If we don't win the lottery

[kipwinger 8,524]

Just now, marcaractac said:

Here's a thought:

Lafreniere and Rossi could both become elite NHL players. One or both may take longer to become elite than most realize. Wild concept, I know. 

I've said as much many times.  No argument there.  That sure COULD be true.  But lots of other outcomes exist too...

But when I say Rossi will be better than Lafreniere you'd think I f*cked someone's mom. 

[marcaractac 3,963]

Just now, kipwinger said:

I've said as much many times.  No argument there.  That sure COULD be true.  But lots of other outcomes exist too...

But when I say Rossi will be better than Lafreniere you'd think I f*cked someone's mom. 

I hope she was hot

[kipwinger 8,524]

I've also routinely explained WHY I think Rossi will be better than Lafreniere, and as of yet nobody has been able/willing to refute anything I say.  Which is why I tend to put very little stock in "Lafreniere is the next Matthews" talk. 

BTW, I did the same thing with Jack Hughes last year and literally EVERYTHING I said would hold him back in the NHL is coming true.  It wasn't that hard to see, you just had to be willing to consider that maybe he wasn't  really "playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers".  If you start with the premise "Player X is a cut above" then it's impossible to arrive at any other conclusion.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

25 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

LOL whatever you say man...

If Ehn is a 25-35 point, Selke calibre *center* through his prime, I will gladly eat crow...

The same logic you're applying to Larkin v. Zetterberg I'm applying to Draper v. Ehn. You can't have it both ways. It's straight up cognitive dissonance. Larkin could be Zberg but Ehn can't be Draper: Cause narratives.

23 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

The first sentence is a fairly reasonable assessment at this stage. 

As for the second, plenty of folks have said Zadina is a bust. Sorry that you're so vain that you think every post is about you. 

Plenty of folks = Mackel and CRL

Everyone knows who you're talking about, don't be coy

I think it's hilarious that everyone here knows Mackel and I don't regard Zadina as someone who's not going to make NHL, but the strawman is so easy and irresistible you can't help but use it. I hope it continues.... Cause Zadina = bust.

11 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I've also routinely explained WHY I think Rossi will be better than Lafreniere, and as of yet nobody has been able/willing to refute anything I say.  Which is why I tend to put very little stock in "Lafreniere is the next Matthews" talk. 

BTW, I did the same thing with Jack Hughes last year and literally EVERYTHING I said would hold him back in the NHL is coming true.  It wasn't that hard to see, you just had to be willing to consider that maybe he wasn't  really "playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers".  If you start with the premise "Player X is a cut above" then it's impossible to arrive at any other conclusion.

You're literally describing the NPC meme.

Human1: What if Lafreniere isn't the best in the draft?
Human2: Interesting thought. Who would be better?
Human1: Rossi + reasons why
Human2: Lafreniere + reasons why
*A deeper understanding of Rossi and Lafren is reached*

vs

Human1: What if Lafreniere isn't the best in the draft?
NPC: LOL that's stupid, you're stupid
Human1: Care to explain why?
NPC: No

[kipwinger 8,524]

15 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

The same logic you're applying to Larkin v. Zetterberg I'm applying to Draper v. Ehn. You can't have it both ways. It's straight up cognitive dissonance. Larkin could be Zberg but Ehn can't be Draper: Cause narratives.

Plenty of folks = Mackel and CRL

Everyone knows who you're talking about, don't be coy

I think it's hilarious that everyone here knows Mackel and I don't regard Zadina as someone who's not going to make NHL, but the strawman is so easy and irresistible you can't help but use it. I hope it continues.... Cause Zadina = bust.

You're literally describing the NPC meme.

Human1: What if Lafreniere isn't the best in the draft?
Human2: Interesting thought. Who would be better?
Human1: Rossi + reasons why
Human2: Lafreniere + reasons why
*A deeper understanding of Rossi and Lafren is reached*

vs

Human1: What if Lafreniere isn't the best in the draft?
NPC: LOL that's stupid, you're stupid
Human1: Care to explain why?
NPC: No

It's odd because Red Wings fans should be intimately familiar with the whole point I'm making.  Why were Datsyuk and Zetterberg better than Crosby and Malkin in 2008 despite not outscoring either of them? 

