Sure, let's lower the definition of a word and mis-apply it to everything. Komarov is a "generational third line checking cente", Ben Scrivens is a "generational back up goaltender", etc.
Having problems again with definitions and reasonable application again I see...Leo Komarov, Ben Scrivens and Morgan Reilly fit perfectly into that much loved children's teachable hymn of (all together now)..."One of these things is not like the other..One of these things just doesn't belong..."
Trying to be a chum to you earlier, Stephen in hinting at your examples as being absurd. Please take the hint again...Your example is absurd.
What commonalities do Karlsson and Rielly even share at this point in their careers? One was a guy who put up okay numbers in the SEL and did well in the WJC, and the other is a guy who is putting up good numbers in the WHL, while on a bad team, and struggling in the WJC on an underachieving Canadian team.
One was a physically immature defenseman who was very underweight, while Rielly is a guy who is pro size and much more mature.
Maybe you can actually address each of the players instead of finishing each of your sentences by using my name as some kind of taunt, okay, ITM?
I have addressed what is relevant to the discussion, Stephen. I'm sorry you feel it's insufficient. But assuming your description of an elite, franchise cornerstone is accurate and you've been able to differentiate various characteristics, suffice it to say, the context of potential is being addressed. And...
It's about time you addressed me specifically, Stephen, I was beginning to think you really disliked me, lol. No...You see, I have this nagging proclivity that obligates me to participate in threads as specifically as I can. So in a thread that asks, "Does Reilly have the Potential to be Leafs Karlsson?" , call me a hair-splitter, but I tried to answer the question specifically rather than redefine the thread to support my foregone conclusions. Asking if a thing has the potential allows for reasonable interpretation according to proportional comparison.
The comparisons are above you in the posts posted. In sum, that Reilly hasn't played an NHL game, we can reasonably conclude that Reilly possesses the POTENTIAL to be the Leafs' Karlsson by infering from each player's draft certain known factors. We know Reilly is regarded as exceptional amongst his class. We know Karlsson was not regarded as such. Karlsson has exceeded expectation. In order for Reilly to meet requirements of like potential, he merely has to meet them. As to how exacting that potential materializes, no one knows, Stephen. Including you. But the possibility from reasonable consideration remains, that Reilly because he is of exceptional talent (Reference your descriptors if you must), it is reasonable to insert Reilly into categories of like exception.
No, it is "germane" you pretentious ****, since we all know Karlsson is ALREADY exceptional, and you want to compare a 19 year old Rielly to a 23 year old Erik Karlsson, not a 19 year old Karlsson to a 19 year old Rielly.
Rielly has a crap ton of potential to be his own special player, but there's no sense in attaching it to Karlsson's career trajectory and ceiling because it is so ridiculously abnormal.
The Ad Hom. When it doubt, when the argument falls apart, call the guy names. LOL -- Fantastic...Starting Points, Comparisons and Potential. Confusing concepts for Stephen, apparently.
And if you'd learn how to read you'd note I didn't necessarily attach Reilly's career arc to Karlsson. Thus the Phaneuf comparison as an example of how and that careers run differently. GO BACK AND READ IT, STEPHEN. IT'S THERE. LOL
And the reason it's necessary to attach Reilly's POTENTIAL career to Karlsson's career, IS BECAUSE THE TITLE OF THE THREAD -- <GASP> -- REFLECTS THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD!!! (MINDBLOWING, ISN'T IT, STEPHEN!?)
Because Erik Karlsson's achievement up to this point, mostly his big year last year, is pretty much abhorrent to what other elite defensemen accomplish up to that age in production and awards.
It sure is but that doesn't detract from the fact that you apparently have comprehension issues and it doesn't detract from projecting exceptional prospects having exceptional careers (ie Ovechkin, Crosby, Stamkos -- my goodness, three? exceptional players?) and it certainly doesn't detract any future defencemen drafted post-Reilly from likewise achieving potential greatness.
Why do you perceive the stupidity of this Karlsson comparison as some kind of insult anyway? Would you be upset if I said Nathan Mackinnon is unlikely to score 76 goals in his rookie year or something like that?
I dont perceive it to be the insult, I percieve your emotive objection while appealing to irrational justifications ruling out potential to be insulting. And no, I wouldn't be..."upset?"...to that position in and of itself anymore than I'm "upset" by your participation here.
