AROUND THE LEAGUE PLAYOFFS WEEK SIX

Jason Gregor
June 03 2010 02:45PM

As the Stanley Cup Finals wind down, I wonder if Patrick Kane is the most under-rated player in the NHL; or at least from the Canadian media and fans. Jonathon Toews gets more accolades than Kane, and despite his 22 points, to Toews 27; Kane hasn’t been mentioned as even a possibility for the Conn Smyth.

Why I wonder?

Toews is clearly a better ambassador off the ice.

He hasn’t been involved in any dust ups with taxi drivers,  doesn’t have a cool nickname like 20 cent, and he wasn’t shirtless in a limo with young Vancouver ladies. The only flak Kane should have received over the limo pics was his choice of companions. Who cares if a 21-year-old male is partying in a limo with girls?

But if you focus on his on-ice play it is hard to overlook what he has accomplished.

In his first three seasons he has 76 goals and 230 points in 244 games. Toews has 83 goals, 191 points in 222 games. Toews is the captain and one hell of a leader, and has shown an ability to step up his game in the playoffs and Olympics.

But so has Kane.

Toews has 40 career playoff points to Kane’s 36. It’s not a comparison between who is better, (I’d take Toews’ overall game) because their games are different, but I sense Kane doesn’t get the respect his game deserves. He might be the best player in the game at controlling the play high in the offensive zone. He has the ability to circle between the top of the circles and the blueline and make teams look lost. He has great vision, and for my money is one of the best passers in the game.

I also like his flair/cockiness. He makes the game fun. Some have laughed at his playoff Mullet, but it doesn’t faze him. And you can’t discount his ability to produce in the clutch. Kane needs one chance and he can finish. If Patrick Kane was Canadian would he be talked about more?

ICE WOMEN OF THE WEEK

The playoffs could be over by next Thursday, so let’s honour the entire BlackHawks Ice Crew. With such a wide array of beauties it is hard to pick a favourite, but, for me, something about Yanina separates her from the rest of the crew.

RANDOM THOUGHTS

  • Can anyone tell me who picked up the puck after game one of the Penguins/Red Wings series last year? Didn’t think so, because we shouldn’t care. Not sure why The Human Rake’s decision to pick up the puck annoyed so many people. That’s why he did it. To piss people off. Rake 1- hockey people 0.
  • If you are planning on going to the NHL draft in LA you can get tickets starting Saturday. Here’s a blurb from the Kings website. “Tickets for the 2010 NHL Entry Draft will be available to the general public beginning this Saturday, June 5, at 10 a.m.~ A limited number of tickets, which are free of charge, can be downloaded and printed (note a service charge of $1.25 per ticket will be charged) by visiting LAKings.com/nhldraft.~ Ticket limit is 4 (four) and each ticket is good for both days.”
  • The Hawks haven’t missed Andrew Ladd that much in the finals. He is an RFA this summer, and with his size should make him attractive trade bait if Stan Bowman elects to move him.
  • How much will RFA D-man, Niklas Hjarlmarsson be worth this summer? The 22-year-old Swede has been very solid for the Hawks. What Bowman does with his backend this summer will be intriguing to watch. Brian Campbell has played the 5th most minutes in the Cup final out of the blueliners, but his contract makes him untradeable I’d think.
  • Would Darryl Sutter buy-out the final two years of Ales Kotalik’s contract? They could buy him out for $4 million and split that up over four years.  
  • Why doesn’t baseball have instant replay? Detroit pitcher, Armando Galarraga was robbed of a perfect game last night when first-base umpire, Jim Joyce ruled Jason Donald safe at first. Replays clearly showed Donald was safe. Commissioner Bud Selig should wake up and allow teams to one or two challenge flags every game. I do credit Joyce for admitting after the game he screwed up, and Galarraga was incredibly classy after the game. He did get a surprise gift today though for his efforts
  • Kelly Buchberger and Wayne Fleming have yet to receive contract extensions. Their contracts are up June 30th, so we could see some changes behind the bench this summer. No position in the organization is safe at this point, and that’s how it should be when you’ve missed the playoffs four years consecutively.

 

Ddf3e2ba09069c465299f3c416e43eae
One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor
Avatar
#151 Crash
June 07 2010, 08:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:
I never once said that these two guys are phenoms...this is a word you have been using and you have attached to it in your mind what it means. Who is to say what classes a player as a phenom, you? me?

