Is there reading comprehension issues going on in Canada? where did you see me say he will get 70 points? Summer break is over try reading more carefully.
Redundant post is redundant, and the poster you quoted is from Minnesota.
Erik Karlsson and Erik Gudbranson should never be mentioned in the same sentence. The only thing Gudbranson has over Karlsson is size - and I like Gudbranson.
the only thing Karlsson has over Gudbranson is offense. Are you one of those that think Karlsson is Lidstrom ? lmao
Redundant post is redundant, and the poster you quoted is from Minnesota.
They are two different posts, one is aimed at the the poster from Minnesota the other is aimed at the following posts from Canadians saying the same thing. I'm assuming they didn't read what I wrote and just answered the other poster. But thanks for proving my other post about Canadians in this thread
Do you skip words when you read ? which part of "I DOUBT" did you not understand
Perhaps, but that's like saying "I doubt that the Earth will abruptly stop spinning tomorrow, thus flinging us all into space." Normally when such numbers are mentioned with regards to defensemen, they're confined to the realm of hyperbole, not rational discussion.
And yes, that's an extreme example, but frankly given that this is prompted by inappropriate use of hyperbolic projections, one can be forgiven for presuming that an even greater unrealistic extreme is necessary to illustrate the point.
__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards
Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Last edited by Viqsi: 09-11-2012 at 04:26 PM.
Reason: tpyo
They are two different posts, one is aimed at the the poster from Minnesota the other is aimed at the following posts from Canadians saying the same thing. I'm assuming they didn't read what I wrote and just answered the other poster. But thanks for proving my other post about Canadians in this thread
You didn't quote them, as opposed to the previous post, and I would presume the other posters were replying to the other post, not yours, in that they agreed he would not be a 70-80 point defenseman.
Perhaps, but that's like saying "I doubt that the Earth will abruptly stop spinning tomorrow, thus flinging us all into space." Normally when such numbers are mentioned with regards to defensemen, they're confirmed to the realm of hyperbole, not rational discussion.
And yes, that's an extreme example, but frankly given that this is prompted by inappropriate use of hyperbolic projections, one can be forgiven for presuming that an even greater unrealistic extreme is necessary to illustrate the point.
If at some point in history a Defenseman in the NHL has achieved such "hyperbolic status" <---(last year) .. Then one would assume to be vague in seeking the comparison of less mundane statistical proofs, for further study in the projection of not what the defenseman will become, but what he will become in the essence of projection analysis. That is why it is only reasonable that the number be included
If at some point in history a Defenseman in the NHL has achieved such "hyperbolic status" <---(last year) .. Then one would assume to be vague in seeking the comparison of less mundane statistical proofs, for further study in the projection of not what the defenseman will become, but what he will become in the essence of projection analysis. That is why it is only reasonable that the number be included
I know you are but what am I?
All I'm saying is that when you're looking for comparisons, singling out top-of-the-league stats is a bit extreme. It'd be like me (or some other CBJ fan) suggesting that Cam Atkinson is "unlikely to reach 120 points". To which the immediate response is "well, yeah, him and nearly every other player in the National Hockey League".
Comparisons aren't useful if they're that outlandish.
If at some point in history a Defenseman in the NHL has achieved such "hyperbolic status" <---(last year) .. Then one would assume to be vague in seeking the comparison of less mundane statistical proofs, for further study in the projection of not what the defenseman will become, but what he will become in the essence of projection analysis. That is why it is only reasonable that the number be included
I don't see why you don't understand why people questioned you saying "you doubt Erik ever gets 70-80 points". Of course he isn't going to, I'd be surprised if he ever gets 45.
That's like me saying "I doubt Crosby ever hits 200 points". Of course he isn't. It's not something you would say "I doubt" to, you say he "will not ever".
You say I doubt Gudbranson ever hits 40-50 points, or Crosby ever gets 140-150. Those numbers are within reason, not an huge number with no chance to reach.
All I'm saying is that when you're looking for comparisons, singling out top-of-the-league stats is a bit extreme. It'd be like me (or some other CBJ fan) suggesting that Cam Atkinson is "unlikely to reach 120 points". To which the immediate response is "well, yeah, him and nearly every other player in the National Hockey League".
