World Cup 2016

[sodbuster]

It did. So maybe I won't start one. I don't know.

 

This is Hjalmarsson, breaking Erik Karlsson's ankles in practice.

It might be the jumpiness of the gif, but that is the nastiest thing I've ever seen in the ice.

[JJFIVEOH]

Did we merge the political correctness thread with the over 50 and under 50 threads?

 

Buccigross and Weekes are really painful to listen to. 

[GrassValleyGreg]

Those observations were representative of a much larger sampling I've gathered over time. And the behaviours I've observed are predictive, not determinative. There's a reason the dean at U Chicago issued that corrective memo to incoming students this August.

 

Ok. I'm just saying you're not the first to broadly criticize a succeeding generation and probably not the last unless Trump or climate change hastens the apocalypse. WWII vets thought you were a bunch of long-haired pu$sies. It's progression of civilization, so don't recoil in fear or lash out in critical generalizations because the world seems to be rapidly changing around you. Take solace in that this is not new.

 

But yea. Go Sabres. And go USA. 

[JJFIVEOH]

I like Bucci but really can't stand his schtick in the booth. Not looking forward to the return to ESPN. Appreciated the subcultural feel of NBC Sports.

 

I agree. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Copied and pasted from the Twitter:

 

5v5 SV% the past 3 seasons:

Jonathan Quick - .928

Ben Bishop - .926

 

There are more advanced goalie metrics now which show otherwise. As is typical of someone your age, you're a step behind :nana:

[JJFIVEOH]

Ok. I'm just saying you're not the first to broadly criticize a succeeding generation and probably not the last unless Trump or climate change hastens the apocalypse. WWII vets thought you were a bunch of long-haired pu$sies. It's progression of civilization, so don't recoil in fear or lash out in critical generalizations because the world seems to be rapidly changing around you. Take solace in that this is not new.

 

But yea. Go Sabres. And go USA. 

 

Do you want a cookie?

[That Aud Smell]

Ok. I'm just saying you're not the first to broadly criticize a succeeding generation and probably not the last unless Trump or climate change hastens the apocalypse. WWII vets thought you were a bunch of long-haired pu$sies. It's progression of civilization, so don't recoil in fear or lash out in critical generalizations because the world seems to be rapidly changing around you. Take solace in that this is not new.

Oh, fear not. Having an unduly inflated sense of self esteem isn't something that really afflicted my generation. Latch key kids and all. I know I'm no special flower.

 

/is now just trolling, mostly

There are more advanced goalie metrics now which show otherwise. As is typical of someone your age, you're a step behind :nana:

Well struck

[3putt]

Do you want a cookie?

:w00t:

[dudacek]

So, if I read this right, coach was so worried about Eichel and Gaudreau he's moved them onto McJesus' line to see if they can jumpstart their game?

 

And LGR and WC need a safe space where they don't have to listen to people criticize Jack?

 

And Smell has yet to figure out he doesn't have to be plugged into his computer to text?

[Thorny]

Damn. You know someone whose a millenial who posted something on social media? And from this you drew a conclusion for the most populous generation on earth?

 

I'm gonna say it: I know this old man on Sabrespace who used the forum to post a micro-agression to deride a generation for its micro-agressions. There's a generational tendency in this cohort to use narrow, combative definitions for subjects and actions they don't understand, akin to my grandfather and his iPhone. 

 

Team LGR and Card here for the most part. It's only healthy to criticize our sacred cow, especially after a brutal first when he did nothing to dissuade detractors of his low-effort floating rep. It's not a new criticism that he exhibits less effort while making things look effortless. I'll also take their scouting over national ESPN media who just needed to write a sentence about him.

 

There's nothing inherently "healthy" about criticizing the guy on a message board. What health benefits come from it? The power of negative thinking?

 

Sure, it's all well and good to do so in conversation if it's warranted, but if it was healthy to do so it would be worth doing it just for the sake of doing it. But it's not.

 

Honestly, Jack was good yesterday.

