the OL. The focus is that Your 'facts' are so often not in context (i.e. 56%) or just flat out BS (i.e. most unbiased observers). No one said anything about the other things you are now trying to focus on. If you have an opinion just state it as such, why the need to embellish it like it has some mass support from a select crowd when it just doesn't. Moving on.....,,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 














Pompous Elitist said:
http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2015...t-remaining-players-for-cowboys-in-rounds-4-7
Click to expand...

Ok, nice job. You've cited numerous bloggers who are obviously copying off of the same page. It's interesting that they all have absolutely identical conclusions about David Cobb's game. You can't really blame them as they're responsible for providing "in-depth" analysis on countless prospects, and it really is much easier to copy off one guy's paper and add a few of your own adjectives. Most cited the same comprehensive stat about 54% of yards coming after contact, and used that as their reason for labeling the Gopher line as less than stellar, mediocre, poor, or doing Cobb no favors. Exactly one of them bothered to provide his rationale for that conclusion. He cited the inane stat and said this led him to believe that Cobb was not running through a parted sea behind elite offensive linemen. You realize that none of these bloggers watch Gopher football, right? And now you copy off their page and want us to acknowledge all of you as incontrovertible experts? You'd be so much better off just using your own brain and sticking to opinions rather than dealing in expert proven facts.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom