30 Goal season for a defenseman?

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Learning how to read shouldn't be this hard. There is a word called "follow" and that word has a meaning. Good luck to you.

I don't know how you got to this thread, all I know is that you got here, a completely unrelated thread, and quoted me while bringing up the topic again.

You're trying to deflect with semantics because you know how salty you look bringing up an unrelated topic unprompted.

 

[MNRube]

Personally I like Bouchard for this. Teams will always be focused on 97 & 29

 

[PainForShane]

I don't know how you got to this thread, all I know is that you got here, a completely unrelated thread, and quoted me while bringing up the topic again.

You're trying to deflect with semantics because you know how salty you look bringing up an unrelated topic unprompted.

No, that's not what's happening here. And I say again, you are the one who initially brought up the topic of Bedard. Go back and look at the message history because you are obviously confused

 

[redwings86]

Bouchard

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

No, that's not what's happening here. And I say again, you are the one who initially brought up the topic of Bedard. Go back and look at the message history because you are obviously confused

You brought the topic up when you sarcastically mocked my logic from a separate thread (about Bedard).

You didn't see me quoting your posts, you came at me.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Dupont

 

[PainForShane]

You brought the topic up when you sarcastically mocked my logic from a separate thread (about Bedard).

You didn't see me quoting your posts, you came at me.

Yes, I did sarcastically mock your logic. And yet... clearly I didn't follow you to this thread. Nor did I initially bring up Bedard in this thread.

Both of these are pretty obvious. Which is why I called you out on your nonsense in last post, why would you accuse me of doing both.

Are you done making up lies now?

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Yes, I did sarcastically mock your logic. And yet... clearly I didn't follow you to this thread.

Oh look more semantics. Keep deflecting.

You went out of your way to quote me to bring in logic from another thread because you are salty about my posts in that thread.

I tried to let you have the last word but you keep trying to stir up the debate again.

Let's just end this and return to a simpler time where we actually agreed on something

 

[Xspyrit]

Why is Jakob Chychrun not an option? In 2020-21, he had the 2nd best GPG for a D-man since 2017-18

Makar paced for 29.52 goals in 2021-22

Karlsson should also be an option although he's probably not in his prime anymore

 

[PainForShane]

Oh look more semantics. Keep deflecting.

You went out of your way to quote me to bring in logic from another thread because you are salty about my posts in that thread.

I tried to let you have the last word but you keep trying to stir up the debate again.

Let's just end this and return to a simpler time where we actually agreed on something

I'm sorry bro. You seem incredibly confused, much moreso than I thought initially. To be fair it's hard to recognize tone in writing (and I haven't made my tone obvious, which is my fault I suppose), so I guess it's not that unexpected. But after sleeping on this, I think it's worth spending some time clearing up some things.

First, I'm not salty at any of your posts. Actually I find the discussions we're having incredibly amusing. What you tried to argue in last thread might require more nuance to explain, but your main claim was based around repeated arguments that Gordie Howe wasn't truly generational. And after a different poster called you out on this, you moved the goalposts and telegraphed that you were about to declare that Wayne wasn't truly generational either, at least as it pertained to the nonsensical 'every generational player' claim you were making. Put a different way, you tried to convince people that Gordie (and later, Wayne) weren't truly generational, and you did this in a hockey forum. Who wouldn't find that amusing? And no, I'm not trying to stir up that debate, I'm just clowning / poking fun at your logic, it's not the same thing. If I wanted to stir that argument up again, I'd reply to your posts in that thread like any sane person would do.

Then you have your 'contributions' in this thread. You've spent multiple posts claiming I followed you here, when everyone can look back a single page and see that I made multiple posts in this thread before you even got here. So anyone can see your repeated claim that I followed you here is straight up nonsense. Now you're accusing me of trying to deflect when I'm quite literally doing the opposite -- I've spent multiple posts bringing attention to your repeated nonsense claim, not the other way around. Why would anyone claim for multiple posts I followed them somewhere, which is so verifiably false? I'm chuckling at the absurdity as I write this.

Lastly in this last message you claimed you 'tried to let [me] have the last word' in a message you posted 4 minutes after mine. 4 minutes! I almost spit out my salad when I saw the timing on your post. If you were really trying to let me have the last word... should've been able to hold out for longer than 4 minutes, no? lmao.

***

Anyway to be clear I've been laughing this whole time, no salt involved. I'm in the middle watching the office rn, this discussion is just as funny as anything from Michael Scott or Dwight. Thanks for providing amusement, much appreciated over here.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I'm sorry bro. You seem incredibly confused, much moreso than I thought initially. To be fair it's hard to recognize tone in writing (and I haven't made my tone obvious, which is my fault I suppose), so I guess it's not that unexpected. But after sleeping on this, I think it's worth spending some time clearing up some things.

