HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Official Ex-Habs Thread Part IV (All Former Habs Players Discussed Here!)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-24-2012, 11:49 PM
  #476
VAN-HAB
Vancouver Habitant
 
VAN-HAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Port Moody BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blame it on PK View Post
Is that supposed to be sarcasm? You accused me of not even watching the games. It seems that since I strongly countered that accusation, you now seem to be attacking me for actually watching some games. How contradictory.


Klein, Blum, Boullion, Gill, Josi. These Dmen do not provide much supplemental scoring for Nashville. Hence, they must be defensive stalwarts or else Nashville has areas open for exploitation.

Consider the following as food for thought:
Despite having an elite goalie that is superior to ours, Nashville's goals against per game(GA/G) this season is actually worse than our GA/G last season and only slightly better than our GA/G this season.

Nashville's GA/G: 2.57
Our's this year: 2.67
Our's last year: 2.51
whose attacking you for watching games???...you get that a lot huh , sorry dude but nobody is expecting Bouillon and Gill to score, what the ****ing are you talking about, and who said that their goalie is superior to ours, sorry but I just stopped reading there, you really like to put words in my mouth, stop making up crap.

later.

VAN-HAB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2012, 11:51 PM
  #477
Harpo
Lyle forever
 
Harpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,043
vCash: 677
I prefer losing than winning with Hal Gill playing 25 minutes. What a ******, boring, slow, terrible hockey player.

Harpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2012, 11:53 PM
  #478
Le Tricolore
Boo! Booooo!
 
Le Tricolore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 29,308
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harpo View Post
I prefer losing than winning with Hal Gill playing 25 minutes. What a ******, boring, slow, terrible hockey player.
Boring, slow, and one of the best penalty killers in the NHL, you mean. Gill is incredibly useful.

Le Tricolore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2012, 11:56 PM
  #479
VAN-HAB
Vancouver Habitant
 
VAN-HAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Port Moody BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harpo View Post
I prefer losing than winning with Hal Gill playing 25 minutes. What a ******, boring, slow, terrible hockey player.
winning is better than losing, and not only in hockey, unless you are talking about losing weight.

as for gill, yea he is slow, and boring, a true pylon, don't like him either, but he will come in handy during the playoffs.

VAN-HAB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 12:04 AM
  #480
zzoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,393
vCash: 500
I can't believe that Tom Pyatt has scored 11 goals this season. Yes, our invisible man Tom Pyatt !
What did we get in return again ?

Do you think that Engqvist can some day score 15 goals with another team ?

zzoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 12:27 AM
  #481
MoldyCakes
Fight, Troll, Score
 
MoldyCakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland native
Country: United States
Posts: 7,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAN-HAB View Post
whose attacking you for watching games???...you get that a lot huh , sorry dude but nobody is expecting Bouillon and Gill to score, what the ****ing are you talking about, and who said that their goalie is superior to ours, sorry but I just stopped reading there, you really like to put words in my mouth, stop making up crap.

later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOU
Good job on sitting on your ass for 3 hours and posting your thoughts on hf boards, I commend you for that.
So, you were just merely commending me for posting on my thoughts here? Unexpected praise to receive, but I have no issues then, if that's all you were doing.

You accuse me of putting words in your mouth. However, where did I say "they expect Gill and Boullion to score"?
To restate briefly what I actually said, I said they do not score much. I then conclude "they must play well on defense. Otherwise, they will be exploited and thus suffer losses".
Nothing from these two statements equate to "they expect Gill and Boullion to score". But why accuse me so?


You are correct that you did not say that their goalie was better than ours. I did not catch West the first time. Indeed, this is a mistake on my part.
Let's see if you do the same for misrepresenting what I said about their D corps. "Expect" is not used in the my post's text, nor are the verbs used synonymous with it, as I have highlighted.


Last edited by MoldyCakes: 03-25-2012 at 12:33 AM.
MoldyCakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 02:03 AM
  #482
Corncob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzoo View Post
I can't believe that Tom Pyatt has scored 11 goals this season. Yes, our invisible man Tom Pyatt !
What did we get in return again ?
People stopped posting 'please get rid of Tom Pyatt, he provides nothing of use at all' on HF Boards'. It was a fair return.

Corncob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 09:38 AM
  #483
VAN-HAB
Vancouver Habitant
 
VAN-HAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Port Moody BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blame it on PK View Post
So, you were just merely commending me for posting on my thoughts here? Unexpected praise to receive, but I have no issues then, if that's all you were doing.

You accuse me of putting words in your mouth. However, where did I say "they expect Gill and Boullion to score"?
To restate briefly what I actually said, I said they do not score much. I then conclude "they must play well on defense. Otherwise, they will be exploited and thus suffer losses".
Nothing from these two statements equate to "they expect Gill and Boullion to score". But why accuse me so?


You are correct that you did not say that their goalie was better than ours. I did not catch West the first time. Indeed, this is a mistake on my part.
Let's see if you do the same for misrepresenting what I said about their D corps. "Expect" is not used in the my post's text, nor are the verbs used synonymous with it, as I have highlighted.
Sorry BPK but you are wrong again, and again you twist and change words to prove a point. That shows insecurity, and I don't mean that in a bad way, more like in a friend to friend type of advice.

You said they "must be defensive stalwarts" then changed to "must be play well on defense". Guess what they do play well in defense, add Weber and Suter and what do you get?

VAN-HAB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 10:59 AM
  #484
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blame it on PK View Post
It seems as if A. Kostitsyn has done it again. By "it", I mean get many multi-point games in a short period of time...and then disappear suddenly. Par the course of his entire career. He fits in perfectly in Nashville...since guys like Erat and Hornqvist are just like A. Kostitsyn. Career 50-point players who might go over that value once or twice.
Haters coming out of the woodwork.

Big surprise.

Reality?

AK has 3 goals and 4 assists in 12 games, which is decent. That's the kind of 2nd/3rd line scoring that any real playoff team needs. He had an assist last night as well. A few games before this head got smashed into the Stanchion, that would slow anyone down.

DAChampion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 11:17 AM
  #485
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9,446
vCash: 500
I was getting up to the second updates from AK fanboys when he was scoring. Now? Not so much.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 03:04 PM
  #486
MoldyCakes
Fight, Troll, Score
 
MoldyCakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland native
Country: United States
Posts: 7,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAN-HAB View Post
Sorry BPK but you are wrong again, and again you twist and change words to prove a point. That shows insecurity, and I don't mean that in a bad way, more like in a friend to friend type of advice.

You said they "must be defensive stalwarts" then changed to "must be play well on defense". Guess what they do play well in defense, add Weber and Suter and what do you get?
Well, let's remind ourselves what that particular "point" is first. My point is that I did not say or imply anything about "expecting Bouillon and Gill to score". You say I am wrong. Ok, let's test your assertion. I will attempt to justify that in either the original or in the restatement, I can prove this point. In the process of doing this informal proof, I know I must prove that meaning of the original and the restatement have only small differences. I simply thought the differences were slight and trivial, but it seems I need to further clarify things. Remember, I repeat, this is about you saying I said something to the effect of "expecting Bouillon and Gill to score". You would not have said "nobody is expecting Bouillon and Gill to score" otherwise.

Part 1: The discrepancies between the meaning of the original and the restatement and whether there is a difference in being able to counter VAN-HAB's point
The original:
Quote:
These Dmen do not provide much supplemental scoring for Nashville. Hence, they must be defensive stalwarts or else Nashville has areas open for exploitation.
The restatement:
Quote:
To restate briefly what I actually said, I said they do not score much. I then conclude "they must play well on defense. Otherwise, they will be exploited and thus suffer losses".
I'll begin with the intro, since it is critical in letting me do what I did:
Quote:
To restate briefly what I actually said,
I said "to restate briefly". Restate has been defined as:
  • "to state again or in a new way. " at dictionary.com
  • "State (something) again or differently, esp. more clearly or convincingly.".
So, by definition, I can "state again what I actually said" OR "state in a new way what I actually said".
I can make changes, but meaning must remain the same.

