It is pedantry.
I'm saying that he fundamentally detracts from a team's ability to play top level football. My statement is based upon an assumptions of leagues being competitive with more than one challenger. Therefore, the team that does win it needs to be at their best. If you want to move posts to some sort of 'would Bayern Munich be able to win the league with Bruno' argument - a scenario where one team is so much more dominant than the rest, then suit yourself. Perhaps you have even scored a point over me. I'm sure if, for some strange reason, all the other top PL teams decided to post 25 points less than normal in a season, and then we assembled a team with Mbappe, Tchouameni and the like - and Bruno - that we could even win the Premier League. However, just as I am confident that Liverpool could not have won the PL with Karius in goal or Lovren in defence - we can't win it with Bruno, because, simply, he will prevent us from being as good as we can if we went a different way. In whatever alternate universe you prefer to focus on, where we can win the league at 80% or whatever then yes - my statement is incorrect.
When this thread was made about Pogba, a multiple title winner and World Cup winner - it wasn't because he was a one-legged man or scored 20 own goals a season either. In fact, we had just come second in the league. The point was, having the areas in which he was weak within a top team would always be too much of a fundamental hindrance. In his case, you just cannot win the league without a certain level of defensive effort. Unless of course, everyone else gets 2 red cards a game and we signed every great player in the world. Then maybe. In Bruno's case, I am saying you cannot win it if you cannot keep the ball to a certain level, and with Bruno in the team, we will not be able to keep the ball to that level. That's it. And so far I'm factually right anyway, which in itself takes away any ridiculousness factor from the statement at least.