• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
matthewdanna

Rating the Defense through 6 games

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Harold, you must have been in the mood to argue last night or something. This argument is days old, no need to drag it up.

Conversely, last night at 9:53 while you were typing this post, I was watching Jakub Kindl score a goal and add an assist in what was undoubtedly his best game of the season. Without Quincey.

:-)

It's the first time i saw the post actually.

That is awesome about Kindl scoring the goal though! Did Lashoff get the assist? Oh, wait... it was a PP so it wasn't even the pairing I was referring to was it.

Even in trying to taunt me, you can't seem to resist misrepresenting what I've said in order to make your point.

I said nothing about Kindl on the PP. I said nothing about Kindl without Quincey. I was merely not looking forward to the Lashoff Kindl pairing. With good reason. It's really all I meant from "ugh."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the first time i saw the post actually.

That is awesome about Kindl scoring the goal though! Did Lashoff get the assist? Oh, wait... it was a PP so it wasn't even the pairing I was referring to was it.

Even in trying to taunt me, you can't seem to resist misrepresenting what I've said in order to make your point.

I said nothing about Kindl on the PP. I said nothing about Kindl without Quincey. I was merely not looking forward to the Lashoff Kindl pairing. With good reason. It's really all I meant from "ugh."

Lol. Now now Harold, I was just poking fun at you a little bit. I've already explained (in last night's GDT) why the Kindl-Lashoff pairing has done nothing to contribute to the last three losses. My comment above was a light hearted attempt at acknowledging our disagreement. You seem to have WAY too much invested in Kindl and Lashoff not being good. Which is confusing. You should celebrate it. All the sooner Kindl will be gone.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. Now now Harold, I was just poking fun at you a little bit. I've already explained (in last night's GDT) why the Kindl-Lashoff pairing has done nothing to contribute to the last three losses. My comment above was a light hearted attempt at acknowledging our disagreement. You seem to have WAY too much invested in Kindl and Lashoff not being good. Which is confusing. You should celebrate it. All the sooner Kindl will be gone.

dude, I was trying to do the same.

Mainly I don't know how me saying "ugh" became such a big deal. I have nothing invested in Kindl Lashoff not being good. They do that on their own. As I said in the GDT, they seem to bring out the worst in each other even relatively to bottom pairings. Mostly I'm frustrated Kindl is still even on the team.

Can't we just agree we both want him gone? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude, I was trying to do the same.

Mainly I don't know how me saying "ugh" became such a big deal. I have nothing invested in Kindl Lashoff not being good. They do that on their own. As I said in the GDT, they seem to bring out the worst in each other even relatively to bottom pairings. Mostly I'm frustrated Kindl is still even on the team.

Can't we just agree we both want him gone? :D

I do agree that we both want him gone. What I don't get is why you're trying so hard to make them out to be worse than they have been this year. Last year they stunk. I agree. But they haven't been bad in their three games this season. In three games that pair has given up one goal (even strength) and contributed to one even strength goal (Lashoff's assist). During that same stretch Dekeyser's numbers were the same as Lashoff's and Smith was on the ice for 4 even strength goals against and assisted on one.

I agree that Dekeyser and Smith play harder minutes etc. etc., but that doesn't make their screw ups less harmful. And they've done it more frequently the last three games.

I just don't understand why you (and everybody else) can't admit that for three game Kindl and Lashoff have been fine. They haven't cost us a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that we both want him gone. What I don't get is why you're trying so hard to make them out to be worse than they have been this year. Last year they stunk. I agree. But they haven't been bad in their three games this season. In three games that pair has given up one goal (even strength) and contributed to one even strength goal (Lashoff's assist). During that same stretch Dekeyser's numbers were the same as Lashoff's and Smith was on the ice for 4 even strength goals against and assisted on one.

I agree that Dekeyser and Smith play harder minutes etc. etc., but that doesn't make their screw ups less harmful. And they've done it more frequently the last three games.

I just don't understand why you (and everybody else) can't admit that for three game Kindl and Lashoff have been fine. They haven't cost us a thing.

