Drop Em

Members
  • Content Count

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

166 Good

About Drop Em

  • Rank
    Comets Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

1,726 profile views
  1. You originally said multiple belt holder, you didn't say ANYTHING about the "p4p king". Because if you did, then that would be a TOTALLY different conversation because those are two VERY different things. My argument is that there's been SEVERAL different multiple belt holders who have lost decisively. He was in there against a younger, and bigger guy with big power. His feeling out for the first few round game plan didn't work, and his ring rust showed (IMO), but I don't think it was a dominating unanimous decision.
  2. Totally agree. I know he's a slow starter, and I was expecting that even more considering his long layoff, but I kept waiting for him to start picking up the pace, after the 4th as he was losing too many rounds and basically needed a KO to win. But for whatever reason he didn't. You could tell that Lopez was the much bigger fighter, and I think maybe Loma was a little leery of Lopez's power, and because of that he wasn't engaging like he needed to.
  3. Dominated? I don't think he was dominated. I think he definitely lost, but I don't think he was dominated. And if you've never seen a multiple belt holder champion "get dominated like that", then you should watch more boxing?
  4. Go Dodgers. My Dodgers are going to have a tough series against the Braves, but hopefully their depth comes through and they beat them. And as much as part of me doesn't want to see those cheating prick Astros back in the World Series (not to mention I can't stand Dusty Baker), part of me would really Iove another shot at them. And if the Dodgers don't make it, then they have to seriously consider a managerial change. Can't have that amount of talent year after year, and not win it all at least once. Speaking of managers, can't believe what a great manager Kevin Cash is, and what that whole organization can do considering they're so limited financially. I'm lucky that I cheer for a team that can afford to keep their young players, rather than trading them away because you can't afford to keep them.
  5. The guys been in more than 30 fights in the NHL, and you bring up the two that closest (but still don't) defend your argument. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of the truth. And the truth is that Dana Murzyn was one of the biggest speed bags of his era.....or any era for that matter. He valiantly stuck up for his teammates, but he took a beating doing it. Gudbranson has had many fights other than the ones you mentioned. Like PhillipBlunt said, he fought Matt Martin (one of the toughest guys in the league) in a good angry tilt, he fought Tom Wilson (also one of the toughest guys in the league) in another decent tilt, Michael Haley in a good fight, and I could go on. He pounds the guys he's expected to, and he does very well against the real tough guys. And he's definitely won a LOT more fights than what he's lost. Murzyn lost more fights in a year, than Gudbranson has in his career. And he's 6'5 not 6'7 like you suggest.....but hey, again those are just FACTS!
  6. Gudbranson would have never won a fight if he reminded you of Murzyn.....because unlike Murzyn, that is one thing that Gudbranson can do quite well.
  7. That's the thing though, he's not a great bottom pairing D-man. The Canucks defense was very poor this year, and Markstrom made them look better than what they weren't. He's a 5th/6th defenseman on a poor defense. On a good defense, he doesn't even play and the Canucks need a good defense to win. Also, who are these 3 x 6M defensemen that we're going to need to be paying in the coming years? Hughes, Myers and who?
  8. Guy works hard, but he's a 5th/6th defenseman on a bad defensive Canucks team. They have to improve their porous defense, and how are you going to do that if you're only going to resign the same guys who helped make the defense bad in the first place? IF you're going to do that, then you better resign Tanev, because he's much more valuable than Stecher is. Stecher's not an offensive defenseman, he's not a shutdown defenseman, he's not a physical defenseman. So what is he? He's just kind of there. He can be counted on to work hard, but on a team with a good defense, he doesn't even dress most nights unless there's an injury. I know you need depth/role players, but you can replace him with someone bigger and cheaper. To me, he's just a slightly more skilled, but way less physical Alex Biega = very replaceable. Plus, Stecher is too small. His lack of size wouldn't be as much of a factor if the rest of the guys on the back end were big, but other than Myers and Edler they're not. You can't/shouldn't resign everyone, especially when you need to make changes on a unit that wasn't very good anyways.
  9. Agreed. And at least throwing to Kirk, you're getting a wide target to aim at.
  10. The team as a whole has to be better defensively, especially with the way the staff is constructed. Vladdy had major issues at 1B, and their outfield is terrible defensively. Gurriel's only been playing LF for a couple of years, Grichuk isn't a CF, and Teoscar is BRUTAL in RF.....and Fisher might never get his confidence back after the circus that he is out there. I thought it was bad a couple of years ago when he was camped under a fly ball and took it right in the mush, but this year (especially that game against the Yankees) he was even worse. Everyone has a bad game, but what's scary is that you could tell that he wanted no part of the ball being hit to him.....although I don't think he has a future with the team anyways. Davis might not be able to hit, but at least he looks like he's a good defender as a 4th outfielder/defensive replacement. Right now, they have Teoscar. Tellez, Vladdy and Kirk that should be DH's but only one DH spot. Teoscar seems like a good athlete, but he doesn't seem to have very good instincts and loses his concentration easily, because there's no way that a major league player/outfielder should drop as many routine balls as what I've seen him drop.
  11. Even though you've separated them in the best way possible, there's too many right handed bats in that lineup. The Jays need an athletic CF to start, preferably one who hits left handed and plays good defense. I say athletic because, if Tellez, Vlady Jr and Kirk (who I could see beating out Jansen for the catcher spot) are all going to be regulars, then you need to mix in some athleticism and speed to compensate for their lack of it. Having 3 station to station players like that in the same lineup is tough. The Jays are definitely going to have to try and out score you, especially with their terrible defense, and mediocre (at best) rotation - who pitch to contact and don't strike a lot of guys out. Having ground/fly ball pitchers pitch for teams that can't play defense, doesn't work out very well.
  12. I actually agree with YOU. The reason I was questioning the other poster, was because he was saying that we could afford to lose Markstrom because we had Demko as a #1 and Dipietro as a back up. So he wants to rely on a guy who hasn't proven that he can be a #1 yet, who also has a history of concussions, and a guy whose only had 1 year of pro hockey under his belt. Other than his great little run in the playoffs, Demko has only proven to be very average so far. And as far as Dipietro goes, not too many goalies play in the NHL in any capacity after only playing pro for a year. That's what I was questioning. In an ideal world, they'd bring in a good solid experienced guy to play 30-50 games depending on how Demko handles the added workload and pressure. Then sign another vet like Domingue, to tutor and help Dipietro develop in the minors. This should help save some money for the much needed help on the back end. Then you have solid starters, a solid AHL goalie and an emergency replacement in Domingue.....and Dipietro continuing to develop.. In my opinion, Dipietro should not see NHL ice next year unless in the most extreme of cases. But again, those are just my opinions.
  13. Semantics, because everyone knows that you need to dress 2 goalies every game and have 2 dress every game in Utica as well. You could sign 15 goalies and have depth, but it doesn't mean that it's "quality" depth. I assumed that everyone already knew with my note about how important the position is, that referring to depth wasn't a quantity issue, but more so a quality/quantity issue. My bad for not spelling it out more clearly. I agree with what you said about the defense though, but that's a pretty big "if" about Demko being able to carry the load.....and you can count on one hand the teams that have won the cup without great goaltending.
  14. Ummmmm, Jake Virtanen and character have never been used together unless the word "lacks" was in front of character. I like the guy, but he's shown repeatedly that he's immature and unprofessional, both on and off the ice, and that shows a complete lack of character.