HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

How successful will the Hawks be next season?

View Poll Results: How far do the Blackhawks get in 12-13?
Miss playoffs 3 4.76%
1st round loss 27 42.86%
2nd round loss 19 30.16%
Conference final loss 8 12.70%
Appearance in the Cup finals 6 9.52%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-04-2012, 03:15 AM
  #151
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
At this point, NO ONE can know what moves are going to be made before the season or what moves will be made next season before the trade deadline to address the team's needs. I do, however, know with certainty that it's highly unlikely that the 12-13 Hawks have as many injuries/missed seasons/down years as the 11-12 Hawks and that the loss of Suter, Lidstrom, and Nash significantly weaken the division. Again, it would be kind of dumb and un-"realistic" to suppose that the Hawks won't improve on their point total of last year, given what we know about the division and our own roster.

In any event, feel free to keep crying about a team that has Toews, Kane, Sharp, Hossa, Bolland, Keith, Seabrook, Leddy, et al. that is two years removed from winning the Cup.
Your right we can't know what moves will or won't be made so we go on what was made, nothing. If and when Bowman actually makes these moves everyone keeps bringing up hypothetically then I will stop saying he isn't doing his job. But so far he hasn't done anything and other teams have brought in players the Hawks should have gotten or at least gone after and we are now going on 2+ years of Bowman NOT improving this team.

Again come one here and give me all the the moves he might make, until he does though I have no reason to think he can or will because so far he hasn't.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 07:46 AM
  #152
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
You also don't just only sign the big FA and do nothing else, this team desperatly needs a FO winning PK killing 4th C, so what don't sign one like McClemment who only cost 1.5 so instead you can sign a guy like Parise at 7.5 who is more of a luxury then a need for this team?

You are tying to build a video game hockey team, sign only the All-Star players and do nothing else.
I try to build a video game team?? Why? Did I say go after Parise? I would have liked him, trade Stalberg after getting him to get picks back for this year and make some Cap Space with Frolik & Hjammer too.

I said sign Brookbank all along because he actually fills a need for us. Most other UFAs would not have done that. BTW, McClement is not that great D player. He is good but not as good as you make him out to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post

You guys make this grandiose statements and come up with either A-B scenarios. When in real life there are A-Z scenarios and the Hawks could easily make improvements to this team without blowing up anything.
who is ABCDEFGH...??

maybe, just maybe our own guys are option E or F?? Looking at this years UFAs, Jokinen was the only Top6 C available and Bowman did not want him (I like this too)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cullksinikers View Post
Yoda, you're damn right there are plenty of naysayers.

Management and coaching have proven to give us nothing to be confident about as far as doing better than last season. Playoff team? Obviously. 110+ points and getting out of the first-round? No.

Right now, the HF Hawks forum can be renamed "Horse Town" since it is filled with naysayers. However, there is good reason for all the naysayers. No major holes were filled.
we have those problems now for how long? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years??

No starting goalie since Hackett left
Not really a good #2 Center
Missed a Top4 DMen


I really like that we had the same holes 09/10 as we have now. No #2 Center, missed a Top4 D and hoped a young guy could be this and we had Huet and a rookie as goalies...

Right now, we still don't have a #2 C but it looks promising that 1!! of Krüger, Pirri, TT, Kayes or McNeill (= 20% of our C prospects) can fill that spot within the next 2 years
we don't have a goalie and it doesn't look like we will get a better goalie soon. Don't have a Markstrom, Bernier, Schneider, Rask or Lehner in our system when you know this is a special goalie for the future.
We have the best D pairing in the league (Top3 at least) now that Suter and Weber aren't together anymore and after that, we have Leddy + 1 of Oduya/Hjammer


what does all this tell us?? be patient, have some faith and until proven otherwise, Bowman gets the benefit of the doubt. He could have made some stupid moves out of desperation like Gauthier did with Gomez or pull out a Milbury.

Bubba88 is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 08:25 AM
  #153
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
I think the formula may have gone to Stan's head. The current team is far softer, with less grit and are quite a bit lighter in weight. I know some folks don't want to hear it again, but Hawks are an easy team to play against and is one of the reasons a young offensive minded team like the Oilers can dominate us.
I consider the formula getting to Stan's head a valid concern. I'm happy that he's sticking to it for another year (hopefully 2), but I acknowledge it could be a problem. I was fearful McDonough was going to intervene and do something this year.