 

I think people are trying to find things to criticize about him as a defence mechanism. If you pick him apart now, and learn to expect the perceived negative habits, it won't hurt so much when he doesn't become the greatest player in the NHL and score 100 points every year. Heaven forbid we just appreciate his talent. Better to criticize perceived failings - get ahead of the curve. It's ok now, no one will think you are a blind fanboy, you've critiqued your franchise player in an exhibition game.

 

Sometimes it's just easier to try and find the failings in someone, I guess.

[K-9]

There's nothing inherently "healthy" about criticizing the guy on a message board. What health benefits come from it? The power of negative thinking?

Sure, it's all well and good to do so in conversation if it's warranted, but if it was healthy to do so it would be worth doing it just for the sake of doing it. But it's not.

Honestly, Jack was good yesterday.

I think people are trying to find things to criticize about him as a defence mechanism. If you pick him apart now, and learn to expect the perceived negative habits, it won't hurt so much when he doesn't become the greatest player in the NHL and score 100 points every year. Heaven forbid we just appreciate his talent. Better to criticize perceived failings - get ahead of the curve. It's ok now, no one will think you are a blind fanboy, you've critiqued your franchise player in an exhibition game.

Sometimes it's just easier to try and find the failings in someone, I guess.

Some interesting psychological food for thought here.

 

As for Jack's game last night and the idead he was floating, I've come to the conclusion that some just didn't pay closer attention to the game. He played well, why no praise for that from his detractors?

[Thorny]

Some interesting psychological food for thought here.

As for Jack's game last night and the idead he was floating, I've come to the conclusion that some just didn't pay closer attention to the game. He played well, why no praise for that from his detractors?

If by interesting, you mean hair-brained babbling, then sure. :p

[That Aud Smell]

And Smell has yet to figure out he doesn't have to be plugged into his computer to text?

I'm on a phone now, sonny. There's unexpectedly a signal out here in the woods.

There's nothing inherently "healthy" about criticizing the guy on a message board. What health benefits come from it? The power of negative thinking?

 

Sure, it's all well and good to do so in conversation if it's warranted, but if it was healthy to do so it would be worth doing it just for the sake of doing it. But it's not.

 

Honestly, Jack was good yesterday.

 

I think people are trying to find things to criticize about him as a defence mechanism. If you pick him apart now, and learn to expect the perceived negative habits, it won't hurt so much when he doesn't become the greatest player in the NHL and score 100 points every year. Heaven forbid we just appreciate his talent. Better to criticize perceived failings - get ahead of the curve. It's ok now, no one will think you are a blind fanboy, you've critiqued your franchise player in an exhibition game.

 

Sometimes it's just easier to try and find the failings in someone, I guess.

I heart this post.

[Thorny]

I'm on a phone now, sonny. There's unexpectedly a signal out here in the woods.

 

I heart this post.

I heart you, Smell. I wish I knew how to quit you.

[GrassValleyGreg]

There's nothing inherently "healthy" about criticizing the guy on a message board. What health benefits come from it? The power of negative thinking?

 

Sure, it's all well and good to do so in conversation if it's warranted, but if it was healthy to do so it would be worth doing it just for the sake of doing it. But it's not.

 

Honestly, Jack was good yesterday.

 

I think people are trying to find things to criticize about him as a defence mechanism. If you pick him apart now, and learn to expect the perceived negative habits, it won't hurt so much when he doesn't become the greatest player in the NHL and score 100 points every year. Heaven forbid we just appreciate his talent. Better to criticize perceived failings - get ahead of the curve. It's ok now, no one will think you are a blind fanboy, you've critiqued your franchise player in an exhibition game.

 

Sometimes it's just easier to try and find the failings in someone, I guess.

 

Haha ok pick out a single irrelevant word. Fair enough, not healthy but normal.

 

When I raise the flaws of a movie or book I really liked, it is not a defense mechanism. It's discussing the imperfection of a near perfect product. I think it's important to identify any shortcomings in hopes they are resolved the next time around. It's the role of most critics. Difficult to improve without it.  

