This is disingenuous. I made one statement implying I wouldn’t be surprised a Noesen or Cotter can do well with Jack and Bratt as a testament to how good Jack and Bratt are. I also pointed out how random wingers around the league have a random outburst of goal scoring with elite talent. Noesen and Cotter had previous seasons of good goal rates while playing a small role. Thats literally all I said to make an argument it could work out.
So “dying on a hill” is completely disingenuous.
Then Bob of course always being disingenuous by focusing on Cotter and a random goal number and saying LOL FUNNIEST SHIT EVER while completely ignoring my overall argument that Jack and Bratt can still do very well with random wingers and get those random wingers to produce over their career averages.
All semantics anyways because I doubt Noesen and Cotter will be in the top 6 a significant above of time. My point is they may not be out of place when they have to.
Woof…
If people stopped mocking each other and arguing the poster instead of the post these ‘debates’ wouldn’t get so over the top. I also thought it was more of you making the same argument since so many of these posts popped up at once. Your hypothetical needs like three things at once to happen:
-Getting more icetime than he ever has
-Scoring more than he ever has
-Maintaining that over 82 games, which he’s never done
Maybe one or two of those can happen but all three is a stretch on paper, theoretically anything could happen but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Where do we draw the line on the pacing argument? A guy plays one game, scores one goal and he’s pacing for 82. In theory anyone will score more with more icetime but it doesn’t always work that way. Holtz is more likely to score 25 goals ‘if’ he started getting closer to 15 minutes with power play time and I don’t think that’s happening either. Sometimes there’s a reason guys don’t make it above the bottom six.