Strong out of the gate - miss the playoffs
View Single Post
10-02-2010, 09:45 PM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Originally Posted by
Like I said, some people (70%) come here to discuss hockey, and some (30%) come here (or to any forum that they stumble upon) to make statements about their superiority over the rest of humanity in a vain attempt to boost their self-esteem by attacking others, usually by twisting their words in the process.
Your statement above clearly shows that you are the latter.
Put me on your ignore list and don't respond to me anymore. If you can't discuss things on merits, then don't respond to me at all.
I gave you my argument based on the team's personnel. If you can't do the same, then go boost your self-esteem elsewhere.
This is not a forum where one is to discuss how everyone is dumber than you ("All the HF people are so ...!"), nor even how you are so much brighter than me personally.
This is a hockey forum. If you can't discuss things on merits without name-calling, then don't discuss them at all, at least not with me.
P.S. Not once when I bet with people on a forum, did I get paid, so you'll forgive me if I don't make bets with anonymous people I can't track. It's a bet where I can only lose, but never win. Nor is this a place I come to bet money. I do that at a sportsbook, not a forum. I come here to discuss hockey. (This is radically different from what you do: you come here to boost your self-esteem by crapping on others.)
But you can write this down and come back and yell at me in half a year if this is not true: unless Stepan, MDZ or someone else overperforms beyond all expectations, the team won't be any better than last year because Joke=Fro more or less. They will make it by a little and easily lose in the first round, or they will fail to make it.
As a "man of integrity", no doubt you will post "I eat crow" if I turn out to be right, correct?
Originally Posted by
And by the way, as usual, when you can't argue on facts, you have to create a straw-man argument by putting words in your opponent's mouth.
Just how bad did I mean it? The impression a person gets from reading your post is that I just said that the team will finish last by 25 points.
In facts, I said that Fro=Joke, more or less, and therefore, no progress can reasonably be expected.
Where am I going wrong here? Is Fro really that much better than Joke? Marginally, he may be better. But is the difference game-breaking? Are we going to get an additional 10-15 points (as the person I was responding to suggested) based on the exchange of Fro for Joke? You seriously suggesting that we will win 5-8 more games that we lost last year because of Fro?
There is not one person who gave a real argument for why we'll be better. People just state it with no explanation. "We will have 10-15 points more than last season"... yeah, we will do that because...? Because you want it? Because you don't want to be depressed thinking that you'll sit through another long season?
What's the reason for us getting 10-15 additional points?
Oh my god dude what are you even talking about? Your responses are so filled with over the top emotions that I'm not even sure responding to you is in the best interests of your health. I mean, holy cow son, settle down.
First off, I'm a man of my word. If I say I bet, I bet. Whatever you need to make you feel secure in that, feel free.
Secondly, my superiority over the rest of humanity? I'm talking about how much dumber all HF people are? How much brighter than you I am? That I don't know what the point of this forum is? What on earth are you talking about? I'm not even sure how to respond to all that.
I've seen others having discussions with you and getting nowhere. I merely figured that since your mind doesn't appear open enough to consider something other than your cynical opinion of things that it wasn't worth my time. And I called you no names whatsoever. Talk about twisting reality.
I also see that you love using the word strawman. Do you think using it makes you a better debater somehow? Maybe you should understand its meaning a bit clearer before throwing it out there so readily, since I offered no strawman argument whatsoever.
You also exaggerate by just a tad when you say I gave the impression that you think we'll be in last by 25 points. I mean c'mon, you think anyone really agrees with you on that?
You are arguing here that we haven't improved while everyone else has. We were overall pretty hard to watch last year. Saying we'll fare no better is in essence saying we're not all that good of a club. I disagree wholeheartedly with that position. Why? Cause we're different in so many ways.
Want some merits? Fine.
You have repeatedly compared Fro to Joke and made that a primary cornerstone of your argument that we would finish with more points. You've berated the point made by others that we could finish with 10-15 more points. What you fail to admit or even possibly recognize (which would be a huge shortcoming by the way) is that Joke wasn't with us all season last year was he. Ohhhhhh, did I just wreck your primary argument? Did you just now realize that we didn't even get him until February of last year? What about your Shelley-Boogard argument. Ohhhh, did I just wreck that one too, since we didn't friggin have Shelley either until after February? That's right pal, your argument already has huge holes in it, since they were with us for only 20 or so games out of 80 friggin 2.
So let's start with the Boogeyman. I would agree he's no more valuable than Shelley and consider them overall a wash for the most part. But we didn't start the year with Shelley. We're starting this season with the Boogeyman. Regardless of his overall hockey skill (which under torts WILL improve), he brings an intimidation factor to the ice that we were missing for so much of last year. That would absolutely have an impact in certain games.
