TSN: Marner on tsn: "We are grown men".

[Antropovsky]

You did not say this was an "unconventional strategy". You said it was "over-coaching" and bashed the decision. I explained to you that it's normal for a coach to find ways to boost offensive generation when the team is down a goal with 5 minutes left in the game, and gave you multiple similar examples of exactly that.

See, now after being unable to argue against what actually happened, you turn to an extreme hyperbole that has nothing to do with the decision that was made. What you described is a very high-risk play. What Keefe did, essentially putting out his PP unit 5v5, is a very low-risk play.

You've misrepresented Marner as well as his playoff history, and I did give multiple examples - cherry picking goal totals for a playmaker, cherry picking production in certain playoffs and ignoring the context behind it, arbitrarily blaming him for team losses, calling him soft, etc. And that was just in your first post!

Marner is an amazing player. Elite offensively. Elite defensively. Elite PPer. Elite PKer. Multi-time first team all-star. 40 goal, 110 point pace last year, as well as PPG+ in the playoffs against the 2x Cup Champs and last year's Cup finalist with a Vezina finalist. High stamina. Plays in all situations. Brings an injection of energy to a locker room. When all is said and done, he will be a slam-dunk HOFer, and be one of the best Leafs to ever play.

But you ignore all that and choose to pinpoint the most negative things you can say about the player. Let's ignore what he's proven to be over hundreds of games, and instead cherry pick some small samples from his early-20s where he still played well but some aspect of his production wasn't what you wanted, so you can ignore all of the things that impacted that production in order to downplay and define him.

I've misrepresented him?

Here is an article summarizing game 1 of the playoffs last season where the author discusses Marners performance in the two series before:

Game 1: Maple Leafs 5, Lightning 0 | Toronto leads 1-0​

Who was the guy? You’d have to dig deep to come up with a better way for Mitch Marner to start his postseason, or for the Maple Leafs to start theirs. No player took — or deserved — more heat for Toronto’s most recent playoff disasters. Those are the breaks when you make almost $11 million against the cap and score exactly zero times spread over two straight series losses. Those weren’t instances of bad luck, either. He looked awful.

Wow did they say Marner was "awful" and no player took or DESERVED more heat? Did he really dare to comment about Marner "the playmakers" goalless streak (shocking!).

But @dekesfordays said he's been magnificent and we're are lucky!

as u probably chose to ignore, Marner fizzled out in this series and while marginally better than the "awful" two series before, make no mistake he was definitely not amazing. But yep I'm the one "misrepresenting" Marners performances.

I can show you a few more articles written about Marners playoff performances that support my "cherry picked" opinion.

How about you show us all the articles written about Marner magniciant playoffs? Surely your not the only one whose noticed?

Do you care to comment on the article? Do you think the writer cherry picked his comments? How much misrepresentation do you see in the writers work?

 

[Dekes For Days]

I DID say it was unconventional...

Ok, you mentioned at one point that it was unconventional, but that's not what we were discussing. We were discussing you bashing the decision and calling it "the coach over-coaching again", when it was really just a low-risk strategy to increase offensive generation precisely when the coach should be utilizing such strategies to increase offensive generation - down a goal with 5 minutes left. Instead of acknowledging that you were wrong about the statements being discussed, quoted in full with context, you're deflecting to complaints that the irrelevant parts of your post that aren't being discussed weren't quoted.

I've misrepresented him?
Here is an article summarizing game 1 of the playoffs last season where the author discusses Marners performance in the two series before:

Yes, and searching for some snippet from some random article that makes a similar bad comment about those playoffs doesn't change that. What you did is called an appeal to false authority, and people usually do it when they can't justify their own statements. And while wrong, at least the article referenced those playoffs just in the context of those playoffs, and did not attempt to define Marner as a player by whatever obscure stat or cherry picked sample they could dig up.

And it's interesting how you quoted the article but left out the very next line in that article that contradicts your claims about the Tampa series...

"On Monday night, though, Marner was all over the place; he was creating chances on the power play, setting up goals and scoring himself, on a slick move in tight against one of the best goalies on Earth."

They also noted his performance spearheading the penalty kill - which they called the key to the game. Leaf media is literally built to be sensationalist and negative, and even they discussed Marner in a more balanced way than you did.