Now, let's see if the meanings between the original and the restatement are too different. I believe the change is slight and not a big deal. Therefore, I believe is indeed a brief restatement.
I changed my words from "defensive stalwart" to "need to play well on defense".
Stalwart is defined as:
  • "strongly and stoutly built; sturdy and robust."
So, if dmen are strong at playing defense(aka are stalwarts), that would imply that they play defense well. Or in other words, "being a defensive stalwart implies you play well on defense". So, either way, there is no way to garner "expecting Gill and Boullion to score" from either form of what I said.

However, I do admit I was a bit too sloppy with the change from not providing much supplemental scoring to do not score much. The meanings are not too different. Both phrases imply low point production, but they are distinct enough that I should have just stuck with the original. My apologies for that. But even with a subtle distinction in meaning, still, neither form implies "expecting Gill and Boullion to score"


Part 2: Does VAN-HAB care deeply about Blame it on PK, or is it something else?
I will now analyze my alleged insecurities and you're "proofs" that I'm insecure. Do note, however, that regardless of whether it is true or not, it is a separate subject from the one about "expecting Boullion and Gill to score". It is otherwise known as an ad hominem.

Also, do note, that the following does not disprove for all eternity that I am insecure, but rather...you're proofs are shoddy and need work. I will even give you directions: Go google "attachment theory" and "how to determine attachment style".

I am indeed open to being charged with being "insecure", but your reasons must be based on:
  1. sound evidence
  2. sound reasoning

Quote:
Sorry BPK but you are wrong again, and again you twist and change words to prove a point. That shows insecurity,
Let's break down these statements into a nice syllogism to analyze.

Premises:
1. BPK twists and change words to prove a point
Conclusion:
Therefore, he is insecure.

Objection 1: There is no scientific research that shows that the mere act of twisting and changing words can prove "insecurity". The litmus test for this assertion is the question: "Do secure people do or do not "twist and change" words.

Objection 2: Alternative explanations for "twisting and changing words" such as just being stupid or the concept of confirmation bias.

Objection 3: Changing words is allowed.BPK clearly states that he is restating what he said. When restating something, one can use different words if the meaning remains the same.


VAN-HAB's most "powerful" point:
1. Person is insecure
Therefore, he is wrong.

Simple ad hominem.
Hey, I don't mind talking about myself, but don't use it to prove anything I say is wrong...otherwise gems like this can happen:

BPK says humans need water.
BPK is an insecure person.
Therefore, BPK is wrong that humans need water.

Part 2b: Hypocrisy test
Quote:
you get that a lot huh
Let's test it.
Quote:
I am pretty sure that aside from a couple of playoffs games and some highlights on sport 30 you never watched any nashville games.

Now, VAN-HAB, since I am very curious to see if my reaction is the result of "insecurity" or if it is something someone else would react similary to.

Now I will say to you, VAN-HAB, that I'm pretty sure you did not watch the games and instead watched only the highlights of Preds games and that you don't know what you're talking about.
But if you really did watch the games, I commend you for sitting on your ass for hours and engaging in a debate with me on hfboards. You should not feel angry, if you do, you're insecure.

Of course, to further strengthen the test so it's not just you and me I would do this to other members, including mods, telling them I'm pretty sure they didn't watch the games or if they did, they should be commended for posting on hfboards like it's great accomplishment. Should I assume they will be angry or it's no big deal? Answer with "they will be angry" or "no big deal". No fluff about my beautiful self since it doesn't answer the question.

Oh, and do note that I can convincingly label you as irrational(not insecure, not insensitive, not hateful, not crazy, not etc, just irrational) for:
1. Failing to answer a simple yes-no question(Were you being sarcastic?)
2. Not realizing you are using an ad hominem(BPK, you're insecure, therefore you're wrong about so-and-so.
3. Not understanding what a restatement is (stating something again or in a new way)
4. Forgetting your own wrong points (I said something to the effect of "expecting Gill and Boullion to score")
5. Not comprehending that a defensive stalwart must play well on defense or else he isn't a defensive stalwart.