First, I'm not salty at any of your posts. Actually I find the discussions we're having incredibly amusing. What you tried to argue in last thread might require more nuance to explain, but your main claim was based around repeated arguments that Gordie Howe wasn't truly generational. And after a different poster called you out on this, you moved the goalposts and telegraphed that you were about to declare that Wayne wasn't truly generational either, at least as it pertained to the nonsensical 'every generational player' claim you were making. Put a different way, you tried to convince people that Gordie (and later, Wayne) weren't truly generational, and you did this in a hockey forum. Who wouldn't find that amusing? And no, I'm not trying to stir up that debate, I'm just clowning / poking fun at your logic, it's not the same thing. If I wanted to stir that argument up again, I'd reply to your posts in that thread like any sane person would do.

You must have me confused with someone else, I made none of those claims. Go ahead and quote me on where I said Gretzky wasn't generational.

Then you have your 'contributions' in this thread. You've spent multiple posts claiming I followed you here, when everyone can look back a single page and see that I made multiple posts in this thread before you even got here. So anyone can see your repeated claim that I followed you here is straight up nonsense. Now you're accusing me of trying to deflect when I'm quite literally doing the opposite -- I've spent multiple posts bringing attention to your repeated nonsense claim, not the other way around. Why would anyone claim for multiple posts I followed them somewhere, which is so verifiably false? I'm chuckling at the absurdity as I write this.

Again, using semantics as a distraction. You quoted me in this thread referencing a completely unrelated topic, which was what I meant by "followed me". I wasn't checking your post history to see where you were posting.

Lastly in this last message you claimed you 'tried to let [me] have the last word' in a message you posted 4 minutes after mine. 4 minutes! I almost spit out my salad when I saw the timing on your post. If you were really trying to let me have the last word... should've been able to hold out for longer than 4 minutes, no? lmao.

I tried to let you have the last word on the Bedard topic in the Bedard thread, which is what I was referring to, but you were intent on continuing the conversation with me in an unrelated thread, maybe you can explain why?

 

[PainForShane]

You must have me confused with someone else, I made none of those claims. Go ahead and quote me on where I said Gretzky wasn't generational.

Again, using semantics as a distraction. You quoted me in this thread referencing a completely unrelated topic, which was what I meant by "followed me". I wasn't checking your post history to see where you were posting.

I tried to let you have the last word on the Bedard topic in the Bedard thread, which is what I was referring to, but you were intent on continuing the conversation with me in an unrelated thread, maybe you can explain why?

No, I definitely don't have you confused with someone else. Here's the quote where you said Gretzky wasn't truly generational as it pertained to your argument (the 'he' is Gretz). Post 337, full link

And no, I'm not using semantics to distract. As I explained, I've been bringing attention to the fact that YOU POSTED IN THIS THREAD AFTER I GOT HERE which means I didn't follow you here lmao. And no, I'm not assuming you searched my post history (that would be stalker-ish), the messages are right here in this thread on page 1, usually people read a few prior messages in a thread before posting in it, it's not unreasonable for me to expect you to do so especially since I've done the OPPOSITE of distracting ie mentioned multiple times that I didn't follow you here. Speaking of which the word "follow" doesn't mean quoting someone while bringing up a tangential topic, that's not semantics that's grade school level english. Yes I responded to you, no I did not follow you, the two things are not the same. This shouldn't be this hard lmao.

Also wasn't the one who initially brought up Bedard YOU are the one who did that, and you keep bringing him up for some reason. As I literally just explained in the post you responded to (incl full context), I have zero desire to discuss Connor Bedard in a thread that's not about Connor Bedard.

What are you even arguing, and how are you coming up with these ridiculous accusations / iines of attack? They literally have no basis in anything lmao.

***

Back to the thread topic, for the OP, both Chychrun and Dougie Hamilton make sense to include as possible options in the poll, probably Thomas Harley also now that I think about it. Clearly Connor Bedard is not a defenseman so shouldn't be listed as an option lmao. Thx for the poll, curious to see if Makar ends up running away with this

 

[blundluntman]

No, I definitely don't have you confused with someone else. Here's the quote where you said Gretzky wasn't truly generational as it pertained to your argument (the 'he' is Gretz). Post 337, full link
View attachment 917287

And no, I'm not using semantics to distract. As I explained, I've been bringing attention to the fact that YOU POSTED IN THIS THREAD AFTER I GOT HERE which means I didn't follow you here lmao. And no, I'm not assuming you searched my post history (that would be stalker-ish), the messages are right here in this thread on page 1, usually people read a few prior messages in a thread before posting in it, it's not unreasonable for me to expect you to do so especially since I've done the OPPOSITE of distracting ie mentioned multiple times that I didn't follow you here. Speaking of which the word "follow" doesn't mean quoting someone while bringing up a tangential topic, that's not semantics that's grade school level english. Yes I responded to you, no I did not follow you, the two things are not the same. This shouldn't be this hard lmao.

