Ducky10
Searching for Mark Scheifele
- Nov 14, 2014
- 19,809
- 31,386
No, you did not see correctly. [mod]
And it's not kind of weird to take these as straw man arguments when you are claiming A and he insists that you are claiming B and then refutes that B. He is simply moving the goal posts while continuing with his insults that are based on his wrong intrepretation of my claims.
My claim that I have been posting so many times on these forums with different wordings is as following:
1. Laine happens to be most often the guy that makes breakouts when he is on ice. (*)
2. While some people believe in UFOs, unicorns and randomness, there is no such things in hockey or normal life, actually. For rational people, anyway. Things are just so hugely complicated that what we perceive is often "randomness". If you flip a coin, there is 50/50 changes you get heads or tails. True random, right? But if you flip coin 1000 times, it's NOT 50/50 whether you get pretty even distribution 500ish/500ish or totally uneven distribution 1000/0 or 0/1000. If your pal flips the coin 1000 times and wins let's say 800+ times himself, he is not extremely lucky. He is a con artist. If someone happens to be most of the time(*) the guy that makes the breakout on his line with 4 other guys there, he is not lucky/unlucky, but there are real reasons behind it.
3. What are those real reasons, and who is the evil mastermind behind that recurring Laine breakout scheme, I don't know. I can only suspect that Maurice, Laine or other ELL line guys might be involved on this.
(*) Not yet proven, due to smallish sample sizes, but at least those samples where not cherry picked. Also a lot of other people seems to be seeing this themselves.
You said this,
"They really need to change that breakout plan. Everyone and their mother and a friend of the mother and blind&deaf dog of that friend knows already, that ELL line (+ the 2 d-man behind that line) tries to put the puck for Laine so that he could try to chip it into the neutral zone. And since everyone knows that, they will put instant pressure on Laine even before he touches the puck.
Boys pretty please, that trick ain't workin' anymore. Paul, you got paid for this"
And this,
"Well, we are maybe overanalyzing things, but one thing is for sure: something has to be done to the breakout strategies. It's way too easy to predict against ELL that they are trying to give the puck to Laine, who is trying to get it into the neutral zone. There have been some exceptions to the rule, where Little, Ehlers or one of the d-men have tried that breakout, but more often than not they are sticking to the plan A, which haven't worked lately all that well.
If that is me misinterpreting your pov then my apologies, but you seem to be suggesting the plan for this line is to get the puck to Laine when breaking out.
Last edited: