3/28 GDT: Blues 4, Red Wings 3 (OT)

[seeinred 1,488]

I don't think thats what he's saying.

First off, your argument is WEAK. Very weak.

He's saying that the ONLY thing that might have saved Huds night was if he showed up on the scoresheet. Well, he didn't. And as you just showed, many other Red Wings didnt either. But they sure the hell didn't play HORRIBLE on the other end either. But Hudler sure did. I don't care how decent you are in the offensive zone. If you're turning the puck over, making bad decisions and helping the other team score, you did NOT have a successful night. It's not rocket science here. And it has nothing to do with people's personal perspectives. It's pretty cut and dry IMO. And I fully agree with mrsanman here. If you thought Hudler played real well last night. Either you are blind, you missed the game, or you're an idiot. Bottom line.

Ugh, this is frustrating.

1st, no, it was not a "WEAK" argument. It was incredibly relevant and disproved one element of what MrSandMan had said, that one of the reasons Huddles sucked was because he wasn't on the score sheet.

2nd, you contradicted yourself and proved what I was pointing out in my previous post: that just because a player doesn't register a point doesn't mean they played poorly.

3rd, you're right, it's not rocket science. Rocket science is about facts and scientific theories. Hudler's performance is completely subjective and based on opinions.

4th, I brought up the ad hominems before. They make you look like a child. Bottom line is that if you call someone an idiot in a discussion, people aren't likely to take you very seriously and it greatly damages any credibility that you may have had.

[Guest Hank=FutureCaptain]

You can assume whatever the hell you want about me. I'm done with this thread.

It's not called assuming. It's called, I just read YOUR words and reacted to them. Assumption doesn't even come into play here. You made a ridiculous statement that Hudler played a real good game. All I'm saying is if you're gonna assess a players performance, you have to put every aspect of his game into account. Anyone who only focuses on one aspect and says what you said, is a complete and total blind homer. So if by assume you mean reading what YOU wrote and coming back with facts, then yes, I sure did a lot of assuming...

[seeinred 1,488]

This isn't even a matter of opinion here. It is a FACT that Hudler played horrible in his own end. It is on VIDEO TAPE. You can't argue with video. Either you neglected to acknowledge his HORRIBLE decisions and just kept thinking about him looking decent offensively, or you are being a blind homer. Either way, you CAN NOT say a particular player had a good night when he was a huge reason for the other team scoring goals. The only possible way you could say Hudler made up for his horrible decisions is if he showed up on the scoresheet...which he did not. So really, there is no my opinion or your opinion. It is FACT and it's on video. That's like you saying, "my opinion is the winged wheel is blue." When anyone can cleary watch the video and see the winged wheel is white. It is what it is. And no way in hell anyone could look at what Hudler did overall last night and say he had a successful night. If you do, you're kidding yourself. And you're denying reality.

Let me make a simple analogy here.

Say you like the movie Goodfellas. Say HC3033 doesn't. You have an opinion. She has an opinion. The movie is on film, yet there can still be opinions about it.

You can't just declare your opinion to be the correct one. It is your OPINION that Hudler sucked last night. Other people believe that he didn't.

This is very different than your example regarding the Winged Wheel. It is, in fact, red because it absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects others. It is a FACT that it is red. Anyone who argues otherwise can be shown, with concrete, indisputable evidence that they are wrong.

You're making what's known as a bare assertion fallacy. Something isn't true because you say it is. You have to prove it.

[seeinred 1,488]

It's not called assuming. It's called, I just read YOUR words and reacted to them. Assumption doesn't even come into play here. You made a ridiculous statement that Hudler played a real good game. All I'm saying is if you're gonna assess a players performance, you have to put every aspect of his game into account. Anyone who only focuses on one aspect and says what you said, is a complete and total blind homer. So if by assume you mean reading what YOU wrote and coming back with facts, then yes, I sure did a lot of assuming...

You have yet to come up with a single fact or concrete example in your argument. You're stating opinions that you have without backing them up, and you're trying to make other people feel stupid for disagreeing with you. It's how a 3rd grader argues.