Because Zetterberg and Datsyuk could do stuff like this, and Crosby and Malkin couldn't:

Or, why was Steve Yzerman a better player in the mid-1990s than in the 1980s despite scoring less?

Edited April 27, 2020 by kipwinger

[marcaractac 3,963]

26 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Plenty of folks = Mackel and CRL

Everyone knows who you're talking about, don't be coy

I think it's hilarious that everyone here knows Mackel and I don't regard Zadina as someone who's not going to make NHL, but the strawman is so easy and irresistible you can't help but use it. I hope it continues.... Cause Zadina = bust.

Your paranoia is speaking again. There has been plenty of other players in these forums labelled as busts prematurely over the years. Don't blame me because Zadina is living in your head, rent-free. You're literally strawmaning yourself. 

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

8 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

It's odd because Red Wings fans should be intimately familiar with the whole point I'm making.  Why were Datsyuk and Zetterberg better than Crosby and Malkin in 2008 despite not outscoring either of them? 

Because Zetterberg and Datsyuk could do stuff like this, and Crosby and Malkin couldn't:

It shouldn't even be exclusive to Wings fans. There's more than enough drafts where the #1 in hindsight wasn't the #1.

But it's heretical and dangerous to sports dogma to even consider that the #1 hyped player shouldn't be drafted #1... I suspect the real root of the argument here is not "Lafreniere should go #1" it's "Lafreniere will go #1". And they're not wrong. Lafreniere probably WILL go #1. It's just an incredibly intellectually lazy POV.

[kipwinger 8,524]

1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

It shouldn't even be exclusive to Wings fans. There's more than enough drafts where the #1 in hindsight wasn't the #1.

But it's heretical and dangerous to sports dogma to even consider that the #1 hyped player shouldn't be drafted #1... I suspect the real root of the argument here is not "Lafreniere should go #1" it's "Lafreniere will go #1". And they're not wrong. Lafreniere probably WILL go #1. It's just an incredibly intellectually lazy POV.

I've made all the points over and over.  I think he'll go #1 as well, in fact I hope he does because I don't think we'll be picking there.  My point has only ever been that he won't be the best player to come out of this draft.  There's so many reasons to think otherwise. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

Your paranoia is speaking again.

Ok so were you referring to Mackel or me...?

3 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

There has been plenty of other players in these forums labelled as busts prematurely over the years.

No one's saying there isn't. There's plenty of players who go completely overlooked and end up as major contributors too. I fail to see the point you're trying to make here.

6 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

Don't blame me because Zadina is living in your head, rent-free.

Didn't think I blamed you for anything, but okay.

7 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

You're literally strawmaning yourself.

Please point out where that occurred.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I've made all the points over and over.  I think he'll go #1 as well, in fact I hope he does because I don't think we'll be picking there.  My point has only ever been that he won't be the best player to come out of this draft.  There's so many reasons to think otherwise. 

Right. I think your POV is erroneously misconstrued as "Lafreneire won't go #1" at no fault of your own.

Last year prior to the draft I fell into the trap of "I think Seider may lowkey be the best Dman in the draft... but Yzerman won't take him at #6". Like an idiot I bought into the prevailing narrative over my own good sense. Thank god Yzerman is smarter than me, because I woulda pulled a Holland and drafted a Zadina or Veleno or something instead of Seider. The player you're supposed to take.

I don't really have a hard on for anyone in particular this year. But I hope Yzerman continues to ignore the media hype and does his own thing. If he wants say Sanderson at #2 overall sign me the f*** up.

[marcaractac 3,963]

2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Ok so were you referring to Mackel or me...?

No one's saying there isn't. There's plenty of players who go completely overlooked and end up as major contributors too. I fail to see the point you're trying to make here.

Didn't think I blamed you for anything, but okay.

Please point out where that occurred.

1) Neither

2) Not making a point here. It's a reference to folks who prematurely label players as busts. Believe it or not, that world does not revolve around you or mackel.

3) Oh, just blaming me for singling out you and mackel for Zadina hate, which had nothing to do with anything i said to begin with.

4) You reduced my post down to talking about your and mackels opinion of Zadina. Inferring folks like me are accusing you of calling him a bust when all you ever did was refer to him as a middle six winger. The original post I made not only had nothing to do with you, gave examples of two players not named Zadina. Not to mention the whole thing started as a for-fun jab at Thornton's 7 point rookie season.  

