Toews

Members
  • Content count

    6,440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Toews last won the day on August 7

Toews had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,004 Gaming the system

About Toews

  • Rank
    Canucks First-Line

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

7,721 profile views
  1. Doubt it was actually him but it's pretty funny regardless.
  2. The government's responsibility is taking the necessary steps to ensure that anyone entering our country isn't out to do harm to our citizens. This includes background checks and other tools available to thoroughly vet every individual that applies for entry into our country. Sadly there will always be a few that slip through the cracks or decide to turn into criminals after they have entered. As long as the government is doing their due diligence then they have fulfilled their responsibility.
  3. Why only refugees then? What about immigrants? Shouldn't we stop immigration all together? Letting in immigrants also has the potential that you might let in a few criminals? Why stop even at immigrants? Let's stop tourists from coming into Canada as well, they are also potential criminals. Maybe we should just close all avenues of entry into our country and kick out anyone who isn't Canadian. Everyone is a potential criminal so we might as well not allow anyone into our country and follow North Korea's example of complete and total isolation.
  4. Which cultures would those be? It seems like human nature that when people are told not to do something, quite a few will end up doing it anyway. There are signs near parks that say not to feed wild animals, yet I see people doing it anyway. Its common sense that cigarette buds should be disposed of properly or they end up being fire hazards, yet people do it anyway. Laws are only effective if there are consequences to contravening them. If people know that they can get away with it then there are many that throw any and all moral obligations out the window. I am not a fan of many of these trivial laws but sadly we need the government to shepherd the masses because its clear that many will not simply not listen to sense.
  5. I do hope they continue cracking down and hammering home the point. Its gotten ridiculous and literally everybody does it because they know they will get away with it. If you aren't doing it then you are not doing everything you can to win. So much of what is considered "good defense" is just crosschecking, slashing and holding. We have entered another dead puck era because GMs are actively letting players get away with anything and everything so that games stay close and artificially increase parity.
  6. Personally if he makes the team and proves himself better than the competition, then he deserves to be in the NHL. Maybe it's just me but I feel like if he earns his way there then he should be there. If he does all that and its clear he has worked his tail off in the offseason then I can see it being potentially damaging to his psyche to continue holding him back. He will be waiver eligible next year so it will be especially nice if he can grab a foothold in the NHL and continue building upwards. There are a few guys who started out on the 4th line and continue to move upwards. IMO let him reap the rewards if has put in the work to meet those standards.
  7. You are correct that games played is a benchmark for performance but when a sample size of 65-68 games is used, it is not very meaningful. Many of those games Jake barely played 7-10 minutes and was a healthy scratch often during the season. I don't see that season as a barometer of success, you clearly do. Your argument is far from complicated, in fact I find it the very opposite, it seems very simplistic. I am more than willing to be patient, I just don't see the point in putting "lipstick on a pig" so to speak. I will let him defend himself but will say that I have not seen that. Not saying that you are lying but people here seem to read more into posts than is actually there.
  8. You are free to quote the posts where the word "bust" was used. Dismissed maybe not but we can use their track record as a predictor of success based on historical trends. I am not of the school of thought that says a player should be given a mulligan for 3 years, 18-20 is a critical period in a prospect's development. If his progress stalls or if he regresses then those are absolutely predictors of success. I think its especially arrogant to assume that someone with a different opinion than yours is "lacking in understanding of hockey". But that's my opinion, clearly not yours. I don't claim to see the future. I have made no grand proclamations. I have only used his track record to predict what kind of a career he might have based on my history following prospects. I don't see that as "writing off prospects" I just see that as tempering expectations.
  9. Well then its not a meaningful criteria. It's obvious that on a team with horrible depth that players less deserving of minutes somehow find themselves in playing situations. Even Benning has admitted that putting him in the NHL may have been a mistake. So it doesn't seem like the GM thinks your criteria has much merit. Brett Connolly played in the NHL due to the same circumstances, no one cared to call him a success because he played 68 games that one year. He was mediocre just like Jake was. Jake could have easily been replaced by some other replacement player and it would not have made a difference to the success of that team.
