HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

Karlsson-Cowen vs OEL-Gormley vs Pietrangelo-Shattenkirk

View Poll Results: future
Karlsson-Cowen 90 40.00%
OEL-Gormley 23 10.22%
Pietrangelo-Shattenkirk 112 49.78%
Voters: 225. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-10-2012, 10:34 PM
  #101
PietroOshieLo*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Hershey, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
If only 1 Norris nominee was in the top 3, I would agree with you. But 3/3 were in the top 3. Also, I'm not saying this is everything. Garrison and Enstrom aren't top 5.

You're team argument is meaningless, because:
1-I used Rel Corsi, which is adjusted for the player's team
2-+/- is the difference between when the player is on and off (my way of adjusting for the team)

QoC = plays against top players (validity proven throughout all teams in the league)
Corsi = essentially +/- for shots, a good way of judging two-way ability, scoring chances for and against, doesn't consider goaltending. relative adjusts it for team, so good team are all super high
Difference in On and Off +/- = Actual effect on the scoreboard, again adjusted for team.

Also, you know Karlsson has more points and takeaways.




Cowen has great physical tools. Huge, extremely strong and hasn't filled out, good skater, big point shot, can rush with the puck. Potential top shutdown defenseman with 30-40 point potential. He complements Karlsson much more than Shattenkirk - Pietrangelo. Shat plays the same side as Pie so they can't be an elite pair, and Shat won't be as good defensively as Cowen.
I'll give you that Shattenkirk really isn't the best compliment for Pietrangelo, given that the Blues have spent virtually all summer trying to find somebody who isn't Colaiacovo to play on his side, but that's more the fault of the poll-maker. I personally will be very interested to see how a team like the Predators will do without Suter complimenting Weber, and where Weber ends up next year. Perhaps he'll be better, but I'm willing to bet his stats take at least a slight hit.

You argued for Cowen based on his potential, but that can go both ways. Pietrangelo is entering his third season as an NHLer, whilst Karlsson is going into his fourth. For sheer progression's sake Pietrangelo had a better second year than Karlsson did, why wouldn't he keep improving. Of course, Karlsson is certainly a better offensive player at this stage in his career, but he could have also hit his plateau, same with Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, or Cowen.

My problem with Corsi is that it doesn't take into effect nuance. The Blues don't play in the same conference as the Senators, they don't play the same style as the Senators. The Senators win by trying to outscore their opponents, the Blues play a much stronger defensive game. Ottawa was fourth in the league in goals scored, the Blues were 21st. To point to single players for that margin would be ridiculous; it discounts team play in favor for individual accomplishments.

PietroOshieLo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 10:38 PM
  #102
Samsquanch
Creep
 
Samsquanch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Big Nickel
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
If only 1 Norris nominee was in the top 3, I would agree with you. But 3/3 were in the top 3. Also, I'm not saying this is everything. Garrison and Enstrom aren't top 5.

You're team argument is meaningless, because:
1-I used Rel Corsi, which is adjusted for the player's team
2-+/- is the difference between when the player is on and off (my way of adjusting for the team)

QoC = plays against top players (validity proven throughout all teams in the league)
Corsi = essentially +/- for shots, a good way of judging two-way ability, scoring chances for and against, doesn't consider goaltending. relative adjusts it for team, so good team are all super high
Difference in On and Off +/- = Actual effect on the scoreboard, again adjusted for team.

Also, you know Karlsson has more points and takeaways.




Cowen has great physical tools. Huge, extremely strong and hasn't filled out, good skater, big point shot, can rush with the puck. Potential top shutdown defenseman with 30-40 point potential. He complements Karlsson much more than Shattenkirk - Pietrangelo. Shat plays the same side as Pie so they can't be an elite pair, and Shat won't be as good defensively as Cowen.
This. How it can be anymore clear, Im not too sure.

Samsquanch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 10:52 PM
  #103
MAK19
FreeWierciochBanAndy
 
MAK19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madrid
Posts: 13,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PietroOshieLo View Post
I'll give you that Shattenkirk really isn't the best compliment for Pietrangelo, given that the Blues have spent virtually all summer trying to find somebody who isn't Colaiacovo to play on his side, but that's more the fault of the poll-maker. I personally will be very interested to see how a team like the Predators will do without Suter complimenting Weber, and where Weber ends up next year. Perhaps he'll be better, but I'm willing to bet his stats take at least a slight hit.