 

[Antropovsky]

Ok, you mentioned at one point that it was unconventional, but that's not what we were discussing. We were discussing you bashing the decision and calling it "the coach over-coaching again", when it was really just a low-risk strategy to increase offensive generation precisely when the coach should be utilizing such strategies to increase offensive generation - down a goal with 5 minutes left. Instead of acknowledging that you were wrong about the statements being discussed, quoted in full with context, you're deflecting to complaints that the irrelevant parts of your post that aren't being discussed weren't quoted.

Yes, and searching for some snippet from some random article that makes a similar bad comment about those playoffs doesn't change that. What you did is called an appeal to false authority, and people usually do it when they can't justify their own statements. And while wrong, at least the article referenced those playoffs just in the context of those playoffs, and did not attempt to define Marner as a player by whatever obscure stat or cherry picked sample they could dig up.

And it's interesting how you quoted the article but left out the very next line in that article that contradicts your claims about the Tampa series...

"On Monday night, though, Marner was all over the place; he was creating chances on the power play, setting up goals and scoring himself, on a slick move in tight against one of the best goalies on Earth."

They also noted his performance spearheading the penalty kill - which they called the key to the game. Leaf media is literally built to be sensationalist and negative, and even they discussed Marner in a more balanced way than you did.

So you did cut out a part of my message and then argued I didn't say it... Gold. And than you proceed to write how your upset that I don't admit MY errors..

Additionally, I didn't ignore the article. The article was written after game 1 of the postseason. Marner did have a very good game, however, the article was written after game 1.... Not game 7. And as I stated in my post... Marner fizzled out afterward.

Words of advise...quit looking for errors in others posts, and focus on what they are saying. You argued that I didn't say unconventional. Then admitted to overlooking it. You said I ignored the writers comments about Marner playing well. I didn't... I made a note that Marner fizzled out and overall had a bad series. If you like I could post articles showing others agreement with this.

You contribute nothing to these conversations but nitpicking irrelevant parts of others posts and then refuse to debate subjects of Marners performance and refuse to post evidence to back up your opinion. Then you attack others ehove taken the time to post evidence.

You want to say Marner has been "amazing and rare"... Prove it! Why do you find that so challenging? Its obvious... Because it's impossible.

Keep wasting everyone time with your filler words, sentences and paragraphs.... Cherry picking, arbitrary, misrepresentation .... It's embarrassing reading you write this over and over and over.

 

[Dekes For Days]

So you did cut out a part of my message and then argued I didn't say it.

No. I responded to a statement you made to me, which I quoted in full ("Speaks more to the coach over-coaching again."). We had a discussion about that statement, and I showed that statement to be incorrect. You didn't want to acknowledge that you were wrong, so you deflected to talking about a different statement you had made, without telling anybody. Since I was under the impression that we were still talking about the statement we had been talking about the whole time, I noted that that is not what you said. You jumped on this misunderstanding, where you technically said it but not in the statement that we were discussing, to spread false statements about me and completely avoid the original discussion.

Additionally, I didn't ignore the article. The article was written after game 1 of the postseason. Marner did have a very good game, however, the article was written after game 1.... Not game 7. And as I stated in my post... Marner fizzled out afterward.

I didn't say you "ignored the article". I noted how you plucked out a negative quote from this article you dug up, but stopped the quote immediately prior to all of the nice things that were said about him. You just spent multiple posts arguing that every last irrelevant word needs to be copied when responding to a post that can be easily referenced, and yet you're simultaneously quoting unsourced articles and cutting out relevant portions that contradict your position.

You want to say Marner has been "amazing and rare"... Prove it!

I have, countless times. None of it ever matters to you, because you just ignore it and default back to mischaracterizing a handful of playoff games a few years ago, or hating on some play at one point that you didn't like. As I said a few posts ago...

Marner is an amazing player. Elite offensively. Elite defensively. Elite PPer. Elite PKer. Multi-time first team all-star. 40 goal, 110 point pace last year, as well as PPG+ in the playoffs against the 2x Cup Champs and last year's Cup finalist with a Vezina finalist. High stamina. Plays in all situations. Brings an injection of energy to a locker room. When all is said and done, he will be a slam-dunk HOFer, and be one of the best Leafs to ever play.