I never said you did. I was talking to Arch. If you want to reply to a comment directed at someone else you should probably read the conversation first, because because I twice expressed the importance of how we are defining the word and asked arch for his definition. Don't lecture me on a point I have made quite clearly twice already.

All I said was is it not possible for these guys to become phenomenal players? Given their skills and talent I would say this possibility exists.

Did I not already address this? If you can't grasp the difference between a discussion about how a player is regarded and the possibility that they become something more then I can't help you.

so I just provided a link that showed that if Hall had been draft eligible in 2009 that many scouts would have rated him ahead of Tavares, Hedman and Duchene which clearly was going against your statement above that only Oiler fans believe that Hall/Seguin are as good as those guys...that's the reason i included the link.

No. You provided a pre-season report about how Hall was regarded entering the season. I clearly responded to this your reply here does not address the concerns I raised - that this is pre-season and that they have Fowler over Seguin. What do you think about my Tavares comment? This is feeling pointless when you don't seem to want to respond to my actual comments.

Show me something leading into the draft ranking these guys as hight as the last few number ones and I will take back that they are not as highly regarded GOING INTO THE DRAFT as they were. You seem to think this distinction unimportant, but it means everything and is why I mentioned Tavares 16 year old season.

The funny thing is...even if you can show me that it still wouldn't make me think any different because I didn't consider any of those guy phenoms going into the draft either.

Phenomenal is described as extraordinary, remarkable...so who decides what that is?

While this is true common usage of the word phenom typically suggests something a bit more, but you already know this, you just want to argue. :)

AS for the madjam crap...I have no idea why you are telling me any of that. It is completely immaterial to our discussion. Not to mention the fact that I have addressed it previously.

The entire reason this discussion even started was because I believe that Arch was engaging in a wee bit of hyperbole so I asked him what he considers a phenom to be. Rather than take back the word he chose to defend his usage, (Admittedly I knew he would do exactly that because Arch doesn't take things back.) and here we are.

In post 125 you mention how you don't understand why everyone thinks these two guys who have put up slightly low numbers for potential first overall picks are suddenly all but guarateed superstars.

I just assumed that I was part of the core that would be included in the everyone comment so I felt in a around about way you were actually addressing everyone including me and not just Arch.

All I was doing was attempting to show you that your statements about Hall/Seguin weren't accurate with respect to where Hall/Seguin slot scoring wise compared to other number ones and that it wasn't just Oiler fans that are high on Hall/Seguin and feel as though they have a chance to become superstars. If you can't grasp that then I can't help you.

You also said:

"I should also mention that most of what I have read has them well below the guys you just mentioned, but lets go back to my question"

Arch asked you to provide just one link that backed up your claim but you didn't address it so I guess using your analogy it was at that point that things really became pointless. As you ignored that request.

I guess there's no real point in trying to dig something up that could possibly show you why these guys Hall/Seguin are ranked as high as similar recent number ones because you've already stated even if someone can it still wouldn't make you think any different.

But I guess I could ask the same thing in reverse...show me something that says that those guys Hall/Seguin have been touted as not being as good as other recent number ones. But you've already been asked that once and either couldn't come up with it or chose not to.

Again, I'm of the opinion that these two guys stand just as good of a chance of being superstars as anyone. The fact that they are still just 18 yrs old means we will have to wait to find out. I don't think anyone has really stated that they are a slam dunk guarantee but there are those that have said that they are above everyone else the class of this years draft.

Lastly I believe the conversation started when Arch replied to madjam so the madjam crap is not as immaterial to the discussion as you are making it out to be, it was the starting point. And if I'm not mistaken Arch never said that Hall/Seguin were phenoms he just responded to madjam with a question:

"Hall and Seguin arent phenoms according to who?"

Avatar
#152 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
June 07 2010, 09:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
madjam wrote:

Just how valuable are Hall/Seguin ? If Chicago was to offer Toews or Kane for our first pick should we take it ? Would you turn it down ? Maybe not such a bad idea considering Hawks cap situation going into next year .

Take some of the others some of you have mentioned Hall/Seguin being as good as over the last few drafts . How many of those names would you turn down straight up , if any ?

I wonder what sorts of offers we are getting from other clubs for Hall/Seguin worth contemplating . What sort of value others put in to obtain our pick is probably a good indicator of their value .

You have a really strange obssesion with trading this pick.

Avatar
#153 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 10:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Crash wrote:

In post 125 you mention how you don't understand why everyone thinks these two guys who have put up slightly low numbers for potential first overall picks are suddenly all but guarateed superstars.

I just assumed that I was part of the core that would be included in the everyone comment so I felt in a around about way you were actually addressing everyone including me and not just Arch.

All I was doing was attempting to show you that your statements about Hall/Seguin weren't accurate with respect to where Hall/Seguin slot scoring wise compared to other number ones and that it wasn't just Oiler fans that are high on Hall/Seguin and feel as though they have a chance to become superstars. If you can't grasp that then I can't help you.

You also said:

"I should also mention that most of what I have read has them well below the guys you just mentioned, but lets go back to my question"

Arch asked you to provide just one link that backed up your claim but you didn't address it so I guess using your analogy it was at that point that things really became pointless. As you ignored that request.

I guess there's no real point in trying to dig something up that could possibly show you why these guys Hall/Seguin are ranked as high as similar recent number ones because you've already stated even if someone can it still wouldn't make you think any different.

But I guess I could ask the same thing in reverse...show me something that says that those guys Hall/Seguin have been touted as not being as good as other recent number ones. But you've already been asked that once and either couldn't come up with it or chose not to.

Again, I'm of the opinion that these two guys stand just as good of a chance of being superstars as anyone. The fact that they are still just 18 yrs old means we will have to wait to find out. I don't think anyone has really stated that they are a slam dunk guarantee but there are those that have said that they are above everyone else the class of this years draft.

Lastly I believe the conversation started when Arch replied to madjam so the madjam crap is not as immaterial to the discussion as you are making it out to be, it was the starting point. And if I'm not mistaken Arch never said that Hall/Seguin were phenoms he just responded to madjam with a question:

"Hall and Seguin arent phenoms according to who?"

In post 125 you mention how you don't understand why everyone thinks these two guys who have put up slightly low numbers for potential first overall picks are suddenly all but guarateed superstars. I just assumed that I was part of the core that would be included in the everyone comment so I felt in a around about way you were actually addressing everyone including me and not just Arch.

I never said you shouldn't respond, I said you should be aware of the conversation before doing so to avoid thing like lecturing me on thinks I already said myself.

All I was doing was attempting to show you that your statements about Hall/Seguin weren't accurate with respect to where Hall/Seguin slot scoring wise compared to other number ones and that it wasn't just Oiler fans that are high on Hall/Seguin and feel as though they have a chance to become superstars. If you can't grasp that then I can't help you.

You seem to have a real reading comprehension problem. I never once said others weren't high on them, I just said they aren't as high as Oiler fans. You say Arch asked for a link, but I asked for one too and I still haven't been shown one calling them phenoms. You also have yet to grasp that there is a significant difference between what a player does later in his career and what he is considered to be at the draft. Is Sedin one of the top players in the league? Yes. Was he considered a phenom going into his draft? No.

The funny thing is that our own statement, that they have as good a chance as anyone, explicitly precludes them from phenom status.

Arch asked you to provide just one link that backed up your claim but you didn't address it so I guess using your analogy it was at that point that things really became pointless. As you ignored that request.

Sorry, but I don't have time to go back looking for links right now. I can take a minute or two here and there to respond on here but anything beyond that will have to wait.

I am also still waiting for a link calling them phenoms heading into the draft. Why does a request made of me take precedence over a request made of either of you?

I guess there's no real point in trying to dig something up that could possibly show you why these guys Hall/Seguin are ranked as high as similar recent number ones because you've already stated even if someone can it still wouldn't make you think any different.

I still can't decide if you are being obtuse or if you really have this much difficulty with reading comprehension. I said it wouldn't change my mind about calling them phenoms. I also said I would happily recant my position that they aren't as highly regarded as the last few picks were. Isn't this what you wanted?

I don't think anyone has really stated that they are a slam dunk guarantee but there are those that have said that they are above everyone else the class of this years draft.

This is basically my point. I don't think you can call someone something like "phenom" unless they ARE slam dunks.

Lastly I believe the conversation started when Arch replied to madjam so the madjam crap is not as immaterial to the discussion as you are making it out to be, it was the starting point. And if I'm not mistaken Arch never said that Hall/Seguin were phenoms he just responded to madjam with a question: "Hall and Seguin arent phenoms according to who?"

