GDT: Hawks @ Sabres 6pm 1/18/24 nbc sports Chicago

[ChiHawks10]

I’m not debating that he isn’t. Nor am I debating that the goal is acceptable. Your wording suggests that no goaltender who lets in a goal like that is capable of being an nhl goalie. That’s what I’m arguing

That's a strawman. I never said anything like that. My initial post was essentially that "Soda can't let that goal in. It's one of many reasons why he'll never be an NHL starter." Hell, idk if he'd even be a backup on a team that wasn't bottom 2 in the league.

 

[BobbyJet]

The sample size of bad Reichel play is double the good 20 stretch run he went on. I think there is a decent chance he’s just not that guy at this point.

This is coming from a guy who really liked his AHL play.

When the team gets healthy Reichel needs to go back to RFD.

 

[MTU34]

That's a strawman. I never said anything like that. My initial post was essentially that "Soda can't let that goal in. It's one of many reasons why he'll never be an NHL starter." Hell, idk if he'd even be a backup on a team that wasn't bottom 2 in the league.

No, your original post was “yeah you can’t let that goal in, which is why Soda will never be an nhl starter”. Nothing in there about “one of many reasons”. If that’s what you meant then fair enough but if we use the wording from your original post then I guess Connor Hellebuyck isn’t an nhl starter

 

[TLEH]

When the team gets healthy Reichel needs to go back to RFD.

Not sure what else he can do there. Maybe confidence boost, but he’s already had two seasons of good play there, at some point it’s make it happen here.

 

[ChiHawks10]

No, your original post was “yeah you can’t let that goal in, which is why Soda will never be an nhl starter”. Nothing in there about “one of many reasons”. If that’s what you meant then fair enough but if we use the wording from your original post then I guess Connor Hellebuyck isn’t an nhl starter

Plenty of goaltenders much better than soderblom have been beat that way. I understand thinking he’s not an nhl goalie at this stage but that goal isn’t why

Edit: two seconds of looking and I found a clip of Hellebuyck getting beat that way. Shit happens

The difference is... Soda regularly has 1-2 goals a game of similar fashion. Goals that NHL goalies can't let in.

If you thought that him letting that one goal in from behind the goal line is my sole reason for thinking he's not an NHL goalie... then the problem is yours, not mine. It's implied that goals of that nature, ones that you can't let in at the NHL level, are the reason that he's not an NHL goalie.

I can't believe I have to actually have a conversation about this. Am I talking to a bunch of smooth brains? Wtf?

 

[MTU34]

The difference is... Soda regularly has 1-2 goals a game of similar fashion. Goals that NHL goalies can't let in.

If you thought that him letting that one goal in from behind the goal line is my sole reason for thinking he's not an NHL goalie... then the problem is yours, not mine. It's implied that "goals of that nature, ones that you can't let in at the NHL level, are the reason that he's not an NHL goalie."

I can't believe I have to actually have a conversation about this. Am I talking to a bunch of smooth brains? Wtf?

You never said anything about “bad goals”. EVERYTHING you said was specifically regarding that goal. Again, if what you’re saying now is what you originally intended to say then we have no issue, but that’s not what you said

 

[BobbyJet]

Not sure what else he can do there. Maybe confidence boost, but he’s already had two seasons of good play there, at some point it’s make it happen here.

He's 21....plenty of time to mature in the AHL.

 

[ChiHawks10]

You never said anything about “bad goals”. EVERYTHING you said was specifically regarding that goal. Again, if what you’re saying now is what you originally intended to say then we have no issue, but that’s not what you said

Again... it's IMPLIED that goals LIKE THAT are why he's not an NHL caliber goalie.

So what you're saying... is I AM having a conversation with a smooth brain that doesn't understand when something is implicit?

Holy f***ing shit.

Do you really think that I meant that him allowing ONLY that ONE goal, from behind the net, is why he's not an NHL caliber goalie? You're either an idiot, or being purposefully obtuse.

Again, it is implied that goals of that nature are the reason why he's not an NHL caliber goalie. Not just that one single goal from behind the net. His ability to regularly allow in 1-3 goals per game that have no business going in on an NHL goalie, is the reason.

 

[Mrfenn92]

Buffalo getting a little chippy

 

[TLEH]

He's 21....plenty of time to mature in the AHL.

Usually AHL development is more about games played than purely age. But yes you’re right. I’m not giving up on him just saying the discussion on the player has changed for sure

 

[MTU34]

Again... it's IMPLIED that goals LIKE THAT are why he's not an NHL caliber goalie.

So what you're saying... is I AM having a conversation with a smooth brain that doesn't understand when something is implicit.

Holy f***ing shit.

There’s nothing implicit about what you said. Had you said “goals like that” there’d be no argument. But you said “that goal”. I don’t know why you’re so pissy. It’s clearly a simple misunderstanding

Also no need to jump to personal attacks over something this trivial. Especially when we agree on shit on here quite often

 

[ChiHawks10]

There’s nothing implicit about what you said. Had you said “goals like that” there’d be no argument. But you said “that goal”. I don’t know why you’re so pissy. It’s clearly a simple misunderstanding

Also no need to jump to personal attacks over something this trivial. Especially when we agree on shit on here quite often

I'm getting f***ing irritated because you're arguing the semantics of whether something was implied or not when we actually agree, and when it's pretty f***ing easy to see that I wasn't simply stating that ONE goal is the reason why.