No player is perfect. No player is immune from mistakes, especially one whose role requires taking calculated risks. But we have an incredible player who is a significant net positive to our team, and it's unfortunate that he's so unappreciated by portions of even his own fanbase.

 

[francis246]

No. I responded to a statement you made to me, which I quoted in full ("Speaks more to the coach over-coaching again."). We had a discussion about that statement, and I showed that statement to be incorrect. You didn't want to acknowledge that you were wrong, so you deflected to talking about a different statement you had made, without telling anybody. Since I was under the impression that we were still talking about the statement we had been talking about the whole time, I noted that that is not what you said. You jumped on this misunderstanding, where you technically said it but not in the statement that we were discussing, to spread false statements about me and completely avoid the original discussion.

I didn't say you "ignored the article". I noted how you plucked out a negative quote from this article you dug up, but stopped the quote immediately prior to all of the nice things that were said about him. You just spent multiple posts arguing that every last irrelevant word needs to be copied when responding to a post that can be easily referenced, and yet you're simultaneously quoting unsourced articles and cutting out relevant portions that contradict your position.

I have, countless times. None of it ever matters to you, because you just ignore it and default back to mischaracterizing a handful of playoff games a few years ago, or hating on some play at one point that you didn't like. As I said a few posts ago...

Marner is an amazing player. Elite offensively. Elite defensively. Elite PPer. Elite PKer. Multi-time first team all-star. 40 goal, 110 point pace last year, as well as PPG+ in the playoffs against the 2x Cup Champs and last year's Cup finalist with a Vezina finalist. High stamina. Plays in all situations. Brings an injection of energy to a locker room. When all is said and done, he will be a slam-dunk HOFer, and be one of the best Leafs to ever play.

No player is perfect. No player is immune from mistakes, especially one whose role requires taking calculated risks. But we have an incredible player who is a significant net positive to our team, and it's unfortunate that he's so unappreciated by portions of even his own fanbase.

It’s not even worth replying. I’ve never seen a bigger hater online than that person. They take every opportunity to shit on Marner they can. Anyone who says Marner isn’t a top player in the NHL is full on idiotic. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have holes or warts in his game. But how anyone can with a straight face say that a multi-90 point player, a 2x Time First Team NHL All-Star is not an amazing / special talent is beyond me. And just shows they lack basic knowledge or they are just trolling. I wouldn’t waste your time trying to get that person to see it.

 

[Canadian Finn]

I wish Marner worked as hard as Dekes.

Can you share some of that work ethic with him?

 

[Stephen]

Crucially, Marner needs to remember he’s playing against grown men. So those high danger, ill timed drop passes and feather plays should be retired along with his London Knights number.

 

[Notsince67]

Crucially, Marner needs to remember he’s playing against grown men. So those high danger, ill timed drop passes and feather plays should be retired along with his London Knights number.

Fair comment. He seems to be improving year after year so hopefully he gets it right by the time he hits his prime.

 

[leafsfan5]

Crucially, Marner needs to remember he’s playing against grown men. So those high danger, ill timed drop passes and feather plays should be retired along with his London Knights number.

There's a fine line there, part of his game is his magic and creating ridiculous plays no one never expected. He shouldn't lose that aspect, it's what makes him a star

He needs to learn about time and place. You don't do drop passes in 3v3 OT, you don't try to dangle the whole team in OT of a potential series clincher and get way too cute. There are times to play simple hockey and times to use his gift

 

[Stephen]

Fair comment. He seems to be improving year after year so hopefully he gets it right by the time he hits his prime.

There's no doubt Marner has grown and raised his ceiling as an elite player over the years. The frustration just seems to be that he can slip into that less mature version of himself, and it's often in October/November at the start of a season.

 

[Antropovsky]

No. I responded to a statement you made to me, which I quoted in full ("Speaks more to the coach over-coaching again."). We had a discussion about that statement, and I showed that statement to be incorrect. You didn't want to acknowledge that you were wrong, so you deflected to talking about a different statement you had made, without telling anybody. Since I was under the impression that we were still talking about the statement we had been talking about the whole time, I noted that that is not what you said. You jumped on this misunderstanding, where you technically said it but not in the statement that we were discussing, to spread false statements about me and completely avoid the original discussion.

