LastPommerFan
-
Posts
8,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LastPommerFan
-
-
I'm sorry to hear that.
Since you ignored it when Qwk said it originally, it bears repeating: we have last change. There is no reason to think Eichel will be against the Sedins all night unless Bylsma naps during the game.
I'm saying Bylsma will intentionally put the ROR line against the Sedins because he wants to win. That's why he's not putting Jack on that line. It's all because you made them bring ROR in.
-
No, we put our 4th or 3rd against the Sedins. McGinn - Larsson - Gionta would be good against that line, or so would the 4th
ROR has to be out against the Sedins. We're trying to win now!
-
But we can develop everybody, just by switching Eichel and Gionta.
And then Jack gets to watch the Sedins play with the puck for 20 minutes.
-
Who is being more effectively developed with these lines?
Zemgus and Samson working together is not a bad idea for both of them, especially with Ennis on the ice. They both have significantly better mates than they did against TB.
-
I get what you're saying whiskey, that Jack can create offense on his own, but HD should be trying to push the right buttons to help him create chemistry and use his linemates better.
Jack isn't the only player he has to develop.
-
He doesn't have any assists, so he doesn't need better wingers?
He had better wingers, he wasn't using them? Reinhardt and Ennis need someone who will open up space.
Maybe the move isn't about Jack, maybe it's about Zemgus.
(I'm out there on this one, just pursuing the thought process)
-
We have the second change against the Canucks, though. We can match up Eichel against any line we want. Why give him McGinn and Larsson instead of Moulson and Foligno/Ennis/Zemgus/Samson?
Because he doesn't need them. There is a reason he doesn't have any assists.
-
So 1st line against 1st line. What does that have to do with Jack going from the 2nd to the 3rd?
purposefully matching him up against the burrows/horvat line. He'll dominate.
I'm guessing here, otherwise, it doesn't make any sense.
-
Not really sure what you mean here. We have last change anyways, so wouldn't that not matter?
The Sedins are going to get their 20 minutes, and control the puck. Put ROR's line out there against them, then put Jack out against lesser competition.
-
Moving Jack away from the 'Nucks big possession line, let him have the puck more, even if he ends up with fewer minutes overall.
-
11-12 was a heroic run to 9th
-
"When morality is injected into the conversation where it is unwarranted, it is your duty to mock that morality by invoking my name and spreading the gospel of Raptor Jesus"
- RJ, 4:17
I think what I, and possibly others, are getting at is that here, in this place, we tend to want people to avoid, as best as possible, any "duty to mock". Not that we don't lovingly mock each other from time to time, but when that derision comes from a place other than that of respect. I get the sense that your invocations are not coming from that place.
-
I'm sorry he's hurt. I hope he heals quickly and plays for many years. I wish we played him in December.
Ayn Rand disagrees. :-P
-
This is put-you-on-ignore worthy.
#NothingafterFairWarning
If David sang it, it counts.
-
To clarify, I'm saying the DNA would be admissible, and the promiscuity would simply be left to the Jury's Imagination. The odds of that connection being made by a Jury of 12 americans are pretty solid. Not that the Lawyers would be able to make the argument themselves.
-
I tried as hard as I could to help (PA).
-
[My comment applies only to effectiveness, not censorship.]
It's possible that offering intentional absurdity in an argument against beliefs as closely held as those involving faith shows a level of respect below that which is expected on this forum. Ergo, we may want to chastise those offering that level of disrespect. I don't think we, as a community, would be terribly far out of line in this criticism. At the same time, dropping in while casting the shadow of the law (as SDS did) may have a chilling effect that is even less desirable than the aforementioned maintenance of the proper modicum of respect. -
I find it difficult to believe that the defense would be permitted to make this accusation on behalf of the alleged victim on their behalf.
"She is confused, it wasn't Pat, It was someone else, here is the evidence"
At this point, I will allow Eleven to clarify, as he is, in fact, a lawsmologist.
-
I'm also no lawentist, but I would think the only admissable DNA evidence to report when you went looking for a specific individuals DNA is that you found none of theirs. If you found others I don't see that as relevant in cases of alleged one-vs-one rape.
I find it difficult to believe that the defense wouldn't be able to present evidence of the possibility that the woman was raped by someone other than the accused.
-
...which is BS.
Best SOS by a mile among the non-SEC teams.
-
Attacking Creationism by belittling absurdity semantics is great for non-creationists to show of how hilarious they are to each other, it's hardly an effective way to theologically debate the absurdity of Young Earth Creationism.
-
How did the Hebrew name David get to Ireland anyway?
ing romans.
-
Not calling him McDavid is anti-Semitic.
-
I'm no lawiologist, but I'm pretty sure the DNA would be admissible, presented as a defense that it wasn't pat in the room. Then the insinuation of promiscuity is left to the jury (and almost assured).
2015 / 2016 Line Up
in The Aud Club
Posted
McGinn is better than Foligno, right?