As far as the "easy to play against thing" in your context, I think they'll be more difficult this year. The only way some of the kids can crack the roster is by playing hard and abrasive, so I think one or two of them will swim in that regard. I also see Q cutting back on ice time for players that don't feel like playing hard and abrasive this year. Anyway, I'm sure we'll see some new problems, but I think we'll see improvement in that area.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 10:46 AM
  #154
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
No, a realist recognizes that when:

Toews injures his wrist and is later concussed for 20+ games and into the playoffs
Kane has the worst season of his career
Montador and Carcillo are both knocked out for the season
Crawford has a sophomore slump
Hossa is knocked out of the POs
Shaw is suspended 3 games in the POs
etc, etc, etc

you can chalk things up to an anomalously unfortunate season. This has nothing to do with making excuses, it's just being "realistic" about the quality of our personnel and a season full of bad breaks. Frankly, it's kind of stupid to not understand that things have a way of regressing to the mean.
But all of these are excuses.

Everyone harps on about how Toews' injury was terribly unlucky, but the Hawks as a team were actually pretty healthy last year. That may or may not repeat, but let's not act as if injuries were some awful thing the Hawks were dealing with far more than any other team.

There is little reason to believe the defensive structure of the team will... well, exist next season. Because it didn't all of last year, and Quenneville and co. seemingly made no effort at all (or if they did, it failed miserably) to rectify things.

You will find that things tend to work like this: For every player that progresses slightly, one will regress slightly.
Career progression is not linear. Neither is player development.

Things tend to converge to the middle. The average. The mean.
Or in the case of next season, the known. Because we have seen this roster play already! We have seen a season full of typical bad breaks coupled with typical good breaks, and we have seen how limited that roster is along with its coaching staff. With barely anything changed, it is not pessimism to say that the team will have a similar season... it is realism personified.


You are an optimist... perhaps a bit of an extreme one. There's nothing wrong with that. It's probably more fun to be an optimist, because the outlook always seems so much brighter.

But with these Hawks, who are having the prime years of Sharp, Hossa, Keith, and Seabrook wasted by a roster that is no more than a mediocre playoff team that will almost surely not get out of the second round (and I have my doubts about them getting out of the round prior to that in the first place)... well. It ain't no fun to be a realist here. But it is what it is.

Expecting vastly different results out of the exact same group (if I hear anyone say once again that "ZOMG we're adding a rookie and Brookbank, though! Not the same!!" I will delete my account ahaha) is simply unreasonable.

EDIT: Looked it up, and the Hawks with 179 man-games lost due to injury last year are essentially tied for the third-healthiest team in the entire NHL last season (Dallas had 178). And that's with a sixth defenseman and fourth line forward in Montador and Carcillo counting for a whopping 83 of those 179 games.


Last edited by Chris Hansen: 08-04-2012 at 10:53 AM.
Chris Hansen is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 03:26 PM
  #155
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,033
vCash: 500
why do we waste a year of those guys? Other than Hossa, they all have 5+ good years left. That's more than enough.

Many also underestimate that we have a good situation when it comes to "addition by subtraction". No more Bruno, no more SOD. This alone helps us. We don't really need their leadership

Bubba88 is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 03:46 PM
  #156
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
why do we waste a year of those guys? Other than Hossa, they all have 5+ good years left. That's more than enough.

Many also underestimate that we have a good situation when it comes to "addition by subtraction". No more Bruno, no more SOD. This alone helps us. We don't really need their leadership
There is no guarantee of how long they have left to be genuine star-caliber players. That's the point.
That is why I use the word "wasting." Putting out a roster with glaring holes and adding on coaching problems, doing the same thing that we have all already seen once (and we all watched it fail)... that is stupidity! A waste, of all that talent that this roster does have.

It's somewhat ironic, now that I think about it. Generally speaking, the people who disagree with me on this board take a view something like "we need to worry about the future first and foremost." Stay true to your own ideals, then - recognize that four of this team's 6 best players aren't all that young anymore, and are either at their peaks or already beginning a natural slight decline in their effectiveness on the ice. Think about the future. Think about how these players (Sharp, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook) are not in their early 20's like Toews and Kane. These guys are not young. In this future that several of you hold so shockingly dearly, those four players are not going to be young. They are probably not going to be very effective. At the very least, not near as effective as they are now... and that is a major problem that would certainly get in the way of truly contending for a Cup.
And what do the Hawks have to replace them? You can't really replace any of those four players without some major luck, or at the very least some fantastically kind circumstances. Look at Detroit - the equivalent of Keith for them was Lidstrom, and now they're in some major trouble.
Point being, these players aren't replaceable.
So you need to take advantage of the points in their careers where they are at their best, before that is no longer the case.

