Trippbe

Members
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Trippbe

  • Rank
    Aces Regular
  1. Jordan Schroeder Talk

    And it's slightly ironic eh because most of his career he's been an absurdly good setup man as well. Hopefully he can turn into a speed sniper with the ability to make smart passes as well. A hometown example would be Morrison, kinda appropriate I believe.
  2. Jordan Schroeder Talk

    Jordan personally said in the preseason that he prefers/would prefer playing wing in the NHL as it's better suited to his size and speed. He seemed a lil intimidated at points in the interview at the concept of being a centre, and absorbing all the physical pressure that entails
  3. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    I wish i knew how to format into multi quotes, that was such an effective way of arranging your points. Sorry for this ugly mess, but at least I'll go in order Bieksa is far more defensively sound than Mike Green, as he at least knows how to support and take away passing lanes. Simple stuff like that, is what Green continually seems to forget and Bieksa remember. Yeah I was just unsure if the "dressing 8 defencemen" reference you made was for when Bieksa played forward or not, cus I personally would consider him being dressed as a defencemen for those games. An entity completely seperate from the defensive ensemble, ie. Buttfuglyalien when he plays forward isn't consider one of the dressed d. Obviously we never dressed 8 Dmen explicity to play D (as i thought you might be alluding to). That'd just be silly. Sorry but, you can't see that Bieksa is one of the more offensively talented defencemen? I don't get it. Saying he played as a forward because his defence sucked, and not that his offense was good, is like saying Burrows plays D when needed because his offence sucks and not because his D skills are good. Sorry man, but this is the one point I have to say is completely illogical on your part. He does have a tendency to look for those long, magical passes that spark break aways or immediate penetration of the opponents zone. His hail marys are juvenile attempts to be offensive catalyst, something that he definitely should not continue to rely on. They have a time and a place, and that is not how Bieksa views them. He doesn't ALWAYS do that tho, sometimes he makes the crisp fast pass to the winger standing at the boards on the red line when they have open space. A little better... He doesn't pass enough to his defensive partner either, I'd agree, which again is a hallmark of an emotional and slightly "Focused on I, not the team" player. I guess "Winning teams" has to be defined eh? Are we talking Stanley Cup WInners, or Presidents Trophy winners... I see the Stanley Cup as the loftiest goal, obviously, and the President's Trophy as another worthy benchmark. P.T. probably isn't a good way of determining success in the grand scheme of things (San Jose, Capitals...) but it's still winning, isn't it? Hell winning your division is still being a winning team I would have thought. It is a totally relative point tho. And sorry but I'm a lil confused by your last point. Are you insinuating Bieksa lacks ability? And you didn't address my point: Why would teams not want Defencemen who offer solid offence at the price of being a defensive liability. Just wanna say you're one of the better posters to address me so far, I appreciate your discussion
  4. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    Like I said, I didn't expect you to bring up a bunch of facts to support your argument. That's not a knock against you, I'm just aware it takes a lot of time and effort and sometimes these discussions just don't warrant it. I would assert that I don't disregard any evidence or arguments put before me though, or "ignore it" as you so eloquently stated. I take great care to address and comprehensively respond to evidence directed at myself, and I've conceded a couple points due to well formulated arguments of backing with substance. I'm unsure about your rhetorical question about me agreeing with you about "if Bieksa makes a mistake," will I agree. Bieksa makes tons of mistakes (obviously every human/athlete does) but I think the stats show Bieksa makes more mistakes on average than say Edler or Hamhuis. As to the matter of where my evidence or facts are, I put the challenge to you to review the past history of the various arguments i have made. They are all quite thorough, let me assure you, with great amounts of empirical evidence and examples. I'm not quite sure what would be an easy way for me to review my posting history in order to pull up citations (search function my name I guess?) or else i might be tempted to do so just to show I'm not talking out of my... um... pants seat. I find it ironic you just allowed that we both have some level of objectivity, but in your previous post accused me of none. Hmm, interesting. But of no matter. Speaks for itself. Could you please clarify what this sentence means? I'm just unsure on the wording and don't want to leave you feeling insulted or that your opinion is belittled or undermined simply because it's a personal opinion. In writing this i realize that perhaps you read that I was discounting your opinions because they were a individuals believe? Yes? It's actually just me saying an opinion is not a valid argument without evidence and explanation, something i'm sure you