Player Discussion - Mitch Marner Part Infinity | Page 87 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Mitch Marner Part Infinity

hamzarocks said:
@Leaf Fans

Matthews - "I thought the first 10 minutes, they came out strong. The next 10 minutes, we controlled play," Matthews said, "and then I just thought we had too many passengers throughout the rest of the game."

Marner - "Yeah, I mean, that's the right wording I'd say as well," added Marner. "Can't have passengers in a Game 7, so yeah, it just sucks. We all got to hold ourselves to a higher accountability, and we all need to be better.

There was nothing to do with the other players on the team. It was Matthews and Marner, if they had been accountable they'd accept they needed to be better and fix on their shortcomings (horrible defensive gaffes throughout the series)

Contrast to Tanev -

I'll take responsibility. I need to be better."​

Click to expand...
The context is the team as he said we all need to be better. Not just him or Matthews or Tanev. All of them.
 
hamzarocks said:
Agreeing with matthews that the team had too many passengers after the game 7 blowout.

Tanev said he needed to be better and took ownership and accountability over himself.

Didn't push the loss to the rest of the team
Click to expand...
It is a team game. They win as a team and lose as a team.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: arso40
hamzarocks said:
They failed as individuals this series and they needed to take ownership and accountability as individuals, not grouping others on the team there.

Neither matthews nor marner did there. Tanev did.
Click to expand...
In their personal lives sure, as a team, they win and lose as a team.
 
Stephen said:
I think this is going to be a game of brinksmanship and reworking the relationship to suit Marner.

Draft is going to roll by, the free agent options will look paltry and after the dust has settled on the season, maybe the Panthers run roughshod on the playoffs, suddenly the Leafs finish doesn’t look so bad.

Marner swings around, says he’s willing to listen and MLSE opens up the vaults on an overpay. You bet on talent and everything staying exactly the same. All of a sudden it looks like Marner is choosing Toronto. Thanks Darren Ferris.
Click to expand...
Please pinch me to see if I'm awake, because I believe I'm in the midst of a nightmare currently. :wg:

This might all come down to Keith Pelley President & CEO of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. When hired he claimed a strong desire to win multiple championships and not just sell jerseys of fan favourites. .

However money talks and the MLSE B.O.D might just see the value of putting a product that includes Marner on the ice for entertainment purposes, to validate the cost of admission (highest in the NHL). Making the playoffs with skilled talent, might override desire for playoff success. Not every team that walks away from a 100 point player without fearing a potential negative impact on the regular season. So when catering to investors and shareholders and luxury suite owners etc. this might be more about good business than winning championships as the greatest priority.

Fans desire for Championships, sometimes do not align with ownership when business practices and franchise values are concerned, when not owned by a single owner that desires the same final outcome.

Therefore a finely crafted speech, coming from the names of Larry Tannenbaum, Rogers Communications and all others associated with Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment (MLSE) and delivered by CEO Keith Pelley announcing the re-signing will not come as any surprise to me.

My hope was always attached to finding a suitable replacement (Cap and Talent) as a Rantanen signing would have provided that opportunity, and likely why all MLSE, Shanahan and others supported the trade opportuntiy voided by the Marner NMC. Marner for Rantanen is a lot different situation then selling Marner for nothing but Free Cap space, when financially your resources are unlimited.
 
Last edited:
hamzarocks said:
There is no accountability if you fault others.

Tanev showed the way, while the core guys deflected.

You are agreeing with their deflecting mentality.
Click to expand...
No, one did that. He talked about the whole team. Can you come up with one individual that Marner found fault in?
No, I am disagreeing that there was a "deflecting mentality"
 
hamzarocks said:
Was just trying to post like you do, nonsensical.

Again, you can pretend you know all and your personal biased takes are neutral,

it is easy to pretend that there is nothing wrong with what matthews (and marner) and marmer commented.
Click to expand...
No you weren't you were called out so you started name calling. It just doesn't work on me.
 
