Jump to content

kickazz's Photo


Member Since 02 Feb 2013
Offline Last Active Dec 09 2014 10:09 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Why the Red Wings get injured

19 December 2013 - 02:29 AM

Fallacies you committed:
1. Ad hominem/Abusive fallacy
2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (and you can't even prove the post hoc)
3. Texas sharp-shooter
4. Fallacy of composition

And those are just a few.

On top of your flip-flopping, you consistently argue with poor logic and reasoning. Hate to be the **** that picks apart your arguments like this, but you were begging for it after calling Echolalia "illogical", and I think you only reaffirmed his "highschool" assertion.

The saddest part is I'm a pro-enforcer guy like yourself.

You bring shame to my people.

EDIT: My advice to you is don't make a controversial assertion around here unless you can back it up. Most LGW members know their sh**


None of the "fallacies" pointed are relevant to the discussion as I mentioned in OP to discuss the topic. So congratulations you wasted  a post. Since you consider yourself a pro-enforcer, perhaps give an input to the discussion? I can easily accuse you of "Red herring" in the thread. Worthless post,, it's supposed to be discussion not granny gran butting in. And you shouldnt commit the fallacy of appealing to authority by stating that "most people on LGW" know their **** because I would disagree seeing as though most people still havent given a reason as to WHY enforcers cant prevent injuries or bring positive aspect to game. 

In Topic: Why the Red Wings get injured

18 December 2013 - 11:53 PM


You should use some of that high school logic you seem to be so full of and reevaluate my post, as well as your own OP.  I don't care if Lapierre took liberties before, during, or after Downey's response, and based on your premise that an enforcer's presence prevents injuries, you shouldn't either.  You asked us all a question in the title of this thread, "Why the Red Wings get injured."  You immediately follow that up in the first sentence of your OP with "Because they have no legitimate enforcer."  Your argument can then be summed up as 'enforcers prevent injury'.  High school reasoning.  You also said in your OP that "If there were enforcers, teams would think twice before laying the hits on star players."  Again, that reinforces your assertion that the presence of an enforcer would prevent injuries to Red Wings.  Downey was dressed and actively used during the game when Lapierre hit and injured Lidstrom; ie Downey the enforcer was present.  Based on that example (one which you actually brought forth to the discussion), it is clear that your argument that an enforcer's presence prevents injury is effectively refuted.  Downey was present.  Lidstrom still got injured.

As for the fight providing momentum and sending a message to the Avs, again I invite you to reread your original post as well as mine.  We aren't discussing momentum-shifts or message sending.  I never mentioned it.  Your OP never mentioned it.  That is not the topic of this thread, and if you were interested in discussing that as the premise of your argument, you should have made that clear in your OP.  I expect better from someone who is so competent in high-school level logic to bring up irrelevant points to the subject as a response to my retort.  It's as Kip mentioned in the first page: you keep changing your tune.  Now, if you want to discuss whether the utilization of an enforcer shifts momentum or sends messages to the opposition, you're more than welcome to make a separate thread on those topics, assuming LGW can stomach yet another enforcer thread.  But whatever you do, don't bog this already shallow thread down with multiple topics of discussion.  Lets stick with injury prevention.

Why are you getting so upset and insulting over an online forum? Relax sean avery. 


You're refutation has been illogical. My OP said enforcers can put big massive hits. Further i gave example of how Zetterberg's herniated disk is a result of beating he's taken over the course of the season. Star players on average shouldnt be getting hit as much as our team's players do. If we had enforcers they can reduce the amount of bullying the Red Wings players take. Go read the posts made throughout the thread. Take your head out of one dimension and keep an open mind to a debate. 


Just because I made an OP with an introduction to a topic doesn't mean i wont add further thoughts on the topic. And is ESPECIALLY doesnt mean i can't point out other strengths of having an enforcer. 


Additionally, since you decided to make it personal (as anyone with clear psychological insecurities does in an online forum debate). I will continue to add further points:


Enforcers not only provide protection and prevention from star players getting injured over the course of the season, they can also bring momentum to the team. The Detroit Red Wings are a soft team that still thinks they can manage with puck possession. However, due to the losses of great players over the years, they are no longer the dominant team of the NHL as they once were. Being in a new conference, with new players and lower skillset, they must adjust. Having an enforcer can add to this, it can protect the veteran players from being abused on the ice which leads to long term injuries, i.e injuries such as Herniated Disks that are caused from wear and tear of the spine. 


Now please, unless you have something relevant to say about hockey instead of mentioning "high school logic" we can continue. I'm sure there are forums online for that kind of nonsense. But this is a hockey forum. 

In Topic: Why the Red Wings get injured

18 December 2013 - 11:40 PM


Must have missed all those "massive hits" we've been a victim of.  Any evidence to back that up?  No, listing injuries doesn't count.


People seem to somehow forget we're a puck possession team.  If we're out there chasing guys, making big hits, then that means we don't have the puck. 


It's no coincidence many of the teams who lead in hits, are the worst in puck possession.

What Red Wings have you been watching? We are no longer the puck possession team we once were. There's a reason why we lost to Ottawa, a team where really on paper we're more skilled than. You want evidence? Go watch the Ottawa games this season. Zetterberg and Datsyuk both shutdown by big bodies. I don't need to find the evidence for you, Mickey Redmond does most of the talking at the games were the euro twins get shutdown by big guys. 

In Topic: Why the Red Wings get injured

17 December 2013 - 03:54 PM


OK wait a minute....you don't get to bring up hit ratio stats to back up your statement and then claim "quantity of hits don't mean anything."

Part of my OP:


"But when teams like Ottawa and Boston are out there out hitting your players 2:1 or 3:1 ratio night after night, (and I don't mean small checks, I mean big massive hits), you cant expect them to last long."


I explicitly mentioned being outhit by massive hits aka quality hits.  


If they're so useful, then why are they so often scratched from the lineup against teams that do not have enforcers?

Darren McCarty was an enforcer and played games and almost all playoff games for the red wings when he won the cup 4 times. Bob Probert was one of the biggest enforcers in NHL history and was a regular season and playoff player for the Red Wings. Hell so was Gordie Howe to a certain extent. 

In Topic: Why the Red Wings get injured

17 December 2013 - 03:05 PM

Quiet honestly, i would like to see Franzen and Zetterberg stand up for themselves a bit too. Datsyuk does it on occasion but its uncommon. Steve Yzerman was a hell of a captain. Guy had finesse and would stick up for himself and teammates during a scrum.  



Source, please.



"An MRI revealed an issue similar to the back injuries he sustained in 2008 and 2009, but developed in a different area."



He missed 19 games in 2006-07 with an inflamed disc, seven games in 2007-08 with back spasms and sore back, and three in 2008-09 with back spasms. 

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitne...3#ixzz2nlSc8ysw


Not only different areas but different diagnosis.