That is why many of us are frustrated with Bowman, for sitting around with the same roster. No, letting a few crappy old guys go, adding a rookie who is a question mark (all players with no NHL experience are huge question marks whether you like it or not), and a #6/7 defenseman depending on Montador's availability is not change enough! What is that seriously going to accomplish?... The Hawks will vault from a team with no PP, no PK, coaching problems, horrible defensive structure, an apparent lack of effort disturbingly often (this is subjective so if you don't agree, there's no need to argue it), and three or four gaping holes in the roster in key positions... they will go from that to Stanley Cup contenders?

No, they won't. They have so much talent built in to the roster already, but it isn't enough. There are too many problems, too many roster holes, too many question marks. Sharp, Hossa, Keith, and Seabrook are not going to be in their primes (or in Hossa's case, out of his prime but still playing very effective hockey) forever. I worry especially over Keith, because a lot of his game is based around his raw athleticism and physical tools.
There is not an excuse for Bowman. This team's window to contend is not as humongous as some people seem to think.
Subtracting guys who by the end of this past season were playing the majority of their time in fourth line roles, as the sixth defenseman, or sitting in the pressbox and adding fringe players or unknowns (like it or not, that is what Saad is until proven otherwise - and even if he does blossom as I hope he will, he does not fix this team's problems in any shape or form)... that is not going to make this team transform from "bottom-four playoff team, first round loss to one-dimensional Phoenix" to "top-four playoff team, legitimate playoff run to the conference finals or Cup finals."

Sorry, it's just not enough. It's hardly any change from now. And I sound like a broken record by now, I'm sure, but I can't help repeating it - you can't bring the same everything and expect different results.

Chris Hansen is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 03:51 PM
  #157
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
why do we waste a year of those guys? Other than Hossa, they all have 5+ good years left. That's more than enough.

Many also underestimate that we have a good situation when it comes to "addition by subtraction". No more Bruno, no more SOD. This alone helps us. We don't really need their leadership
The addition by subtraction line is such BS. Great there not here it's not like Bruno and SOD where taking ice time from Kane and Seabs.

Is that what we are banking on for turning this team around? Addition by subtraction!

I can't believe that people honestly think this team is drastically different and better because of addition by subtraction, the fact that the Hawks will catch every break possible, and the division is weaker.

If we where in court this would all be circumstantial evidence and no way we win the case because there is no hard evidence to support our story.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 04:54 PM
  #158
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,444
vCash: 500
The team doesn't need to be drastically different. They need to play, coach, and goal tend better, the minor holes we have can be filled throughout the season if necessary.

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 05:16 PM
  #159
Sevanston
Registered User
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,227
vCash: 500
Coaching, goaltending, and team defensive play are not "minor holes."

Sevanston is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 05:27 PM
  #160
sup bro*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
But all of these are excuses.

Everyone harps on about how Toews' injury was terribly unlucky, but the Hawks as a team were actually pretty healthy last year. That may or may not repeat, but let's not act as if injuries were some awful thing the Hawks were dealing with far more than any other team.

There is little reason to believe the defensive structure of the team will... well, exist next season. Because it didn't all of last year, and Quenneville and co. seemingly made no effort at all (or if they did, it failed miserably) to rectify things.

You will find that things tend to work like this: For every player that progresses slightly, one will regress slightly.
Career progression is not linear. Neither is player development.

Things tend to converge to the middle. The average. The mean.
Or in the case of next season, the known. Because we have seen this roster play already! We have seen a season full of typical bad breaks coupled with typical good breaks, and we have seen how limited that roster is along with its coaching staff. With barely anything changed, it is not pessimism to say that the team will have a similar season... it is realism personified.


You are an optimist... perhaps a bit of an extreme one. There's nothing wrong with that. It's probably more fun to be an optimist, because the outlook always seems so much brighter.

But with these Hawks, who are having the prime years of Sharp, Hossa, Keith, and Seabrook wasted by a roster that is no more than a mediocre playoff team that will almost surely not get out of the second round (and I have my doubts about them getting out of the round prior to that in the first place)... well. It ain't no fun to be a realist here. But it is what it is.

Expecting vastly different results out of the exact same group (if I hear anyone say once again that "ZOMG we're adding a rookie and Brookbank, though! Not the same!!" I will delete my account ahaha) is simply unreasonable.

