Sam Gagner | C/W

[Rob_Zepp]

13 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

isn’t it sad that I can’t tell if you’re being serious or just trolling. 

Yes, quite sad.  

[ForsbergTheGreat]

4 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Yes, quite sad.  

Aint got time for trolls.

Pedal your nonsense else where.  

[Rob_Zepp]

11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Aint got time for trolls.

Pedal your nonsense else where.  

Yup.   You invent terms and then apply them incorrectly and get called on it and they you say that is trolling.   Uh, sure.   You go with that.   Good for you!

[Toews]

14 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

You and this term.  No one is being "sheltered".    Moreover, whatever it is you think that term means, "sheltered" players most certainly are not playing in 3 on 3 overtime situations.

There will always be players on a team that get put in positions to play lower levels of competition. To say that "no one is being 'sheltered'" is simply not true based on the common usage of that term. Now if you are railing against the way the hockey community chooses to use that word, then that is a whole different matter. Also playing in 3 on 3 OT has little to do with sheltering, it is the overall usage of that player that must be considered. 

[Rob_Zepp]

30 minutes ago, Toews said:

There will always be players on a team that get put in positions to play lower levels of competition. To say that "no one is being 'sheltered'" is simply not true based on the common usage of that term. Now if you are railing against the way the hockey community chooses to use that word, then that is a whole different matter. Also playing in 3 on 3 OT has little to do with sheltering, it is the overall usage of that player that must be considered. 

I am simply taking to task the biggest troll on this site who is constantly trying to insert some form of negative bait in pretty much every thread.   It gets beyond tiresome. 

 

 Other than that, I actually agree with you.   

[Toews]

15 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I am simply taking to task the biggest troll on this site who is constantly trying to insert some form of negative bait in pretty much every thread.   It gets beyond tiresome. 

 

 Other than that, I actually agree with you.   

The list of trolls will be a mile long if you are going to include FTG as one. You might as well add my name to that list as well. 

[Rob_Zepp]

Just now, Toews said:

The list of trolls will be a mile long if you are going to include FTG as one. You might as well add my name to that list as well. 

Nah.   My list is quite short actually.   You are not remotely close.

 

Cheers.   

[Rob_Zepp]

53 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

"sheltered" is a very popular hockey term and a bottom 6 player being gifted powerplay time is a perfect example of a player being sheltered.  

It is also a term used by someone trying to demonstrate that they believe a given player is a "failure" and can be used to incite a sense of "bad move" on behalf of the team around an overall rhetoric of "alas, my team is failing me with all these horrible moves and they shelter their failures" and so forth.  I get the hockey use of the term and have no problem with it being used in that sense.  I dislike the trollish use of the term to simply incite an agenda that is woefully transparent.

 

Cheers!  

[ForsbergTheGreat]

4 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Yup.   You invent terms and then apply them incorrectly and get called on it and they you say that is trolling.   Uh, sure.   You go with that.   Good for you!

Holy crap you weren’t just trolling.  Just wow. I especially love how you used the one game in which a 1/4 of the starting roster is hurt to justify your point. “Ignore the first quarter of the season, this one single game helps my point.”  Haha good grief Charlie Brown you crack me up. 

 

24 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

It is also a term used by someone trying to demonstrate that they believe a given player is a "failure"

 

 

Um what?  Keep digging that hole. Sheltering has nothing to do with a player being a failure. I want our rookies to be sheltered when they enter the league. Does that mean I think they are failures. Last year gagner was extremely sheltered and put up 50 points.  The entire hockey world admits he was sheltered, so they think a 50 point player is a failure?  Nope. You need to rethink that understanding you have about the term “sheltered” or perhaps stop getting so triggered about every “true” statement I make and assume what I’m implying means something else.  

 

24 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

and can be used to incite a sense of "bad move" on behalf of the team around an overall rhetoric of "alas, my team is failing me with all these horrible moves and they shelter their failures" and so forth.  I get the hockey use of the term and have no problem with it being used in that sense.  I dislike the trollish use of the term to simply incite an agenda that is woefully transparent.

Looks like your trolling yourself. 

[Rob_Zepp]

23 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Holy crap you weren’t just trolling.  Just wow. I especially love how you used the one game in which a 1/4 of the starting roster is hurt to justify your point. “Ignore the first quarter of the season, this one single game helps my point.”  Haha good grief Charlie Brown you crack me up. 

 

 

Um what?  Keep digging that hole. Sheltering has nothing to do with a player being a failure. I want our rookies to be sheltered when they enter the league. Does that mean I think they are failures. Last year gagner was extremely sheltered and put up 50 points.  The entire hockey world admits he was sheltered, so they think a 50 point player is a failure?  Nope. You need to rethink that understanding you have about the term “sheltered” or perhaps stop getting so triggered about every “true” statement I make and assume what I’m implying means something else.  

 

Looks like your trolling yourself. 

