Vancouver Canucks Mid Season Prospect Rankings 1

[orcatown]

In one thread you citize me for not using facts but using opinions instead. Saying I can't justify my claims using pure opinions.

In this thread your whole argument relies on your opinions and not real facts.

So alright, you got all these opinions about why a zawelski is a better prospect. But where are the facts?

You are doing two things that hurt any rational discussion

1. Accuse people of bias - such as over rating two way players. That's is hardly a fair way to argue. And the case you make to support this assertion is very flimsy in showing that this bias actually exist among posters. Unless you can make a strong case to show the bias of others I don't believe you should go there.

2. You state an opinion as fact. If you said I believe or think (like most of us have done) Shinkaruk is the best prospect then no problem. But you say he IS the best prospect as thou no other argument could be made. I don't believe I've ever said anything other than I think or believe Z is a better prospect.

Doing either thing allows no room for discussion (and you claim to be in a discussion)

I would say a third problem is that your statement are often internally inconsistent and at times the logic is confusing which weakens the supposed discussion.

I suggest that you try to view things more objectively. Lets look at the play as best we can and then try to support our judgments base on that rather than on than concentrating on the person making the judgment. That's a much better starting point than insisting you are right regardless, or selecting one narrow range of criteria, such as goals scored, or saying the other side is biased and thus their ideas shouldn't count.

Above I suggest a breakdown of their play that might facilitate meaningful judgment. Maybe that's not the best way to do it but at least its an attempt to deal with the subject of the debate rather than the people in it. Also, by rejecting the idea that you are absolutely right and considering the others arguments you open the door for discussion. That's more likely to lead to some learning and a better developed opinion. In the end , you might still have the same belief but it would at least be a more considered one.

Ultimately I don't think you or I fully know who will emerge as the better NHL player. We can only project from what we presently think or know about the situation. That's why we need to be tentative in our remarks. Moreover, thoughtfully dealing with what the other person says rather than dismissing them as biased is far more likely to lead some sort of fruitful discussion.

 

[banme*]

ffs boys

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

lol McWTG is rattled

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

Given the same amount of ice time. I guaranteed shinkaruk would get more points than Virtanen while playing better Defense. Virt always coughs up the puck along to boards and he has no puck retrieval skills. He needs to work on his board work big time.

Uhh Virtanen is a lot better along the boards than Shinkaruk. He's shown pretty good puck retrieval skills imo. He's been pretty good in those areas the last few weeks.

 

[iceburg]

You know what's nice about this discussion?.....

A bunch of players that would be categorized as recently graduated (Horvat, and a little older Etem, Baertschi, Vey) are on the NHL roster and there's an "argument" that others (Virtanen, McCann, Hutton) shouldn't be on the list cause they're regular NHLer's.

The transition is in full swing my friends, full swing!

 

[iceburg]

Then don't vote. Wasn't asking you to vote.

See, you first need a poll to decide who's on the list. Then have the poll to rank those left on the list. It's kinda the HFBoards Primaries

 

[Jyrki21]

Anyone catch the AHL skills comp?

I'm watching it on delay on my PVR... watch a bunch of kids come up and then Shinkaruk is up... he skates up to line to get ready and... PVR skips ahead 15 mins.

Soooo. does anyone know what his lap time was?

Results of everything are here:

http://theahl.com/2016-skills-competition-p200959

I didn't watch Shinkaruk's lap, but his time is 14.799, which was 4th out of the 6 AHL participants.

His trio was quite unimpressive on the 3-on-0 drill against Michael Leighton. He was with Mike Angelidis from Syracuse and former Comet Dustin Jeffrey, and they failed to get a shot off the first time, got stopped the second, and finally scored on the third.

In the Comets' thread, I posted a filmed-off-screen video of Shinkaruk's goal in the breakaway competition (also against Leighton), which was a very slick move. Not long before him, Robbie Schremp did a crazy, lengthy lacrosse breakaway. He didn't score, but he somehow kept the puck on his stick the entire length of the breakaway despite a lot of movement.

 

[WTG]

You are doing two things that hurt any rational discussion

1. Accuse people of bias - such as over rating two way players. That's is hardly a fair way to argue. And the case you make to support this assertion is very flimsy in showing that this bias actually exist among posters. Unless you can make a strong case to show the bias of others I don't believe you should go there.

2. You state an opinion as fact. If you said I believe or think (like most of us have done) Shinkaruk is the best prospect then no problem. But you say he IS the best prospect as thou no other argument could be made. I don't believe I've ever said anything other than I think or believe Z is a better prospect.

Doing either thing allows no room for discussion (and you claim to be in a discussion)

I would say a third problem is that your statement are often internally inconsistent and at times the logic is confusing which weakens the supposed discussion.

I suggest that you try to view things more objectively. Lets look at the play as best we can and then try to support our judgments base on that rather than on than concentrating on the person making the judgment. That's a much better starting point than insisting you are right regardless, or selecting one narrow range of criteria, such as goals scored, or saying the other side is biased and thus their ideas shouldn't count.

Above I suggest a breakdown of their play that might facilitate meaningful judgment. Maybe that's not the best way to do it but at least its an attempt to deal with the subject of the debate rather than the people in it. Also, by rejecting the idea that you are absolutely right and considering the others arguments you open the door for discussion. That's more likely to lead to some learning and a better developed opinion. In the end , you might still have the same belief but it would at least be a more considered one.

Ultimately I don't think you or I fully know who will emerge as the better NHL player. We can only project from what we presently think or know about the situation. That's why we need to be tentative in our remarks. Moreover, thoughtfully dealing with what the other person says rather than dismissing them as biased is far more likely to lead some sort of fruitful discussion.

I stopped reading your "breakdown" as soon as you said Shinkaruk is a bad stick handler.



Really, Shinkaruk is bad at handling the puck? Get over yourself.


You sit there constantly criticizing my "credibility", saying stuff like "Do you even watch the games?". Then you say something blatantly ridiculously wrong? Come on now.

 

[Pip]

Solid derail boys

 

[Scurr]

pissing contests should be limited to one thread

 

[Braeden]

I'll be putting up the next poll later today before the game.