EDIT: Looked it up, and the Hawks with 179 man-games lost due to injury last year are essentially tied for the third-healthiest team in the entire NHL last season (Dallas had 178). And that's with a sixth defenseman and fourth line forward in Montador and Carcillo counting for a whopping 83 of those 179 games.
Toews, Hossa, Carcillo, and Montador getting concussed/injured qualify as excuses? LOL ok man. Do you think it's an excuse when a sprinter breaks his leg during the 100 meter dash and comes in last place? Your logic is impeccable.

sup bro* is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 06:19 PM
  #161
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,071
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
Toews, Hossa, Carcillo, and Montador getting concussed/injured qualify as excuses? LOL ok man. Do you think it's an excuse when a sprinter breaks his leg during the 100 meter dash and comes in last place? Your logic is impeccable.
Because only the Hawks suffer injuries.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 06:21 PM
  #162
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,071
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
The team doesn't need to be drastically different. They need to play, coach, and goal tend better, the minor holes we have can be filled throughout the season if necessary.
The Hawks don't need to be drastically different. The same players just all need to all be significantly better then everything is fine!



2nd line center, starting goalie, and team physicality are not minor holes. The team needs a core upgrade to regain its 2010 form, the version we've had last two years has been proven wanting.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 06:42 PM
  #163
sup bro*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
Because only the Hawks suffer injuries.
completely irrelevant to the point of whether or not injuries are excuses. The fact that three sprinters all break legs in the same race doesn't mean that broken legs are "excuses."

sup bro* is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 07:20 PM
  #164
Schalkenullvier*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: tief im westen
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,590
vCash: 500
like this, 1st round exit

with a goaltender, I could see us go real deep. Don't know where the guy would come from though. Sure as hell not eddie lack.

Schalkenullvier* is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 07:46 PM
  #165
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
completely irrelevant to the point of whether or not injuries are excuses. The fact that three sprinters all break legs in the same race doesn't mean that broken legs are "excuses."
They aren't excuses but you also can't bank on them not happening again which is what so many people are doing. It's not logical.

The reasons for the Hawks being much better are all substantial and based in hopes and wishes and not facts.

The Hawks had injuries, as Hasen pointed out the Hawks had the 3rd fewest games missed to do injuries and most of those games where Carcillo and Montador. If a 5-6th D-man and a grinder going out are going to have that bad of an impact on this team then we're worse off then anyone thinks. Injuries happen and they will happen again next year.

Kane had a bad season, yeah he did, however it wasn't that far off from his average total he has totaled 88, 73, 72, 70, 66 pts in his career, so maybe Kane is a 70-80 pt player and not a 90-100 pt player, last year was bad but not miles away from what he averages for his career.

Crawford has a sophmore slump, you know Crawford career SV% as a pro in both the NHL and AHL, it's .908% and he is going to play this year behind a team lacking more then one physical true defensive D-man and with a system that is weak and isn't fixed. His rookie year seems to be the fluke year not this year, this year we saw the reason Crawford was in the AHL so long and why he wasn't used until the Hawks excused every other option. Everyone says look at Jimmy Howard bad sophmore year then back to being a good goalie. I could just as easily say look at Steve Mason, good rookie year then boom never good again. To simply rely on Crawford bouncing back and not looking into getting a proven back up and role with Emery who was worse then Crawford last year is asking for disaster.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 08:39 PM
  #166
sup bro*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
They aren't excuses but you also can't bank on them not happening again which is what so many people are doing. It's not logical.

The reasons for the Hawks being much better are all substantial and based in hopes and wishes and not facts.

The Hawks had injuries, as Hasen pointed out the Hawks had the 3rd fewest games missed to do injuries and most of those games where Carcillo and Montador. If a 5-6th D-man and a grinder going out are going to have that bad of an impact on this team then we're worse off then anyone thinks. Injuries happen and they will happen again next year.

Kane had a bad season, yeah he did, however it wasn't that far off from his average total he has totaled 88, 73, 72, 70, 66 pts in his career, so maybe Kane is a 70-80 pt player and not a 90-100 pt player, last year was bad but not miles away from what he averages for his career.

Crawford has a sophmore slump, you know Crawford career SV% as a pro in both the NHL and AHL, it's .908% and he is going to play this year behind a team lacking more then one physical true defensive D-man and with a system that is weak and isn't fixed. His rookie year seems to be the fluke year not this year, this year we saw the reason Crawford was in the AHL so long and why he wasn't used until the Hawks excused every other option. Everyone says look at Jimmy Howard bad sophmore year then back to being a good goalie. I could just as easily say look at Steve Mason, good rookie year then boom never good again. To simply rely on Crawford bouncing back and not looking into getting a proven back up and role with Emery who was worse then Crawford last year is asking for disaster.
Toews and Hossa are our two best players. How many other teams had their two best players either banged up and far less than 100% or flat-out missing for multiple games in the first round of last year's playoffs? We know Vancouver missed Sedin and they got bounced.