Comparisons aren't useful if they're that outlandish.
Agreed, but it was not a comparison meant to say he will ever reach those points (we know he wont) it was meant to convey the point he will not be or play like the aforementioned players, but still has his own unique strengths from a "tools" perspective
They are two different posts, one is aimed at the the poster from Minnesota the other is aimed at the following posts from Canadians saying the same thing. I'm assuming they didn't read what I wrote and just answered the other poster. But thanks for proving my other post about Canadians in this thread
What point is that? That you come across as ignorant by taking personal shots at Canadians?
I quoted the guy who quoted you, but my post was more directed at his inquiry about what kind of defenseman Gudbranson is projected to be. So I gave him my breakdown of what Gudbranson's strengths were and possible comparisons to current NHL players, including a likely projection for his point producing capability.
Just because the 70-80 point quote of yours was discussed, does not mean that my reply was in direct response to what you said in your entire post. So maybe it's you with reading comprehension issues to not be able to realize that my post had branched off into a description of Gudbranson's game for the poster I quoted.
To answer the OP's question, I think Gudbranson has a lot of tools (size, shot, mobility, character, etc) and if he puts them all together he could be a big, physical two-way, 25-min top pairing D -- a poor-man's Shea Weber (he won't score as much even in the best case scenario). For that to happen, he'll have to demonstrate greater confidence with the puck and establish himself as a threat on the PP point. If he adopts a purely defensive mindset, he will be a solid stay-at-home D-man. These are the extremes. The most likely scenario is somewhere in between, perhaps close to a Braydon Coburn.
What point is that? That you come across as ignorant by taking personal shots at Canadians?
I quoted the guy who quoted you, but my post was more directed at his inquiry about what kind of defenseman Gudbranson is projected to be. So I gave him my breakdown of what Gudbranson's strengths were and possible comparisons to current NHL players, including a likely projection for his point producing capability.
Just because the 70-80 point quote of yours was discussed, does not mean that my reply was in direct response to what you said in your entire post. So maybe it's you with reading comprehension issues to not be able to realize that my post had branched off into a description of Gudbranson's game for the poster I quoted.
They are two different posts, one is aimed at the the poster from Minnesota the other is aimed at the following posts from Canadians saying the same thing. I'm assuming they didn't read what I wrote and just answered the other poster. But thanks for proving my other post about Canadians in this thread
If your post wasn't about me, so who were the Canadians (plural) you're referring to in the bolded part above? Only two people quoted the guy from Minnesota who quoted your post at the time of your first shot at Canadian reading comprehension, myself and the poster who posted right before me.
If your post wasn't about me, so who were the Canadians (plural) you're referring to in the bolded part above? Only two people quoted the guy from Minnesota who quoted your post at the time of your first shot at Canadian reading comprehension, myself and the poster who posted right before me.
Did you or did you not? open your statement with
"Yeah, I'd say 70+ points is unrealistic, even if it's a career year."
Is this not discussing the Gudbranson will never hit 80 pts in a season dialogue?
If it is? and it sure seems like it.. then you are in line with the others I was referring too.
if you feel like were discussing something else I don't know what that would be? then I guess what I said doesn't apply to you..
"Yeah, I'd say 70+ points is unrealistic, even if it's a career year."
Is this not discussing the Gudbranson will never hit 80 pts in a season dialogue?
If it is? and it sure seems like it.. then you are in line with the others I was referring too.
if you feel like were discussing something else I don't know what that would be? then I guess what I said doesn't apply to you..
What part of this is hard for you to comprehend?
I responded to that guy, and part of his post mentioned 70-80 points. So I was responding to him saying that yes, I believe 70-80 points isn't realistic, and then went on to explain to him what I believed was a more realistic projection for Gudbranson's upside based on the strengths in Gudbranson's game.
That was the full extent of my post touching on anything you may or may not have said in your post. Yet you seem to think that my post was directed at you in some sort of "lol that dude's nuts if he thinks Gudbranson can reach those totals".
