News Article: Morgan's Yotes Notes: Strome's Packin' On The Bulk

[Foggy1097]

Don't you think that after you were dishing out with your last post, this is a bit thin? I said it myself that Hjalmarsson is a pretty good shotblocker. So I'd like you to come up with something else than "his friends wouldn't define him as soft". Of course they don't. That's no evidence. You were calling me out for selling my opinion as evidence (where?). But what is it you're doing? Think about that.
Toughness and tough to play against also isn't exactly the same. Don't you think? Gaudreau is very tough to play against...but would you say that he's tough?

I think you have to be very careful here...

You just can't say that someone "is one of the softest defenders in the league" without backing it up, and you don't have a leg to stand on with that comment. He's the farthest thing from it. That's why I said that toughness is a hard thing to define. It usually means something slightly different depending on who you ask and it can be described in different ways. Gaudreau is not tough to play against for instance - I wouldn't say that or use that in any way to describe toughness. He's a hard player to match up against in the sense that you have to have the right personnel on the ice against him and be really good positionally to negate him. Hjalmarsson is a different story entirely. He will make your life difficult shift after shift after shift by being in perfect position all the time, blocking a shot, taking a hit to make a play, laying a hit etc. Whenever I've heard someone talk about him whether it's a teammate or an analyst I consistently hear the word "warrior," so I think calling him soft or questioning his toughness is just completely wrong. He's essentially a Z. Michalek that can also skate well, pass well, and play the rest of the game at a high end pace. Don't think anyone here would be calling Z soft either...

 

[Hinterland]

Correct. When some hear the word "tough", they go straight to the stat sheet and look up PIM, hits etc. I know I do the same thing if I don't follow the player. I remember Fiddler when he played with the Yotes, and Z as far as that goes, and more than once the cameras would pan over to the bench and show the pain they were in from blocking a shot. Now, that is tough, and they do it over and over.

No. He's not correct. All he does is repeating what I already said (shotblocking), trying to change the definition of a word and trying to establish that toughness is the same as tough to play against (which clearly isn't the case)
Also, he originally answered to a post written by Ebb where the latter explained that he's worried about having so many smallish players on the roster.

I do agree with you that blocking shots is pretty tough but in what way does it protect the small kids on your roster? Blocking shots alone doesn't make you a particularly tough player in my view and certainly not in that context. Or do you really expect Hjalmarsson to fight if a guy like say Lucic goes after one of the kids? And even if he did, he'd get murdered.

 

[Foggy1097]

No. He's no correct. All he does is try to change the definition of a word.
Also, he originally answered to a post written by Ebb where the latter explained that he's worried about having so many smallish players on the roster.

I do agree with you that blocking shots is pretty tough but in what way does it protect the small kids on your roster? Blocking shots alone doesn't make you a particularly tough player in my view and certainly not in that context. Or do you really expect Hjalmarsson to fight if a guy like say Lucic goes after one of the kids? And even if he did, he'd get murdered.

I never said anything about being worried about having small players on the roster - you must be mistaking me for someone else. I'm not worried even a little bit about it. These guys can protect themselves just fine. Hjalmarsson doesn't have to go fight Lucic or anyone else to be considered a tough player. I'm not going to continue beating my head against a wall debating the semantics of the word toughness with you - if you're not understanding the point i'm trying to make then you probably won't with any further explanation. If all of his ex-teammates and coaches, and every analyst you hear talk about him call him a "warrior" and that's not enough for you then I don't really know what to tell you - I guess you'll just have to watch some games next season and judge for yourself

 

[Jakey53]

No. He's not correct. All he does is repeating what I already said (shotblocking), trying to change the definition of a word and trying to establish that toughness is the same as tough to play against (which clearly isn't the case)
Also, he originally answered to a post written by Ebb where the latter explained that he's worried about having so many smallish players on the roster.

I do agree with you that blocking shots is pretty tough but in what way does it protect the small kids on your roster? Blocking shots alone doesn't make you a particularly tough player in my view and certainly not in that context. Or do you really expect Hjalmarsson to fight if a guy like say Lucic goes after one of the kids? And even if he did, he'd get murdered.

