Around the Dome II: Flames hockey-related news and notes

[JPeeper]

“NHL GM’s and coaches are not smart”.

"watches an expansion team get to the Stanley Cup finals in their inaugural year"

"watches Taylor Hall a 1st and second turn into Larsson and Reinhart":

"watches Gulutzan play Troy Brouwer 12-15 minutes a night"

"watches Hamilton get traded for a 1st and 2 2nds"

"watches Subban traded for Weber"

"watches Clarkson still have years remaining on his contract at $4mil +"

"watches Jeff Finger get $16m/4yrs"

should I go on?

 

[super6646]

Big two W's to start the season! Woop!



...

Do not f***ing jinx us now. I need to feel hope for once about this team...

 

[Anglesmith]

"watches an expansion team get to the Stanley Cup finals in their inaugural year"

"watches Taylor Hall a 1st and second turn into Larsson and Reinhart":

"watches Gulutzan play Troy Brouwer 12-15 minutes a night"

"watches Hamilton get traded for a 1st and 2 2nds"

"watches Subban traded for Weber"

"watches Clarkson still have years remaining on his contract at $4mil +"

"watches Jeff Finger get $16m/4yrs"

should I go on?

The appeal to authority is weak, but you also used circular reasoning. Using "Engelland is bad" as a basis for Brodie dragging him along in order to discredit him from being effective.

I think it's clear at this point that Brodie isn't capable of dragging anyone along. He's prone to his own mistakes even when not facing top competition. The fact that that was a decent pairing is definitely a credit to Engelland.

Engelland is what he is. Like any NHL player, he has strengths and weaknesses. He's one of the guys worth cheering for, though, and he seems to have a knack for being a part of good teams more often than not.

 

[Lunatik]

The appeal to authority is weak, but you also used circular reasoning. Using "Engelland is bad" as a basis for Brodie dragging him along in order to discredit him from being effective.

I think it's clear at this point that Brodie isn't capable of dragging anyone along. He's prone to his own mistakes even when not facing top competition. The fact that that was a decent pairing is definitely a credit to Engelland.

Engelland is what he is. Like any NHL player, he has strengths and weaknesses. He's one of the guys worth cheering for, though, and he seems to have a knack for being a part of good teams more often than not.

There is no point AS, he's clearly incapable of accepting that GMs and coaches aren't infallible and make mistakes. The irony is if you look at things he suggests, he'd be batting a fraction of what what these stupid people do.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

"watches an expansion team get to the Stanley Cup finals in their inaugural year"

"watches Taylor Hall a 1st and second turn into Larsson and Reinhart":

"watches Gulutzan play Troy Brouwer 12-15 minutes a night"

"watches Hamilton get traded for a 1st and 2 2nds"

"watches Subban traded for Weber"

"watches Clarkson still have years remaining on his contract at $4mil +"

"watches Jeff Finger get $16m/4yrs"

should I go on?

GM’s have made a lot of mistakes and there are countless more than the ones you listed. Trading for Bollig and signing Raymond are 2 more recent ones. The problem with your logic is, you cannot use these mistakes to make a generalization such as you are. It ignores all the positive decisions that are made by these men and completely disregards all the countless items of business they do on a day-to-day basis that no one sees.

I’m not saying these men are perfect, but your statement is flat out incorrect. Watching the Flames or any teams draftroom is fascinating and gives you a glimpse of the kind of discussions they make everyday.

 

[JPeeper]

The appeal to authority is weak, but you also used circular reasoning. Using "Engelland is bad" as a basis for Brodie dragging him along in order to discredit him from being effective.

I think it's clear at this point that Brodie isn't capable of dragging anyone along. He's prone to his own mistakes even when not facing top competition. The fact that that was a decent pairing is definitely a credit to Engelland.

Engelland is what he is. Like any NHL player, he has strengths and weaknesses. He's one of the guys worth cheering for, though, and he seems to have a knack for being a part of good teams more often than not.