It wasn't related to your post other than to touch on that part of his post to agree that that kind of high point production is highly unlikely for Gudbranson, then I moved on to the main point of my post, which was discussing my thoughts on Gudbranson as a whole.
Or to sum up in plain English, my post was directed at what was said in the post I quoted, not at your post. Do you understand now?
I responded to that guy, and part of his post mentioned 70-80 points. So I was responding to him saying that yes, I believe 70-80 points isn't realistic, and then went on to explain to him what I believed was a more realistic projection for Gudbranson's upside based on the strengths in Gudbranson's game.
That was the full extent of my post touching on anything you may or may not have said in your post. Yet you seem to think that my post was directed at you in some sort of "lol that dude's nuts if he thinks Gudbranson can reach those totals".
It wasn't related to your post other than to touch on that part of his post to agree that that kind of high point production is highly unlikely for Gudbranson, then I moved on to the main point of my post, which was discussing my thoughts on Gudbranson as a whole.
Or to sum up in plain English, my post was directed at what was said in the post I quoted, not at your post. Do you understand now?
And I am trying to tell you that REGARDLESS of what you went on to talk about you still mentioned the point totals I know the post was not directed at me because I am have nothing to do with your opinion. BUT you still mentioned the point totals THEREFORE are included in the people I was referring too which was the original point.Trying to manipulate your way out of the original point is a Red Herring my friend. I will get back on topic and say I agree with what you had to say
the only thing Karlsson has over Gudbranson is offense. Are you one of those that think Karlsson is Lidstrom ? lmao
I wouldn't say Lidstrom, but he's flippin' amazing. Karlsson's hockey IQ is through the roof, his defensive game is actually quite good because he can read the play so well.
Again, I like Gudbranson, but he's not in the same league as Karlsson.
I wouldn't say Lidstrom, but he's flippin' amazing. Karlsson's hockey IQ is through the roof, his defensive game is actually quite good because he can read the play so well.
Again, I like Gudbranson, but he's not in the same league as Karlsson.
Was Brian Leetch in the same league as Scott Stevens ?
Agreed, but it was not a comparison meant to say he will ever reach those points (we know he wont) it was meant to convey the point he will not be or play like the aforementioned players, but still has his own unique strengths from a "tools" perspective
In that case, I would have found better-fitting players to compare to and not even mention folks like Green or Karlsson.
In that case, I would have found better-fitting players to compare to and not even mention folks like Green or Karlsson.
Why? the op asked about him. You can compare him to a player that he is similar too or you can compare him to what he is not, both can be used to gauge a description. Why is a description have to only be limited to your perception ? We know that Phil Kessel is no Wayne Gretzky but he is a solid scorer. From that example you can use a generational player to describe the non generational player and gauge his talents that way; albeit you'll need more information than that.
Why? the op asked about him. You can compare him to a player that he is similar too or you can compare him to what he is not, both can be used to gauge a description. Why is a description have to only be limited to your perception ? We know that Phil Kessel is no Wayne Gretzky but he is a solid scorer. From that example you can use a generational player to describe the non generational player and gauge his talents that way; albeit you'll need more information than that.
Yeah, but "he's not generational" is kind of expected and implied. After so much abuse here, folks tend to assume someone even bringing up such a comparison is just being a homer rather than being someone who has a propensity for stating the obvious.
in the 2010 draft i wanted us to draft Fowler. I've never been shy about saying that. I was Gudbranson's biggest critic on the Panthers board this past season and was constantly bashed over there for it. the first half of the season he was absolutely awful. terrible, constant turnovers and poor positioning.
as the season wore on he got better, alot better, to the point where, when Garrison got hurt for two games in the playoffs, Gudbranson is the guy Dineen tapped on the shoulder to replace him on the top pair with Campbell. as a 19 year old....in the playoffs. and he did well with the assignment.
i'd still probably rather have Fowler at this point, but i'll be the first to admit that Gudbranson improved ten-fold as the season wore on and if he continues to improve in that fashion, he could be a pretty damn good d man himself.