[marcaractac 3,963]

4 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Right. I think your POV is erroneously misconstrued as "Lafreneire won't go #1" at no fault of your own.

Last year prior to the draft I fell into the trap of "I think Seider may lowkey be the best Dman in the draft... but Yzerman won't take him at #6". Like an idiot I bought into the prevailing narrative over my own good sense. Thank god Yzerman is smarter than me, because I woulda pulled a Holland and drafted a Zadina or Veleno or something instead of Seider. The player you're supposed to take.

I don't really have a hard on for anyone in particular this year. But I hope Yzerman continues to ignore the media hype and does his own thing. If he wants say Sanderson at #2 overall sign me the f*** up.

I'm not against a wild move like that either, though for me it would be Drysdale and not Sanderson. Basically Rossi is to Kip as Drysdale is to me, with the one difference being I'd still take Laffy first. 

[kipwinger 8,524]

11 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

I'm not against a wild move like that either, though for me it would be Drysdale and not Sanderson. Basically Rossi is to Kip as Drysdale is to me, with the one difference being I'd still take Laffy first. 

Not even close.  I'd take two, maybe even three players before Lafreniere.  So we're very much not thinking the same way here.  I don't have some wild crush on Rossi, after careful consideration I think he's the biggest difference maker in the top part of the draft.  But I'd also take Byfield and maybe Stutzle over Lafrieniere. 

Simply put, centers have more impact on the game than wingers.  Especially centers who can do other things well in addition to scoring.  Lafreniere may get you a big goal one day, which is true for all the other top guys as well, but he'll never kill a big penalty, win a defensive zone draw late in a game to protect a lead, or bear down the backcheck and break up an odd man rush.  That's just not his game.  And when you get to the elite level those are the things that separate the winners. 

THAT'S why I'd rather have Rossi or Byfield or Stutzle. Same reason as I'd rather have Draisaitl or Barkov over McDavid or Eichel. Same reason I'd rather have Seth Jones than Erik Karlsson.  Scoring is great, but everyone at the top of the draft can score.  What else can you do and how well can you do it?

 

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

21 minutes ago, marcaractac said:

1) Neither

2) Not making a point here. It's a reference to folks who prematurely label players as busts. Believe it or not, that world does not revolve around you or mackel.

3) Oh, just blaming me for singling out you and mackel for Zadina hate, which had nothing to do with anything i said to begin with.

4) You reduced my post down to talking about your and mackels opinion of Zadina. Inferring folks like me are accusing you of calling him a bust when all you ever did was refer to him as a middle six winger. The original post I made not only had nothing to do with you, gave examples of two players not named Zadina. Not to mention the whole thing started as a for-fun jab at Thornton's 7 point rookie season.  

And the point I made in response using my own experience with Zadina seems to have completely flown over your head.

Nobody - beyond anyone engaging in hyperbolic language - is calling Jack Hughes a bust because he scored 20 something points at 18. That's the straw man right there.

In reality Devils fans have every right to be disappointed in his performance thus far, and to question whether or not he was the best pick at #1 overall. That doesn't mean everyone think he's a "bust" but it certainly helps your POV to conflate it that way.

The same straw man is done here to me with Zadina almost daily.

"I don't think Zadina (hughes) will live up to the hype"
"LOL you think he's a bust? That's stupid, you're stupid"

It's like church law. Don't dare critique young players, especially good ones, that's heresy. And it's utterly apparent by the immediate dismisal of anyone with an opinion on a young player that isn't positive.

[Dabura 12,207]

3 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Jack Hughes gets flack because people in the media hyped him to the moon, just like some are doing with Lafreniere, now and fans like @Dabura jumped all over it acting as if this guy was some superstar.

I'm on record saying Kakko was more NHL-ready than Hughes. Hughes has to bulk up. That's always been a thing. My opinions on Hughes haven't changed.

You really need to let this go, man. It's unhealthy.

[Dabura 12,207]

59 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Not even close.  I'd take two, maybe even three players before Lafreniere.  So we're very much not thinking the same way here.  I don't have some wild crush on Rossi, after careful consideration I think he's the biggest difference maker in the top part of the draft.  But I'd also take Byfield and maybe Stutzle over Lafrieniere. 

