Ghosts Beer
I saw Goody Fletcher with the Devil!
- Feb 10, 2014
- 22,619
- 16,426
It's clearly an appeal to authority, which, by the way, there's nothing inherently wrong with, it's just that in this instance you're doing a particularly ****ty job of it. You can't go around making ****ty eye-roll-inducing arguments and then cite Keith Jones' bland pronouncements on a telecast (btw, your argument goes way beyond anything Jones said) along with some post hoc ergo propter hoc as your only real evidence. What happens when inevitably the Flyers play their next uninspired game? Did the Goul effect mysteriously wear off?
And who's completely dismissing it, anyway? I'm not. I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that former players have insights about being a hockey player that I don't have. That said, that doesn't mean I blindly accept whatever they say, either. I've been watching hockey for over 3 decades. I'd like to think I've gleaned some knowledge in all of that time.
I've literally watched dozens of plugs skate for the Flyers who were there to bring "toughness". All of them had their presence on the roster justified in the same way you're justifying Goul's. Far too many of them proved to be a waste of a roster spot. Which isn't to say that none of them have been useful players, or that Goul won't be useful, but the idea that somehow Goul is going to be the difference between the entire team playing better and braver, as you put it, or not, is ridiculous on it's face.
Strawman. Are you planning on running through every conceivable fallacy in this thread?
Argumentum ad verecundiam. Is it still a buzzword if I use the Latin?
After considering their opinions seriously, I'm going to hold fast to my opinion that the team's better play in the last 2 games has literally not a damned thing to do with Goul's call-up.
You sure used “appeal to authority” as if there were something inherently wrong with it.
And now you’re committing a logical fallacy by dismissing my point as “shitty” simply because you disagree with it.
BTW, the point about lawyers & doctors was an analogy, not a “strawman.”
Also, I’m not arguing that Goul’s presence will last forever, or that the Flyers won’t have lousy games with him in the lineup. Edmonton had lousy games with Semenko. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a positive impact overall. Goul could get sent down next week, but I think Goul’s call up was part of a message to the team that they had lost their Flyers identity. A message that so far has been well received & kickstarted them to 2 of their best & most physical games of the year after the Pittsburgh embarrassment. Maybe it will be a short-lived wake-up call. But it was needed for a foundering team with no edge.
Saying the call-up “has literally not a damned thing” to do with their performance the last two games is overly dismissive & naive, IMO. I think you just don’t like Goulbourne-type players. And sure you need talent. But are you really missing anything with Lehtera, Weise, or Leier out of the lineup? And if someone else helps give your team its aggressiveness & identity back, isn’t he the better option than those bland, do-nothing players? At least short term?