Frolov. Personally, I think he's a better fit for our club than Joke. We're also starting the season with him. That's 60 somethin games we have him more than Joke. He's also on a friggin mission to prove something and from what he's shown in preseason, is very much starting that mission successfully. 60 somethin games with him over Joke and I'd say if he produces that him being the difference in 5-10 games of that extra 60 is not outside the realm of reality whatsoever.
Other factors: Our returning members have good memories. Their summers were long due to how things ended. They're gonna be playing with a bit more commitment and fire this year. You don't think so? You think that won't make a motivating difference? You might not know the sport as well as you think then.
We also have an influx of talented youngsters who are HUNGRY to make a name for themselves. You have repeatedly stated that we'd only improve if these youngsters perform way beyond any expectations. Really? They have to go that beyond expectations? There are already high expectations for Stepan and with good reason. You seem to make it like he's just incapable of adding value to our club. He'd have to just be wayyyyy better than expectations to mean anything. Are you serious? If he just plays the way he's played in preseason then we'd be improved from that alone. Why you dismiss him as nothing but a likely to be irrelevant rookie is quite amazing, when all he's done is show the opposite. Our young talent is promising and some absolutely have the potential, by just playing their game (not by rising wayyyyyyy above expectations yada yada yada), to influence our season and help us win games.
We have Dubi on a mission. We have Cally on a mission. We have Avery on a mission. We have players like Boyle and Fedetenko who are playing with fire and have something to prove. We have Redden sent down (boost to our club right there). We have a team that appears to all of a sudden be playing with an identity, where last year we had almost none. We have HUNGER. Yes, hunger. That's a huge ingredient for any team and ofttimes the difference between winning or losing in the playoffs. Last year our hunger wasn't anywhere near what it should've been. This year? I see hunger in the hearts of so many on our team, from young, to budding leaders, to veterans. Huge bonus.
We have the addition of Biron, who if he plays even marginally consistently should net us an extra 5 games alone, and a more rested Hank could possibly yield us even 5 more. I'm sure you'll underestimate that impact, since underestimation seems to be your forte. But I think the addition of him is a huge bonus.
I gotta put my kids to bed so I'm gonna cut the points short (since I have more but will digress for now). The last point I'll make is one of jogging memory. Think back. Try. Try and remember last year. Now, how many games did we lose by just a goal? Just one, lousy goal. How many? From what I remember there were a ton of games last year that even with our inadequacies, were so close that just one play could've made the difference. When you take all that I said above, plus Fro and Boogey for the ENTIRE (since you fail to recognize that quite valid point) season, along with fresher goaltending and a more solid backup, plus some young hungry talent and a team filled with players that for one reason or another are out to prove something, and you're telling me we couldn't net an additional 5-8 games over the course of an 82 game season? That we're no better than last year?
Well to each their own pal; but I think that would be an incredibly narrow and shortsighted view of things. We are better in so many ways. Our dynamic so much stronger. Hunger so much more prevalent. Identity so much more recognizable so far.
Who knows how this season will go. But sitting there with the impression of being on a high and mighty horse, acting like you're the one who's being rational while all of us being encouraged are out of whack and drinking kool aid, is quite misguided to put it bluntly. When looking at the entire picture I see absolutely nothing wrong with people being encouraged as to where we're headed. They seem justified and their views based in rational logic. But I don't find logic in your argument. I find nothing more than bitterness, cynicism, and a seeming cry for attention by way of being contrary and dramatic. But to each their own perception, no matter how flawed.
Oh, on a last note: Would I post "I eat crow" if I was wrong and you were right? You bet your ass I would. I would do that and more. Why? Cause like I said; I have integrity. Being wrong is fun. It keeps things interesting. I've never minded admitting my wrongs since with every wrong comes learning of at least some kind. But don't ever question my integrity as if I'm some keyboard warrior who can't back his stuff up. If I say I put my money down, it's down. If I say I'll dance naked around central park with "I was wrong!" painted on my chest, that's what I'd do. Care to throw down? The offer still stands. But like I said; if not no biggie. We are here after all to just talk hockey. But your cynicism is so flawed that I don't feel it should stand unchallenged; hence my desire to put myself in the middle of it.
Can't wait to see how readily you will dismiss the entire argument above. I know your type. Considering opposing arguments isn't what suits you. Simply restating your argument as if no other points had ever been made is likely your normal repertoire. But maybe you'll surprise me. Hell, if ya do I'll have no problem admitting my wrongs and offering apology.
Last edited by IAMREALITY: 10-02-2010 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by IAMREALITY