Right. Madjam ranting about trading for defense has anything to do with my questioning arch about the word phenom.

So you actually believe that writing to me about how madjam wants defense has anything to do with my opinion that Hall and Seguin should not be called phenoms? Bye bye credibility for crash.

Here's a clue, the coincidental fact alone that a something started a conversation does not in any way link it to the topic of the conversation.

Beyond that - your inane argument that his question did not imply a belief that they are phenoms is not helping your credibility either. Especially considering the fact that arch has defended the position.

Avatar
#154 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 10:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F wrote:

You have a really strange obssesion with trading this pick.

It's odd isn't it? I can't stop wondering how he came to this.

Avatar
#155 Archaeologuy
June 07 2010, 10:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@TigerUnderGlass

You have taken serious offence to a small bit of terminology. I dont understand the reason for your ire. Perhaps what you deem Phenom I would call Prodigy, but either way, you've spent a lot of space arguing semantics. Settle down.

All of Crash's points are reasonable, and yet you respond with ridicule. You are the only one unable to let go of your single, and completely arbitrary, point.

I obviously touched a nerve when I suggested that Hall and Seguin are the clear cut best players in the draft. If that ISNT what your panties are in a knot about then I suggest you take a minute and reflect about why you're wasting so much time.

Avatar
#156 Crash
June 07 2010, 10:42AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:
In post 125 you mention how you don't understand why everyone thinks these two guys who have put up slightly low numbers for potential first overall picks are suddenly all but guarateed superstars. I just assumed that I was part of the core that would be included in the everyone comment so I felt in a around about way you were actually addressing everyone including me and not just Arch.

I never said you shouldn't respond, I said you should be aware of the conversation before doing so to avoid thing like lecturing me on thinks I already said myself.

All I was doing was attempting to show you that your statements about Hall/Seguin weren't accurate with respect to where Hall/Seguin slot scoring wise compared to other number ones and that it wasn't just Oiler fans that are high on Hall/Seguin and feel as though they have a chance to become superstars. If you can't grasp that then I can't help you.

You seem to have a real reading comprehension problem. I never once said others weren't high on them, I just said they aren't as high as Oiler fans. You say Arch asked for a link, but I asked for one too and I still haven't been shown one calling them phenoms. You also have yet to grasp that there is a significant difference between what a player does later in his career and what he is considered to be at the draft. Is Sedin one of the top players in the league? Yes. Was he considered a phenom going into his draft? No.

The funny thing is that our own statement, that they have as good a chance as anyone, explicitly precludes them from phenom status.

Arch asked you to provide just one link that backed up your claim but you didn't address it so I guess using your analogy it was at that point that things really became pointless. As you ignored that request.

Sorry, but I don't have time to go back looking for links right now. I can take a minute or two here and there to respond on here but anything beyond that will have to wait.

I am also still waiting for a link calling them phenoms heading into the draft. Why does a request made of me take precedence over a request made of either of you?

I guess there's no real point in trying to dig something up that could possibly show you why these guys Hall/Seguin are ranked as high as similar recent number ones because you've already stated even if someone can it still wouldn't make you think any different.

I still can't decide if you are being obtuse or if you really have this much difficulty with reading comprehension. I said it wouldn't change my mind about calling them phenoms. I also said I would happily recant my position that they aren't as highly regarded as the last few picks were. Isn't this what you wanted?

I don't think anyone has really stated that they are a slam dunk guarantee but there are those that have said that they are above everyone else the class of this years draft.

This is basically my point. I don't think you can call someone something like "phenom" unless they ARE slam dunks.

Lastly I believe the conversation started when Arch replied to madjam so the madjam crap is not as immaterial to the discussion as you are making it out to be, it was the starting point. And if I'm not mistaken Arch never said that Hall/Seguin were phenoms he just responded to madjam with a question: "Hall and Seguin arent phenoms according to who?"

Right. Madjam ranting about trading for defense has anything to do with my questioning arch about the word phenom.

So you actually believe that writing to me about how madjam wants defense has anything to do with my opinion that Hall and Seguin should not be called phenoms? Bye bye credibility for crash.

Here's a clue, the coincidental fact alone that a something started a conversation does not in any way link it to the topic of the conversation.

Beyond that - your inane argument that his question did not imply a belief that they are phenoms is not helping your credibility either. Especially considering the fact that arch has defended the position.

Feel better now?