You argued for Cowen based on his potential, but that can go both ways. Pietrangelo is entering his third season as an NHLer, whilst Karlsson is going into his fourth. For sheer progression's sake Pietrangelo had a better second year than Karlsson did, why wouldn't he keep improving. Of course, Karlsson is certainly a better offensive player at this stage in his career, but he could have also hit his plateau, same with Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, or Cowen.

My problem with Corsi is that it doesn't take into effect nuance. The Blues don't play in the same conference as the Senators, they don't play the same style as the Senators. The Senators win by trying to outscore their opponents, the Blues play a much stronger defensive game. Ottawa was fourth in the league in goals scored, the Blues were 21st. To point to single players for that margin would be ridiculous; it discounts team play in favor for individual accomplishments.
But Karlsson and Pie are the same age, while Shat is 2 years older than Cowen.

Corsi isn't about goals. It's about the player's shots on goal/attempted/hit the post vs shots on goal/attempted/hit the post by the opponent while on the ice. It's a mix between defense and offense. Therefore system should not have too much effect unless the Blues take less than 20 shots a game on net with only high % shots and allow many low % shots on net. Also, it's adjusted to the team. If Blues players in general have low Corsi, then Pietrangelo's personal Rel Corsi will be higher than his Corsi.

MAK19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 10:56 PM
  #104
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 10,247
vCash: 500
5 of the 6 Dmen still have tons of potential (only Karlsson has peaked IMO, and even he could grow a little more). All three groups could end up being the best. I don't think anyone is a "homer" for picking any of the three. At this point, I'd rank it as follows, but it is so, so close.

1a. St. Louis
1b. Ottawa
3. Phoenix

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 11:12 PM
  #105
PietroOshieLo*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Hershey, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
But Karlsson and Pie are the same age, while Shat is 2 years older than Cowen.

Corsi isn't about goals. It's about the player's shots on goal/attempted/hit the post vs shots on goal/attempted/hit the post by the opponent while on the ice. It's a mix between defense and offense. Therefore system should not have too much effect unless the Blues take less than 20 shots a game on net with only high % shots and allow many low % shots on net. Also, it's adjusted to the team. If Blues players in general have low Corsi, then Pietrangelo's personal Rel Corsi will be higher than his Corsi.
Players develop differently. Teams develop players differently. The Blues took a longer track with Pietrangelo, and just because he's the same age doesn't mean he is done growing. The same goes for all four players.

I'm going to end my argument with this. Karlsson is a great player. There is no denying that. Pietrangelo, I think is better. I guess the point I was trying to make with the Corsi I wasn't really explaining well enough. Pietrangelo is simply the onus of team. He runs the PP, the PK, and is the key to how the Blues play. Often you see him compared to Lidstrom, and I think that is a very good comparison in terms of their style of play. He can excel in any situation. Karlsson gets knocked on here often for being a fourth forward, which I think is quite unfair. However, I think he's not as versatile as Pietrangelo is. You can disagree with me on that, but hey.

PietroOshieLo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 11:20 PM
  #106
Kevin8se7en
Unregistered User
 
Kevin8se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,205
vCash: 500
1. Karlsson
2. Pirtrangelo
3. OEL
4. Shattenkirk
5. Cowen
6. Gormley

I Think Cowen will end up being better than Shattenkirk in his respective role, so if I'm talking about 2+ years from now, the Sens. If I'm talking about this year, the Blues, because the gap between Shatt and Cowen is a little larger than the one Karlsson has over Piet.

Phoenix isn't that close IMO.

Kevin8se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 07:45 AM
  #107
Kush
Registered User
 
Kush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
Grammar.

Kush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 09:49 AM
  #108
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
the same way
That is a lie. You obviously don't watch much of the Blues. Pietrangelo was the "shut-down" part of his pairing, not Colaiacovo. Also, Colaiacovo didn't attempt to get the puck to Pietrangelo to start the break-out 90%+ of the time. Kuba and Colaiacovo were NOT used in a similar manner. Hitchcock would have a heart attack if the Blues took the time to get the puck to Pietrangelo to start the vast majority of break-outs.


