Post-Game Talk: Banner raising NOT spoiled! Hawks down Caps, 6-4!

[IU Hawks fan]

Reading comprehension is not this boards friend.

"The 4th line was effective (last night) despite consisting of, a centre who can't win faceoffs".

You can't make a statement about the game last night, in which said centre was winning the majority of his faceoffs, and then bring up stats from 2 years prior that have no relevance to the game in question.

I'm not the dense one, most unfortunately.

Yes, you absolutely can. It's nonsense to say otherwise. Sometimes guys have good games, doesn't take away who they are as players.

He won some faceoffs last night. Great, that's excellent. If he can't do it regularly, that line won't look as good. That's the whole point! Context, try looking at it sometimes.

 

[HockeySauce]

Yes, you absolutely can. It's nonsense to say otherwise. Sometimes guys have good games, doesn't take away who they are as players.

He won some faceoffs last night. Great, that's excellent. If he can't do it regularly, that line won't look as good. That's the whole point! Context, try looking at it sometimes.

Ahahaha, omg.

The context is the game. The statement is about the game. In that game, the statement about Kruger's faceoff ability is 100% wrong.

If the context of the statement was over the course of a season, or stretch of games, then you'd be right (remains to be seen, in the case of Kruger's faceoffs going forward). But the statement was made regarding the game last night. What is so hard to understand?

 

[Kurtosis]

We are in full swing!

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Ahahaha, omg.

The context is the game. The statement is about the game. In that game, the statement about Kruger's faceoff ability is 100% wrong.

If the context of the statement was over the course of a season, or stretch of games, then you'd be right (remains to be seen, in the case of Kruger's faceoffs going forward). But the statement was made regarding the game last night. What is so hard to understand?

But the context isn't just last night's game, IMO, it's is how the team looks and how that effects them going forward.

 

[Illinihockey]

Are we bagging on the 4th line that consists of 2 guys that played in the same role last year (when the Hawks won the Cup) and a rookie?

 

[Hawkaholic]

Yeah, a center who can't win faceoffs is still a center who can't win faceoffs until a larger sample of him winning faceoffs becomes available. Don't be dense, HTB.

But he is a C who won faceoffs last night. 59% of them to be exact.

Players do improve from year to year, especially when they are only in their early 20's. I know Bolland never improved on FO's, doesn't mean Kruger can't or hasn't.

 

[HockeySauce]

But the context isn't just last night's game, IMO, it's is how the team looks and how that effects them going forward.

OMG, it's not a matter of opinion. FFS.

He said: "The 4th line was effective (last night), despite consisting of a centre that can't win faceoffs, an enforcer and a rookie."

There is no opinion as to context. It's a statement about the game last night, in a post-game thread.

Marcus Kruger won 59% of his faceoffs last night. What he said, in the context of the game, could not be more wrong.

If he had said, "Hopefully the 4th line can be effective this season, despite consisting of a centre that generally doesn't win faceoffs, an enforcer and a rookie" then yes, the sample becomes that of a season and not one game. In which case, you look at Krugers NHL faceoff resume and he'd be right. But the context was one game. Last nights game. He was wrong. You are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

But he is a C who won faceoffs last night. 59% of them to be exact.

Players do improve from year to year, especially when they are only in their early 20's. I know Bolland never improved on FO's, doesn't mean Kruger can't or hasn't.

I understand that and I'm not saying he won't improve/isn't improving.

All I'm saying is that Bron made a comment about how the 4th line looked. To me, it was about how they played in the game, but not necessarily about the game itself but what they are as a 4th line for this team. He said Kruger doesn't win faceoffs. Based on his career record, that is correct to this point. So coming back saying 'well he won faceoffs last night' does nothing for me, because it wasn't about the game but about how the line plays.

If he had said, "Hopefully the 4th line can be effective this season, despite consisting of a centre that generally doesn't win faceoffs, an enforcer and a rookie" then yes, the sample becomes that of a season and not one game. In which case, you look at Krugers NHL faceoff resume and he'd be right. But the context was one game. Last nights game. He was wrong. You are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.

So now it's a semantics argument about a few words that weren't included and your failure to think about his point outside the box instead of just expressly about 1 game. Some argument you got there

 

[HockeySauce]

So now it's a semantics argument about a few words that weren't included and your failure to think about his point outside the box instead of just expressly about 1 game. Some argument you got there

Those "few words" completely changed the context of what was said. Do you even know what you're talking about? You need to stop.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Those "few words" completely changed the context of what was said. Do you even know what you're talking about? You need to stop.

Clearly you don't if you think 1 game means Kruger is a 59% FO man now.

 

[HockeySauce]

Clearly you don't if you think 1 game means Kruger is a 59% FO man now.

You are terribly confused. Perhaps re-read through the thread - or not. I don't care. But for your own sake, please stop.

 

[Joufreau]

Hey hawks fans,
picked up Saad in my pool and im pretty pumped about how high you guys are on him

Any chance he switches up to the 1st line at some point? maybe in place of Bickell

 

[HockeySauce]

Hey hawks fans,
picked up Saad in my pool and im pretty pumped about how high you guys are on him

Any chance he switches up to the 1st line at some point? maybe in place of Bickell

It depends.