Simply put, centers have more impact on the game than wingers.  Especially centers who can do other things well in addition to scoring.  Lafreniere may get you a big goal one day, which is true for all the other top guys as well, but he'll never kill a big penalty, win a defensive zone draw late in a game to protect a lead, or bear down the backcheck and break up an odd man rush.  That's just not his game.  And when you get to the elite level those are the things that separate the winners. 

THAT'S why I'd rather have Rossi or Byfield or Stutzle. Same reason as I'd rather have Draisaitl or Barkov over McDavid or Eichel. Same reason I'd rather have Seth Jones than Erik Karlsson.  Scoring is great, but everyone at the top of the draft can score.  What else can you do and how well can you do it?

I don't even wholly disagree with where you're coming from every time you go out of your way to tell us all how much you don't want the guy that everyone else wants. I just think it's kind of funny that you're as zealous about this as you claim people like me are about consensus 1st overalls.

Yeah, I think Lafreniere's the best, safest pick at 1st. Not because I've been brainwashed into building up media darlings, but, rather, because I've seen these players, I know the sorry shape our team is in, and I think Lafreniere best fits the "gamebreaking cornerstone guy you can build a winning team around" profile.

I get that elite centermen are extraordinarily valuable. That's one of the reasons I like Hughes as much as I do. I'm on record saying multiple times over the years that nothing gets my hockey d*** harder than outrageous center depth. I loved the thought of having Larkin and Hughes at center. You weren't quite as high on that idea...and now you're explaining to everyone how important great centermen are.

I dunno, man. You do you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[kipwinger 8,524]

13 minutes ago, Dabura said:

I don't even wholly disagree with where you're coming from every time you go out of your way to tell us all how much you don't want the guy that everyone else wants. I just think it's kind of funny that you're as zealous about this as you claim people like me are about consensus 1st overalls.

Yeah, I think Lafreniere's the best, safest pick at 1st. Not because I've been brainwashed into building up media darlings, but, rather, because I've seen these players, I know the sorry shape our team is in, and I think Lafreniere best fits the "gamebreaking cornerstone guy you can build a winning team around" profile.

I get that elite centermen are extraordinarily valuable. That's one of the reasons I like Hughes as much as I do. I'm on record saying multiple times over the years that nothing gets my hockey d*** harder than outrageous center depth. I loved the thought of having Larkin and Hughes at center. You weren't quite as high on that idea...and now you're explaining to everyone how important great centermen are.

I dunno, man. You do you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thanks for your permission douchebag. 

 The fact that you pretend you're not heavily influenced by "HYPE!" is laughable.  You've been around a while, so I have I.  Every year you're balls deep on whomever the concensus top guy is.  Then, as it inevitably becomes clear they're not as good as you think, you start equivocating.  You're the Darren Dreger of LGW.  "Durrr...I want Lafreniere" in one thread and then "Durrr...I'd really be happy with any of the top guys" in another.  Both can be true, but it's basically as brainless a position as you can have.  "Durrr...I don't care who we get, I just like drafting guys...durrr...HYPE!"

Finally, you're really reaching if you think I wanted Kakko over Hughes.  I said multiple times that given (in my opinion) Hughes was not noticeably better than Dach, Zegras, or Cozens, if I had the first overall pick I'd trade back and take one of them plus the assets. 

[Dabura 12,207]

8 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Thanks for your permission douchebag. 

 The fact that you pretend you're not heavily influenced by "HYPE!" is laughable.  You've been around a while, so I have I.  Every year you're balls deep on whomever the concensus top guy is.  Then, as it inevitably becomes clear they're not as good as you think, you start equivocating.  You're the Darren Dreger of LGW.  "Durrr...I want Lafreniere" in one thread and then "Durrr...I'd really be happy with any of the top guys" in another.  Both can be true, but it's basically as brainless a position as you can have.  "Durrr...I don't care who we get, I just like drafting guys...durrr...HYPE!"

Finally, you're really reaching if you think I wanted Kakko over Hughes.  I said multiple times that given (in my opinion) Hughes was not noticeably better than Dach, Zegras, or Cozens, if I had the first overall pick I'd trade back and take one of them plus the assets. 