Btw Why are you cutting up other posters paragraphs, selecting sentences you want to remove and answering only the parts you want? It might be ok to remove a paragraph that's part of a different thought... But I don't think it's ok to quote others and remove sentences from their paragraphs. Your taking away context and manipulating others statements.

By the way aren't you the one constantly accusing others of "cherry picking "?

 

[Antropovsky]

It's LeaFland, panic is what they do, its what they've done, and it's what they'll always do whether it's necessary or not.

Listen, if you can find 10 good days at all in the last 10 seasons of LeaFland it would be a Christmas miracle, and not even Dickens himself could do it.



Jay Rosehill critiquing somebodies skating abilities, Jay efffin Rosehill, that is sublime!


Nobody ever says Marner can't play hockey but there's a whole contingent of LeaFlanders who believe, and truly believe he's bad at hockey, so comparing lesser players to Marners level of proficiency just goes with that territory.

The perfect hockey player is a rare thing and I've been lucky enough to see 4 of them in my lifetime Mr. Howe, Mr. Orr, and Messrs Gretzky and Lemieux. MM is one of few Leafs who are the closest to that designation, and for whatever reason the whiners are so devastated that he's not perfect that they feel he must be pilloried at every turn. It's mind boggling to me. I would bet that when the day comes when Mitch hoists the mug and accepts the Conn Smythe, there will still be some whining.

Can you expand on the bolded? Are you saying that only great skaters can spot bad skaters? I mean Jay Rosehill only played professional hockey ..... That would mean he's certainly more of an expert than any of us.

Can't wait to read your response ....should be gold.

 

[Gabriel426]

There's no doubt Marner has grown and raised his ceiling as an elite player over the years. The frustration just seems to be that he can slip into that less mature version of himself, and it's often in October/November at the start of a season.

I think this happens when MM is either struggling or overthinking. I said it many times, if MM keeps his game simple and once in a while do his magic stuff, he will be a more effective player and harder to play against.

 

[IPS]

Fair comment. He seems to be improving year after year so hopefully he gets it right by the time he hits his prime.

He's already in his prime...

 

[francis246]

There's no doubt Marner has grown and raised his ceiling as an elite player over the years. The frustration just seems to be that he can slip into that less mature version of himself, and it's often in October/November at the start of a season.

I do agree with you, his turnovers can be infuriating. But I think people equate that to laziness/just him not thinking/lack of maturity?? But it's because he's trying to be creative and that's his bread and butter. Kucherov and Kane both had the same problem around his age. As a coach it's probably hard because the last thing you want is for him to simplify his game to a point where he's not Mitch Marner anymore, but you want him to still be creative with the puck and find guys. There's a balance there. You're going to get those turn overs with high offensive minded guys it happens. I'm sure he'll clean it up.

 

[francis246]

I think this happens when MM is either struggling or overthinking. I said it many times, if MM keeps his game simple and once in a while do his magic stuff, he will be a more effective player and harder to play against.

I disagree, Marner plays his best when he's being himself and is creative and confident. I personally don't want a simple Marner. I want a confident Marner. Same with Willy Styles. When Nylander, Matthews and Marner are playing with high confidence everything falls for them. When they aren't confident that's where we see the turnovers because there is hesitation to make things happen.

 

[Notsince67]

He's already in his prime...

25 is a pretty young prime

 

[Dekes For Days]

Btw Why are you cutting up other posters paragraphs, selecting sentences you want to remove and answering only the parts you want?

Nothing you wrote has been manipulated/taken out of context/etc. Like many people, I quote what I'm responding to, so it's easy to follow - just as you responded here to a portion of my post instead of the whole thing. If somebody wants to refer back, literally every quote on this forum is a link to the original post. The only one to remove relevant portions of quotes in this discussion has been you, when you quoted your unsourced article that, unlike our posts, can't be easily referenced, and then left out all the good things they said about Marner. Let's get back to Marner.

 

[Antropovsky]

Nothing you wrote has been manipulated/taken out of context/etc. Like many people, I quote what I'm responding to, so it's easy to follow - just as you responded here to a portion of my post instead of the whole thing. If somebody wants to refer back, literally every quote on this forum is a link to the original post. The only one to remove relevant portions of quotes in this discussion has been you, when you quoted your unsourced article that, unlike our posts, can't be easily referenced, and then left out all the good things they said about Marner. Let's get back to Marner.