Last edited by bluemandan: 08-11-2012 at 09:57 AM.
bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 09:56 AM
  #109
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
This doesn't make any sense. What's the difference really? Our discussion would last two posts if we agreed with each other.

Nowhere do I mention absolute +/-. When Karlsson is Off the ice, his team is -0.24 goals per 60 min. When Pietrangelo is Off the ice, his team is +0.62 per 60 min. Blues >>> Sens. When Karlsson is On, his team is +0.82 per 60 min, while Pie is +0.42 per min. This isn't meaningless and definitely tells you something about the players.

QualComp is generally meaningless, just used it to weed out defensemen who don't play against top lines. Both Pie and Karlsson make the cut.
Nope. You don't mention +/-. You mention QualComp, Corsi, RelCorsi, etc. Do you even know how those stats are derived? They use formulas that have +/- as a variable.

When QualComp rates Chris Kelley as the more dangerous opponent over Steven Stamkos, it is clearly flawed.

If QualComp is meaningless, why do you keep throwing it around?

Oh, and in your stat breakdown, I like how you used TkAs, but not GvAs. Is maintaining puck possession not as important as gaining it? Not to mention that is a highly subjective stat in the way it is measured from arena to arena, much like hits.

My whole point is that your "advanced stats" aren't that advanced. You admit that QualComp is pretty useless, yet you keep using it. You didn't even seem to know that +/- is used in some of them.

Not to mention that you are only using one year worth of stats and projecting it going forward. Here is an article on the danger of doing that with Karlsson: http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/6/20/asse...lsson-contract

bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 10:11 AM
  #110
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,573
vCash: 500
Qualcomp isn't totally flawed, it just can only be used relatively rather than absolutely. You can't say that "oh, Mike Fisher played against .16 tougher competition than David Bolland" and have that be a legitimate distinction, but any stat that considers Chara, Backes, Girardi, Fisher, Bolland etc the top guys playing the tough minutes every night is doing something right.

It's a good relative measure within a roster, and then you can compare the guys who are tops on their respective teams through other stats. Zone starts and corsi by qualcomp also help paint a clearer picture.

struckbyaparkedcar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 10:17 AM
  #111
Micklebot
Registered User
 
Micklebot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
Nope. You don't mention +/-. You mention QualComp, Corsi, RelCorsi, etc. Do you even know how those stats are derived? They use formulas that have +/- as a variable.
Corsi and Rel Corsi certainly do not use +/-, they use shot attempts differential. As for QualComp, it would depend if he was using Corsi Qualcomp, or regular qualcomp. Regular qualcomp does use +/- where as Corsi qualcomp uses opponents shot attempt diff.
Quote:
When QualComp rates Chris Kelley as the more dangerous opponent over Steven Stamkos, it is clearly flawed.
Qualcomp makes no attempt to say how dangerous a player is, just how dnsgerous the players he faces are. In this case, Kelly faces more dangerous opposition then Stamkos, not surprisingly.

Quote:
If QualComp is meaningless, why do you keep throwing it around?
If you don't know what it means, then yes it is
Quote:
Oh, and in your stat breakdown, I like how you used TkAs, but not GvAs. Is maintaining puck possession not as important as gaining it? Not to mention that is a highly subjective stat in the way it is measured from arena to arena, much like hits.
I would agree that the more information you have the better, so it would be nice to see GvA's, however, as has already been discussed, GvA's require a lot more contect before bringing a lot of meaning, and are far more likely to be misinterpreted. They are, however a weak point in Karlsson's game though.
Quote:
My whole point is that your "advanced stats" aren't that advanced. You admit that QualComp is pretty useless, yet you keep using it. You didn't even seem to know that +/- is used in some of them.
Much like how some people watch the game and come up with ridiculous beliefs, adv stats can be misinterpreted as well. They are only as good as the person who interprets them.
Quote:

Not to mention that you are only using one year worth of stats and projecting it going forward. Here is an article on the danger of doing that with Karlsson: http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/6/20/asse...lsson-contract
I think it's fair to question whether he'll keep it up, to be honest, I think as he becomes better at judging when to take a risk offensively, his offensive numbers will suffer, but his defensive game will improve.