Avatar
#157 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 10:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

You have taken serious offence to a small bit of terminology. I dont understand the reason for your ire. Perhaps what you deem Phenom I would call Prodigy, but either way, you've spent a lot of space arguing semantics. Settle down.

All of Crash's points are reasonable, and yet you respond with ridicule. You are the only one unable to let go of your single, and completely arbitrary, point.

I obviously touched a nerve when I suggested that Hall and Seguin are the clear cut best players in the draft. If that ISNT what your panties are in a knot about then I suggest you take a minute and reflect about why you're wasting so much time.

What ire. I don't take offense, I'm amusing myself. See, no reflection needed. Besides, I'm not wasting that much time, it only takes a minute or two to respond.

He annoyed me by jumping in with an idiotic reply to what should have been a short conversation about how you define the word phenom.

Why wouldn't I agree that they are the best players in the draft? They clearly are. If that is how you define phenom then you have answered my question.

Now all that being said, you are one of the last people with the right to tell someone not to waste time arguing an arbitrary point, and you certainly know how annoying it is to be told to settle down when all you are doing is arguing with someone.

In fact, until just now I had considered you one of the few people on here who doesn't take a simple argument personally. What does arguing have to do with "ire" or "settling down"? It's just conversation.

If crash has had enough with the conversation he simply has to either stop or say he doesn't want to proceed. I'm just having some fun between working on files.

I apologize if my boredom offended you.

Avatar
#158 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 10:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Crash wrote:

Feel better now?

Better than what?

I should mention one thing - it took me about 5 seconds to find articles comparing Hall to Tavares and Stamkos, and many considered him in the range, while a few didn't. Why didn't you just do that?

Avatar
#159 Crash
June 07 2010, 10:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Better than what?

I should mention one thing - it took me about 5 seconds to find articles comparing Hall to Tavares and Stamkos, and many considered him in the range, while a few didn't. Why didn't you just do that?

Actually what I've noticed from you on this site is you bounce around from comment to comment and make it a point to ridicule people...it's like it's a hobby of yours...you don't often lend much to the conversation other than to attack people.

So I was wondering if your rant on me and questioning my reading comprehension and my credibility level and getting it all out in the open made you feel any better than before you went off like a six yr old...

I could question your reading comprehension too I suppose given your profound, over intelligent responses but I'm afraid I couldn't keep up with you...you're too smart for me.

Avatar
#160 Crash
June 07 2010, 11:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Better than what?

I should mention one thing - it took me about 5 seconds to find articles comparing Hall to Tavares and Stamkos, and many considered him in the range, while a few didn't. Why didn't you just do that?

If you had such an easy time with that then why couldn't you find anything that quickly on what you supposedly read that indicated to you that both Hall and Seguin were not only below them guys but well below them...I refer you again to post #125.

So I question why didn't you just find these things that you've read that have stated this?

Oh forget it....like I said you're way too smart for me...

You win, I give up

Avatar
#161 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 11:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Crash wrote:

Actually what I've noticed from you on this site is you bounce around from comment to comment and make it a point to ridicule people...it's like it's a hobby of yours...you don't often lend much to the conversation other than to attack people.

So I was wondering if your rant on me and questioning my reading comprehension and my credibility level and getting it all out in the open made you feel any better than before you went off like a six yr old...

I could question your reading comprehension too I suppose given your profound, over intelligent responses but I'm afraid I couldn't keep up with you...you're too smart for me.

I'm glad you finally realized it. ;P

I guess the difference between my rants and yours is that I have no emotional investment in it while you seem to think arguing has something to do with being angry or upset.

I will address one thing though. It isn't that I bounce around looking for someone to ridicule. I merely don't bother posting unless I see something I disagree with. It doesn't start with ridicule, merely disagreement, but invariably someone will chime in with a reply that ignores 80% of what has been said and is begging for ridicule. So, at times, I can't help myself.

Avatar
#162 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 11:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Crash wrote:

If you had such an easy time with that then why couldn't you find anything that quickly on what you supposedly read that indicated to you that both Hall and Seguin were not only below them guys but well below them...I refer you again to post #125.

So I question why didn't you just find these things that you've read that have stated this?

Oh forget it....like I said you're way too smart for me...

You win, I give up

I'm confused - I just wrote a post saying you were right on a particular point and you are somehow arguing about it...

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I guess this is what I mean when I question your reading comprehension.