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

As brutal Gagner has been at stretches this season, he's got some jam.  I think he would benefit staying at center, at least he stays active and involved even if he isn't great defensively.  I think adding a big physical body to give him some room would help his game.  He looked great during the preseason with Jake Virtanen and has built some great chemistry with Vanek.

 

Maybe make a Vanek-Gagner-Virtanen line. With all the injuries, I would experiment with almost all line combos to find some more scoring 5v5

[combover]

I’m no Sam fan but that was nice ot goal.

I’d still trade him If a partner could be found and a few goals like that might be enough to pull the wool over the 3.25 for 2 more For a playoff bound team.

 

[Dazzle]

3 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

It is also a term used by someone trying to demonstrate that they believe a given player is a "failure" and can be used to incite a sense of "bad move" on behalf of the team around an overall rhetoric of "alas, my team is failing me with all these horrible moves and they shelter their failures" and so forth.  I get the hockey use of the term and have no problem with it being used in that sense.  I dislike the trollish use of the term to simply incite an agenda that is woefully transparent.

 

Cheers!  

 

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Holy crap you weren’t just trolling.  Just wow. I especially love how you used the one game in which a 1/4 of the starting roster is hurt to justify your point. “Ignore the first quarter of the season, this one single game helps my point.”  Haha good grief Charlie Brown you crack me up. 

 

 

Um what?  Keep digging that hole. Sheltering has nothing to do with a player being a failure. I want our rookies to be sheltered when they enter the league. Does that mean I think they are failures. Last year gagner was extremely sheltered and put up 50 points.  The entire hockey world admits he was sheltered, so they think a 50 point player is a failure?  Nope. You need to rethink that understanding you have about the term “sheltered” or perhaps stop getting so triggered about every “true” statement I make and assume what I’m implying means something else.  

 

Looks like your trolling yourself. 

ForsbergTheGreat is quite brutally honest about a team, to the point that I feel he is not even a fan of the team because of how negative it can be. He's not one of the posters that I would agree with normally, but in this case he is right. Sheltering is, from how I've seen it being used, is to give low minutes/low competition for a young/recently recovered player to get them used to the NHL speed. Sometimes defenceman play sheltered minutes and that's where you usually hear that from.

 

IMHO, the explanation that you used is not correct.

[Rob_Zepp]

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

 

ForsbergTheGreat is quite brutally honest about a team, to the point that I feel he is not even a fan of the team because of how negative it can be. He's not one of the posters that I would agree with normally, but in this case he is right. Sheltering is, from how I've seen it being used, is to give low minutes/low competition for a young/recently recovered player to get them used to the NHL speed. Sometimes defenceman play sheltered minutes and that's where you usually hear that from.

 

IMHO, the explanation that you used is not correct.

Wasn't the point.   He was/is trolling the fan base for your team.  He rarely gets call for it.  He will now pout and negative rep anyone who dares call him on it.   Great to have a discussion forum with different opinions but when someone is simply there to stir the pot, why not call them out and see if they can at least admit to their trollish behaviour?

[kloubek]

I really think you guys are being too hard on him.  Its a new system for a historically streaky player and his ice time rivals that of Gaunce. (Which is to say very close to the bottom third of all our players).

 

I expected more after his stats last season but I still think he may come around at some point.  Besides that, his contract is fairly reasonable and hes 7th on the team in scoring which isn't that bad. 

 

If anything my biggest beef with him is his lack of defensive play.

[Rob_Zepp]

2 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

Okay you called him out on it, then he came back with a counter argument and absolutely destroyed you to the point where all you could do was post one of your silly meme's, tuck your tail between your legs and run away.  Just give it up man.  If somebody says something not so pleasant about the team every once in awhile it doesn't mean they are trolling or they hate the team.  Some people here get way too offended way too easily 

 

I think I have missed 4 or 5 Canucks games in the last 4 years combined, I express my mind and say negative things sometimes.  Do you really think I hate this team?  

No he didn't, he came back and neg repped (does anyone actually care about those when a troll does that?) about ten unrelated posts and said zero other than "I'm right coz I am".   It is all he ever does.   The meme is simply responding at same level.  I am not running anywhere, I am right here - I never run, I simply point out how simply trollish it is to always take the negative no matter the issue.   I did with you and you have actually been very balanced for quite a well now - doubt I had anything to do with it but you have been impressed how much more balanced you have been.   I don't think you hate the team at all, I have said so many times - I think you are two things - passionate and frustrated.   I also think you have heaped all the various frustrations of many years onto a version of your team that is a bit unfair to them but I understand why you have done so.   The other fella exhibits no passion, no logic and no sense that he is an actual fan in any way, shape or form and it becomes obvious when you call someone out.   When you were challenged, you didn't get personal or trollish - you got frustrated and exasperated and tried to say why which was your long-standing wish to see the team you love win it all before your time on the planet had expired.   That seemed not only genuine but explained a lot.   