would agree to. I'm not a huge fan of Bieksa. I think he's a skilled player but way too passionate and relies too much on reactions for my personal taste. I appreciate players like Burrows and Hamhuis, Raymond and Edler much more, but that's neither here nor there. I objected to being labeled a homer or impartial simply for defending those who were being attacked without cause. I don't respect when people confuse the issue (personal taste over simply an upholding of logic) and apply labels so as to reduce something put forward by others. Promotes ignorance. Thanks for the composure in that last post, a lot more can be discussed properly and addressed that way. Your points came a long way from your original post directed at me, gained more insight and relativity. Gotta say tho, (and this could purely be because you never dropped the gloves to really debate, which again is a pain sometimes), that I feel my argument is more dynamic and therefore substantiated.
  5. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    And your'e the kind of fan who's IQ matches the thickest hind bit of the bell curve Here's a hint!: *Wheeo Wheeo* Sarcasm Alert! *Wheeo Wheeo* Do your reading comprehension skills not pick up on the shift after "intentional"...
  6. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    I'm sorry, pardon? Superfan? Wow, that's an incredibly rational and strong reason to discredit my observations. Label me something with a negative connotation and I'll lose the magical powers of validity. Instead showing you have a personal dislike for someone's opinion, and suggested and guessing that that person has a bias that would affect their judgement, use some facts to undermine my research if you feel it's possible. If you want, next game I am more than willing to keep a running tally with you in a personal chat, and we can see how our "objectivity", and I use that term lightly in your case, match up. Until you are able to produce facts instead of saying "hey I know how you think and it's wrong", you have absolutely no credibility to denounce my observations. As for the evidence put forward before, I have discussed whats been put forth thoroughly (maybe you've seen some? I'm not sure). There's quite a few pages in this thread so it'd be hard to find so I don't expect you to go back and dig it up (Feel free though, I challenge you to actually). If you did, you'd read that the evidence put forward was evaluated, then debated, and the conclusively settled by both myself and the other parties involved. Personally I have admitted many of his faults and even pointed out to mistakes I thought unacceptable that others view as borderline. In most cases, the jury's decision goes to Bieksa's pluses outweighing his minuses.
  7. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    Where to start, where to start. Does Mike Green play "capable defense"? How about Jovo. I guess we have to define "capable", but lets assume you mean solid and reliable on every single shutdown play. Bieksa does not play "capable" defence, he plays offensive defensemen defence. Yet, he's better defensively then Jovocop or Green. Hmmmm. When did we ever dress 8 defensemen? Unless you're referencing when our forward's health was decimated and Bieksa was in the lineup as a FORWARD. Which leads me to my second to last point, the one that's the most obvious and makes me most suspect you're in grade 10. Bieksa played wing because he has the physically/offensive adapted game of all our Defensemen. WOW. Not because "he suuuuucks at defence". Weak points like that just embarrass your argument. Btw I'm not sure where your last point comes form but Bieksa isn't relied on to play exclusively defensively but he can, as he aptly shows on the PK, but he does put up points offensively to. Who says winning teams don't want players with the potential to put up points at the risk of giving opportunities to the other time. Mike Green. Adduce some support for that flimsy opinion. But I don't expect you can.
  8. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    OMG Bieksa should be stapled to the bench, he ruined Schnieders shootout. *Grammar and terminology errors intentional* I've counted three errors on Bieksa's part and 13 (give or take a couple) moments throughout 2 where he shined. Last game it was more like 6 and 10 which isn't nearly as good but still acceptable. I wanna hear some empirical evidence to support all the idiocy towards Bieksa, please someone, project some verbal diaherra for me.
  9. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    There's a slight contradiction in your rhetoric, as you claim that Bieksa will get the "majority of his points on the PP, as do all D men who play significant PP minutes," and "whoever is playing the most with the Sedins 5 on 5 this year will get the most points this year". A simple translation would be: [and I sincerely apologize if i misquote your theories or take them out of context in any way. It would surely be a matter of my miscomprehension and not intentional] Players who get PP time get the majority of their points from the PP (theoretically logical) and Whoever plays consistently with the Sedins 5v5 will get the most points (also seemingly logical) Yet you portray them both as absolute truths, when it is possible that their resepective D men would not be one in the same. Case in point, say Erhoff and Edler get the prime PP time. Erhoff and