 

And its not like anything new was brought up. Many hockey observers "perceive" the coasting and over-reliance on talent of Eichel. This is not groundbreaking. The good (and frustrating) thing is that it is fixable and likely to change with maturity. 

 

Believe me, it's easier to try and find the elite talent of Eich than it is his failings. 

[Thorny]

Haha ok pick out a single irrelevant word. Fair enough, not healthy but normal.

 

When I raise the flaws of a movie or book I really liked, it is not a defense mechanism. It's discussing the imperfection of a near perfect product. I think it's important to identify any shortcomings in hopes they are resolved the next time around. It's the role of most critics. Difficult to improve without it.  

 

And its not like anything new was brought up. Many hockey observers "perceive" the coasting and over-reliance on talent of Eichel. This is not groundbreaking. The good (and frustrating) thing is that it is fixable and likely to change with maturity. 

 

Believe me, it's easier to try and find the elite talent of Eich than it is his failings.

 

And precisely the reason why so many people feel that critics are out of touch with the general movie going population, all too often. So interested in picking something apart for the sake of doing so, so focused on finding fault, that they are unable to enjoy and appreciate something they may have been able to, had they just sat back and enjoyed the artwork unfolding before them.

[GrassValleyGreg]

And precisely the reason why so many people feel that critics are out of touch with the general movie going population, all too often. So interested in picking something apart for the sake of doing so, so focused on finding fault, that they are unable to enjoy and appreciate something they may have been able to, had they just sat back and enjoyed the artwork unfolding before them.

 

Fair enough! But enough room for both I'd say!

 

Edit: Although I don't know these "many people" who feel critics are out of touch. Generally just crappy. But good critics are more often respected for their opinion.

Edited September 10, 2016 by GrassValleyGreg

[Taro T]

And precisely the reason why so many people feel that critics are out of touch with the general movie going population, all too often. So interested in picking something apart for the sake of doing so, so focused on finding fault, that they are unable to enjoy and appreciate something they may have been able to, had they just sat back and enjoyed the artwork unfolding before them.

There also appears to be a bit of Reinhart-fanboi Eichel envy here, IMHO.

 

Eichel's play was a bit disappointing in the 1st period, but he played much better after that - over the entire ice surface. He had a very nice back check to prevent a serious scoring chance while (IIRC) it was still goose eggs on the board. The pass up ice that resulted in an assist was an excellent heads up play and pretty skilled as well. His line got a ton of chances. If they do play him onMcClavicle's wing w/ Johnny Hockey, it will be worth getting out of your seat to watch.

 

And, to whoever said Eichel is the 3rd or 4th best on that team, I'd agree. The 2 Mc's are extremely good & I'd put Jack neck & neck w/ Johnny a smidge ahead of Matthews.

 

(Bringing the focus back to hockey & the present criticisms.)

[Thorny]

There also appears to be a bit of Reinhart-fanboi Eichel envy here, IMHO.

Eichel's play was a bit disappointing in the 1st period, but he played much better after that - over the entire ice surface. He had a very nice back check to prevent a serious scoring chance while (IIRC) it was still goose eggs on the board. The pass up ice that resulted in an assist was an excellent heads up play and pretty skilled as well. His line got a ton of chances. If they do play him onMcClavicle's wing w/ Johnny Hockey, it will be worth getting out of your seat to watch.

And, to whoever said Eichel is the 3rd or 4th best on that team, I'd agree. The 2 Mc's are extremely good & I'd put Jack neck & neck w/ Johnny a smidge ahead of Matthews.

(Bringing the focus back to hockey & the present criticisms.)

I agree with the assessment of talent on the team. Which still makes Eichel pretty remarkable as he's younger than most guys on the team.

 

Where would you guess Eichel projects relative to Mackinnon? Mackinnon just better than him now, or a higher projection going forward too? That said, these things are almost always too close to call.

[Hoss]

Did we merge the political correctness thread with the over 50 and under 50 threads?

 

Buccigross and Weekes are really painful to listen to.

Terrible. Weekes is solid in studio and I love Bucci as an anchor, but they're simply not live material.

