You're not 'engaging in hockey discourse'.
Well I actually am as I said so, why would you say otherwise?
This is after all a hockey discussion board right?
You're diminishing real hockey results and replacing them with your imaginary what-if, and you're demanding we take it seriously.
How am I diminishing the results?
I'm stating something quite obvious and I gave the real world example if the Habs lost Suzuki and then lost a game 7 series where it would be an obvious question of "well we might have won that series if Suzuki had not been injured after playing 2 minutes in the first game"
This type of question comes up quite often here do you question it when it comes up or is it dependent on who is asking it?
You're focused on what-if, luck, fluke, magical elves, whatever. That's not hockey talk, it's an emotional coping mechanism. That's what I see here – make-believe stories to help you cope with a result you didn't like.
Thanks for the free pyshcoanalsisy but like msot things free it's not worth it as you have no idea on who I am and in order for me to cope I would need a dog in the race which I don't have as a Cancuks fan but more of a fan of hockey in general.
I don't look at the colour of the jersey when I make any comments or analysis's here.
And when the rest of us don't share your imaginary story, you move onto the next make-believe story – that we don't understand hockey.
I'm commenting on your reaction which is non sensical and if people think that there is no luck involved in hockey (I stated the difference in the shortened Covid year and the divisional realignments for the year after) and your calling it imaginary says more about you than me?
Sure go ahead and disagree but I'm stating things that actually happened and made a comment about it, that's imaginary in your eyes, like really?
If you want an actual hockey discussion, start with respect for actual hockey. That means acknowledging the legitimacy of hockey results, whether you like them or not. The playoffs aren't a random dart throw. The reality is the team that wins is almost always the better team, even if you dislike them.
As for the discussion why would you ay that I don't respect hockey that's just rubbish and unfounded and frankly I have no idea why you would say such a thing about someone you don't know, for what reason I won't speculate or personal with you and your last comment is the reality that I speak of, yes the team that wins the 4 games is the winner but it's not always the best team and sometimes teams take the opportunity of an advantage during a series, like a star player going down after playing 2 minutes in the opener.
I'll restate that i had no dog in the fight, I rarely do as I'm not that type of fan and I'd be care full accusing others of doing something when they don't actually do what you imply.
I have no idea if you want a serious discussion or not but your comments twice here indicate something else.
Anyways the whole discussion has gotten away from the initial point where a player on that team was termed impactful even though another Habs fan put him around 10th on that team which is more or less accurate and thus impactful loses it's meaning.
I've made the argument that CC wouldn't be in my top 5 in a redraft of all players right now going forward, you can agree or disagree but please refrain from bad faith accusations it's not helpful.
Sure. But Caufield has his own strengths. Great shot, constantly moving his feet, great at stealing pucks, elusive in the offensive zone and he shies away from nothing.