Crawford may not be good enough to be a starting goaltender in the NHL, that's true, but he's earned the right to prove himself next season. He's had one very nice year and one very poor year, and if he sucks again get rid of him. I'm fine with Emery being the backup for now, but if they both crap the bed again we deal with the problem at that time.

I stand by my prediction that the Hawks have a great 12-13 (barring massive injuries to our top players). That's not wishful thinking, it's based on the skill of the team and their development: Leddy WILL get better, Kruger WILL get better, Shaw WILL be better, Hayes WILL be better, Kane WILL NOT have another horrible season, Bickell is in a contact year, Stalberg is in a contract year, Brookbank is an improvement and overall our defense is better than it was, gone is deadweight like Brunette, OD, Lepisto, Scott, Morrison.

sup bro* is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 08:45 PM
  #167
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
Toews, Hossa, Carcillo, and Montador getting concussed/injured qualify as excuses? LOL ok man. Do you think it's an excuse when a sprinter breaks his leg during the 100 meter dash and comes in last place? Your logic is impeccable.
Yes, injuries are an excuse, because every team has to deal with them.

And using them as an excuse in the first place is extremely laughable, because the Hawks were quite nearly the healthiest team in the NHL last season and the vast majority of the 179 man-games missed by the roster last year were by pretty unimportant players.

Hockey is a team sport, the sprinting you are referring to is not. What a terrible comparison.

Chris Hansen is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 08:47 PM
  #168
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
I stand by my prediction that the Hawks have a great 12-13 (barring massive injuries to our top players). That's not wishful thinking, it's based on the skill of the team and their development: Leddy WILL get better, Kruger WILL get better, Shaw WILL be better, Hayes WILL be better, Kane WILL NOT have another horrible season, Bickell is in a contact year, Stalberg is in a contract year, Brookbank is an improvement and overall our defense is better than it was, gone is deadweight like Brunette, OD, Lepisto, Scott, Morrison.
Shocking as it may be, player development is not perfectly linear.

Some players will regress a bit, some will progress a bit. It is the nature of the game.

You are being excessively optimistic.

Chris Hansen is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 08:48 PM
  #169
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 14,916
vCash: 500
If this team had a Lundqvist, Quick, Rinne, etc., this team would win the Stanley Cup. You can say that for about five teams, but I really believe that's the biggest thing this team is missing. Get a rock solid netminder in the blue paint with ice water in his veins and the ability to steal a series. Don't think we have a guy who can get near any of that in Crawford.

Cullksinikers is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 08:57 PM
  #170
sup bro*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Yes, injuries are an excuse, because every team has to deal with them.

And using them as an excuse in the first place is extremely laughable, because the Hawks were quite nearly the healthiest team in the NHL last season and the vast majority of the 179 man-games missed by the roster last year were by pretty unimportant players.

Hockey is a team sport, the sprinting you are referring to is not. What a terrible comparison.
I would suggest enrolling in a logical reasoning course at your local community college.

sup bro* is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 09:06 PM
  #171
Cullksinikers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 'Merica
Country: United States
Posts: 14,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
I would suggest enrolling in a logical reasoning course at your local community college.
Maybe you should, as well, considering I have yet to see someone who has agreed to any of your 109 posts at any point.

Cullksinikers is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 09:13 PM
  #172
sup bro*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cullksinikers View Post
Maybe you should, as well, considering I have yet to see someone who has agreed to any of your 109 posts at any point.
so you post a logical fallacy in response? LOL.

sup bro* is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 09:20 PM
  #173
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,071
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
I would suggest enrolling in a logical reasoning course at your local community college.
Why? He's right, and you're wrong. Your analogy was terrible. Awful.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 09:56 PM
  #174
Sevanston
Registered User
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
so you post a logical fallacy in response? LOL.
It's pretty funny that you call him out for a logical fallacy here when your previous post was nothing but ad hominem.

Sevanston is offline  
Old
08-04-2012, 10:03 PM
  #175
sup bro*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
Why? He's right, and you're wrong. Your analogy was terrible. Awful.
Nope, the analogy is perfectly appropriate. Injuries affect athletic performance. Whether it's a sprinter on a race track, Derrick Rose with a blown-out knee, or Kerry Wood and his exploding elbow, it's simply absurd to call an unexpected, random injury an "excuse." The fact that many teams also suffer injuries to their roster does not make them anymore of an "excuse" it just means that injuries are common. Sorry, your post is full of fail.

sup bro* is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:49 AM.

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.