I’m not sorry
- Dozzer

I mean, if you still held your godly powers, everything could/would be amended.

Leafs playing on the road against the best team on paper, one of the hottest teams the past few months, coming off maybe the most embarrassing game in franchise history, fresh off a TDL where the GM did nothing important and pressure is at a season high.

Everything points to a crushing loss.

So, therefore, they're going to win.
- JohnFergusonJr

i'm kinda done with this stupid argument let me put it to you this way. if i have the option of the leafs full healthy defense rielly included 6 d with holl playing on it going into the playoffs or only playing 5 d with rielly no holl + ekblad, i'm rolling with 5 d no holl with ekblad 10 out of 10 times. holl just isn't good enough for a serious cup contending team, my opinion you don't have to agree. the results will be made known over the next 3.25 seasons, i don't think holl will even be a regular playing leaf next season.

I blame the ref that's here currently, that wasn't here for months, so he ain't a ref no more. (frank)ing guy!
- GreatGigInTheSky

(frank)ing Dozzer

i'm kinda done with this stupid argument let me put it to you this way. if i have the option of the leafs full healthy defense rielly included 6 d with holl playing on it going into the playoffs or only playing 5 d with rielly no holl + ekblad, i'm rolling with 5 d no holl with ekblad 10 out of 10 times. holl just isn't good enough for a serious cup contending team, my opinion you don't have to agree. the results will be made known over the next 3.25 seasons, i don't think holl will even be a regular playing leaf next season.
- ghetto puck

And nobody is disagreeing with you... some think Holl can be a guy and some can’t.

Our problem is that your criteria of who has and has not proven themselves capable is pretty over generalized.

(frank)ing Dozzer
- Dongull_Trump

Yeah, (frank) that guy!

I’m not sorry
- Dozzer

I don't blame you. If I was a ref for this mad house I'd probably just end up banning everyone but one or two posters.

I don't blame you. If I was a ref for this mad house I'd probably just end up banning everyone but one or two posters.
- Thecakeisalie

The number of times I wanted to just say (frank) it and lock the thread is pretty notable tbh

And nobody is disagreeing with you... some think Holl can be a guy and some can’t.

Our problem is that your criteria of who has and has not proven themselves capable is pretty over generalized.
- Dozzer

stating holl can play bottom 6 on a real contender is your opinion not fact which you are trying to present it as. zeen? bumbaclot!

stating holl can play bottom 6 on a real contender is your opinion not fact which you are trying to present it as. zeen? bumbaclot!
- ghetto puck

But he can.

stating holl can play bottom 6 on a real contender is your opinion not fact which you are trying to present it as. zeen? bumbaclot!
- ghetto puck

I thought you were just being facetious, but it seems like you honestly don't get it, so I'll try one more time.

Dozzer and I aren't really even arguing about Holl, or Ekblad, or anyone else at this point. While we might think Holl is a serviceable 3rd pairing guy, the real problem we have lies elsewhere.

The real problem is with your definition of what makes a player capable of playing on this team when it's a contender.

You stated that Holl wasn't good enough because he's never played on a contender or cup winner while playing regular minutes.

Forget about Holl entirely and look at that argument. "Player X isn't good enough to be on a contender because they have never played significant minutes on a cup winner or contender before."

You can slot in about 3/4 of all defenseman in the NHL into "Player X" and it would work. Some of which are very good players, like Ekblad for example. Players that are obviously good enough to play on a contender. Thus your argument is silly.

I thought you were just being facetious, but it seems like you honestly don't get it, so I'll try one more time.

Dozzer and I aren't really even arguing about Holl, or Ekblad, or anyone else at this point. While we might think Holl is a serviceable 3rd pairing guy, the real problem we have lies elsewhere.

The real problem is with your definition of what makes a player capable of playing on this team when it's a contender.

You stated that Holl wasn't good enough because he's never played on a contender or cup winner while playing regular minutes.

Forget about Holl entirely and look at that argument. "Player X isn't good enough to be on a contender because they have never played significant minutes on a cup winner or contender before."

You can slot in about 3/4 of all defenseman in the NHL into "Player X" and it would work. Some of which are very good players, like Ekblad for example. Players that are obviously good enough to play on a contender. Thus your argument is silly.
- Thecakeisalie

NO.

NO.
- ghetto puck

A very concise rebuttal. The fact that you used caps for both letters instead of just the "N" really makes it a stronger argument.

stating holl can play bottom 6 on a real contender is your opinion not fact which you are trying to present it as. zeen? bumbaclot!
- ghetto puck

I never said it was fact...it’s just my opinion. You replied with the argument that in order to have proved yourself capable of playing on a contender you have to have already done so. The amount of players who have never played on a contender is pretty (frank)ing large and includes some pretty damn big names.