Bucci does college hockey and is terrible. ESPN should be embarrassed.

[JJFIVEOH]

Terrible. Weekes is solid in studio and I love Bucci as an anchor, but they're simply not live material.

Bucci does college hockey and is terrible. ESPN should be embarrassed.

 

I knew if enough time passed we'd eventually agree on something.  :angel:

[Sabel79]

ESPN will not be embarrassed, however, because they can not be compelled to care. They cater to a much different crowd, aiming for mediocrity at best (suffering no consequences when they crawl under that bar). The NHL is likely not coming back to them for the foreseeable future, which is probably for the best.

[Randall Flagg]

Okay, so I feel responsible for the direction this thread turned, since I'm the one that first mentioned Jack. I'm going to quote myself a bit and make everything I've been saying a bit more clear.

 

Towards the end of the first period, I posted these: "Honestly, he's been the worst player through a period on that team" and "People on hfboards are making fun of his play so far  :( "

 

Then, this: "Luckily, I don't think he gives a ######, and is just trying to get to the regular season. It's not that he's trying hard and can't keep up, he just looks like he did in the summer league."

"To his credit, the second half of the game he was much better. That first period was ugly though."

 

Then, Liger made one comment about how he thinks Jack floats sometimes, and how he was doing it in this game, how he was a little disappointed, but whatever. He said he was very strong on the puck, which he was. 

Then a bit of piling on, with three posters or so debating these points. Whatever, fair game. Then Liger said this "He wasn't bad. No one on team USA was bad. But when our franchise center goes out there and is just okay, in a game of other young stars, I don't have to like. I expect more of Jack going forward and I am mystified by having to defend saying "jack eichel could have been better last night, he floated a bit too much". Which, IMO, was totally fair.

 

It is not irrational for us to be excited after months of no hockey to see our stud play with others his age, and then to be a bit disappointed when his first period in particular was not good, while we fully admitted that his play improved as the game went on. It's just not. I'm not backing down from how I felt in the moment last night. He lost the puck on about four rushes in the first period because he was a bit careless. While I was making these comments, there were hundreds of fans who watch as much hockey as us, or more, on hfboards, piling on our guy for his play. That happened. It isn't just Liger and I. They don't care about Eichel, they were just seeing the same things we were. All we wanted to say was that that doesn't feel as good to watch as we were hoping for. His first period was bad hockey, period. He started generating things in the second and third, and had a few very nice backchecks, which are not the same thing as defensive zone play, by the way. Which he also looked better at than I remember him finishing last season. 

 

I watched Jack Eichel play 81 games last year. Jack has had many "good games", Carolina, Detroit, Ottawa several times, Philadelphia, Tampa, Winnipeg. Last night wasn't a "good game" just like it wasn't his "worst game" and I'm not going to apologize or back down from saying that, and I'm not going to pretend the sky is falling and demand Jack to be a PPG player and lead us to glory. 

 

 
Thorny posts
The thing is, all the articles I've read from major outlets say Eichel had a good game yesterday, and tout the 200 foot game he displayed. So if he's getting praise from outside sources (irrelevant jabber of the HF Boards not withstanding), why must we be so critical in here? Especially as it was a meaningless game. I understand one has every right to do so and to each their own, just reads like people are going out of their way to do so.

 

I don't think we're being "so critical", as I quoted above, I think it all started perfectly in line. I'm not sure if you caught the game, and I read the articles, and by 200 foot game they meant about four backchecks. Which is great. These articles didn't actually give any depth into his game or anything else, including the TBN one. I learn way more from hockey fans in-game than I do reading articles from "experts" after the game, personally. I saw what I saw. You're right that it was a meaningless game, too, I'm just as baffled as to how this became the big thing it did, not even getting into the "millennial" stuff.

Smell is right when he says it's going to be a long season. If Jack is getting criticized like this now, I can't imagine how much it'll increase going forward. I daresay the expectations placed on the kid will be unmeetable.
 