Below I've attaches my initial statement. notice it's only a two sentence paragraph - i bolded the sentence you removed in your response.... Its literally a continuation of my first sentence. You removed the second sentence when quoting me and then tried ro argue that I didnt say it wasn't an unconventional strategy (further down in bold).

pretty embarrassing on your part. This shows the complications of someone editing parts of others posts to their liking.

@Antropovsky :
Speaks more to the coach over-coaching again. Trying to go the unconventional with 6 mins left in a 1 goal game and it nearly bit them in the ass on the first shift.

@dekesfordays:
Yes, 5 minutes left down a goal is exactly the time you want your coach using strategies to increase offensive generation. I don't know why you think Keefe is the first coach to ever use 4 forwards, but it's a perfectly valid strategy, especially when you have the 4 forwards we do. All teams take risks and gambles in these types of situations, whether it be using 4 forwards, stacking lines, stacking pairings, shortening the bench, pulling the goalie, heavily activating defense, etc. Playing 5v5 and just replacing one player with somebody more offensively-skilled isn't some super risky thing, and it's weird that you're so up in arms about them doing it for all of 30 seconds

@dekesfordays:
You're entirely missing the point. There's nothing wrong with a coach using strategies to increase offensive generation down a goal with 5 minutes left. That's exactly what they should be doing. Throwing Marner out there for a shift is no different from any of the multitude of strategies that coaches use.

@antropovsky
I'm the one missing the point? I said this is an unconventional strategy. Meanwhile you named typical strategies and said its normal for a coach to do this.

@dekesfordays:
You did not say this was an "unconventional strategy". You said it was "over-coaching" and bashed the decision. I explained to you that it's normal for a coach to find ways to boost offensive generation when the team is down a goal with 5 minutes left in the game, and gave you multiple similar examples of exactly that..

 

[IPS]

Below I've attaches my initial statement. notice it's only a two sentence paragraph - i bolded the sentence you removed in your response.... Its literally a continuation of my first sentence. You removed the second sentence when quoting me and then tried ro argue that I didnt say it wasn't an unconventional strategy (further down in bold).

pretty embarrassing on your part. This shows the complications of someone editing parts of others posts to their liking.

@Antropovsky :
Speaks more to the coach over-coaching again. Trying to go the unconventional with 6 mins left in a 1 goal game and it nearly bit them in the ass on the first shift.

@dekesfordays:
Yes, 5 minutes left down a goal is exactly the time you want your coach using strategies to increase offensive generation. I don't know why you think Keefe is the first coach to ever use 4 forwards, but it's a perfectly valid strategy, especially when you have the 4 forwards we do. All teams take risks and gambles in these types of situations, whether it be using 4 forwards, stacking lines, stacking pairings, shortening the bench, pulling the goalie, heavily activating defense, etc. Playing 5v5 and just replacing one player with somebody more offensively-skilled isn't some super risky thing, and it's weird that you're so up in arms about them doing it for all of 30 seconds

@dekesfordays:
You're entirely missing the point. There's nothing wrong with a coach using strategies to increase offensive generation down a goal with 5 minutes left. That's exactly what they should be doing. Throwing Marner out there for a shift is no different from any of the multitude of strategies that coaches use.

@antropovsky
I'm the one missing the point? I said this is an unconventional strategy. Meanwhile you named typical strategies and said its normal for a coach to do this.

@dekesfordays:
You did not say this was an "unconventional strategy". You said it was "over-coaching" and bashed the decision. I explained to you that it's normal for a coach to find ways to boost offensive generation when the team is down a goal with 5 minutes left in the game, and gave you multiple similar examples of exactly that..

You really have to ask, at what point is this considered trolling?

25 is a pretty young prime

Pretty much directly in line with the prime of scoring wingers.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Below I've attaches my initial statement.

No you didn't. You posted two out of the like 10 sentences you had in your initial post. And you similarly took parts out of my bigger posts, and even skipped posts entirely within the discussion. You don't even realize that you're doing what you're arguing against while arguing against it, because it's just natural to not want all that clutter so you can maintain the flow of discussion and get to the point. Your second sentence does not change anything about the first sentence. It's inclusion when addressing the first sentence is not important, and nothing was edited or taken out of context.