[Guest Hank=FutureCaptain]

Ugh, this is frustrating.

1st, no, it was not a "WEAK" argument. It was incredibly relevant and disproved one element of what MrSandMan had said, that one of the reasons Huddles sucked was because he wasn't on the score sheet.

2nd, you contradicted yourself and proved what I was pointing out in my previous post: that just because a player doesn't register a point doesn't mean they played poorly.

3rd, you're right, it's not rocket science. Rocket science is about facts and scientific theories. Hudler's performance is completely subjective and based on opinions.

4th, I brought up the ad hominems before. They make you look like a child. Bottom line is that if you call someone an idiot in a discussion, people aren't likely to take you very seriously and it greatly damages any credibility that you may have had.

Hahaha are you kidding me? Did you NOT read my post?

Ok i'll type this one very carefully.

NO ONE IS SAYING HUDLER SUCKED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SCORESHEET. WE'RE SAYING HE PLAYED HORRIBLE IN CERTAIN ASPECTS AND THAT IT DIDN'T HELP HIS CASE ANY BY NOT SHOWING UP ON THE SCORESHEET.

Like I JUST said, TONS of Red Wings didn't make the scoresheet last night. But none of them made such horrible decisions that it cost us a goal and possibly the game. Got it now? So your whole post basically means nothing to me. Cause I never once said or advocated saying that Hudler was s***ty because he didn't show up on the scoresheet. He was s***ty because he made really bad decisions, cost us a goal, AND didn't salvage anything by getting on the scoresheet. Cause honestly, if he had scored last night, it would have been a lot easier to give him a pass for his sub-par play in his own end.

[wingslogo19 281]

Wasn't a great game.. But good to see the Wings come back from 2 goals down late. Would of been nice to win for Mac's return but oh well at least we still got 1 point

[seeinred 1,488]

Hahaha are you kidding me? Did you NOT read my post?

Ok i'll type this one very carefully.

NO ONE IS SAYING HUDLER SUCKED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SCORESHEET. WE'RE SAYING HE PLAYED HORRIBLE IN CERTAIN ASPECTS AND THAT IT DIDN'T HELP HIS CASE ANY BY NOT SHOWING UP ON THE SCORESHEET.

Like I JUST said, TONS of Red Wings didn't make the scoresheet last night. But none of them made such horrible decisions that it cost us a goal and possibly the game. Got it now? So your whole post basically means nothing to me. Cause I never once said or advocated saying that Hudler was s***ty because he didn't show up on the scoresheet. He was s***ty because he made really bad decisions, cost us a goal, AND didn't salvage anything by getting on the scoresheet. Cause honestly, if he had scored last night, it would have been a lot easier to give him a pass for his sub-par play in his own end.

You quoted my post that was in response to MrSandMan's argument that Hudler sucked because he caused a goal for the Blues and didn't show up on the scoresheet. That is what he said, plainly and simply.

And for the record, that was my point this whole time, that a player can perform well without being on the score sheet. If anyone's not reading posts, it's you.

[Guest Hank=FutureCaptain]

Let me make a simple analogy here.

Say you like the movie Goodfellas. Say HC3033 doesn't. You have an opinion. She has an opinion. The movie is on film, yet there can still be opinions about it.

You can't just declare your opinion to be the correct one. It is your OPINION that Hudler sucked last night. Other people believe that he didn't.

Again, you are missing the whole point...There is no my opinion or your opinion when you see something right in front of your face. That's why I used the winged wheel analogy. Because it's on video. There is VISUAL evidence that Hudler played horrible in his own end and basically handed them a goal. Visual evidence. Therefore neither of us can have an opinion on is, cause it HAPPENED. My entire point is if you're gonna assess a players performace, you better damn well look at his overall game. Not just one aspect of his game. People who focus on just one aspect and totally disregard other aspects are blind homers. Plain and simple.

