Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Potvin29 said:Yeah I feel like a better player who can make plays would actually serve to tax the other team more over time as they would spend time chasing the game more than I think they would with a more traditional 'stay-at-home' type like Polak. If the end result is more time in your own end then you are the team that is going to be gassed in a physical series first.
herman said:Guys, where was this beautiful discussion when I brought up the Vicious Cycle of Conservative Defensive Structure last week?
CarltonTheBear said:herman said:Guys, where was this beautiful discussion when I brought up the Vicious Cycle of Conservative Defensive Structure last week?
I refuse to visit that thread because of how misleading the title is.
bustaheims said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:Why isn't Corrado playing instead then?
Because Babcock likes to have a guy like Polak, I suppose. He's the decision maker. That doesn't mean he's making the best possible decisions, regardless of his experience or previous accomplishments.
herman said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:No offense herman, I take you at your word but all I can say is that it didn't come across that way. Smith is pretty much what you (less the sarcasms in bold) called him: a stalwart defensive centre and noted penalty kill specialist. And then you made it sound like the recent PK success is entirely because he's gone.
Look, I am not arguing that Smith is the greatest option or that you can't have an effective kill w/o him -- obviously they've proven they can, and if they can have a good PK with more versatile players, then so long Smith (or anybody else who doesn't measure up). What bugs me is when people start harping on players at the bottom of the roster. It just rubs me the wrong way.
I take no offense and you are as entitled to your views. Sorry if my views rub you the wrong way, but I don't know what you have issue with in what I said.
This is exactly what I was saying: our PK is better without Smith and Martin, and by extension, the team at even strength would be better too. My method of persuasion was to juxtapose sports journalism tropes that describe them with what their on-ice performance (or in this case, the team's performance with them off-ice) says about them.
Is your issue with:
a) my thesis that the team is better without Smith (and by extension Hunlak, and Martin sort of)
b) my rhetorical device of 'juxtaposition of the incongruous'
c) my numerical examples used to backup the thesis
d) my harping about players that eat up 17% of each game playing in reverse
I am open to changing my methods to get my point across more smoothly, without emotional friction.
I refuse to visit that thread because I don't have a clue what it means.CarltonTheBear said:herman said:Guys, where was this beautiful discussion when I brought up the Vicious Cycle of Conservative Defensive Structure last week?
I refuse to visit that thread because of how misleading the title is.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:But the fact that a coach of Babcock's caliber keeps playing him does lend credence to the idea that Polak is bringing more than these possession analyses suggest.
herman said:CarltonTheBear said:herman said:Guys, where was this beautiful discussion when I brought up the Vicious Cycle of Conservative Defensive Structure last week?
I refuse to visit that thread because of how misleading the title is.
Rawr
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:That's a Caber, not a log.
Way to appropriate my culture herman.
Geez
;D
herman said:WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:That's a Caber, not a log.
Way to appropriate my culture herman.
Geez
;D
Please forgive me. I am not good at English. ;D
(No really, please forgive me. I'm pretty sure it's quite insulting to lump Scotland in with England, but it's for the joke!)