I responded to your statement "Speaks more to the coach over-coaching again.", which was a direct response to my statement "Speaks much more to the quality of Marner.". That is what we were discussing the whole time, and that is very different from just saying it was an unconventional strategy - which is what I noted. Whether you also said that it was unconventional is irrelevant. What matters is that you said "Speaks more to the coach over-coaching again.". That was the problematic statement.

You've latched on to a mutual miscommunication about something irrelevant that's already been acknowledged to completely avoid acknowledging that your actual statement in question was wrong, and to badmouth and misrepresent me because I disagree with your extreme and unsubstantiated takes on Marner. If you dislike the legitimate posting style that I and many others (including you in this very discussion) use, I don't know why you chose to initiate a discussion with me in the first place. Now let's please get back to Marner.

 

[Gabriel426]

I disagree, Marner plays his best when he's being himself and is creative and confident. I personally don't want a simple Marner. I want a confident Marner. Same with Willy Styles. When Nylander, Matthews and Marner are playing with high confidence everything falls for them. When they aren't confident that's where we see the turnovers because there is hesitation to make things happen.

That’s pretty much comes back to MM overthinks the game when he is struggling and he tends to do even more than his usual spin and stuff.
McD keeps his game simple and that’s a huge part of why he is a level above all players. You never see McD tried to do too much but then again just being himself is already a huge problem for every opposing player.
Keeping it simple doesn’t mean taking out the creativity of the game but rather a more direct approach to the game.

 

[francis246]

That’s pretty much comes back to MM overthinks the game when he is struggling and he tends to do even more than his usual spin and stuff.
McD keeps his game simple and that’s a huge part of why he is a level above all players. You never see McD tried to do too much but then again just being himself is already a huge problem for every opposing player.
Keeping it simple doesn’t mean taking out the creativity of the game but rather a more direct approach to the game.

McDavid does not keep his game simple at all… the difference is McDavid is EXCEPTIONAL and his combination of stick handling and speed sets him apart. McDavid does stuff that no one else in the league can really so and he’s so fast that even if he does make a mistake, he’s got the puck back quicker than you. Or he’s going to make you look so dumb you don’t notice the little mistakes he does do.

If you watch Oilers games you’ll see McDavid makes bad turnovers as well. But he also fills the net nightly so his turnover highlights are outshadowed by his spectacular goals that he does.

 

[Antropovsky]

No you didn't. You posted two out of the like 10 sentences you had in your initial post. And you similarly took parts out of my bigger posts, and even skipped posts entirely within the discussion. You don't even realize that you're doing what you're arguing against while arguing against it, because it's just natural to not want all that clutter so you can maintain the flow of discussion and get to the point. Your second sentence does not change anything about the first sentence. It's inclusion when addressing the first sentence is not important, and nothing was edited or taken out of context.

I responded to your statement "Speaks more to the coach over-coaching again.", which was a direct response to my statement "Speaks much more to the quality of Marner.". That is what we were discussing the whole time, and that is very different from just saying it was an unconventional strategy - which is what I noted. Whether you also said that it was unconventional is irrelevant. What matters is that you said "Speaks more to the coach over-coaching again.". That was the problematic statement.

You've latched on to a mutual miscommunication about something irrelevant that's already been acknowledged to completely avoid acknowledging that your actual statement in question was wrong, and to badmouth and misrepresent me because I disagree with your extreme and unsubstantiated takes on Marner. If you dislike the legitimate posting style that I and many others (including you in this very discussion) use, I don't know why you chose to initiate a discussion with me in the first place. Now let's please get back to Marner.

.... You removed a sentence from my two sentence paragraph..the removed sentence said it was unconventional. You then proceeded to say "you did not say it was unconventional"... When it literally was in the very next sentence that you removed. When confronted with the proof, You then admitted it was actually there...

Then your argument morphed from "you didn't say it was unconventional" to "ok you did say it" but I'm attacking just a statement in your two sentence paragraph. If this was the case.. Then why did you adamently argue that I didnt say unconventional?

I don't even know if someone could make this kind absurd stuff up.

Absolute crazyness and embarrassing on your end. Keep squirming.

 

[ACC1224]

Post 1000.....can we close this garbage already???