An exceptional elite number one defenseman on a competitive squad doesn't have to look like Erik Karlsson or be compared to the association of an 80 point scoring Norris winner at 23. Drew Doughty is one, Alex Pietrangelo is one. Why are you so threatened by the suggestion that Rielly is unlikely to achieve Erik Karlsson achievements?
"Threatened" is too mean a hook, Stephen. No, my problem is I'm too focused on answering the speculative question/topic of the thread. It's you that defines exceptional as excluding comparable proportions, and that's inapplicable. Truly hypocritical on your part I'd add. If the question is supplemented with your characterization and asks:
Does Morgan (an exceptional elite number one franchise cornerstone defenceman) Reilly have the POTENTIAL ( Adjective: Having or showing
the capacity to develop into something in the future. Noun: Latent qualities or abilities
that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.) to be the Leafs Karlsson?
It's certainly within your right to state that it's unlikely, but to dogmatically reject the possibility, or to outright characterize such a POSSIBILITY while supporting that characterization with a
reduction to absurdity (ie Komarov, Scrivens, previous exampes), while claiming to be logical in your defence...that's the offensive part. But truth be told, it's more insulting to your reputation if being regarded as reasonable is of any value to you.
Absurd reduction? You haven't come up with one single hockey related point comparing the two other than saying "anything is possible" and typing out my name to be condescending. Can you talk about Rielly's skating, shot arsenal, puckhandling, IQ, passing in reference to Karlsson? You probably can't, I shouldn't even ask you about that.
Consensus opinion of outright highest offensive potential in his draft class by actual hockey professionals to the extent that that offensive potential was worthy of entertaining the very real notion that but for injuries, Morgan Reilly, like Alex Galchenyuk was a reasonable threat to be taken first overall.
You're right...What was I thinking when thinking of potentiality, exceptionality and offensive upside in defencemen in a thread speculating on potential.
And wishing that I can't comment on skillset and knowing that I can't are two very different things, Stephen. But not in your mind, are they?
No it isn't. It's about your insistence i]on using a specific label to attach to Rielly, isn't it, ITM?
What the hell is the point of such specificity, ITM? You might as well be writing fiction if you want to 'project'. Is it no enough that he'll likely develop into an elite defenseman, but we have to be attaching it to a career arc as well? Something is absurd aright.
Hey look...I can underline your unintended faux pas for the appearance of momentary advantage too, Stephen!
On a more serious note, again, read the Phaneuf/Lidstrom comment , you obviously missed it. Surprise.
Stamkos is an exception to most normal first overall picks who come in and struggle and then explode. Sure, he's an exception to Ovechkin and Crosby if you want to ask that moronic question. But the logic here is that just because one guy who underachieves as a rookie turns it around overnight and lights up the league doesn't mean all underachievers will turn around and light up the league overnight.
Nope. You don't get to canalize comparisons when it suits your feelings and preconceived conclusions, Stephen. Stamkos was simply a horrific example on your part. Had you checked a few drafts prior you would have seen that.
In those three instances, exception begets exception. But in your private world, what's good for Karlsson can't be good for anyone else. So naturally, you'll argue the absurd notion that Ovechkin, Crosby and Stamkos are entirely dissimilar to retrofit your attack's needs...In a thread about potential and exceptional talent no less.
And how many people are out there comparing Galchenyuk to Evgeni Malkin?
Might as well ask how many people are comparing you to a chimp, the effect is the same. You brought up Stamkos poorly, and you're insisting that this thread has no business comparing Reilly to Karlsson despite it not being your thread and it being very much about Reilly, potentially, being Toronto's Karlsson.
You know that no one's talking about cloning, right, Stephen?
Why do you insist on it being Erik Karlsson? Is it not enough that he's reasonably going to be Morgan Rielly in his own way and we're probably going to love that anyway?
Because I'm crazy like that...All up in people's threads and actually answering their crazy specific and speculative questions and sh......!
Oh then, I realized you're one of these guys:
Mhm...Answered this above, but for giggles...You mean the kind that can actually admit appropriate culpability when wrong, and actually use new information to inform and advise where altering opinion is warranted? And proud of it, sport.
At least I'm not one of "these guys" that retrofits reality to fit preconceived conclusions to the point that I actually demand the rules of logic change lest I actually pitch a fit and name call, Stephen, lol.
And in all of this...You've ranted and vented spleen and you're
hurt by someone positing a possibility in a speculative thread calling for speculation on potential.
Talk about overcompensating for doubts....Oh wait...That was obvious when you fell apart, name called and mined a quote from another thread.
Good job, Stephen.