Micklebot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 10:22 AM
  #112
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,573
vCash: 500
Re: Kelly/Stamkos- that isn't the guy's point. Player X goes against Kelly, player Y against Stamkos. Qualcomp thinks that player X is playing tougher defensive minutes because of Kelly's superior +/-. Take Rick Nash for example. Obviously Columbus' most dangerous scorer, but Qualcomp thinks Backes/Bolland/Fisher/Zetterberg are all playing against a scrub six times a year because he's so deep in the minus.

struckbyaparkedcar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 10:25 AM
  #113
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,083
vCash: 500
Karlsson has 84 giveaways and Pietrangelo has 37.

Is it so unrealistic to think that Karlsson has the puck 2X more than Pietrangelo bringing Pietrangelo to 74 possession-adjusted giveaways?

I don't know...but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Karlsson roughly doubles Pietrangelo in puck possession time.

Sureves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 10:29 AM
  #114
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Re: Kelly/Stamkos- that isn't the guy's point. Player X goes against Kelly, player Y against Stamkos. Qualcomp thinks that player X is playing tougher defensive minutes because of Kelly's superior +/-. Take Rick Nash for example. Obviously Columbus' most dangerous scorer, but Qualcomp thinks Backes/Bolland/Fisher/Zetterberg are all playing against a scrub six times a year because he's so deep in the minus.
It isn't true though. Corsi Rel QoC looks at the Corsi Relative of the competition in question. For those of you who don't know, the Corsi Relative is basically your Corsi ON relative to your team's overall Corsi.

Chris Kelly's is -7.8

Steven Stamkos' is 7.6

In other words, if you look at Corsi Rel QoC then if you play against Stamkos more than you play against Chris Kelly, your Corsi Rel QoC will be MUCH higher.

Sureves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 10:34 AM
  #115
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,573
vCash: 500
Right, but last I checked we were talking about +/- Qualcomp mostly.

Whatever, it doesn't add that much to this discussion anyway. Both players play the toughest competition at even strength. Pietrangelo PKs, while Karlsson gets extra ES and PP time in lieu of shorthanded minutes. We've been over this.

struckbyaparkedcar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 10:52 AM
  #116
MAK19
FreeWierciochBanAndy
 
MAK19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madrid
Posts: 13,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
That is a lie. You obviously don't watch much of the Blues. Pietrangelo was the "shut-down" part of his pairing, not Colaiacovo. Also, Colaiacovo didn't attempt to get the puck to Pietrangelo to start the break-out 90%+ of the time. Kuba and Colaiacovo were NOT used in a similar manner. Hitchcock would have a heart attack if the Blues took the time to get the puck to Pietrangelo to start the vast majority of break-outs.
lol. Then Karlsson was co-shutdown with Kuba. Yes Karlsson got the puck most of the time but Kuba was capable of making a breakout pass.

It's not like the Sens made dangerous in zone passes just to try and get the puck to Karlsson... most the time Karlsson just ends up with it... you can't fault him for that.

How can 1/2 of a shutdown pair be that much more shutdown than the other? They're both on the ice against top players. It's not like Cola just stood still and Petro did all the work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
Nope. You don't mention +/-. You mention QualComp, Corsi, RelCorsi, etc. Do you even know how those stats are derived? They use formulas that have +/- as a variable.

When QualComp rates Chris Kelley as the more dangerous opponent over Steven Stamkos, it is clearly flawed.

If QualComp is meaningless, why do you keep throwing it around?

Oh, and in your stat breakdown, I like how you used TkAs, but not GvAs. Is maintaining puck possession not as important as gaining it? Not to mention that is a highly subjective stat in the way it is measured from arena to arena, much like hits.

My whole point is that your "advanced stats" aren't that advanced. You admit that QualComp is pretty useless, yet you keep using it. You didn't even seem to know that +/- is used in some of them.

Not to mention that you are only using one year worth of stats and projecting it going forward. Here is an article on the danger of doing that with Karlsson: http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/6/20/asse...lsson-contract
Already explained, thanks guys.

And yes, I do mention +/- as a completely different stat than Corsi and QualComp. Many times.

QualComp is generally meaningless, just used it to weed defenseman who don't play against top players. I didn't even post numbers for that.

As for that article, I'm not gonna read thoroughly but the guy seems to make very weak arguments. Please summarize it, maybe i missed something.