Leaf Fans said:
No, one did that. He talked about the whole team. Can you come up with one individual that Marner found fault in?
No, I am disagreeing that there was a "deflecting mentality
Click to expand...
He didnt say the tornto maple leafs need to be better

Can you show a quote where he said the TML or whole team needs to be better?

He said there were too many passengers. That is open to interpretation which your interpreting as the whole team including Matthews and marner, while most see that as calling out the lower end players and depth guys on the team
 
Leaf Fans said:
No you weren't you were called out so you started name calling. It just doesn't work on me.
Click to expand...
You really are a special type of arrogant lol

You are just a regular dude on these boards just like me. You are bending over to defend the core guys with your personal interpretation of their words.

Why would I care what if you "call me out" when I am sharing my view of how marners comments are contradictory to his earlier comment on passing blame to his teammates.
 
hamzarocks said:
He didnt say the tornto maple leafs need to be better

Can you show a quote where he said the TML or whole team needs to be better?

He said there were too many passengers. That is open to interpretation which your interpreting as the whole team including Matthews and marner, while most see that as calling out the lower end players and depth guys on the team
Click to expand...
And you are not interpreting it that way.
 
Leaf Fans said:
And you are not interpreting it that way.
Click to expand...
Yes but I am acknowledging that the statement is open to interpretation at the least.

You said some posts ago that what you said was context and not an interpretation and what you viewed the quote as saying as what really happened.

If you and maybe a few other posters are seeing your view on a quote why are you pretending that the majority view/interpretation on that quote is not context and what happened but your minority interpretation is?

You have a bias just as much as anyone here including me. You just want to pretend you don't
 
hamzarocks said:
Yes but I am acknowledging that the statement is open to interpretation at the least.

You said some posts ago that what you said was context and not an interpretation.

If you and maybe a few other posters are seeing your view on a quote why are you pretending that the majority view/interpretation on that quote is not context and what happened.

You have a bias just as much as anyone here including me.
Click to expand...
I am not pretending anything. I am giving my opinion. I am not claiming to speak for the majority and I have often said that we all have biases. I haven't attacked you personally even when you have done so to me calling me arrogant ,and binky boy. I have not respond with that kind of rhetoric. I merely disagree.
 
Leaf Fans said:
I am not pretending anything. I am giving my opinion. I am not claiming to speak for the majority and I have often said that we all have biases. I haven't attacked you personally even when you have done so to me calling me arrogant ,and binky boy. I have not respond with that kind of rhetoric. I merely disagree.
Click to expand...
Good to know that you admit that.

I called you arrogant since your posts were continously insisting that your take was right, and that arguing Marner didn't show a lack of accountability by agreeing to passangers quote was a huge fabrication of what he said.

As for binkyboy that simply means being a baby/childish, which your posts were coming across as to me, since you kept on repeating the same quote and not answering why marner/matthews didnt take the Tanev route and call themselves out in isolation than passangers which is open to interpretation.
 
Last edited:
hamzarocks said:
Good to know that you admin that.

I called you arrogant since your posts were continously insisting that your take was right, and that arguing Marner didn't show a lack of accountability by agreeing to passangers quote was a huge fabrication of what he said.

As for binkyboy that simply means being a baby/childish, which your posts were coming across as to me, since you kept on repeating the same quote and not answering why marner/matthews didnt take the Tanev route and call themselves out in isolation than passangers which is open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
I believe that you mean admit. I don't only admit it. Though as for asking why they would say the things they did is impossible. In fact, it would be more childish to attempt to do so than not. As for the pronouns I and we (all)... I never got that far in hockey, a couple of games in Jr B, but from the earliest involvement in hockey, the phrase the "we win and lose as a team" was instilled since day one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hamzarocks
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 9 more.
    • Total: 54 (members: 39, guests: 15)

    Latest posts

    Ad

    Ad

    Top Bottom