  10. I don't want to speak for @The 5th Line but as far as I can remember he has never used the word "bust". He has pointed out repeatedly that Jake's development has gone poorly and he is not very high on his potential. I think any reasonable fan should be able to admit that Jake's development thus far has been a disappointment. It seems whenever he has a good set of game, scores a nice goal, throws a nice hit that people come on here and rag on those that have been critical of him. @The 5th Linehas admitted in the past when he scores a good goal, or has a good game so it's not like he has disappeared from the thread when things have gone well. It's just that the good moments have been so few and far between that it all ends up sounding negative. Not one person including 5th Line has professed a desire to see this guy fail. We all want him to be the best player that he can become especially with the team desperately needing good young players to step up so we don't have to see scrubs like Megna on the PP. As far as the Corsi argument, the person that compiled the statistics only did it for a very small sample size so that argument should not be used to prop up his play. It is true that his S% was low but how much of that is luck and not poor shot selection? I have mentioned in the past in this thread that I was not happy with his shot selection. In any case last year was the first sample size we had of him in the AHL. This year we shall see if his S% normalizes to a higher value or whether it is a case of what you see is what you get. Again @The 5th Line has never called him a bust, that seems to be a word that seems to be almost exclusively be used by Jake's most ardent defenders. It seems especially disingenuous to invent what the other side is saying just so that you can attack a strawman. Also @ForsbergTheGreat has already pointed out the fallacy of using the games played and goals argument. I am unsure why you have not replied to that post but continue to push this fault logic. Lmao @ "nasty comments".@The 5th Line is not on a mission to attack prospects. He has praised them when it is warranted and criticized them when he they have not played well. Just because some here think any and all prospects are above criticism does not mean that people like him should not contributing to these threads. From his D+1 to his D+4 year he has commented on his deficiencies and been more on point than any other poster in this thread.
  11. It is true that better controls need to be in place to ensure that a country is accepting the right demographic of people and that these people are truly in danger due to war or political reasons. You should not just be allowed into a country just because you were not happy in your home country. There are refugees who are truly in danger due to their home having turned into a war zone. They should be prioritized and to serve them effectively we need to make sure that any and all migrants and truly there because life in their home country is untenable. By the right demographic I mean that women and children must be prioritized. Criminals should be prosecuted and serve sentences. Depending on the nature of their crimes they should be deported as well, repeat offenders should also be deported. If you are a guest in the country then you need to respect the laws of that country and be appreciative of the hospitality of the country. I have travelled to a whole bunch of countries and I have respected and followed all their laws, all migrants have the same obligation.
  12. There are places in every city in the world where you are instructed to not go if you are not a local. I have lived in the Middle East including countries like UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar and as a Canadian I was instructed to stay avoid certain places and take precautions including travelling with a local if I wanted to enter such an area. In all my time there no one attacked me, spit on me, behaved rudely with me, cops and citizens alike treated me with respect and dignity. Would that change if I went to less affluent areas of a city, of course it would.
  13. People said the same thing about the Flyers when they signed Richards and Carter, gave them NTCs and then traded them the next summer before they would kick in. Carter was especially ticked off as he had signed on to stay in Philly for 10+ years and was suddenly on a bottom feeding Jackets team in Ohio. Players don't really seem care unless they are in the same circumstances. They are all in it for themselves, and that is what gives owners the biggest advantage in any negotiation. I look at the NFL with article 46 and none of them cared to fight it and just took the money because the majority of them don't think it will have any effect on them.
  14. Seems like he deleted the post.
  15. Hamhuis at his peak was a Top 20-25 defenseman in the league. If Juolevi has a similar career I would hands down take that. I do think now that some time in Europe maybe in the FEL might serve him well. He did not progress as much in London last year and I am a little concerned that another year there will only produce similar results.