[seeinred 1,488]

Again, you are missing the whole point...There is no my opinion or your opinion when you see something right in front of your face. That's why I used the winged wheel analogy. Because it's on video. There is VISUAL evidence that Hudler played horrible in his own end and basically handed them a goal. Visual evidence. Therefore neither of us can have an opinion on is, cause it HAPPENED. My entire point is if you're gonna assess a players performace, you better damn well look at his overall game. Not just one aspect of his game. People who focus on just one aspect and totally disregard other aspects are blind homers. Plain and simple.

Wow. You really are missing the most simple part of my assertion there. Let me attempt to explain it again:

There is no standard for terrible play. If there were a chart we could look at and compare it to everything a player did during the game and it was accepted by everyone, then terrible and good would be objective terms that can be measured. Instead, they are quite the opposite. They are subjective terms by which different people have different standards of evaluation. Like I said, you are making a bare assertion fallacy, which means you expect us to believe what you say is correct for the sole reason that you say it is. I said it before, but it doesn't work that way. I don't know if you know anything about logical fallacies or not, but it's a formal fallacy and renders your argument invalid.

[Guest Hank=FutureCaptain]

Wow. You really are missing the most simple part of my assertion there. Let me attempt to explain it again:

There is no standard for terrible play. If there were a chart we could look at and compare it to everything a player did during the game and it was accepted by everyone, then terrible and good would be objective terms that can be measured. Instead, they are quite the opposite. They are subjective terms by which different people have different standards of evaluation. Like I said, you are making a bare assertion fallacy, which means you expect us to believe what you say is correct for the sole reason that you say it is. I said it before, but it doesn't work that way. I don't know if you know anything about logical fallacies or not, but it's a formal fallacy and renders your argument invalid.

Blah blah blah. That doesn't come into play here. I don't care what position you are, which player you are, or which team you play for. If you are bad at your own end and the SOLE cause of another team's goal, AND didn't even show up on the scoresheet, you had a bad night. BOTTOM LINE. Not to mention HC3033 even ADMITTED that Hudler was the SOLE reason for that goal. So it's not like I'm just saying my opinion and stating it as fact. It was ALREADY agreed upon that his decisions in his own zone were horrendous. Therefore that same person saying that he had a good game looks like a complete blind homer. Now if they think he played ok in his own zone it might be different. But it was already agreed that he didn't. So like I said, if he had scored, then MAYBE I can see the other side of the arguement. But the guy didn't even salvage his night by getting on the scoresheet. Therefore, no way anyone who is thinking rationally and logically can say Hudler had a real good game even though he made horrible decisions and failed make up for it by scoring or assisting. Hell, he could have even saved his night by laying on a great hit or something. Bottom line is there is NO reason to say he had a good night. Only the contrary. This is not opinion. This is fact....well, for anyone with two eyes that is.

[Guest Hank=FutureCaptain]

It's called retribution my friend. I've watch Lids make a mistake before... and guess what, in the dying seconds, our Listrom come back and made his error right. How about when Hasek has a bad game, then next game has a shut-out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall one incident last night where Hudler repaired his horrific play that arguably cost us the game.

EXACTLY.

[seeinred 1,488]

It's called retribution my friend. I've watch Lids make a mistake before... and guess what, in the dying seconds, our Listrom come back and made his error right. How about when Hasek has a bad game, then next game has a shut-out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall one incident last night where Hudler repaired his horrific play that arguably cost us the game.

Bottom line, Hudler is not and has not pulled his weight on this team with even the slightest minute amount of consistency. He looks like a little kid playing in a sandbox with 4-ton earth moving equipment. Imagine how he'll help this team, or lack of, against the Ducks or Sharks.

Also, notice that I'm not riding Ozzies ass to hard, because I know he's solid enough for 'retribution'. Look that word up. Hudler isn't one to understands it nor practices it.

Maybe after Hudler game costs us an ejection from the playoffs, you'll pick up what we're putting down.

Go Wings!

I don't have a problem with your point at all. You said what you meant to say and your reasons for your opinion, and I tend to agree with a fair amount of it. You also do it without the ad hominems, unlike Hank=FutureCaptain. Your thoughts show an understandable thought process, which makes it easier to take your opinion seriously for the other side. You aren't just asserting that you're right and expecting us to believe it.