Thinking that Brodie in 2014-2015 wasn't carrying Engelland around because he had a mediocre year 3 years later is flawed logic and is revisionist thinking at its worst.

 

[DCDM]

Thinking that Brodie in 2014-2015 wasn't carrying Engelland around because he had a mediocre year 3 years later is flawed logic and is revisionist thinking at its worst.

And thinking that Engelland was nothing more than a sack of meat that Brodie carried around is disingenuous.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Thinking that Brodie in 2014-2015 wasn't carrying Engelland around because he had a mediocre year 3 years later is flawed logic and is revisionist thinking at its worst.

If you think Engelland didn't step up and play some of the best hockey of his career once Gio went down, you have a questionable memory. Brodie played out of his mind as well, and that combination of the two meant we actually had two good pairings going into the playoffs.

 

[Anglesmith]

Thinking that Brodie in 2014-2015 wasn't carrying Engelland around because he had a mediocre year 3 years later is flawed logic and is revisionist thinking at its worst.

That isn't the argument at all. What you're saying is essentially that no matter how that pairing did, you were going to treat it as an indictment of Engelland one way or another. You essentially seem to have been viewing it having already formed your conclusion. I mean, it's kind of ridiculous that we're even having this conversation now given a team with Engelland in a top 4 role (with the defensively-suspect Shea Theodore) just made it to the Cup final. At some point, you're going to have to come to terms with the anti-Engelland lens you're watching hockey through.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

That isn't the argument at all. What you're saying is essentially that no matter how that pairing did, you were going to treat it as an indictment of Engelland one way or another. You essentially seem to have been viewing it having already formed your conclusion. I mean, it's kind of ridiculous that we're even having this conversation now given a team with Engelland in a top 4 role (with the defensively-suspect Shea Theodore) just made it to the Cup final. At some point, you're going to have to come to terms with the anti-Engelland lens you're watching hockey through.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

If you think Engelland didn't step up and play some of the best hockey of his career once Gio went down

If Icing the puck is considered hockey, then yes, Engelland played some of the best hockey of his career, because he iced the puck every ****ing shift after Gio went down as his only real contribution.

 

[DCDM]

If Icing the puck is considered hockey, then yes, Engelland played some of the best hockey of his career, because he iced the puck every ****ing shift after Gio went down as his only real contribution.

Nah bro.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

If Icing the puck is considered hockey, then yes, Engelland played some of the best hockey of his career, because he iced the puck every ****ing shift after Gio went down as his only real contribution.

Yes, because you aren't known for ridiculous biases

 

[JPeeper]

Me reading Flames fans defend a #7 defenseman and sewer TJ Brodie.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Me reading Flames fans defend a #7 defenseman and sewer TJ Brodie.

Funny, that's the face most of us make when you post yet another overwhelmingly negative post that is usually an overreaction that doesn't deserve half the vitriol you give it.

Case and point your newest post about Stone and his partial NTC.

 

[JPeeper]

Funny, that's the face most of us make when you post yet another overwhelmingly negative post that is usually an overreaction that doesn't deserve half the vitriol you give it.

Case and point your newest post about Stone and his partial NTC.

lol, Stone is awful. I make negative posts to shit players.

It's laughable that you call me out for being overtly negative when 90% of this forum gives 0 credit to Monahan, think Bennett is a bust, want Hamilton traded for junk, think Brodie is trash when he isn't.

"overreaction that doesn't deserve half the vitriol..." yet I watch this forum defend #6 d-men, shit on Brodie and Hamonic, and continually shit on Monahan. Give me a break.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

lol, Stone is awful. I make negative posts to **** players.

It's laughable that you call me out for being overtly negative when 90% of this forum gives 0 credit to Monahan, think Bennett is a bust, want Hamilton traded for junk, think Brodie is trash when he isn't.

"overreaction that doesn't deserve half the vitriol..." yet I watch this forum defend #6 d-men, **** on Brodie and Hamonic, and continually **** on Monahan. Give me a break.