Hamhuis get the majority of 5v5 Sedin time. With your reasoning, both sets of D men will produce someone with the single highest point total. Ah, here in lies the paradox. All though these circumstances certainly are the main spring boards for high point totals, they are not each both universal truths. That is, although these two situations greatly help, they do not assure. So, it comes down to, which will carry more weight? Prime PP time? Or Sweet Sweede 5v5 time? (Awesome alliteration) Of course there is the matter of the individuals who get these benefits unique skill sets, but I would argue that Bieksa has the talent and abilities to, with the boost of Sedin time (right now him and Hamhuis are playing 5v5 with the Sedins while Erhoff and Edler get PP time) to surpass Edler in point totals. Of course this is simply just a theory. A very, very, complex, educated, and meditated one. Only time will prove or falsify. PS. Bieksa does not create mountains of offence alone, you are correct, but he does create more than the vast majority of NHL defencemen. He plays more like a forward most of the time, which obviously has it's demerits, but it does spark an attack. Hopefully playing with the wise and calm Hamhuis will instil Bieksa with a new approach and defensive responsible mentality. I'm already seeing signs of it in these first few games, but there is always the chance of regression. Or that the "knowledgable fans" of Vancouver will just choose to blindly not see it.
  10. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    Agreed, the extreme sides of the arguments are fundamentally flawed and therefore invalid. Bieksa is someone who's physical, offensive and times, slick. He is also sloppy 1v1 defensively, has shown poor thought processes in regards to timing, and has a tendency to panic when facing something unexpected (puck in skates). In saying this, every player has their strengths and weaknesses. Bieksa's play, specifically his weaknesses, do not warrant this ongoing fad of ignorantly insulting him. He's not the best, by far, but he is a very decent defencemen. I for one see the argument you say has to do with "having to be right," more as an argument between those who have had an opinion conditioned into them and those who are appalled to watch it happen. I don't really see many extremists saying "OMGZOD BIEKSA=BEST DEFENCEMEN EVAAAAA!" but consistently there are "Bieksa deserves to be on the third pairing" or, "Bieksa singlehandedly allowed three goals last night," or my personal favourite, "Bieksa is marginally an NHL calibre defencemen".
  11. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    As clearly stated in my post, I was simply referencing the TOI from the poster two above mine. AV is riding Erhoff and Edler more, as I said again. They face the other team's top line more times than not and have the prime powerplay time. B&H are getting, as I said (yet again), plenty of time playing with the Sedin's at 5v5. I'd say this is worthy of negating the benefits E&E get of being on the first line powerplay. The edge comes down to E&E simply getting more playing time, the majority of which comes with the second line. If that's too hard to follow for you, since your comprehension is suspect, points getting Bieksa/Hamhuis Erhoff/Edler Plays with Sedins 5v5 = FIrst line PP Second line PP < Play with Kes and MayRay
  12. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    In all honesty I didn't remember Bieksa was getting top pairing minutes two years ago. He was also coming off that horrible injury from the year before, but still managed 43. He's coming off pretty much the same injury again from last year, but this time with more maturation and development. The lack of prime pp time will surely skew his totals, but his overall TOI is still solid, something around 20 compared to Edler's 23 I believe. Him and Hamhuis are also used consistently in conjunction with our top line, something to pad his points. But only time will tell. I could be wrong, but past history, growth patterns, and player profiles seem to back my opinion from what I can see. Edit: Ahh i see two posts above me that apparently Bieksa is averaging 24 mins. Wow, that's quite a bit. I'm sure Ballard and Alberts being out for a bit last game played a part in that, at least a lil
  13. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    Haha I like the quote in your sig, nice I look forward to later in the season.
  14. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    What possible reasoning do you have for this? Edler's only offensive skills are crisp passing (its strange, somehow everyone seems to miss the net when they get one of his passes, even tho they're tape to tape) and a good wrister, great slap shot from the blue line only. Trailer plays are not his thing. PInching, is not his thing. Dangling, is not his thing. It's exactly the opposite for Bieksa, and you'll notice that trailer plays, pinching, and dangling, are all indicative of a forwards game. Forwards tend to be the ones who get the majority of points
  15. Kevin Bieksa you are really...

    By pure offensiveness I mean purely point production. Don't confuse yourself, I never said Bieksa was a better defensemen than Edler. That's just idiotic. Bieksa is just better offensively. He is better at strictly one facet of the game. Get it straight. Bieksa will have far larger point numbers than Edler this year.