But for the record, I haven't given up on Hudler. I'm hoping that if he gets ice time during the playoffs he can really turn it. I do agree he didn't play well last night, but I'm not saying he needs to be cut or anything.

[seeinred 1,488]

Blah blah blah. That doesn't come into play here. I don't care what position you are, which player you are, or which team you play for. If you are bad at your own end and the SOLE cause of another team's goal, AND didn't even show up on the scoresheet, you had a bad night. BOTTOM LINE. Not to mention HC3033 even ADMITTED that Hudler was the SOLE reason for that goal. So it's not like I'm just saying my opinion and stating it as fact. It was ALREADY agreed upon that his decisions in his own zone were horrendous. Therefore that same person saying that he had a good game looks like a complete blind homer. Now if they think he played ok in his own zone it might be different. But it was already agreed that he didn't. So like I said, if he had scored, then MAYBE I can see the other side of the arguement. But the guy didn't even salvage his night by getting on the scoresheet. Therefore, no way anyone who is thinking rationally and logically can say Hudler had a real good game even though he made horrible decisions and failed make up for it by scoring or assisting. Hell, he could have even saved his night by laying on a great hit or something. Bottom line is there is NO reason to say he had a good night. Only the contrary. This is not opinion. This is fact....well, for anyone with two eyes that is.

You keep insinuating or saying outright that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either blind or stupid. It's making you look nothing short of spectacularly ignorant considering I've shown more than once how that view is wrong.

Now you're making another jump. You're now saying that if someone plays poorly in their own end, they automatically have a bad game. Again, this happens to be an opinion that you are stating as fact. HC3033 said that Huds played poorly in his own end. She did not say he had a bad game because of it. It is obviously her opinion, as well as other people's I'm sure, that a player can have a bad game defensively and not have a terrible game overall. Like I said, you've yet to state an actual fact in support of your argument. And now you're just repeating the same thing over and over, which in turn makes me have to try to explain why you're wrong over and over, and it's really getting less and less fun.

[Guest Hank=FutureCaptain]

The only reason I've repeated anything, is you obviously don't get it. And once again, you still don't...

You're now saying that if someone plays poorly in their own end, they automatically have a bad game.

Nope, never said that at all. I said if you play horribly in your own end, and you do NOTHING to make up for it, ala goals, assists, big hits, or a fight, then you had a bad game. Simple as that. And once again, that is not an opinion. THAT IS FACT.

Like I said, you've yet to state an actual fact in support of your argument.

I haven't??? Ummm....apparently me telling you that Hudler basically gave them a goal isn't fact enough for ya. Apparently Hudler doing nothing to salvage his atrocious play isn't good enough of a fact for you. If what I just said isnt fact, then you tell me what Hudler did to make up for giving them a goal(in a one goal loss)? Tell me where I'm wrong. I'm just going by visual evidence. I'm just going by what my two eyes saw last night. FACT: Hudler handed them a goal. FACT: He did nothing substantial to make up for it. These facts good enough for ya??? How bout this one. FACT: It's considered a bad game when you hand the other team a free goal and do nothing to make up for it later in the game.

Dude, you're wrong. Deal with it.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Hank=FutureCaptain

[Guest Hank=FutureCaptain]

I think we should put in someone else with better defensive skills and isn't pushed off the puck so easily. I don't want to waste a playoff run on "hope Hudler turns it on". He has showed us nothing that supports that 'hope'.

Again, couldn't agree more...

[seeinred 1,488]

The only reason I've repeated anything, is you obviously don't get it. And once again, you still don't...

Nope, never said that at all. I said if you play horribly in your own end, and you do NOTHING to make up for it, ala goals, assists, big hits, or a fight, then you had a bad game. Simple as that. And once again, that is not an opinion. THAT IS FACT.

I haven't??? Ummm....apparently me telling you that Hudler basically gave them a goal isn't fact enough for ya. Apparently Hudler doing nothing to salvage his atrocious play isn't good enough of a fact for you. If what I just said isnt fact, then you tell me what Hudler did to make up for giving them a goal(in a one goal loss)? Tell me where I'm wrong. I'm just going by visual evidence. I'm just going by what my two eyes saw last night. FACT: Hudler handed them a goal. FACT: He did nothing substantial to make up for it. These facts good enough for ya??? How bout this one. FACT: It's considered a bad game when you hand the other team a free goal and do nothing to make up for it later in the game.

