View Single Post
12-16-2012, 01:31 AM
Sent to HF Minors
Beacon's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,517
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
No you keep knocking the Rangers depth across the board when in reality the only real concern is the bottom 6 forwards.
You seem to have a hard time with the word depth. It doesn't mean the first line, it means the bottom of the lineup. And we are undoubtedly weak there.

Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Richards, Callahan, Gaborik, Nash, Hagelin, Kreider, Boyle, Stepan = Crappy depth on offense right?

Staal, Girardi, McDonagh, Del Zotto = Crappy depth on D right?
That's right. Having 8 forwards and 4 defensemen is crappy depth. Depth means being at least 12/6 deep, hopefully more than that. And with Gaborik injured and Kreider needing AHL seasoning (had there not been a lockout, he'd have likely spent these month in the AHL), we would've been down to 6 half-decent forwards, half of what we need.

Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Please name 10 NHL teams with a better defensive core than NYR.
Are you from an English-speaking country? If not, have you considered taking English as a foreign language in your school? You seem to have tremendous problems with the word "depth."

The point isn't how strong the defensive core is, but how many quality defensemen we have and we only have 4, which is 33% less than the minimum needed.

Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Sayin 'period' doesn't make your opinion a fact bub. Our depth sucks huh? Embellish/overreact much?
The problem isn't embellishment, but your inability to comprehend basic English words like "depth." Yes, our depth sucks. If you look at the bottom third of the lineup, it is one of the worst in the league. And if you take out Gaborik, we are really not doing well.

Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
so our depth is 'not good' when Gaborik is healthy but 'one of the worst in the NHL' when Gaborik is injured. So according to you our team is one injured Gaborik away from being on par with the worst teams in the league (Edmonton, Columbus, Islanders, etc)?
Seriously dude, English? Logic comprehension?

Having bad depth is not the same as having a bad team. A team that is top-heavy, but not deep can still be decent, but it doesn't detract from the fact that its depth is terrible.

You have a hard time admitting anything bad about the Rangers, and therefore you pretend like you don't understand what the word "depth" means and then re-define other stuff I said. Saying that without Gaborik our depth is among the worst is not the same as saying our team is among the worst. Are you really incapable of understanding this?

Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Won't be ready? Oh you mean like how Del Zotto wasn't ready coming out of juniors and put up nearly 40 points his rookie season? How about Stepan not being ready and putting up 20 goals and 45 points as a 20 year old?
These were premier prospects going into the season. Fast isn't the same as Stepan. Plus, finding a couple exceptions the rule proves nothing. This is no different than me saying, "lottery is not a good investment" and you responding, "oh yeah? what about Bob who won in 2011 and Mike who won in 2005? was it a bad investment when they won millions?"

In both cases, we are talking about exceptions, not the rule, and there's absolutely no reason to believe Fast will be an productive NHLer next year. None.

Furthermore, we are NOT talking about next year's depth. For all we know, our prospects will all blossom very quickly or we'll sign some players or second-tier guys like Jean and Thomas break-through. But that's next year.

We are discussing THIS year. Even if Fast, Lindberg, Thomas, Jean, Hrivik, Miller and McIlrath all suddenly get really good, giving us great depth in 2013-14, it has no relation to this year. THIS year, our depth sucks. Big time.

Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Can you see why it's hard to take your comments/opinion seriously when you overreact & embellish so much???
What you are doing is called a strawman argument. You create a strawman and then you knock him down. But what you are arguing against is not at all what I said. You either 1) don't speak English; 2) dumb as a brick; 3) just denying what words and sentences mean in order to be able to deny something.

When I write, "our depth is bad", you respond as if I wrote "our whole team is bad." So either you are lying or you don't speak English or you are really dumb. In all 3 of these situations, I don't care to speak to you anymore.

Last edited by Beacon: 12-16-2012 at 01:38 AM.
Beacon is offline