Quote
max
Quote
zn
Quote
max
I’m more curious why Tucker is saying this stuff. He played OL in the NFL and he’s a smart guy, Princeton grad.
You’d think he’d have an obvious understanding of what it takes to play LT. And how it differs from RT.
If every educated jock who became a media analyst were right about everything, the world would be a different place.
No matter who says it, it's the argument not the name. I submit that the argument does not hold up. There are not that many people in the world at any given time who are capable of becoming starting caliber pro left OTs. There won't suddenly be more just because we say ROTs should be no different in talent and pay than LOTs. Just simple logic.
...
What you’re doing here is using the argument as the basis for claiming to have a better understanding of OL play than Tucker. Maybe you do. Seems unlikely though.
Me, I don’t think the argument is that simple. Teams will rarely have 2 OTs equally as good. And will almost always have the best one play LT. But that doesn’t mean you won’t have a significant advantage by having a high quality RT who is a very capable pass blocker. I think this concept is closer to what Tucker is arguing.
You're putting words in my mouth. I am just repeating the basics of the "argument from authority" fallacy. In shorthand terms, that says it's the argument that counts, not the person making it. Regardless who or what he is, Tucker;s argument does not hold up.
But if you want authority as your guide post, how about this. The entire NFL, including GMs, head coaches, and OL coaches tend--by a huge margin--to regard ROT as a lower paid position mostly because there are more bodies out there capable of playing ROT than LOT.
According to your own logic, Tucker, in spite of not having the qualifications of a GM or head coach, is defying that consensus.
So if you want to "argue from authority," don't stop where you stopped. Go further.
Me? I don't subscribe to argument from authority. So I am not going to rest on the point that GMs, by their actions, don't accept Tucker's view....and they know better than he does.
To me it's enough to say that logically, what Tucker says does not hold up. If there are more human beings qualfied to play ROT than LOT---and we know there are--(and that includes playing ROT well, even at a high level)--then LOTs are always going to be paid more than ROTs, and ROTs will always be easier to replace than LOTs.
That does not mean that NFL GMs, head coaches, and OL coaches are just conceding the pass rush on the right side. It just means that fewer human beings who can play OT in the NFL are capable of playing the blindside, on-an-island role required of LOTs.
....
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2019 05:22AM by zn.
