View Single Post
Old
02-19-2013, 04:52 PM
  #154
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkin4Top6Wingerz View Post
The point is that I've been consistent with my opinions on Tangradi. This wasn't a reversal in my position by any stretch.
So have I. Do we win a metal or some **** for being right?

Quote:
To be fair, I'm following Tangradi's journey also because I'd like to see if I'm right, too. If you feel strongly that a player isn't an NHL player and he pans out to be a legitimate top 9 guy, it might cause you to rethink your position on certain prospects. And if Tangradi turns out to be something, then perhaps you were right about a prospect just needing consistent minutes to flourish. I'm just skeptical based on what I've seen that Tangradi has what it takes to be even an average third liner in this league, and if he's anything less, then it wouldn't have been worth the effort to develop him anyways.
I thought Kraft was going to be a good player and it has caused me to be overly critical with players. Yet, I'm still wrong about tons of guys I watch.

Does it make a difference in my life when I'm right or wrong on these guys? No.

So who cares? It's a little disturbing you are so worried about being wrong/right.

Quote:
As long as he continues to show glimpses of what he's capable of people will continue to believe in him, including the coaches. Flubbing shots and mishandling the puck are signs of a prospect playing with nerves. It's nothing to be worried about from your skilled first round winger two games in.
No way.

It also doesn't mean he is showing anything either like I've seen several people claim.

Quote:
Playing on Winnipeg's third line with third line players doesn't exactly corroborate your theory that he'd break out on our fourth line given he'd already played there for an extended period and showed nothing. He's also only played two games and is hardly out of the woods yet. His best games with us were immediately after his call up. This is him looking to make another good first impression. Talk to me at season's end about how Tangradi developed into something useful instead of proclaiming him to have panned out for the Peg two scoreless games into his stay.
He never played extensively on the fourth line. I'm tired of arguing the matter when MB broke it down and facts were facts.

I honestly don't care to keep talking about him at the end of the year or next season.

I'm more concerned with how DB handles the youth that will be funneled through the system over the next several years.

Quote:
I'm just envisioning what the Tangradi excuse machine might come up with next. You're telling me that if Tangradi had gotten consistent fourth line minutes with guys like Craig Adams and Tanner Glass you'd be willing to write him off as a bust if he didn't put it together? Yeah, I'm gonna call BS on that.
I already explained how other prospects played in those roles and showed they weren't NHLers. Being obtuse is fun, right?

Quote:
Show me five whole games where Tangradi didn't look like a lost puppy out on the ice and you'll have a point. Ice time is handed out based on two things: what have you done for me and what have you done for me lately? He has done nothing to deserve a spot in the lineup, let alone get consistent minutes on a contending team.
He wasn't even allowed to have a period of good play without being benched for ten or fifteen minutes and you are rambling about how he needed to earn a spot.

How can you earn a spot when you do enough to earn another shift, but get sat for an entire period anyway? Then people say you did nothing in the game. No **** when you get six shifts a game.

Quote:
As I had predicted before, if you found such a thread it would be full of people calling OP a moron with Flyer fans chiming in that Schenn has actually looked good despite his slump. The entire point was that the vast majority of Flyer fans and anybody who knew anything about the game did not think Schenn was a bust. You're drawing a false parallel between people talking about Tangradi as a bust and Schenn when there are like, 3 people on HF who said that about Schenn. I hestitate to even consider it a minority opinion because that would at least entail getting 5-10% of people to support it.

Find me even a handful of posts where people are talking about Schenn like he doesn't have what it takes to play in the NHL like we see daily from Tangradi. I'm betting you come up empty handed.
Do you even stop to read the BS you spew.

"Oh you showed me a thread that I claimed didn't exist, now find this so I can keep stringing out my vanishing credibility." Please.

The thread was created because people were blasting Schenn on the R&T and prospects board. Just because you claim it wasn't happening, doesn't mean a damn thing. You claim no one said Schenn was a bust, yet anyone with common sense knows this thread was created for a reason. Keep digging that hole bro.

Quote:
I'm talking about this year, obviously. What has he done to get a spot over Jeffrey? Vitale? Hell, Craig Adams?
How many times do I have to point out that last season was when DB should of given him a chance and the minutes over washed up vets and waiver wire fodder.

He didn't want him on the team. The rumors and his actions made it an easy connection.

Quote:
It's mostly just entertaining to go back and forth with you. It's like you take the attacks on Tangradi's play and ability level personally.
I've defended way more prospects than just Tangradi on these boards. Unfortunately on the Pens board he was the sad obsession that crushed so many dreams.

Quote:
Last thing, what exactly do you consider legit ice time for a 4th liner? Tangradi's even strength ice time during his time as a Penguin is consistent with guys like Craig Adams and Arron Asham. He's not going to hit 12 minutes unless he plays on special teams or is double shifted throughout the game, at which point you're well past a typical fourth line role. Do elaborate on the kind of ice time Tangradi should have recieved on our fourth line that he didn't already.
I've explained it ad nauseum. I'm not doing it again.


Last edited by Mr Jiggyfly: 02-19-2013 at 04:59 PM.
Mr Jiggyfly is offline   Reply With Quote