I'm apparently too invested, but you keep wanting to discuss this? :lol:

I don't understand why you're so invested in arguing that they've been fine. They may not have been directly responsible for a ton of goals in their three games so far (though you could argue Kindl was a big factor on one), but that doesn't mean they are fine. As you point out, Smith and Dekeyser play harder minutes. And let's not forget Dekeyser hasn't even played 100 games in the NHL. Yes he makes mistakes but he's playing incredibly well given his experience and the responsibility he's been given. Not to mention part of the reason they're playing harder minutes is because Kindl has been eating up a lot of protected ones.

As I said, i'm not blaming Kindl-Lashoff solely for losses. I'm not saying they are the biggest problem on this team. I dont know why you're pursuing this from my one comment about the Kindl Lashoff pairing. They're not a good pairing. I was bummed Quincey was out and not happy to see them back together. Nothing I've seen so far changes that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm apparently too invested, but you keep wanting to discuss this? :lol:

I don't understand why you're so invested in arguing that they've been fine. They may not have been directly responsible for a ton of goals in their three games so far (though you could argue Kindl was a big factor on one), but that doesn't mean they are fine. As you point out, Smith and Dekeyser play harder minutes. And let's not forget Dekeyser hasn't even played 100 games in the NHL. Yes he makes mistakes but he's playing incredibly well given his experience and the responsibility he's been given. Not to mention part of the reason they're playing harder minutes is because Kindl has been eating up a lot of protected ones.

As I said, i'm not blaming Kindl-Lashoff solely for losses. I'm not saying they are the biggest problem on this team. I dont know why you're pursuing this from my one comment about the Kindl Lashoff pairing. They're not a good pairing. I was bummed Quincey was out and not happy to see them back together. Nothing I've seen so far changes that.

I'm pursuing this because because you (and everybody else) collectively shuddered at the mere thought of those two together. And we lost the three games that they were together. And we've got people in the GDT blaming them for the losses. But the TRUTH of the matter is that over three games they contributed more positives than negatives. And we could maybe have an accurate and substantive discussion about the team, defense, season etc. if more people acknowledged the truth, even if it shows they weren't right (in this particular instance).

At a time when we needed Kindl and Lashoff to not suck, they didn't. Kudos. Instead, not a single person (apparently other than me) is willing to say that they did a good job during Quincey's absence (which, as I understand, will be over by next game).

So it'll be more of the same. And the only discussions we'll have are about how bad "Kindl sux"and about how "Lashoff's a plug". Because that's fits the popular narrative. But that's not what happened this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pursuing this because because you (and everybody else) collectively shuddered at the mere thought of those two together. And we lost the three games that they were together. And we've got people in the GDT blaming them for the losses. But the TRUTH of the matter is that over three games they contributed more positives than negatives. And we could maybe have an accurate and substantive discussion about the team, defense, season etc. if more people acknowledged the truth, even if it shows they weren't right (in this particular instance).

At a time when we needed Kindl and Lashoff to not suck, they didn't. Kudos. Instead, not a single person (apparently other than me) is willing to say that they did a good job during Quincey's absence (which, as I understand, will be over by next game).

So it'll be more of the same. And the only discussions we'll have are about how bad "Kindl sux"and about how "Lashoff's a plug". Because that's fits the popular narrative. But that's not what happened this time.

The thing you're missing is that some people actually think that Kindl and Lashoff weren't fine. I am among them though as I said, I don't single them out for the losses. They aren't the biggest problem on the team, but they aren't fine.

You can dismiss any contrary opinion because you think people are just going along with the popular narrative, but it doesn't make it true.

Regardless, I'm backing away slowly from this discussion. It's pretty clear you're lumping me in with some larger issue you have that has little to do with what I've actually stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing you're missing is that some people actually think that Kindl and Lashoff weren't fine. I am among them though as I said, I don't single them out for the losses. They aren't the biggest problem on the team, but they aren't fine.

You can dismiss any contrary opinion because you think people are just going along with the popular narrative, but it doesn't make it true.

Regardless, I'm backing away slowly from this discussion. It's pretty clear you're lumping me in with some larger issue you have that has little to do with what I've actually stated.

I'm curious why you think they weren't fine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this