If the third line plays great, they won't change it. If the 1st line plays great, they won't change it either.

The 1st and 3rd lines would need to be struggling for Q to switch Saad and Bickell.

Saad will get PP time though, and he's a good player. You could probably expect 15-20 goals and 40-50 points, even if he stays on the third line all year.

 

[Joufreau]

It depends.

If the third line plays great, they won't change it. If the 1st line plays great, they won't change it either.

The 1st and 3rd lines would need to be struggling for Q to switch Saad and Bickell.

Saad will get PP time though, and he's a good player. You could probably expect 15-20 goals and 40-50 points, even if he stays on the third line all year.

sweet deal, thanks man.

personally I dont really see that 1st line struggling considering who else is on it haha

 

[IU Hawks fan]

You are terribly confused. Perhaps re-read through the thread - or not. I don't care. But for your own sake, please stop.

For my sake? What does that even mean?

I'm gonna stop because it's not worth going in circles with you over something so my minute, but it's not gonna benefit me any.

 

[HockeySauce]

For my sake? What does that even mean?

I'm gonna stop because it's not worth going in circles with you over something so my minute, but it's not gonna benefit me any.

Don't worry, it wasn't a threat.. but I don't know if I can say it without being infracted.. You're just so incredibly wrong, and then you're bringing up things that were never said and it's just.. you need to stop.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Don't worry, it wasn't a threat.. but I don't know if I can say it without being infracted.. You're just so incredibly wrong, and then you're bringing up things that were never said and it's just.. you need to stop.

I did.

Yet you just keep going

 

[BronYrAur]

OMG, it's not a matter of opinion. FFS.

He said: "The 4th line was effective (last night), despite consisting of a centre that can't win faceoffs, an enforcer and a rookie."

There is no opinion as to context. It's a statement about the game last night, in a post-game thread.

Marcus Kruger won 59% of his faceoffs last night. What he said, in the context of the game, could not be more wrong.

If he had said, "Hopefully the 4th line can be effective this season, despite consisting of a centre that generally doesn't win faceoffs, an enforcer and a rookie" then yes, the sample becomes that of a season and not one game. In which case, you look at Krugers NHL faceoff resume and he'd be right. But the context was one game. Last nights game. He was wrong. You are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.

Hockey"Sensible" you have posted basically the same thing 3 times in this thread. We get it, Kruger won a majority of his faceoffs last night.

I didn't look at Kruger's stats when I made that comment but I was simply intimating that despite the fact that the line doesn't look impressive on paper it was very effective.

Please stop taking things so literally.

 

[HockeySauce]

I did.

Yet you just keep going

Says the guy that posed a question. Or was it rhetorical? Oh, I bet it was now.

Hockey"Sensible" you have posted basically the same thing 3 times in this thread. We get it, Kruger won a majority of his faceoffs last night.

I didn't look at Kruger's stats when I made that comment but I was simply intimating that despite the fact that the line doesn't look impressive on paper it was very effective.

Please stop taking things so literally.

The 4th line on paper is a Frolik away from being the same one as last year, which was arguably the best in the NHL..

There's no other way to take the statement. "A centre that can't win faceoffs" is pretty cut and dry.. and then you tried defending your statement by saying it was a generalization, and not just about last night, by bringing up Kruger's faceoff ability over the course of the past couple years.

You made an inaccurate statement. I gave a short and sweet original response. And then this whole thread got derailed because, as I said earlier, reading comprehension is not this board's strong suit.

/Sigh

 

[Sevanston]

Arguments about Bollig and Kruger's faceoffs.

This board is already in midseason form. Bravo, friends.

 

[Gurth]

We are in full swing!

Yep, mid-season form.

Just like the Hawks, we came in in great shape and hungry to do it all again!







At least the grace period lasted through the ceremony.

 

[Gurth]

Arguments about Bollig...

I laughed my butt off when he scored, imagining the reaction on here.


God bless Brandon Bollig.

 

[Blue Liner]

Says the guy that posed a question. Or was it rhetorical? Oh, I bet it was now.



The 4th line on paper is a Frolik away from being the same one as last year, which was arguably the best in the NHL..

There's no other way to take the statement. "A centre that can't win faceoffs" is pretty cut and dry.. and then you tried defending your statement by saying it was a generalization, and not just about last night, by bringing up Kruger's faceoff ability over the course of the past couple years.

You made an inaccurate statement. I gave a short and sweet original response. And then this whole thread got derailed because, as I said earlier, reading comprehension is not this board's strong suit.

/Sigh

It was rather simple and got turned into a crapfest for no reason at all. Game 1 and things are in midseason form around here!

 

[Ace Rothstein]

Missed watching most of the game as my flight didn't get into to Midway until 8:05. Next time I take my daughter to Disney, we need to check the Hawks schedule before booking our flights and the people sitting in front of me on the flight said the same thing. By the time we got our luggage and made it home, I was able to catch the last 4 minutes but was able to listen to the 2nd half of the game in the car. Always exciting to win the opener, can't wait til Saturday to catch my first full game.

 

[Nothingman*]

Arguments about Bollig and Kruger's faceoffs.

This board is already in midseason form. Bravo, friends.

After reading the board today you would think we are in a five game losing streak.