Douchebag? Seriously? You're *that* butthurt about this? Again, you've got to let this go. It's unhealthy.

Of course I'm influenced by HYPE! But you're hung up on this idea that I'm just a wretchedly dishonest sheep who laps up whatever I read in The Hockey News and that I need to be humbled and shamed or some keyboard warrior s***.

You think there's some inconsistency in what I'm saying. You seem to be the only person here who has this problem with me. Is it because I got salty with you a couple times and s*** on some of your ideas? How long you gonna hold a grudge over a disagreement on LetsGoWings.com, my dude? You want an apology? You want me to say, "Gawrsh, I sure am glad we didn't land Dahlin"? F*** outta here.

I can cream my jeans over Lafreniere in one thread and then turn right around and say in another thread that I'd be happy with any of the top guys. There's no inconsistency there. I'm sorry if it you find it "brainless" and oh-so-vanilla. I would've been overjoyed if we'd gotten Andrei Svechnikov. I would've been overjoyed if we'd gotten Kakko. I'll be overjoyed if we get Stutzle. In past years, I've posted about lesser-known draft-eligibles and talked them up. Generally, people here didn't seem all that interested in what I had to say about these players, so I haven't done that this season.

You're obsessed with trading back. Cool. Great. Awesome. I can see the logic behind it. I might give you a hard time about it if we get into the nitty gritty details of what that trade back might look like, but at the end of the day I don't actually care all that much. You shouldn't care either. I hope you don't.

Let it go.

[kipwinger 8,524]

7 minutes ago, Dabura said:

Douchebag? Seriously? You're *that* butthurt about this? Again, you've got to let this go. It's unhealthy.

Of course I'm influenced by HYPE! But you're hung up on this idea that I'm just a wretchedly dishonest sheep who laps up whatever I read in The Hockey News and that I need to be humbled and shamed or some keyboard warrior s***.

You think there's some inconsistency in what I'm saying. You seem to be the only person here who has this problem with me. Is it because I got salty with you a couple times and s*** on some of your ideas? How long you gonna hold a grudge over a disagreement on LetsGoWings.com, my dude? You want an apology? You want me to say, "Gawrsh, I sure am glad we didn't land Dahlin"? F*** outta here.

I can cream my jeans over Lafreniere in one thread and then turn right around and say in another thread that I'd be happy with any of the top guys. There's no inconsistency there. I'm sorry if it you find it "brainless" and oh-so-vanilla. I would've been overjoyed if we'd gotten Andrei Svechnikov. I would've been overjoyed if we'd gotten Kakko. I'll be overjoyed if we get Stutzle. In past years, I've posted about lesser-known draft-eligibles and talked them up. Generally, people here didn't seem all that interested in what I had to say about these players, so I haven't done that this season.

You're obsessed with trading back. Cool. Great. Awesome. I can see the logic behind it. I might give you a hard time about it if we get into the nitty gritty details of what that trade back might look like, but at the end of the day I don't actually care all that much. You shouldn't care either. I hope you don't.

Let it go.

I "have a problem with you" because you're a simple minded pud.  I come here to talk to people about hockey, and everything you say on the subject is boring or contrived.  Which is fine, but if I were as intellectually lazy as you are I wouldn't write 5 paragraph long pity posts when other people made fun of me about it.  I'd probably just say, "Yeah, Hughes probably wasn't as good as I thought he was", and move on.  You, on the other hand, do this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.

Quit being a b*tch and just take your ribbing.  And when I'm inevitably wrong about something you can give it back.  That's kinda the nature of sports fandom.

[Dabura 12,207]

Just now, kipwinger said:

I "have a problem with you" because you're a simple minded pud.  I come here to talk to people about hockey, and everything you say on the subject is boring or contrived.  Which is fine, but if I were as intellectually lazy as you are I wouldn't write 5 paragraph long pity posts when other people made fun of me about it.  I'd probably just say, "Yeah, Hughes probably wasn't as good as I thought he was", and move on.  You, on the other hand, do this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.

Quit being a b*tch and just take your ribbing.  And when I'm inevitably wrong about something you can give it back.  That's kinda the nature of sports fandom.