And before you say that these four things are due to being insecure, I will state again, even if I am, that doesn't make those particular points incorrect. (ad hominem)
Oh, and even though you're wrong on those things, you might be right on other things(and you have been on a couple things). I give people second chances, unlike you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, back to the quality of Nashville's defense, their GAA in the West is 2.54, only 0.01 better than Avalanche and Stars 2.55 GAA, and only 0.03 better than Calgary's 2.57 GAA. Somehow, despite having the "best goalie in the West", they don't have the best GAA. But perhaps Lindback isn't that good. Okay, let look at Rinne vs. the rest of the West.

Pekka Rinne's GAA is 2.43. This is better than the 2.54. But despite having this supposedly amazing defense, the Blues, Kings, Coyotes, Canucks, Wings, and Sharks still have their team's GAA lower than that.

MoldyCakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 03:06 PM
  #487
MoldyCakes
Fight, Troll, Score
 
MoldyCakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland native
Country: United States
Posts: 7,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Haters coming out of the woodwork.

Big surprise.

Reality?

AK has 3 goals and 4 assists in 12 games, which is decent. That's the kind of 2nd/3rd line scoring that any real playoff team needs. He had an assist last night as well. A few games before this head got smashed into the Stanchion, that would slow anyone down.
Stating that he is repeating what he has been doing for his entire career is not indicative of hate or love.

He is mediocre. So perfectly stuck in the middle such that he can be praised and "hated on" within the same sentence. Those who like him will emphasize the good. Those who don't will emphasize the bad.

MoldyCakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 05:28 PM
  #488
VAN-HAB
Vancouver Habitant
 
VAN-HAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Port Moody BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blame it on PK View Post
Well, let's remind ourselves what that particular "point" is first. My point is that I did not say or imply anything about "expecting Bouillon and Gill to score". You say I am wrong. Ok, let's test your assertion. I will attempt to justify that in either the original or in the restatement, I can prove this point. In the process of doing this informal proof, I know I must prove that meaning of the original and the restatement have only small differences. I simply thought the differences were slight and trivial, but it seems I need to further clarify things. Remember, I repeat, this is about you saying I said something to the effect of "expecting Bouillon and Gill to score". You would not have said "nobody is expecting Bouillon and Gill to score" otherwise.

Part 1: The discrepancies between the meaning of the original and the restatement and whether there is a difference in being able to counter VAN-HAB's point
The original:

The restatement:


I'll begin with the intro, since it is critical in letting me do what I did:

I said "to restate briefly". Restate has been defined as:
  • "to state again or in a new way. " at dictionary.com
  • "State (something) again or differently, esp. more clearly or convincingly.".
So, by definition, I can "state again what I actually said" OR "state in a new way what I actually said".
I can make changes, but meaning must remain the same.

Now, let's see if the meanings between the original and the restatement are too different. I believe the change is slight and not a big deal. Therefore, I believe is indeed a brief restatement.
I changed my words from "defensive stalwart" to "need to play well on defense".
Stalwart is defined as:
  • "strongly and stoutly built; sturdy and robust."
So, if dmen are strong at playing defense(aka are stalwarts), that would imply that they play defense well. Or in other words, "being a defensive stalwart implies you play well on defense". So, either way, there is no way to garner "expecting Gill and Boullion to score" from either form of what I said.

However, I do admit I was a bit too sloppy with the change from not providing much supplemental scoring to do not score much. The meanings are not too different. Both phrases imply low point production, but they are distinct enough that I should have just stuck with the original. My apologies for that. But even with a subtle distinction in meaning, still, neither form implies "expecting Gill and Boullion to score"


Part 2: Does VAN-HAB care deeply about Blame it on PK, or is it something else?
I will now analyze my alleged insecurities and you're "proofs" that I'm insecure. Do note, however, that regardless of whether it is true or not, it is a separate subject from the one about "expecting Boullion and Gill to score". It is otherwise known as an ad hominem.

Also, do note, that the following does not disprove for all eternity that I am insecure, but rather...you're proofs are shoddy and need work. I will even give you directions: Go google "attachment theory" and "how to determine attachment style".