Yes, it was implicit. I wasn't solely talking about a single goal that he let in from behind the net. I was talking about his body of work of "goals you can't let in". As the initial piece of that sentence states.

 

[BobbyJet]

There’s nothing implicit about what you said. Had you said “goals like that” there’d be no argument. But you said “that goal”. I don’t know why you’re so pissy. It’s clearly a simple misunderstanding

Also no need to jump to personal attacks over something this trivial. Especially when we agree on shit on here quite often

never mind..... it's not worth it. But I will say that there's an ignore option.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Yeah, you can't let that goal in... which is why Soda will never be an NHL starter.

The first part of the sentence: "Yeah, you can't let that goal in..." is kind of important here.

The implication being that goals that you can't let in at the NHL level are the reason why he'll never be an NHL caliber goalie.

 

[MTU34]

I'm getting f***ing irritated because you're arguing the semantics of whether something was implied or not when we actually agree, and when it's pretty f***ing easy to see that I wasn't simply stating that ONE goal is the reason why.

Yes, it was implicit. I wasn't solely talking about a single goal that he let in from behind the net. I was talking about his body of work of "goals you can't let in". As the initial piece of that sentence states.

I can see the argument that there’s an element of implication in the original post but I’m also reading shit on my phone and it’s much harder to determine intention just reading text. Had you said those exact words while sitting right next to me it’d be easy to see but you’re not so it isn’t. Same thing as sarcasm. Worthless discussion at this point though. Let’s just kill it and move on

never mind..... it's not worth it. But I will say that there's an ignore option.

No need for ignore. Guys knowledgeable and a good poster. Just a pointless argument (probably because we’re both bored watching this team)

 

[ChiHawks10]

I can see the argument that there’s an element of implication in the original post but I’m also reading shit on my phone and it’s much harder to determine intention just reading text. Had you said those exact words while sitting right next to me it’d be easy to see but you’re not so it isn’t. Same thing as sarcasm. Worthless discussion at this point though. Let’s just kill it and move on

Fair enough. Sorry I got irritated and came at you, it was just bananas to me that people would think my belief is that one singular goal from behind the net is the sole reason why I don't think he's an NHL caliber goalie. That would borderline be calling me an idiot.

I can see the argument that there’s an element of implication in the original post but I’m also reading shit on my phone and it’s much harder to determine intention just reading text. Had you said those exact words while sitting right next to me it’d be easy to see but you’re not so it isn’t. Same thing as sarcasm. Worthless discussion at this point though. Let’s just kill it and move on


No need for ignore. Guys knowledgeable and a good poster. Just a pointless argument (probably because we’re both bored watching this team)

Pretty much. Listening to a good broadcast was actually more exciting than that shit game was.

 

[MTU34]

Fair enough. Sorry I got irritated, it was just bananas to me that people would think my belief is that one singular goal from behind the net is the sole reason why I don't think he's an NHL caliber goalie. That would borderline be calling me an idiot.

You’re good. I didn’t even think about how what I was arguing might insult your intelligence (wasn’t my intention and honestly I was kinda surprised that it was you I was having a discussion like that with). You’re one of the most knowledgeable posters here. Again, sorry for indirectly insulting your intelligence

 

[ChiHawks10]

You’re good. I didn’t even think about how what I was arguing might insult your intelligence (wasn’t my intention and honestly I was kinda surprised that it was you I was having a discussion like that with). You’re one of the most knowledgeable posters here. Again, sorry for indirectly insulting your intelligence

It's all good.

I've been a little irritable today, anyways. At least more than normal. Probably need to rip a pipe. Or get some sleep. I'm running on like 3.5 or 4 hours.

 

[BobbyJet]

I'd say that is the most boring Hawks have looked all season long. I guess sitting around Buffalo for a day and snowed in, will do that.

 

[Callidusblackhawk]

I missed the first 2 periods because I thought this game was starting at 7 but based on the contents of this thread I'm glad I did lol.

There's still almost half the season left but my hopes for Reichel to turn it around are fading fast. What a miserable season this has been.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

This team looks like they’re a kayaker without paddles offensively without Bedard.

 

[hawksfan50]

So you are saying te reason Hawks stunk wqas becausec tey sat around all day yesterday and stuffed themselves with too many Buffalo wings?

 

[Northernhawk]

Soderblom 4-26-3 ugh

 

[Pez68]

Imagine defending a goalie letting in a goal from behind the goal line, off his head. Newsflash people... Your angle is completely f***ed if you give the opposing player that option.

 

[Blackhawks]

I thought people would be happy we are tanking, what is wrong with you? Every loss is a step closer to a 1st over all, God knows we need that as this garbage GM can’t sign anyone if not overpaying by double, he learned from his boss Stan the Man after all.