YOU CAN'T JUST HYPE! A GUY TO HELL WHEN THERE'S A CHANCE WE MIGHT GET HIM AND THEN NOT TALK ABOUT HIM WHEN WE DON'T GET HIM. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. DON'T TELL ME YOU STILL LOVE DAHLIN AND HUGHES, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. YOU'RE COVERING YOUR ASS. YOU'RE EQUIVOCATING. YOU'RE SO BORING AND INTELLECTUALLY LAZY. NOT LIKE ME. I THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. I CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO. I'M LIKE SOCRATES. OTHER PEOPLE HERE DON'T SEE YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE BUT I DO. I KNOW YOUR GAME. I HAVE RECEIPTS. YOU HYPE!D THOSE PLAYERS TO HELL AND THEN YOU STOPPED TALKING ABOUT THEM WHEN WE DIDN'T GET THEM. YOU'RE DARREN DREGER. YOU'RE A PHONY. YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE. A PHARISEE. A SOPHIST. A LIAR. A DOUCHEBAG. YOU ARE WEAK, YOUR BLOODLINE IS WEAK, AND YOU WILL NOT SURVIVE THE WINTER. YOU ARE BORING. YOU ARE SO BORING. I DON'T WANT LAFRENIERE.

[kipwinger 8,524]

Just now, Dabura said:

YOU CAN'T JUST HYPE! A GUY TO HELL WHEN THERE'S A CHANCE WE MIGHT GET HIM AND THEN NOT TALK ABOUT HIM WHEN WE DON'T GET HIM. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. DON'T TELL ME YOU STILL LOVE DAHLIN AND HUGHES, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. YOU'RE COVERING YOUR ASS. YOU'RE EQUIVOCATING. YOU'RE SO BORING AND INTELLECTUALLY LAZY. NOT LIKE ME. I THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. I CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO. I'M LIKE SOCRATES. OTHER PEOPLE HERE DON'T SEE YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE BUT I DO. I KNOW YOUR GAME. I HAVE RECEIPTS. YOU HYPE!D THOSE PLAYERS TO HELL AND THEN YOU STOPPED TALKING ABOUT THEM WHEN WE DIDN'T GET THEM. YOU'RE DARREN DREGER. YOU'RE A PHONY. YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE. A PHARISEE. A SOPHIST. A LIAR. A DOUCHEBAG. YOU ARE WEAK, YOUR BLOODLINE IS WEAK, AND YOU WILL NOT SURVIVE THE WINTER. YOU ARE BORING. YOU ARE SO BORING. I DON'T WANT LAFRENIERE.

Lol. Man you should really take it easy.  This ^^^^^^^^ is unhealthy.  Just let it go.

[Dabura 12,207]

Just now, kipwinger said:

Lol. Man you should really take it easy.  This ^^^^^^^^ is unhealthy.  Just let it go.

no u

[Dabura 12,207]

Anyway, when the actual s*** is the lotto draw? Have there been any meaningful updates?

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

And the point I made in response using my own experience with Zadina seems to have completely flown over your head.

Nobody - beyond anyone engaging in hyperbolic language - is calling Jack Hughes a bust because he scored 20 something points at 18. That's the straw man right there.

In reality Devils fans have every right to be disappointed in his performance thus far, and to question whether or not he was the best pick at #1 overall. That doesn't mean everyone think he's a "bust" but it certainly helps your POV to conflate it that way.

The same straw man is done here to me with Zadina almost daily.

"I don't think Zadina (hughes) will live up to the hype"
"LOL you think he's a bust? That's stupid, you're stupid"

It's like church law. Don't dare critique young players, especially good ones, that's heresy. And it's utterly apparent by the immediate dismisal of anyone with an opinion on a young player that isn't positive.

Both you and Mackel have called Zadina a "bust". No one is putting words in your mouth when they say you have.

2 hours ago, Dabura said:

I'm on record saying Kakko was more NHL-ready than Hughes. Hughes has to bulk up. That's always been a thing. My opinions on Hughes haven't changed.

You really need to let this go, man. It's unhealthy.

I don't remember you being a Hughes slappy. You were big on Kakko IIRC.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[mackel 681]

32 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Both you and Mackel have called Zadina a "bust". No one is putting words in your mouth when they say you have.

I don't remember you being a Hughes slappy. You were big on Kakko IIRC.

To be fair I've called Zagina a bust LOL