And Hyperbole to boot. Just adding to the resume. 90% on Monahan is realistically a half dozen vocal posters at best.

 

[Anglesmith]

I've missed people tearing Brodie to shreds. Maybe it's my browser. Is suggesting that he wasn't performing superhuman feats now considered trashing him?

 

[MonyontheMoney]

lol, Stone is awful. I make negative posts to **** players.

It's laughable that you call me out for being overtly negative when 90% of this forum gives 0 credit to Monahan, think Bennett is a bust, want Hamilton traded for junk, think Brodie is trash when he isn't.

"overreaction that doesn't deserve half the vitriol..." yet I watch this forum defend #6 d-men, **** on Brodie and Hamonic, and continually **** on Monahan. Give me a break.

Stop. You’re embarrassing yourself...

And proving you don’t know much about hockey.

 

[JPeeper]

I can assure you I am not embarrassing myself by calling out Engelland, Michael Stone, and the Flames fanbase on here who shit on our good players.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Just in case you didn’t know this, but not every player is a generational talent. Every player has their flaws. Every single one. Especially depth players. If you’re bitching about bottom line/pairing guys, anyone you replace them with will just fall victim to your bullshot again. It’s simple. Very simple.

If you ask me, that’s pretty embarrassing that you fail to recognize that.

Fact is, these guys play in the best league in the world, none of them are as awful as you claim.

 

[Anglesmith]

I can assure you I am not embarrassing myself by calling out Engelland, Michael Stone, and the Flames fanbase on here who **** on our good players.

No, you're embarrassing yourself with your binary approach to player evaluation. You're basically saying that players are either bad, and should be criticized with flamboyant and erratic statements that can't be supported (but it doesn't matter because they're bad!) or players are good, and should never, in any circumstances, have any part of their game scrutinized even when they have a bad couple of seasons in a row.

That's what people are finding childish and taking issue with. Saying that Brodie didn't need to drag Engelland around like a boat anchor in order to make that pairing effective is neither "shitting on" Brodie nor heaping undeserved praise on Engelland. Saying that Brodie didn't play the type of hockey where he could carry someone around last year isn't "shitting on" Brodie, either. Saying that Engelland, whose team has missed the playoffs exactly once in his 9-year NHL career, and whose team just made the Cup final with him in the top 4, was as effective as a corpse, is by far the silliest statement made in this discussion.

If you're wondering why the people you're talking to are supporting Engelland and criticizing Brodie, it's because you're acting too down on Engelland and too high on Brodie. If you said Engelland is a top 3 defenceman and letting him go was a mistake and that Brodie should be on the bottom pairing only, you'd be hearing the opposite. It's all down to you.

 

[Lunatik]

That guy is still going? Jesus Christ.

 

[DCDM]

No, you're embarrassing yourself with your binary approach to player evaluation. You're basically saying that players are either bad, and should be criticized with flamboyant and erratic statements that can't be supported (but it doesn't matter because they're bad!) or players are good, and should never, in any circumstances, have any part of their game scrutinized even when they have a bad couple of seasons in a row.

That's what people are finding childish and taking issue with. Saying that Brodie didn't need to drag Engelland around like a boat anchor in order to make that pairing effective is neither "****ting on" Brodie nor heaping undeserved praise on Engelland. Saying that Brodie didn't play the type of hockey where he could carry someone around last year isn't "****ting on" Brodie, either. Saying that Engelland, whose team has missed the playoffs exactly once in his 9-year NHL career, and whose team just made the Cup final with him in the top 4, was as effective as a corpse, is by far the silliest statement made in this discussion.

If you're wondering why the people you're talking to are supporting Engelland and criticizing Brodie, it's because you're acting too down on Engelland and too high on Brodie. If you said Engelland is a top 3 defenceman and letting him go was a mistake and that Brodie should be on the bottom pairing only, you'd be hearing the opposite. It's all down to you.

 

[Ace Rimmer]