I stopped reading after this line because you clearly haven't read any of my posts or are intentionally ignoring any of the points I've made several times in this thread.
So there's really no reason to bother reading yours as I'm guessing you're refuting the fictional argument you've invented for me.
So you're not saying an enforcer is needed, but you're saying it hasn't been proven that an enforcer is not needed either. What's the point of that argument other than maintaining of the possibility that enforcers are needed.
I'm not gonna argue that you need an enforcer to win a Cup, but your reasoning doesn't prove anything. Because in your opinion the Wings had a team capable of winning the Cup and they didn't have an enforcer, that somehow proves that you don't need an enforcer to win the Cup??
They didn't win the cup, so it proves nothing. It's all just speculation on your part.
One or the other is true, either you need an enforcer or you don't. If you don't beleive an enforcer IS needed, you have to believe that an enforcer is NOT needed.
But for some reason you're just not willing to commit to either answer, or at least, not willing to say the words. Instead you just pussyfoot around it, saying 'well, we don't need one, but we haven't won without one so maybe we do'. If you want to argue just that having an enforcer can be valuable, just do that. You countered my specific point asserting that enforcers are not needed. Why do that if you agree with it?
- dobbles likes this