His post was indeed stupid. He talks about Matthieu like there's no room for improvement, like if he's never going to improve on his weaknesses and become a good player. He said that Matthieu can't become a Rafalski. But didn't Rafalski never got drafted and came into the NHL at 26 years old? That means he improved a lot since he's 18. But Matthieu Carle cannot improve, that's something beyond his reach.
"some decent reasoning"
Well I am not ripping on you so I hope you dont take it that way, but he didnt say that in the post you responded to with the laughing guy. You just totally read what you wanted to read because when you say in your post:
"He talks about Matthieu like there's no room for improvement, like if he's never going to improve on his weaknesses and become a good player"
When he says the opposite such as his statement (quoted for effect)
"I COULD see him become a servicable defenseman like Brisebois,"
I think right there is direct proof that he indeed said that Carle COULD improve and make the NHL as a servicable defensman. So it is obvious you are wrong on that one or you read it wrong.
Next you said:
"He said that Matthieu can't become a Rafalski."
I really dont see why you have a problem with this statement. Rafalski is one of the best defensemen in the NHL right now and you can probably say that 95% of all draftees wont become a Rafalski. I dont know why you would get offended over that when it is said about a Hab prospect. And Rafalski was an exception. Yes he was undrafted, yes he improved GREATLY by the time he came to the NHL, but that is clearly an exception and not the rule.
You then take the whole Rafalski thing even further in saying:
''But Matthieu Carle cannot improve, that's something beyond his reach"
When again, in the post which is in question (the post you responded to with the laughing guy) he states point blank that he admits that he COULD become a serviceable NHL defenseman. Is that not an admition that someone CAN improve as he clearly isnt an NHL caliber defensman right now? It certainly is and he is certainly admitting that Carle COULD improve.
Finally, you finish up with this:
"But Matthieu Carle cannot improve, that's something beyond his reach. "some decent reasoning" "
I think that once again, you aren't the one who is being reasonable here. It WOULD be poor reasoning if he indeed said that he wouldnt or couldnt improve but YOU are the one who is saying he said that when in fact, he never said that.
So in retrospect, you read what you wanted and called his post stupid for reasons that you made up.
He doesnt think he is a great prospect. Big deal. Thats his opinion and we are all entitled to ours. Yet argue the points as he stated them. Not as the words you put in his mouth that he never said.
And, the most outlandish comment in this entire thread was:
"i think that at worst he'l become a 7th defensmen"
yet you made no mention of that. It is stating that the very WORST this guy could be is a sure fire NHL player which I think everyone would agree (except for the very biggest of homers) is ridiculous as the guy could certainly bust just like any other prospect.
So again, his post wasnt stupid unless you read it the way which you re=posted it. In that case, I think you should work on the whole reading comprehension thing (and again, I am not attacking you, I just didnt understand why you too such offense to his opinion) because he clearly wasnt saying what you seem to think he said. The proof is there, and I have re-posted it to help you out.
Dont thank me....I live to give.