 

You are in a different box from the other guy - a box I quite respect.   I have no clue why you are stooping to giving him your time.   

 

Anyway, not running.   Not at all.

 

Cheers!  

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

No he didn't, he came back and neg repped (does anyone actually care about those when a troll does that?) about ten unrelated posts and said zero other than "I'm right coz I am".   It is all he ever does.   The meme is simply responding at same level.  I am not running anywhere, I am right here - I never run, I simply point out how simply trollish it is to always take the negative no matter the issue.   I did with you and you have actually been very balanced for quite a well now - doubt I had anything to do with it but you have been impressed how much more balanced you have been.   I don't think you hate the team at all, I have said so many times - I think you are two things - passionate and frustrated.   I also think you have heaped all the various frustrations of many years onto a version of your team that is a bit unfair to them but I understand why you have done so.   The other fella exhibits no passion, no logic and no sense that he is an actual fan in any way, shape or form and it becomes obvious when you call someone out.   When you were challenged, you didn't get personal or trollish - you got frustrated and exasperated and tried to say why which was your long-standing wish to see the team you love win it all before your time on the planet had expired.   That seemed not only genuine but explained a lot.   

 

You are in a different box from the other guy - a box I quite respect.   I have no clue why you are stooping to giving him your time.   

 

Anyway, not running.   Not at all.

 

Cheers!  

ah so i'm not a fan because I didn't like the idea of signing a soft, inconsistent player to a three year deal.  I'm not a fan because I said two years was the max i would like to go with him because I didn't think we need a 3 year stopgap in which the player himself needs to get sheltered in order to produce like he did last year..Hmm so having an opinon on the matter makes me not a fan?  Or perhaps you just can't handle someone having a different opinion the topic, an opinion that you argued against page after page with, an opinion that is turning out to be correct.  

 

Yep, you sure called me out, i'm glad you felt Gagner getting a bit of 3on3 ice time when 25% of the core roster is injured made you feel justified.  Your reply was nothing more than a trollish attempt of cherry picking one game (under abnormal circumstances) to get a response from me,  it wasn't well thought out, logical, and it didn't even have anything to do with the point i made in my post,  I'm not going to put any time in to such childish games, or posters for that matter.  We all know how much you dislike Tkachuk.  Should I reply to you any time he puts up a multi point game?  Should I come back and reply to you every time Gagner lays a stinker?  Grow up Rob.  

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

12 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

ah so i'm not a fan because I didn't like the idea of signing a soft, inconsistent player to a three year deal.  I'm not a fan because I said two years was the max i would like to go with him because I didn't think we need a 3 year stopgap in which the player himself needs to get sheltered in order to produce like he did last year..Hmm so having an opinon on the matter makes me not a fan?  Or perhaps you just can't handle someone having a different opinion the topic, an opinion that you argued against page after page with, an opinion that is turning out to be correct.  

 

Yep, you sure called me out, i'm glad you felt Gagner getting a bit of 3on3 ice time when 25% of the core roster is injured made you feel justified.  Your reply was nothing more than a trollish attempt of cherry picking one game (under abnormal circumstances) to get a response from me,  it wasn't well thought out, logical, and it didn't even have anything to do with the point i made in my post,  I'm not going to put any time in to such childish games, or posters for that matter.  We all know how much you dislike Tkachuk.  Should I reply to you any time he puts up a multi point game?  Should I come back and reply to you every time Gagner lays a stinker?  Grow up Rob.  

 

 

[-AJ-]

Please stay focused on the topic at hand, folks.

[Bang Bang Boogie]

17 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

ah so i'm not a fan because I didn't like the idea of signing a soft, inconsistent player to a three year deal.  I'm not a fan because I said two years was the max i would like to go with him because I didn't think we need a 3 year stopgap in which the player himself needs to get sheltered in order to produce like he did last year..Hmm so having an opinon on the matter makes me not a fan?  Or perhaps you just can't handle someone having a different opinion the topic, an opinion that you argued against page after page with, an opinion that is turning out to be correct.  

 

Yep, you sure called me out, i'm glad you felt Gagner getting a bit of 3on3 ice time when 25% of the core roster is injured made you feel justified.  Your reply was nothing more than a trollish attempt of cherry picking one game (under abnormal circumstances) to get a response from me,  it wasn't well thought out, logical, and it didn't even have anything to do with the point i made in my post,  I'm not going to put any time in to such childish games, or posters for that matter.  We all know how much you dislike Tkachuk.  Should I reply to you any time he puts up a multi point game?  Should I come back and reply to you every time Gagner lays a stinker?  Grow up Rob.  

 

 

Rob is a childish poster.  I downvoted one of his posts and he went through and downvoted a whole bunch of my posts in threads that are no longer relevant (old GDTs, which is where I usually limit my posts to).  Check it out for yourself