vladdy16
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 2,551
- 375
Who called him a misfit bust? Not me.
What is there to collaborate on?
Rasmussen couldn't skate well enough to be a passable winger.
Everyone knows that being a center requires more skating. It's a 200-foot game every shift at center.
It's also common for centers to be skilled puck carriers and puck distributors.
You're asking for an awful lot of improvement for him to make it as a legit C.
I want him to succeed. And I think the best path is to make him a power-forward winger who plays netfront.
Just because Larkin - a speed demon - was able to shift from wing to C in his sophomore year doesn't mean that's the right course for Rasmussen.
Good thing none of my arguments hinged on anyone calling him a misfit bust then. That's an example of me freely offering my general thoughts on a message board for context and clarity. Seems pretty disingenuous to point to something that wasnt a part of an argument as a strawman...
What is there to collaborate on? Haha yikes. Our thoughts and opinions man. It's a fan community message board. Often I find myself stating a bold opinion that I later needed to amend, reel in, or abandon, thanks to help from insights and perspectives that are shared here, that I can later see in action.
You keep restating your premise about "skating" and how that relates to differences between wingers and centers. Yet you never elaborate on it, because the specificity necessary to elaborate on it requires less general terminology than "skating", "deking", "passing".
"Everyone knows that being a center requires more skating"
Here's an example. You use skating as a general term, to imply that if your skating doesnt work on wing, it really wont work at center. But even the vague terminology you are using betrays your point, because as we can see, you clearly say "more" skating, not "faster" skating, not even "better" skating. So that would necessitate a deeper dive into what "more" implies. Already your argument is breaking down, because "more" implies more links to traits like "stamina", "efficiency", "intent/awareness" etc. etc. etc. None of which you have come close to touching on.
The only additions you make to your premise, are more personal opinions sold as absolutes, that don't stand to scrutiny. "Not a skilled puck carrier" "Not a puck distributor"
I appreciate your bold take. It's not an absurd take, even if your reasoning is still completely unclear. Can you think of any past or current Power Forward wingers that you are hoping Rasmussen can be similar to? Most players that operate in that space are quite a bit more explosive than Rasmussen has ever shown.
Your last sentence is baffling to me. Rasmussen and Larkin, two guys that by all accounts have played center for most of their lives, you are claiming are converted wingers? What the heck?
But I do really appreciate your posts! I don't necessarily agree with posters that speak in absolutes, but the fact that you are willing to take the time to reply elevates you above most others that post that way. And like I said before, if youre sold on your thoughts on this topic, then we will just wait and see. I'll be the first to remind you if Ras ever gets to where he's putting up 20+20 from the C spot.
Last edited: