"Debunking" the 11-12 team's dominance and Nash Trade woes

[Hunter Gathers]

this board IS infested with people who are either unintelligent or they are purposely misrepresenting what they do understand to create semantics arguments.

Actually, I'd say this board is more filled with people who ***** and moan when someone misinterprets a mistake that they made. In all the years I've posted on here, I've seen that more than anything. Mainly, since most don't like apologizing when they are wrong.

Just my two cents.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

The idea is that, if Callahan is a top-6 player, than so is Dubinsky. Of course, Callahan's even-strength points aren't out of this world. In some ways, he really isn't a top-6 player either, but rather one of these tweeners we talk about. Even in Dubinsky's down year, Cally only put up 6 more points at even strength than Dubi did.

Both of them are "elite-level third liners" (a contradiction? yeah) who have something a little extra that makes them useful in the top-6.

I feel this is a perfect description.....odd to think of it that way, but makes sense.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Callahan comes up because the same people who claim that Dubinsky was worthless or a third liner are generally the ones who claim that Callahan is a first liner. If you have watched them over their careers, you can easily see that they are similar players. They play the game with the same kind of intensity, put up similar point totals, and they always seemed to up their game when they played on the same line.

The general path of discussion (a path that is well-worn on this board) looks like this:

Anti-Dubi Crowd (henceforth, ADC): Dubinsky was nothing more than an overpaid 3rd line scrub who didn't make the jump like Callahan.

Pro-Dubi Crowd (henceforth, PDC): Um, Dubinsky put up more points than Cally in almost every season).

ADC: HE WAS OVERPAID! YOU HATE CALLAHAN! DUBI NEEDED TO SCORE MOAR GOALZ!

PDC: No, we are saying that they are similar players, and that production was similar.

ADC: GOALZ!!!

Three or four weeks go by, and the process repeats itself. I'm still convinced that most of it goes back to Dubinsky's contract hold-out (if you look carefully, you'll see that most of the ADC bring that up at some point in the discussion). That's why I'm worried about how Stepan starts the season. If he struggles in the first few weeks, I can see him getting the same irrational treatment.

Dubinsky had a down year, and he's not a goal-scorer. That combined with his short holdout made him public enemy number one for many on this forum. For those of us that are a tad more rational, we just can't understand how the same people can think Cally is a demi-god and Dubi is trash. They are cookie-cutter players in almost every meaningful way. That's why Cally gets brought up. Not to put him down, but to use him as a comparative to point out the hypocrisy.

And bingo was his name-o.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Crosby is an elite player. No one would refer to Crosby as a "great top-six player".He's an elite first line talent. Is anyone specifically saying "Callahan is a great top six player"? No. But no one thinks he's a fringe second liner; everyone is perfectly comfortable with him on the first or second line. In fact, last year when it was suggested maybe slotting him on the third line, people got offended. Dubinsky didn't regress last year. He was on pace for his career high in points. He has had ONE bad season in his career. You still dodged the point. The thesis of my first post in this thread was "Dubinsky is no more a third liner than Callahan". Their stats, style of play, etc. is almost identical. Dubi is a passer. Cally a finisher. One had a bad season two years ago, the other didn't. Only difference. They have identical career high seasons. Nearly identical career point totals. Both gritty, two way, leader types who PK the most on their team.

Do you see the irony here? You get so furious when you word something in a way that can clearly be misinterpreted, but then you go and create a fictitious assumption that one one has stated.

And fine, you want to know great top 6 players. Neal, great top 6 player. Bergeron, great top 6 player. Kreijci, great top 6 player. I don't think Callahan is a great top 6 player. He's a good one.

 

[smoneil]

That's the difference between us. I don't put faith in anyone's intelligence and would rather pay attention to the actual and real wording. Different philosophies, different results.

Jonathan, you enjoy winding people up. It's like a second language to you. The reason so many people think you have been intentionally misreading his post is because A- We know you aren't an idiot, and B- you have been gleefully pushing PK's buttons for the last few pages. You knew what he meant, and you've had your fun. Now let's see if YOU can admit to that.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Blah, blah, blah. The Rangers have Nash, Hagelin and Callahan as top-six worthy wingers. Zuccarello, arguably. Dubinsky is certainly more proven. And in Columbus? Gaborik, Horton, Umberger, Foligno, Atkinson, Calvert, Johansen, Letestu, Jenner, Anisimov, Dubinsky. They're hardly chopped liver on forwards right now.

Reading this I understood what you meant but as was pointed out this is a very dishonest place and there are serveal people who have a penchant for extrapolating only what they want. John accurately pointed out it seemd a little dishonest to not include the wingers but by making this point he was ignoring the point of your post which is that Cb is not exactly devoid of depth. You did link it to the top 6 debate but it wasn't really that big of a deal. Regardless you VERY clearly clarified yourself a few posts later and yet people ignored this clarification and went on a massive trolling spree lol

 

[Tawnos]

I feel this is a perfect description.....odd to think of it that way, but makes sense.

You know who else that description worked for perfectly? Michael Peca. It's too bad the only people who win Selkes these days are essentially first liners. Could you imagine someone like Draper winning one in this league right now?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Jonathan, you enjoy winding people up. It's like a second language to you. The reason so many people think you have been intentionally misreading his post is because A- We know you aren't an idiot, and B- you have been gleefully pushing PK's buttons for the last few pages. You knew what he meant, and you've had your fun. Now let's see if YOU can admit to that.

No, I legitimately thought he was lumping Letestu into that top six group which is why I made my initial joking comment about him being waiver fodder. I wouldn't have made such a comment if the post was properly worded.

I take things on the internet as they are written. Much like I read laws. Ambiguousness and vagueness only create problems (like we just saw).

 

[Tawnos]

Do you see the irony here? You get so furious when you word something in a way that can clearly be misinterpreted, but then you go and create a fictitious assumption that one one has stated.

And fine, you want to know great top 6 players. Neal, great top 6 player. Bergeron, great top 6 player. Kreijci, great top 6 player. I don't think Callahan is a great top 6 player. He's a good one.

Some players talent naturally puts them in the top-6, provided there aren't huge flaws in their game a la Christensen. Krejci and Neal are examples of that. Others have to work harder than anyone else to get there. Callahan and Dubinsky and Dustin Brown are examples of that. There is the difference between a "great" top-6 player and a "good" one.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

I really liked Michael Peca. Only time i really felt for the islanders was when Tucker took him out.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Do you see the irony here? You get so furious when you word something in a way that can clearly be misinterpreted, but then you go and create a fictitious assumption that one one has stated.

And fine, you want to know great top 6 players. Neal, great top 6 player. Bergeron, great top 6 player. Kreijci, great top 6 player. I don't think Callahan is a great top 6 player. He's a good one.

No, I didn't need you to name great top-six players, I just meant Crosby kind of doesn't work because he's too good. I do see what you're saying about irony BUT, I never accused a specific person of claiming he was a great top six player. I was talking about our fan bases attitude in general, not misrepresenting ONE person's words.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Reading this I understood what you meant but as was pointed out this is a very dishonest place and there are serveal people who have a penchant for extrapolating only what they want. John accurately pointed out it seemd a little dishonest to not include the wingers but by making this point he was ignoring the point of your post which is that Cb is not exactly devoid of depth. You did link it to the top 6 debate but it wasn't really that big of a deal. Regardless you VERY clearly clarified yourself a few posts later and yet people ignored this clarification and went on a massive trolling spree lol

Thanks. This is basically how I felt about it. I'm over it, but it's something that happens frequently on these boards.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Why do people keep throwing words like "misrepresenting" and "purposefully" around when they clearly are not applicable here? Is it just a general lack of understanding about the definitions of those words or is it some form of negative hyperbole? I'm a bit confused.

We have a case of a genuine mistake (PK's) followed by genuine misunderstanding (16's and mine). Instead of a simple, "Oh, ****, I see what I did there," we now have this.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

No, I legitimately thought he was lumping Letestu into that top six group which is why I made my initial joking comment about him being waiver fodder. I wouldn't have made such a comment if the post was properly worded.

I take things on the internet as they are written. Much like I read laws. Ambiguousness and vagueness only create problems (like we just saw).

Will have to agree.

It's the internet. And in words, so really if thoughts are there great. But if they aren't organized/written in uniform, or close, we're gonna have a bad time

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Will have to agree.