Also wasn't the one who initially brought up Bedard YOU are the one who did that, and you keep bringing him up for some reason. As I literally just explained in the post you responded to (incl full context), I have zero desire to discuss Connor Bedard in a thread that's not about Connor Bedard.

What are you even arguing, and how are you coming up with these ridiculous accusations / iines of attack? They literally have no basis in anything lmao.

***

Back to the thread topic, for the OP, both Chychrun and Dougie Hamilton make sense to include as possible options in the poll, probably Thomas Harley also now that I think about it. Clearly Connor Bedard is not a defenseman so shouldn't be listed as an option lmao. Thx for the poll, curious to see if Makar ends up running away with this

I’m not gonna lie, your constant passive aggressive semantics filled rabbit hole arguments with posters on this forum are becoming very insufferable. You should join a debate team or something if you’re really this thirsty to throw stones and condescendingly hide your hands all the time. It’s getting very old and taking the life out of discussions

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

No, I definitely don't have you confused with someone else. Here's the quote where you said Gretzky wasn't truly generational as it pertained to your argument (the 'he' is Gretz). Post 337, full link
View attachment 917287

Wow, nice reading comprehension.

I said Bedard lacks the elite athletic ability needed to become a generational player in today's NHL.

Here is my quote
"He just lacks the necessary elite athletic ability create time and space for himself in today's NHL. He's a good skater, but certainly not elite. He's well developed for his age, but he's not all that strong on the puck for a guy with his dimensions. Crosby and McDavid both had massive athletic advantages over Bedard that played a huge role in their ability to dominate the league."

Then someone said "The best player ever wasn’t exactly known for his athleticism. Let me guess now he is too old to count too like Howe??" and I said yeah, that stylistic comparable because he didn't play in the modern NHL, as the game was so much slower back then you didn't necessarily need elite athletic ability to create time and space because it was so plentiful. Not because he wasn't a generational player (I said multiple other times earlier in that thread)

I literally said this right above the cherry picked screenshot

I never said that they didn't count as generational, just that the stylistic comparisons aren't super relevant considering the game was so much different when they entered.

And no, I'm not using semantics to distract. As I explained, I've been bringing attention to the fact that YOU POSTED IN THIS THREAD AFTER I GOT HERE which means I didn't follow you here lmao. And no, I'm not assuming you searched my post history (that would be stalker-ish), the messages are right here in this thread on page 1, usually people read a few prior messages in a thread before posting in it, it's not unreasonable for me to expect you to do so especially since I've done the OPPOSITE of distracting ie mentioned multiple times that I didn't follow you here.

I saw the thread and sarcastically pumped Casey's tires - didn't read anything beyond the title.

Speaking of which the word "follow" doesn't mean quoting someone while bringing up a tangential topic, that's not semantics that's grade school level english. Yes I responded to you, no I did not follow you, the two things are not the same. This shouldn't be this hard lmao.

Again, semantics. I could have used a better word than following, but surely you understood the concept of carrying over an argument from one thread to the other.

Also wasn't the one who initially brought up Bedard YOU are the one who did that, and you keep bringing him up for some reason. As I literally just explained in the post you responded to (incl full context), I have zero desire to discuss Connor Bedard in a thread that's not about Connor Bedard.

What was your goal in quoting me a this thread about defenseman (completely unprompted) referencing our conversation from the Bedard thread? We had already established in that thread that you didn't agree with my logic, so why bring it up in an unrelated thread if you didn't want to continue the discussion?

 

[PainForShane]

I’m not gonna lie, your constant passive aggressive semantics filled rabbit hole arguments with posters on this forum are becoming very insufferable. You should join a debate team or something if you’re really this thirsty to throw stones and condescendingly hide your hands all the time. It’s getting very old and taking the life out of discussions

Sorry man, wasn't my intention, I mean that sincerely. However at the same time I don't think it's necessarily the wrong call for anyone to defend themselves from a person who repeatedly attacks with legitimate nonsense, that's what I was doing here.

