Winther 6 Report post Posted June 27, 2009 If you don't like winning Stanley Cups you can always change the team. Thats just stupid. To win you need a litle bit of everything, and a good blend of european and north american styles would be great. I really enjoy the team the way it is now, but you cant really deny the fact that the team has looked beat up at times. Right now we need to replace someone like hudler/sammy with abs/helm (which is whats happening). You cant really deny that the most entertaining hockey also includes nice hits and physical play, and in that department the team were a bit lacking last season, especially during the reg season.. (For the record, im swedish) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casey 145 Report post Posted June 27, 2009 5'11''. Actually has played PK in U21WC and is very good back checker. TSN says 5'10". Eurohockey.net says 5'8". Wikipedia says 5'8". NHL.com says 5'10". Hockeysfuture.com says 5'9". Where are you seeing 5'11"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mindfly Report post Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) He is not 180cm/1.8m/5'11 as some of you think he is 178cm which would be very close to 5'10 in the retarded-makes-no-sense IMPERIAL METRIC SYSTEM. Edited June 27, 2009 by mindfly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casey 145 Report post Posted June 27, 2009 He is not 180cm/1.8m/5'11 as some of you think he is 178cm which would be very close to 5'10 in the retarded-makes-no-sense IMPERIAL METRIC SYSTEM. You mean that using an easily recognizable trio of a grown man's foot, the width of a thumb and length from arm to nose makes less sense than using one ten-millionth the distance from equator to pole, a distance which the French had no way to empirically measure precisely and ended up off by a full 2km? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mindfly Report post Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) 185cm - 6'0ft 3/4" And the latter one isn't even accurate because it doesnt exactly translate to 185cm.. so if a person is 185cm sayin he's 6'0ft 3/4" is not exact either. try 6'1 as well, 6ft = 182.88cm + 1inch = 2.54cm = 185.42cm.. which is not 185cm... fail by 42mm.. so if a person is 185cm you still says he's 6'1 even though its not 100% accurate = fail. 185.. easy.. correct... just an example if a thing is 97cm long you have to say like 3feet x inches maybe even some "½" to f*** up even more etc Edited June 27, 2009 by mindfly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snazzy 0 Report post Posted June 27, 2009 Yes please. I'd gladly take two more Darren Helms. You can have your wish. Check out CODY EAKIN! He is a Darren Helm's clone. "Cody is a tremendous skater and a lot of the things he does come from his skating ability. He's also ultra-competitive, and where he has a lot of success is getting in on the forecheck and chasing and racing for loose pucks. He also uses his speed a lot with the puck on the entries into the offensive zone. His speed also helps him in the defensive zone by catching guys from behind and creating turnovers in situations where guys who don't skate as well wouldn't be able to do. He beats a lot of guys to the outside and that's because of his skating ability." -- http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?fid=11898 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casey 145 Report post Posted June 27, 2009 185cm - 6'0ft 3/4" And the latter one isn't even accurate because it doesnt exactly translate to 185cm.. so if a person is 185cm sayin he's 6'0ft 3/4" is not exact either. try 6'1 as well, 6ft = 182.88cm + 1inch = 2.54cm = 185.42cm.. which is not 185cm... fail by 42mm.. so if a person is 185cm you still says he's 6'1 even though its not 100% accurate = fail. 185.. easy.. correct... just an example if a thing is 97cm long you have to say like 3feet x inches maybe even some "�" to f*** up even more etc Where did you learn metric? It's 10mm to a cm, and your "mistake" example is off by 4.2mm, not 42. A more precise way of saying that height would be 6'7/8", off by 1mm. Of course, you beg for me to turn it around. My father is 6'0". That's 183cm in metric, despite the same error of 1.2mm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cern 0 Report post Posted June 27, 2009 You mean that using an easily recognizable trio of a grown man's foot, the width of a thumb and length from arm to nose makes less sense than using one ten-millionth the distance from equator to pole, a distance which the French had no way to empirically measure precisely and ended up off by a full 2km? Maybe if every grown man in the world had the exact same foot/thumb/arm dimensions it would be legit. But they don't, so it isn't. In any case no sane person is seriously going to argue that multiples of ten (the most mindlessly simple multiples you could possibly encounter) somehow makes less sense than using vastly different numbers to jump from one measurement to the next. Imperial is, for lack of a better term, a preserved medieval clusterf*** of a measuring system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mindfly Report post Posted June 28, 2009 Where did you learn metric? It's 10mm to a cm, and your "mistake" example is off by 4.2mm, not 42. A more precise way of saying that height would be 6'7/8", off by 1mm. Of course, you beg for me to turn it around. My father is 6'0". That's 183cm in metric, despite the same error of 1.2mm. no it fails by 12mm 6feet = 182.88cm Why use that retarded system when it isnt even exact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