Jesus you’re something else. Just admit to over generalizing so we can move on with it ffs.

I suggest everyone joins a debate team for a year. It's quite illuminating.

I thought you were just being facetious, but it seems like you honestly don't get it, so I'll try one more time.

Dozzer and I aren't really even arguing about Holl, or Ekblad, or anyone else at this point. While we might think Holl is a serviceable 3rd pairing guy, the real problem we have lies elsewhere.

The real problem is with your definition of what makes a player capable of playing on this team when it's a contender.

You stated that Holl wasn't good enough because he's never played on a contender or cup winner while playing regular minutes.

Forget about Holl entirely and look at that argument. "Player X isn't good enough to be on a contender because they have never played significant minutes on a cup winner or contender before."

You can slot in about 3/4 of all defenseman in the NHL into "Player X" and it would work. Some of which are very good players, like Ekblad for example. Players that are obviously good enough to play on a contender. Thus your argument is silly.
- Thecakeisalie

- Thecakeisalie

i stated holl wasn't good enough because he wasn't good enough, dozzer stated like it was fact that holl would be a viable piece of a true contender which is actually his opinion because he has never actually done it. how can he be a viable bottom 6 guy on a true contender if he's never done it, never won a cup and is a marginal nhl defenseman at best? so it is of his opinion that holl can be viable piece to an actual contender not proven fact nor has it ever been stated or backed by any sort of legit nhl hockey expert.

I never said it was fact...it’s just my opinion. You replied with the argument that in order to have proved yourself capable of playing on a contender you have to have already done so. The amount of players who have never played on a contender is pretty (frank)ing large and includes some pretty damn big names.

Jesus you’re something else. Just admit to over generalizing so we can move on with it ffs.
- Dozzer

for justin holl and other players like him specifically who are marginal nhl players at best.

you lost bro, give it up.

for justin holl and other players like him specifically who are marginal nhl players at best.
- ghetto puck

Ok, so where do you draw the line? When, in your opinion, can a player be considered a viable piece to a contender when they haven’t done so yet? Honest question... where’s that line?

for justin holl and other players like him specifically who are marginal nhl players at best.

you lost bro, give it up.
- ghetto puck

Lost? not a single person here agrees with your logic and I lost?

And “bro”? oh god you’re one of those

i stated holl wasn't good enough because he wasn't good enough, dozzer stated like it was fact that holl would be a viable piece of a true contender which is actually his opinion because he has never actually done it. how can he be a viable bottom 6 guy on a true contender if he's never done it, never won a cup and is a marginal nhl defenseman at best? so it is of his opinion that holl can be viable piece to an actual contender not proven fact nor has it ever been stated or backed by any sort of legit nhl hockey expert.
- ghetto puck

The underlined part can be asked about 3/4 of the defenders in the NHL. Like I just explained to you. That and you're opinion on him being a marginal NHL defender, which you haven't offered any proof of.

If your problem is simply that you felt Dozzer was stating a fact, rather than an opinion, that's one thing. If you think Holl isn't good enough to even be a 3rd pairing guy on a contending team and have reasons to back it up, like stats, or a breakdown of what you dislike about his on ice play, that's one thing.

If you're only argument on why he isn't good enough is simply that he hasn't already won a cup or been on a team that went to the finals or something, then it's just faulty logic.

Lost? not a single person here agrees with your logic and I lost?

And “bro”? oh god you’re one of those
- Dozzer

I'm not your bro, buddy!

The underlined part can be asked about 3/4 of the defenders in the NHL. Like I just explained to you.

If your problem is simply that you felt Dozzer was stating a fact, rather than an opinion, that's one thing. If you think Holl isn't good enough to even be a 3rd pairing guy on a contending team and have reasons to back it up, like stats, or a breakdown of what you dislike about his on ice play, that's one thing.

If you're only argument on why he isn't good enough is simply that he hasn't already won a cup or been on a team that went to the finals or something, then it's just faulty logic.
- Thecakeisalie

Why isn’t he seeing this?

Using his argument nobody on the leafs except for Muzzin and Clifford has proven they can be part of a cup winner

I dunno anymore, this team cañ beat any body and everybody except for the zamboni driver

Leafs won and got 2 points. Goto bed and quit arguing over nothing.

You'll need your sleep to stake out your spot on the parade route.