You'll notice the other poster just responded (dishonestly and in bad faith I might add) while continuing to drive nonsense points, including some from a different / unrelated thread. That said, you made a fair point here so not sure whether to respond this time -- but I don't think it's unreasonable to do so.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Sorry man, wasn't my intention, I mean that sincerely. However at the same time I don't think it's necessarily the wrong call for anyone to defend themselves from a person who repeatedly attacks with legitimate nonsense, that's what I was doing here.

You'll notice the other poster just responded (dishonestly and in bad faith I might add)

Name one thing I said that was dishonest in my reply.

while continuing to drive nonsense points, including some from a different / unrelated thread. That said, you made a fair point here so not sure whether to respond this time -- but I don't think it's unreasonable to do so.

I'll ask again because you continue to dodge it:

What was your goal in quoting me a this thread about defenseman (completely unprompted) referencing our conversation from the Bedard thread? We had already established in that thread that you didn't agree with my logic, so why bring it up in an unrelated thread if you didn't want to continue the discussion?

 

[Crow]

Wow, nice reading comprehension.

Then you said "The best player ever wasn’t exactly known for his athleticism. Let me guess now he is too old to count too like Howe??"

No, somewhat ironically, that was me.

Trying to stay out of this though.

lol.

 

[PainForShane]

No, somewhat ironically, that was me.

Trying to stay out of this though.

lol.

He starts his post with "Wow, nice reading comprehension" and then unironically can't tell the difference between two different posters. While also repeating the same argument / logical fallacy that was correctly clowned on by you in the previous thread (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia).

Meanwhile that thread has gone dead and he's decided to necrobump his nonsense in a completely different thread after someone literally asked the two of us to stop threadjacking (correctly).

Clowns gonna clown

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

He starts his post with "Wow, nice reading comprehension" and then unironically can't tell the difference between two different posters. While also repeating the same argument / logical fallacy that was correctly clowned on by you in the previous thread (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia).

Meanwhile that thread has gone dead and he's decided to necrobump his nonsense in a completely different thread after someone literally asked the two of us to stop threadjacking (correctly).

My mistake. The point still stands that I never once questioned Gretzky as a generational player like you claimed. But you knew that, you're just deflecting because I misattributed a quote.

Clowns gonna clown

One party is name calling while the other has not.

I guess it's easier to call me names rather than answer my very simple question. I'll ask a third time:

What was your goal in quoting me a this thread about defenseman (completely unprompted) referencing our conversation from the Bedard thread? We had already established in that thread that you didn't agree with my logic, so why bring it up in an unrelated thread if you didn't want to continue the discussion?

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

No, somewhat ironically, that was me.

Trying to stay out of this though.

lol.

Yeah that's my mistake, though it doesn't change anything.

 

[PainForShane]

My mistake. The point still stands that I never once questioned Gretzky as a generational player like you claimed. But you knew that, you're just deflecting because I misattributed a quote.

One party is name calling while the other has not.

I guess it's easier to call me names rather than answer my very simple question. I'll ask a third time:

What was your goal in quoting me a this thread about defenseman (completely unprompted) referencing our conversation from the Bedard thread? We had already established in that thread that you didn't agree with my logic, so why bring it up in an unrelated thread if you didn't want to continue the discussion?

Bro, I'm sorry / not sorry I need to explain simple things to you. And no, like I said before I've been doing the opposite of deflecting during this entire convo.

To answer your question, I repeated your exact argument (with a different player example) because I thought it would be funny to show how ridiculous the argument was. In hindsight, it clearly has been. I have / had zero desire to talk about Bedard in an unrelated thread (ie this one) and I have no idea why you would repeatedly make that link.

Does that answer your question? Lmao what a ridiculous conversation / question to actually be pursuing

 

[KrisLetAngry]

I voted Makar as he hit 28 goals a couple years ago.

Bouchard there is potential. He hasn't crossed 20 yet but if he gets a lucky sh% I can see it.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Bro, I'm sorry / not sorry I need to explain simple things to you. And no, like I said before I've been doing the opposite of deflecting during this entire convo.

To answer your question, I repeated your exact argument (with a different player example) because I thought it would be funny to show how ridiculous the argument was. In hindsight, it clearly has been. I have / had zero desire to talk about Bedard in an unrelated thread (ie this one) and I have no idea why you would repeatedly make that link.

Does that answer your question? Lmao what a ridiculous conversation / question to actually be pursuing

There, that wasn't so hard to admit that - you were still bothered by my posts in an another thread so you felt the need to needle me.

 

[PainForShane]

There, that wasn't so hard to admit that - you were still bothered by my posts in an another thread so you felt the need to needle me.

No, as I said before I was not bothered by your posts (and am not bothered by your continued nonsense either, it's what I've come to expect).

lmao your posts are so delusional