Dude, you're wrong. Deal with it.

Bare assertion fallacy. Until you get it, we won't get anywhere in this discussion. You keep proclaiming facts that are not, in fact, facts.

I think we should put in someone else with better defensive skills and isn't pushed off the puck so easily. I don't want to waste a playoff run on "hope Hudler turns it on". He has showed us nothing that supports that 'hope'.

I'm leaning more towards this position as well. I just meant that I think Babs will stick with him as he has continued to do, and that since I think he'll do that, I can only hope the Huddlebeast will be unleased during the playoffs.

[Superman54 91]

Huds will play. Babs looks at Huds and see's 40 points, he doesnt see much in a replacement player. Mike is not the best when it comes to handling enforcers, to me its seems he like to see the points more, so im quite doubtful that we will see Huds replaced with the likes of Drake, McCarty, Downey or whoever else.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Huds will play. Babs looks at Huds and see's 40 points, he doesnt see much in a replacement player. Mike is not the best when it comes to handling enforcers, to me its seems he like to see the points more, so im quite doubtful that we will see Huds replaced with the likes of Drake, McCarty, Downey or whoever else.

Hasn't he been stuck at basically the same amount of points for a while now?

[Firehawk 305]

It's amazing how the Ozzie supporters keep increasing the amount of goals that were deflected. Now it appears that 3 of the goals were deflected. I suppose that Langenbrunner's goal in the 1998 playoffs was deflected also?

He played a bad game and got outplayed by Legace. Why does everyone have to make excuses from that?

One more outburst from you and It'll be all 4 goals that got deflected...

[Firehawk 305]

3 D ANDREAS LILJA

5 D NICKLAS LIDSTROM ©

11 R DANIEL CLEARY

17 R DALLAS DRAKE

18 L KIRK MALTBY

22 D BRETT LEBDA

24 D CHRIS CHELIOS

25 R DARREN MCCARTY

26 C JIRI HUDLER

33 C KRIS DRAPER

44 C MARK HARTIGAN

51 C VALTTERI FILPPULA

55 D NIKLAS KRONVALL

82 R TOMAS KOPECKY

30 G CHRIS OSGOOD

35 G JAMES HOWARD

So since none of these guys were on the scoresheet last night, they all sucked? Are you saying a player needs a point to play well?

I think this is where many fair-weather fans would say "no" but you wouldn't tell that with their responses. Everyone suddenly loves Franzen because he's on a roll. I mean, it's funny to sit back and read the responses. What's goign to happen when Franzen comes out of this hot streak and doesn't have a point for the first round in the playoffs (God Forbid)? I mean gee wiz people...it's no wonder other fans make fun of wings fans...we're quick to love someone when they're hot but when they go cold everyone wants to throw them under a bus...

Edited March 30, 2008 by Firehawk

[Superman54 91]

Hasn't he been stuck at basically the same amount of points for a while now?

Ha it was actually 38 I think where it seemed like an eternity, but 40 is making its way up there.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

One more outburst from you and It'll be all 4 goals that got deflected...

I suppose so. That overtime goal did deflect off the ice before it went in.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

A 22 page thread for a meaningless game against St. Louis?

I'm assuming it's due to goalie bashing and players sucking.

[J-Swift 0]

I think we should put in someone else with better defensive skills and isn't pushed off the puck so easily. I don't want to waste a playoff run on "hope Hudler turns it on". He has showed us nothing that supports that 'hope'.

Do you really believe our playoff hopes rest on whether Babcock chooses to sit Jiri Hudler?

[Kp-Wings 3]

Do you really believe our playoff hopes rest on whether Babcock chooses to sit Jiri Hudler?

Hudler is definitly one of the least useful players in the lineup, but even that considered, him either being in the lineup or not being in the lineup will hardly make a difference.