Drop Em

Members
  • Content Count

    419
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

174 Good

About Drop Em

  • Rank
    Comets Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

1,766 profile views
  1. Burrows wasn't a pick, he was an undrafted FA, where as Gadjovich was a 2nd round pick. I was hoping he'd develop a little quicker, but it's not all that surprising that he hasn't. Because it usually takes guys a little while to get acclimated and establish themselves coming out of junior hockey. It's pretty rare to see a kid come in out of juniors and not go through a huge adjustment and learning curve, especially guys whose skating is an issue. I'd love to see a bottom 6 containing both Gadjovich and MacEwen in the lineup in the coming years. Two guys who are physical, work hard, have good hands and who don't mind using those hands for not just scoring.
  2. I still don't get the players you've compared him too, because they're all so different.
  3. O'brien, Kassian and Stoll were known partyers, which I guess is the connection you were trying to make? But I don't get the Sandlak and Linden references?
  4. Bigger than Reeves? MacEwen might have an inch or so on Reeves, but Reeves has 20-30lbs on him. I don't know if MacEwen will ever be as feared of a fighter as Reeves is or play with the same mean streak, but I hope you're right. I just like the fact that he sticks up for his teammates and himself, does things the right way and works hard and can play the game.
  5. Because you wanted a comment about Schmidt, but refused to give one about Hughes based on the same criteria. It's nice that you've got a buddy now in Me_, because he should actually be on your case about your use of the 1A defensemen thing, as that was YOUR reference.
  6. Him and I were going back and forth about other things, including him reading things that weren't there. But in the case of the 1A thing, I was at least able to figure out what he meant (it wasn't that hard), it's only you who wasn't. Like I said, was I supposed to point out his spelling mistakes too? Read the WHOLE thread, and then complain to the source about your precious nomenclature that he so rudely violated.
  7. READ it AGAIN from the BEGINNING, instead of part way through. He (SHAYSTER007) said 1A FIRST, I was only replying to HIS use of the 1A nomenclature. I was able to figure out what he meant, but I guess you weren't capable. But it was him and I discussing it = DEFENSEMEN. So if you're going to try and be a smart ass or bust anyone's balls about the 1A thing, then at least find the source. He also made a couple of spelling mistakes, would you have liked me to point those out too? Young people? Yeah ok.....another baseless and inaccurate assumption. Like I said, I think it's nap time Me_
  8. I don't have to re-read, I was the one saying it.....probably best you re-read it though. Him and I were talking about Hughes and why he thinks that Hughes is a 1A DEFENSEMEN based on TOI and POINTS.....nothing to do with GOALIES. Maybe it's past your nap time.
  9. Really? Wow, thanks for that enlightening revelation. And either is Schmidt who is the player that he was referring too. So what in the hell does your goalie comment have to do with him and I discussing Schmidt and Hughes's underlying stats? Thanks for coming out.
  10. Thank you so much.....and back atcha about the Hughes thing, as well as the rest of your hypocritical and made up comments.
  11. I can't stay on subject? I have and can. You didn't even see all of the players listed and my comments for each. So once again, pot meet kettle. Not sure where you're getting Hughes as playing the highest average minutes, when Edler played more average minutes than Hughes did.....but hey, don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of you trying to spin the point in your favor.....but at least you had his age right.....so cudos for that I guess.
  12. Do those same underlying stats you speak of, consider Hughes a 1A like you say he is?
  13. No, to me questioning ones mental capacity does not count the same as calling someone names. And even if it did, you did the EXACT same thing when you started your reply with your "you can conclude that I don't have a clue" comment. Pretty hypocritical of you eh. So pot meet kettle....... You can use Schmidt's ice time and point totals as a strong starting point all you want, to suit your narrative and that's fine, although almost everyone knows that there's more that goes into it than just that. But if you're just basing it off of just that, then how is Quinn Hughes a 1A defenseman? By 1A you're saying the cream of the crop. So to make it simple for you - "on paper" even IF every team had a 1A guy on their roster (which they all most certainly DON'T), then although Hughes was a point producer, he wasn't even in the top 75 in TOI for defensemen last year. So how can Hughes be a 1A like you say, when he's getting second pairing minutes? So you asked for a stat, so there's one for you. If you can have a hockey debate, by having some self awareness and not being a hypocrite, then I'm more than willing to do that. But I'm not going to get into a bunch more long diatribes as to why the Canucks D is bad (on paper and on the ice), when it's CLEAR to everyone that they're not good enough no matter where you're talking about them playing.
  14. What? I listed out all the D-men and my thoughts about each on "paper", as a counter point to yours. For example - you had Schmidt on your list as a top pairing guy, and I completely disagree with that, and that was WRITTEN in my reply. If I was talking about their performance ON THE ICE so far this year, then they'd pretty much all be fringe NHL'ers. As for calling you names, I didn't call you a single name, so I have no idea about what in the hell you're talking about there - but it seems like your comprehension skills are as flawed as the Canucks D is.....bud.