I've spent four or five seasons on this board. This season is going to be fantastic and fun, and we're all going to learn many things from each other, just like every other season. It's not going to be an insufferable call to burn Jack at the stake because we wish he didn't look bad among his peers for a period. This is where we get into "straw man" territory or something.

 

 

I get where you are coming from and you have every right to make your view on the matter heard, and I can't speak for everyone, but I don't like how it keeps getting framed in a way that implies those disagreeing with the viewpoint you are expressing are just "shouting down" any criticism of Eichel because it's ludicrous as a rule. I'm not against criticism of him or any other player for that matter, when I believe it's warranted. I just happen to wholeheartedly disagree with the criticism of Eichel in this case for a myriad of reasons.

As I read through how this started again, I'm not so sure that this isn't how it started, to a small degree. 

There is not one single aspect of the crticism of his play yesterday I agree with, on any level.
DId you see the first period, where most of our criticism came from? I hadn't seen him play like that since before Christmas break. He stuck out like a sore thumb, and got better. I'm sure in the real games he'll be great. But again, I will post something here when our guy looks the way he did, especially when Toronto's guy had a great period (that was a sad 20 minutes before Matthews kinda disappeared) and guess what? I'll go into the Eichel thread and predict 30+goals, because it's not going to be a long, Eichel-hunting season after a few comments.

 

K-9 post

 

There's nothing inherently "healthy" about criticizing the guy on a message board. What health benefits come from it? The power of negative thinking?

Sure, it's all well and good to do so in conversation if it's warranted, but if it was healthy to do so it would be worth doing it just for the sake of doing it. But it's not.

Honestly, Jack was good yesterday.
Jack was alright yesterday, Jack was good against Carolina in March, and Jack was great in Tampa last November 10th. 
 

Thorny post
I think people are trying to find things to criticize about him as a defence mechanism. If you pick him apart now, and learn to expect the perceived negative habits, it won't hurt so much when he doesn't become the greatest player in the NHL and score 100 points every year. Heaven forbid we just appreciate his talent. Better to criticize perceived failings - get ahead of the curve. It's ok now, no one will think you are a blind fanboy, you've critiqued your franchise player in an exhibition game.
...No. Your guys' arguments are getting weird. I'm still saying the same things. I'm not some idiot who watched 30 seconds of the game, saw Jack flub a pass, and called him a bust. I don't need Jack to be anything more than what I'm confident he'll become.
Sometimes it's just easier to try and find the failings in someone, I guess.

...ok.

 

 

 

K-9

 

Some interesting psychological food for thought here.

As for Jack's game last night and the idead he was floating, I've come to the conclusion that some just didn't pay closer attention to the game. He played well, why no praise for that from his detractors?

Maybe it's hard to believe, but I watched the game pretty eagerly. I'm pretty confused by the latest direction of these "Jack didn't play bad" arguments. And Liger and I both had said numerous times that he improved and looked strong as hell, which I'd call praise.

 

And I'd just like to emphasize one more time, the experts who write articles who suck sometimes and should be taken at their word others, whichever is most convenient, only cited a few backchecks as their "strong 200 foot game" claim. He was fine in the defensive zone, he is visibly the strongest guy on the ice and his acceleration is great. He had a bad first period, bad enough to be a talking point among people who don't give a rat's ass about the Sabres, and for some fans to point it out here. It will happen to every player at some point this season. Wait til an injury puts Gionta next to O'Reilly. 

 

Go Sabres, and I still love you Jack. 

 

Edit: I'm not sure what happened here, I"ll try and fix it. 

Edit again: Okay, it didn't like me quoting that much I guess. Hope this makes sense

 

 

Also, I'm a millennial college student and I don't know what a safe space is 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Randall Flagg

[WildCard]

I dig it. I'm way too drunk to read that all right now, but it seems important. I shall read that tomorrow. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by WildCard

[qwksndmonster]

Also drunk here: Eichel was bad in the first period.

 

But seriously, who cares. Pre-tournament game for a gimmicky team north america game. I don't really give a and don't care if Eichel doesn't either.

 

Obvi the Sabres fanboy in me wanted Jack to light it up. But I just want the actual NHL season to start even more.