I think you should quit while your behind.

 

[Hinterland]

Hjalmarsson may be the softest defender in the NHL and OEL isn't far away.
Hjalmarsson is a decent shotblocker but that's about it. If there's trouble, he tries to stay away. You can also heavily celebrate every single hit of his without getting drunk

You just can't say that someone "is one of the softest defenders in the league" without backing it up, and you don't have a leg to stand on with that comment. He's the farthest thing from it. That's why I said that toughness is a hard thing to define. It usually means something slightly different depending on who you ask and it can be described in different ways. Gaudreau is not tough to play against for instance - I wouldn't say that or use that in any way to describe toughness. He's a hard player to match up against in the sense that you have to have the right personnel on the ice against him and be really good positionally to negate him. Hjalmarsson is a different story entirely. He will make your life difficult shift after shift after shift by being in perfect position all the time, blocking a shot, taking a hit to make a play, laying a hit etc. Whenever I've heard someone talk about him whether it's a teammate or an analyst I consistently hear the word "warrior," so I think calling him soft or questioning his toughness is just completely wrong. He's essentially a Z. Michalek that can also skate well, pass well, and play the rest of the game at a high end pace. Don't think anyone here would be calling Z soft either...

See. You're doing it again. First you're accusing me of all sorts of things and then you just create your own defintion of everything and use it as evidence to claim that you're right
Hjalmarsson and Michalek are both excellent defenders but no tough guys. I love Michalek. Always did. But he's no tough guy. I don't think any forward likes to play against such defenders but I also don't think that forwards necessarily get intimidated by them or that Hjalmarsson ever scared anybody with his presence. I can assure you that guys like Murphy or Schenn are much tougher than Hjalmarsson. This is really just you wanting to change the definition of a word. And even if not, you'd still be wrong because of the context. It was about protection for the kids.

Also. What about the word may is it that you don't understand?

 

[Foggy1097]

See. You're doing it again. First you're accusing me of all sorts of things and then you just create your own defintion of everything and use it as evidence to claim that you're right
Hjalmarsson and Michalek are both excellent defenders but no tough guys. I love Michalek. Always did. But he's no tough guy. I don't think any forward likes to play against such defenders but I also don't think that forwards necessarily get intimidated by them or that Hjalmarsson ever scared anybody with his presence. I can assure you that guys like Murphy or Schenn are much tougher than Hjalmarsson. This is really just you wanting to change the definition of a word. And even if not, you'd still be wrong because of the context. It was about protection for the kids.

Also. What about the word may is it that you don't understand?

Ok.

 

[Hinterland]

Trust me, I hope Keller makes it sooner and competes well, but I'm thinking it will take longer than most seem to think. What can I say, I don't like pushing young smallish players onto a team with pretty much no grit or protection. If he does play in the NHL consistently starting next season, his career will probably be shortened, but at least we'll have a great young offensive player for a season or two

Whaaaat? C'mon man - I'm sure you've seen Kane play enough to know that he basically never gets hit. He evades everything...all you have to do is keep your head up when you're that agile. Kane has missed practically no games in his career. Also, we have Hjarlmarsson, Schenn, Sheriff Crouse...there's some toughness there - and OEL and Domi aren't bruisers but they don't take any crap from anyone either. Not worried about a lack of toughness with this group

I never said anything about being worried about having small players on the roster - you must be mistaking me for someone else. I'm not worried even a little bit about it. These guys can protect themselves just fine. Hjalmarsson doesn't have to go fight Lucic or anyone else to be considered a tough player. I'm not going to continue beating my head against a wall debating the semantics of the word toughness with you - if you're not understanding the point i'm trying to make then you probably won't with any further explanation. If all of his ex-teammates and coaches, and every analyst you hear talk about him call him a "warrior" and that's not enough for you then I don't really know what to tell you - I guess you'll just have to watch some games next season and judge for yourself

No. You didn't say that. But you were answering to such a post

 

[LuckyNumber11]

Don't you think that after you were dishing out with your last post, this is a bit thin? I said it myself that Hjalmarsson is a pretty good shotblocker. So I'd like you to come up with something else than "his friends wouldn't define him as soft". Of course they don't. That's no evidence. You were calling me out for selling my opinion as evidence (where?). But what is it you're doing? Think about that.
Toughness and tough to play against also isn't exactly the same. Don't you think? Gaudreau is very tough to play against...but would you say that he's tough?

I think you have to be very careful here...

Hjalmarsson isn't the tough that'll show up on a stat sheet. And honestly if you think Hammer isn't tough I'm just going to think that you haven't watched Hockey in the last five years because that's as much of a good faced lie as I've ever heard

You've seriously just got to accept that you're wrong here. There's no other way about it. Go ask the Blackhawks forum what they think and they're going to back up exactly this

 

[Hinterland]

Hjalmarsson isn't the tough that'll show up on a stat sheet. And honestly if you think Hammer isn't tough I'm just going to think that you haven't watched Hockey in the last five years because that's as much of a good faced lie as I've ever heard

You've seriously just got to accept that you're wrong here. There's no other way about it. Go ask the Blackhawks forum what they think and they're going to back up exactly this

The guy is a legend in Chicago. Of course they're not gonna tell you that he's soft. They also wouldn't say that about Kane. Hjalmarsson is a terrific shutdownguy and shotblocker. A solid defender really. Sometimes crosses the line but that's not being tough. Tough to play against but he isn't tough and neither was Michalek. And I say this as a huge fan who wants him back on the roster.

 

[hbk]

I think you guys need to differentiate between "hard to play against" and "physical presence".

 

[Jakey53]

I think you guys need to differentiate between "hard to play against" and "physical presence".

That would probably clear up any misunderstanding.

 

[Foggy1097]

Ignoring someone is the chicken s--- way out. Nothing wrong with a difference of opinion, and just because some one doesn't agree with you, you get upset and put them on the ignore list.

A difference of opinion is fine Jakey, I agree. But being presented with handfuls of information directly contrary to an opinion one may have, and then choosing to double down on that opinion instead of admitting that maybe you had it wrong, is another thing entirely. Not talking about you in this case, just so we're clear on that : D

 

[Jakey53]

A difference of opinion is fine Jakey, I agree. But being presented with handfuls of information directly contrary to an opinion one may have, and then choosing to double down on that opinion instead of admitting that maybe you had it wrong, is another thing entirely. Not talking about you in this case, just so we're clear on that : D

Then don't respond to their posts. There are some posters that I disagree with most of the time, but there are times when they make a good post, not very often, but sometimes.

 

[Foggy1097]

Then don't respond to their posts. There are some posters that I disagree with most of the time, but there are times when they make a good post, not very often, but sometimes.

Yeah fair enough I guess... I just think I can only take so much of reading posts that go something like, "hey the earth is actually round guys look..." "No I think it's flat." "No really, look at this picture from outer space...it's definitely round." "Noooo it's flat...I still say it's flat!" I'm wrong a lot too but when I get new and better information I like using it instead of pretending it doesn't exist...

 

[Jakey53]

Yeah fair enough I guess... I just think I can only take so much of reading posts that go something like, "hey the earth is actually round guys look..." "No I think it's flat." "No really, look at this picture from outer space...it's definitely round." "Noooo it's flat...I still say it's flat!" I'm wrong a lot too but when I get new and better information I like using it instead of pretending it doesn't exist...

Don't let him get under your skin. There are a few posters on here that is all they do. You know the saying "bull---- baffles brains".

 

[Toadie]

WHAT the earth not flat lol

 

[Foggy1097]

Don't let him get under your skin. There are a few posters on here that is all they do. You know the saying "bull---- baffles brains".

yeah it's all good...no hostility here. I come here for fun and I'm going to keep it that way

 

[Foggy1097]

I'd consider it a great favor if folks would stop using the quote feature when responding to the hot take bot.

I didn't understand what you meant by this at first... now I get it

 

[Coyotedroppings]

Lots of fuss over semantics here!

 

[Lilhoody]

Strome looked normal today; proportional to his body...neither big or scrawny.