MAK19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 10:59 AM
  #117
MAK19
FreeWierciochBanAndy
 
MAK19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madrid
Posts: 13,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Qualcomp isn't totally flawed, it just can only be used relatively rather than absolutely. You can't say that "oh, Mike Fisher played against .16 tougher competition than David Bolland" and have that be a legitimate distinction, but any stat that considers Chara, Backes, Girardi, Fisher, Bolland etc the top guys playing the tough minutes every night is doing something right.

It's a good relative measure within a roster, and then you can compare the guys who are tops on their respective teams through other stats. Zone starts and corsi by qualcomp also help paint a clearer picture.
Agreed. Bouwmeester and Butler have extremely high Quality of Competition, but are generally bad defensively. It's just to weed out players who don't play against top players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Re: Kelly/Stamkos- that isn't the guy's point. Player X goes against Kelly, player Y against Stamkos. Qualcomp thinks that player X is playing tougher defensive minutes because of Kelly's superior +/-. Take Rick Nash for example. Obviously Columbus' most dangerous scorer, but Qualcomp thinks Backes/Bolland/Fisher/Zetterberg are all playing against a scrub six times a year because he's so deep in the minus.
Sureves explained it, but I had a hard time understanding haha.

You're right, except for the +/-. It's not +/-, it's Corsi (or Relative Corsi not sure). Stamkos has a higher Corsi than Kelly (thanks Sureves), therefore is tougher competition than Kelly. Therefore player Y gets higher a QoC number.

It's not perfect because it uses Corsi, but look at QoC leaders on individual teams... they are the shutdown players who play against top lines, so the stat works.

MAK19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 11:02 AM
  #118
MAK19
FreeWierciochBanAndy
 
MAK19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madrid
Posts: 13,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Right, but last I checked we were talking about +/- Qualcomp mostly.

Whatever, it doesn't add that much to this discussion anyway. Both players play the toughest competition at even strength. Pietrangelo PKs, while Karlsson gets extra ES and PP time in lieu of shorthanded minutes. We've been over this.
No the +/- numbers were independent of Corsi and QoC.

I presented numbers for goals, assists, points, takeaways, Rel Corsi, and +/- numbers On and Off the ice. No numbers for QoC because both play against top players.

MAK19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 11:43 AM
  #119
SammyTheBull
Registered User
 
SammyTheBull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
Give me the pair that has TWO established NHLers.

One pair has the reigning Norris winner and a guy who was a - on a playoff team while putting up less than 20 points.

One pair has an NHLer with lots of potential and a guy who isn't in the NHL yet.

One pair has two NHLers with multiple 40+ point seasons.

One of these things is not like the other. Going forward I will take the sure thing over potential.
I recall a Norris and Hart trophy winning dman who averaged only 25-36 points in his first 5 seasons...

SammyTheBull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 11:52 AM
  #120
RA9
Registered User
 
RA9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,141
vCash: 883
Karlsson- High scoring dman
Cowen- A effective shut down dman? ( I didn't notice him much, maybe sens fans can help me out).

either way a balanced pair, which is what i prefer IMO.

RA9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 12:14 PM
  #121
ErikKarlsson
The Best (per IOC)
 
ErikKarlsson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirouxFlamesFan View Post
Karlsson- High scoring dman
Cowen- A effective shut down dman? ( I didn't notice him much, maybe sens fans can help me out).

either way a balanced pair, which is what i prefer IMO.
Yep, Cowen is a pure shut down guy, remains to be seen how much he can develop his offensive game because he really stepped up when Kuba went down with injury and put up like 8 points in 12 games while paired with Karlsson. On the other hand he only had 9 points in the other 70 games of the season.

ErikKarlsson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 12:19 PM
  #122
mach777
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence View Post
I've got Karlsson goggles on and I can't take em off.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Haha! Awesome!

mach777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 12:33 PM
  #123
metalfoot
Karlsson!
 
metalfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,550
vCash: 500
Ask any NYR fans if Karlsson is as lousy defensively as many claim.

metalfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2012, 01:02 PM
  #124
Hutzler
Registered User
 
Hutzler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Piekirk

Hutzler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2012, 04:18 AM
  #125
vippe
Registered User
 
vippe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,873
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to vippe
Why are people using these advanced stats when clearly most of them dont know how to use them.

vippe 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 10:18 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.