I am indeed open to being charged with being "insecure", but your reasons must be based on:
  1. sound evidence
  2. sound reasoning


Let's break down these statements into a nice syllogism to analyze.

Premises:
1. BPK twists and change words to prove a point
Conclusion:
Therefore, he is insecure.

Objection 1: There is no scientific research that shows that the mere act of twisting and changing words can prove "insecurity". The litmus test for this assertion is the question: "Do secure people do or do not "twist and change" words.

Objection 2: Alternative explanations for "twisting and changing words" such as just being stupid or the concept of confirmation bias.

Objection 3: Changing words is allowed.BPK clearly states that he is restating what he said. When restating something, one can use different words if the meaning remains the same.


VAN-HAB's most "powerful" point:
1. Person is insecure
Therefore, he is wrong.

Simple ad hominem.
Hey, I don't mind talking about myself, but don't use it to prove anything I say is wrong...otherwise gems like this can happen:

BPK says humans need water.
BPK is an insecure person.
Therefore, BPK is wrong that humans need water.

Part 2b: Hypocrisy test
Let's test it.



Now, VAN-HAB, since I am very curious to see if my reaction is the result of "insecurity" or if it is something someone else would react similary to.

Now I will say to you, VAN-HAB, that I'm pretty sure you did not watch the games and instead watched only the highlights of Preds games and that you don't know what you're talking about.
But if you really did watch the games, I commend you for sitting on your ass for hours and engaging in a debate with me on hfboards. You should not feel angry, if you do, you're insecure.

Of course, to further strengthen the test so it's not just you and me I would do this to other members, including mods, telling them I'm pretty sure they didn't watch the games or if they did, they should be commended for posting on hfboards like it's great accomplishment. Should I assume they will be angry or it's no big deal? Answer with "they will be angry" or "no big deal". No fluff about my beautiful self since it doesn't answer the question.

Oh, and do note that I can convincingly label you as irrational(not insecure, not insensitive, not hateful, not crazy, not etc, just irrational) for:
1. Failing to answer a simple yes-no question(Were you being sarcastic?)
2. Not realizing you are using an ad hominem(BPK, you're insecure, therefore you're wrong about so-and-so.
3. Not understanding what a restatement is (stating something again or in a new way)
4. Forgetting your own wrong points (I said something to the effect of "expecting Gill and Boullion to score")
5. Not comprehending that a defensive stalwart must play well on defense or else he isn't a defensive stalwart.

And before you say that these four things are due to being insecure, I will state again, even if I am, that doesn't make those particular points incorrect. (ad hominem)
Oh, and even though you're wrong on those things, you might be right on other things(and you have been on a couple things). I give people second chances, unlike you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, back to the quality of Nashville's defense, their GAA in the West is 2.54, only 0.01 better than Avalanche and Stars 2.55 GAA, and only 0.03 better than Calgary's 2.57 GAA. Somehow, despite having the "best goalie in the West", they don't have the best GAA. But perhaps Lindback isn't that good. Okay, let look at Rinne vs. the rest of the West.

Pekka Rinne's GAA is 2.43. This is better than the 2.54. But despite having this supposedly amazing defense, the Blues, Kings, Coyotes, Canucks, Wings, and Sharks still have their team's GAA lower than that.
Appreciate the time and perseverance you took to write all this. To make it easier for both of us I recommend that we wait for the playoffs to start then get back to discussing Nashville.
I will cheer for them as I did last year once the Habs were eliminated in the 1st round. I like Rinne a lot, Shea is my favorite defenseman, big fan of the Kost brothers as well.
Keep in mind once the playoffs start all the stats you mentioned mean squat.

By the way I know what a restatement is, revising an old statement, stating again in a new form. Unfortunately as you know that wasn't the case and let's leave it at that.

VAN-HAB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 05:48 PM
  #489
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 26,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Tricolore View Post
Boring, slow, and one of the best penalty killers in the NHL, you mean. Gill is incredibly useful.
He's a good PK player. That doesn't make him incredibly useful.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 06:47 PM
  #490
TheBuriedHab
Registered User
 
TheBuriedHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
He's a good PK player. That doesn't make him incredibly useful.
Being a great pker is incredibly useful.

TheBuriedHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 06:58 PM
  #491
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBuriedHab View Post
Being a great pker is incredibly useful.
I think he means it's useful but not incredibly useful, and that strong language such as incredibly useful should be reserved for the best of things such as elite sniping skills.

DAChampion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 07:45 PM
  #492
Quarantesix
#Galchenyuk
 
Quarantesix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montréal
Posts: 4,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
I was getting up to the second updates from AK fanboys when he was scoring. Now? Not so much.
LOL

Good timing

Quarantesix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 08:05 PM
  #493
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 26,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBuriedHab View Post
Being a great pker is incredibly useful.
If Hal freaking Gill is incredibly useful, then what is Plekanec? Bolland? Weber? Gaborik? Crosby? Malkin?...

Gill is a PK specialist, that's it. He's not even a good Dman. He's slow, lacks mobility, isn't physical, has poor skating and passing, has no shot.
He's not horrible, he can break up some plays, but he's not good, not for my standards.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 08:06 PM
  #494
MoldyCakes
Fight, Troll, Score
 
MoldyCakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland native
Country: United States
Posts: 7,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAN-HAB View Post
Appreciate the time and perseverance you took to write all this. To make it easier for both of us I recommend that we wait for the playoffs to start then get back to discussing Nashville.
I will cheer for them as I did last year once the Habs were eliminated in the 1st round. I like Rinne a lot, Shea is my favorite defenseman, big fan of the Kost brothers as well.
Keep in mind once the playoffs start all the stats you mentioned mean squat.

By the way I know what a restatement is, revising an old statement, stating again in a new form. Unfortunately as you know that wasn't the case and let's leave it at that.
Fair enough.
I like Nashville. But I just don't see them as good with puck possession as those ahead of them.

MoldyCakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 08:08 PM
  #495
VAN-HAB
Vancouver Habitant
 
VAN-HAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Port Moody BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blame it on PK View Post
Fair enough.
I like Nashville. But I just don't see them as good with puck possession as those ahead of them.
3-0 with the Hawks so far, this team is so underrated, but that's a good thing going into the playoffs.

VAN-HAB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 08:10 PM
  #496
TheBuriedHab
Registered User
 
TheBuriedHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,205
vCash: 500
I always liked AK. Much rather have him than Bourque still.

TheBuriedHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 08:12 PM
  #497
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
If Hal freaking Gill is incredibly useful, then what is Plekanec? Bolland? Weber? Gaborik? Crosby? Malkin?...

Gill is a PK specialist, that's it. He's not even a good Dman. He's slow, lacks mobility, isn't physical, has poor skating and passing, has no shot.
He's not horrible, he can break up some plays, but he's not good, not for my standards.
Hal gill is the defensive version of MAB. Both are 7th dmen.

OneSharpMarble is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 08:20 PM
  #498
MoldyCakes
Fight, Troll, Score
 
MoldyCakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland native
Country: United States
Posts: 7,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAN-HAB View Post
3-0 with the Hawks so far, this team is so underrated, but that's a good thing going into the playoffs.
Destroying the Hawks is to be expected. Hawks are weak on D and their bottom forwards, plus Toews and Keith are out. Very favorable conditions for Nashville to take advantage of.

I believe the Hawks have an even worse chance than Nashville of making it past the first round unless they face Vancouver, whom they seem to just play well against.

MoldyCakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 09:10 PM
  #499
PK76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan2k11 View Post
I was getting up to the second updates from AK fanboys when he was scoring. Now? Not so much.
Got his 3rd GWG with Nashville tonight!

PK76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2012, 09:15 PM
  #500
WhiskeySeven
Pretty big member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabzFanatik71 View Post
Got his 3rd GWG with Nashville tonight!
2 points in last 8 games played. Gimme a break.

We'll see how he does until the end of the season/playoffs. Enough constant updates, it's just annoying.

WhiskeySeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.