Avatar
#163 Archaeologuy
June 07 2010, 11:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@TigerUnderGlass

I'll argue Hall vs Seguin to death, or whether Eberle should or should not be in the AHL next year for pages. You were going off over the word 'Phenom'. I would consider that a pretty big difference.

I like to argue as well, but each time you were asked to support your stance you turned it back to me. You were bored enough to complain about the word phenom but not enough to give a reason why?

Avatar
#164 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 11:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

I'll argue Hall vs Seguin to death, or whether Eberle should or should not be in the AHL next year for pages. You were going off over the word 'Phenom'. I would consider that a pretty big difference.

I like to argue as well, but each time you were asked to support your stance you turned it back to me. You were bored enough to complain about the word phenom but not enough to give a reason why?

I did explain why, but I wasn't trying to turn anything on you, I really just wanted an explanation of what you though makes a kid going into the draft a "phenom", because based on how I saw the word typically used I though you were being slightly hyperbolic.

I think I flat out asked you to define it 2 or 3 times. How does that qualify as turning it on you?

In other words, I wasn't arguing the semantics with you, I was asking you your definition specifically to avoid an argument on semantics, but then crash jumped in.

Avatar
#165 David S
June 07 2010, 12:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

You guys are getting all bent out of shape about the term "phenom". My definition would be something along the lines of "Exceptionally gifted so as to be remarkable."

Here's a somewhat arbitrary list of modern sports phenoms - http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/george-ofman-thats-all-she-wrote/2010/02/post.html

Hall and Seguin are certainly good, but not in the "phenom" category like Tiger woods or Wayne Gretzky. Anybody who thinks otherwise is spending a bit too much time in front of the 'puter reading ~legendary~ sites like Hockeybuzz and HF boards.

But at the end of the day, it depends on how rigid your definition of the word is. I'm not sure if you could present an acceptable criteria for the word that would include either player.

Avatar
#166 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 12:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
David S wrote:

You guys are getting all bent out of shape about the term "phenom". My definition would be something along the lines of "Exceptionally gifted so as to be remarkable."

Here's a somewhat arbitrary list of modern sports phenoms - http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/george-ofman-thats-all-she-wrote/2010/02/post.html

Hall and Seguin are certainly good, but not in the "phenom" category like Tiger woods or Wayne Gretzky. Anybody who thinks otherwise is spending a bit too much time in front of the 'puter reading ~legendary~ sites like Hockeybuzz and HF boards.

But at the end of the day, it depends on how rigid your definition of the word is. I'm not sure if you could present an acceptable criteria for the word that would include either player.

I'm not sure if you could present an acceptable criteria for the word that would include either player.

This is why I asked. I was curious.

Avatar
#167 Eddie Shore
June 07 2010, 12:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

blah blah blah blah. Really? All this debate over what each person considers to be a phenom? Who gives a sh*t. Tyler Seguin is better than Taylor Hall(there, that should start a different debate).

Avatar
#168 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 12:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Eddie Shore wrote:

blah blah blah blah. Really? All this debate over what each person considers to be a phenom? Who gives a sh*t. Tyler Seguin is better than Taylor Hall(there, that should start a different debate).

And you replied because.......

As little as people care about this I can guarantee they care even less about your 2 cents.

Avatar
#169 Eddie Shore
June 07 2010, 12:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Same reason you did to begin with. It's called voicing your opinion.

Avatar
#170 TigerUnderGlass
June 07 2010, 01:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Eddie Shore

Replying purely to tell people you don't care what they are talking about does not qualify as voicing an opinion.

It's called being an a$$hole. If you genuinely don't care why comment?

Avatar
#171 Eddie Shore
June 07 2010, 01:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@TigerUnderGlass

Fair enough.

Avatar
#172 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
June 07 2010, 04:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
TigerUnderGlass wrote:

Replying purely to tell people you don't care what they are talking about does not qualify as voicing an opinion.

It's called being an a$$hole. If you genuinely don't care why comment?

i assume the answer "because some people just like being an a$$hole" is far to obvious?

Avatar
#173 RossCreekNation
June 07 2010, 07:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

PHENOM...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayQm_Bw_zds

Avatar
#174 TigerUnderGlass
June 08 2010, 01:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
RossCreekNation wrote:

PHENOM...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayQm_Bw_zds

NICE.

Comments are closed for this article.