It's the internet. And in words, so really if thoughts are there great. But if they aren't organized/written in uniform, or close, we're gonna have a bad time

Yeah, I mean, why would I go and start assuming things that aren't obvious in what is written?

The old saying of, "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me," is as applicable here as could possibly be. I can only go on what I see written. I fail to see how I should possibly be expected to do anything else.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Actually, I'd say this board is more filled with people who ***** and moan when someone misinterprets a mistake that they made. In all the years I've posted on here, I've seen that more than anything. Mainly, since most don't like apologizing when they are wrong.

Just my two cents.

Unfortunately you're incorrect again but that's not really important. many people have been pointing out your errors in this thread and you did make another mistake. You were ignoring the valid point about depth. DO you disagree that they have some forward depth? You did not really weigh in on the actual hockey point you kind of just made a mistake and overemphasized the top 6 thing even after he clarified that he was just alluding to depth and not necessarily listing all of the top 6 players

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Yeah, I mean, why would I go and start assuming things that aren't obvious in what is written?

The old saying of, "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me," is as applicable here as could possibly be. I can only go on what I see written. I fail to see how I should possibly be expected to do anything else.

I've given the benefit of the doubt more but I feel like I need to see it this way more often than ever now.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Unfortunately you're incorrect again but that's not really important. many people have been pointing out your errors in this thread and you did make another mistake. You were ignoring the valid point about depth.

You've posted on here since January. No offense, but I'll take my over-a-decade of observations over your short time here.

Especially since it's been roughly the same with regards to our discussion for all this time, now.

DO you disagree that they have some forward depth? You did not really weigh in on the actual hockey point you kind of just made a mistake and overemphasized the top 6 thing even after he clarified that he was just alluding to depth and not necessarily listing all of the top 6 players

I already said pages back that Columbus does not have the depth we do, thus making it an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Tawnos]

I already said pages back that Columbus does not have the depth we do, thus making it an apples and oranges comparison.

I'm not sure I agree. I think the two groups are nearly identical. We have a little extra skill in Stepan, Richards, Zuccarello. They have a little extra grit in Foligno and Umberger. I don't think one is head and shoulders above the other though.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I'm not sure I agree. I think the two groups are nearly identical. We have a little extra skill in Stepan, Richards, Zuccarello. They have a little extra grit in Foligno and Umberger. I don't think one is head and shoulders above the other though.

What group are we talking about? Forwards in general or wingers?

I mean, I'll take:

Nash - Stepan - Callahan - Hagelin - Richards - Zucc - Brassard

pretty easily over:

Gaborik - Horton - Dubinsky - Umberger - Anisimov - Johansen - Atkinson - Foligno.

It all comes down to personal preference, but I like both our depth and our peak better than theirs.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

What group are we talking about? Forwards in general or wingers?

I mean, I'll take:

Nash - Stepan - Callahan - Hagelin - Richards - Zucc - Brassard

pretty easily over:

Gaborik - Dubinsky - Umberger - Anisimov - Johansen - Atkinson - Foligno.

It all comes down to personal preference, but I like both our depth and our peak better than theirs.

Horton being injured doesn't make him not a Blue Jacket.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Horton being injured doesn't make him not a Blue Jacket.

I left him off. My mistake.

(See? Admitting a mistake is not difficult.)

 

[Tawnos]

What group are we talking about? Forwards in general or wingers?

I mean, I'll take:

Nash - Stepan - Callahan - Hagelin - Richards - Zucc - Brassard

pretty easily over:

Gaborik - Dubinsky - Umberger - Anisimov - Johansen - Atkinson - Foligno.

It all comes down to personal preference, but I like both our depth and our peak better than theirs.

That's fine, but something coming down to personal preference doesn't make it "apples and oranges"... it's like the definition of being comparable. In the end, I think I agree. But it's close.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

That's fine, but something coming down to personal preference doesn't make it "apples and oranges"... it's like the definition of being comparable. In the end, I think I agree. But it's close.

My point is that I think our depth is better to the extent that the comparison IS apples and oranges. I like our depth a lot better.

 

[Tawnos]

I think CBJ is going to surprise a lot of people this year.