Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The narrative would maybe be a la David Byrne/Talking Heads "Once in a Lifetime": Same as it ever was. (/arm chopping)

 

Thing is: Maybe it isn't. I'm betting it isn't. In fact, I'm happier believing it isn't. In matters sport, I'd rather be happy than right.

Not sure anyone has mentioned that narrative, so I guess it is yours.

 

And I dont want to be right. I'd be perfectly happy to have Roy for Ott be the last time I'm right..

Posted

I really had no desire for a bunch of folks to bring it up in 4 threads after I voiced it.

 

Well, when you speak cryptically as if everyone is in on the secret, and no one is, people will ask questions.

Not sure anyone has mentioned that narrative, so I guess it is yours.

 

No, it's yours.  You're saying that some things that happened with the rotten core seem to be happening again, therefore this core is also rotten.  A similar construct might be, "My older son drove the car and got into an accident, therefore if my younger son drives the car, he too will get into an accident."

 

BS.

Posted

Well, when you speak cryptically as if everyone is in on the secret, and no one is, people will ask questions.

 

No, it's yours.  You're saying that some things that happened with the rotten core seem to be happening again, therefore this core is also rotten.  A similar construct might be, "My older son drove the car and got into an accident, therefore if my younger son drives the car, he too will get into an accident."

 

BS.

 

No.  I didn't say that at all.  I'm sorry.  I didin't mean to interrupt your happy fun time.  Carry on.

Posted

Not sure anyone has mentioned that narrative, so I guess it is yours..

Wut.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding what's being said.

 

Were you and d4rk talking about how members of the current core were ominously starting to sound like, resemble the departed rotten core? You were, weren't you?

 

That's the narrative to which I was referring.

Posted (edited)

No.  I didn't say that at all.  I'm sorry.  I didin't mean to interrupt your happy fun time.  Carry on.

 

Come on.  That what do you mean by this?

 

Memories of Miller calling out the core as fragile.  Oh wait, our captain did that post game 2 games ago too.

********************************************************

 

Wut.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding what's being said.

 

Were you and d4rk talking about how members of the current core were ominously starting to sound like, resemble the departed rotten core? You were, weren't you?

 

That's the narrative to which I was referring.

 

Yes, that's exactly what they're talking about.  But they're trying to be all esoteric, omniscient and mysterious, like a couple of Old Testament prophets.

Edited by Doohickie
Posted

They're mentally soft and crumble the moment there's adversity. Not winners. Lacking "it."

 

Actually, this isn't nearly as dire as what I thought you and We've were hinting at.  I thought you were referring more specifically to Jackie boy.

 

Frankly, after pooping the bed vs Colorado and Arizona, it's hard to argue with your actual theory quoted above.

Posted

I think they're a shallow team with some talent deficiencies, incredibly young core pieces, and a horrendously outdated system and that this accounts for the perceived lack of "it". A team with these situations is not going to win hockey games and I don't feel a need to go into the mystical realm of "it-ness" to explain it. JMO.

Posted

I think they're a shallow team with some talent deficiencies, incredibly young core pieces, and a horrendously outdated system and that this accounts for the perceived lack of "it". A team with these situations is not going to win hockey games and I don't feel a need to go into the mystical realm of "it-ness" to explain it. JMO.

Again, you're my coach
Posted (edited)

Actually, this isn't nearly as dire as what I thought you and We've were hinting at. I thought you were referring more specifically to Jackie boy.

 

Frankly, after pooping the bed vs Colorado and Arizona, it's hard to argue with your actual theory quoted above.

I can't speak for True but I don't believe he shares the point of view he posted about. Particularly in light of how this undefinable "it" characteristic great players are supposed to have, comes from the same family as "clutch", and we should know his feelings on that.

 

I think they're a shallow team with some talent deficiencies, incredibly young core pieces, and a horrendously outdated system and that this accounts for the perceived lack of "it". A team with these situations is not going to win hockey games and I don't feel a need to go into the mystical realm of "it-ness" to explain it. JMO.

Well said.

Edited by Thorny
Posted

I think they're a shallow team with some talent deficiencies, incredibly young core pieces, and a horrendously outdated system and that this accounts for the perceived lack of "it". A team with these situations is not going to win hockey games and I don't feel a need to go into the mystical realm of "it-ness" to explain it. JMO.

Occam's razor.

Posted

In re the team being shallow and just not very good (yet): That lineup without Okposo? I see Moulson and Deslauriers and a not yet effective Ennis? Blechk. And that's to say nothing of the D.

 

That's just not a good team. Some good/very good pieces, one great one. But not a good team, yet.

Posted

I can't speak for True but I don't believe he shares the point of view he posted about. Particularly in light of how this undefinable "it" characteristic great players are supposed to have, comes from the same family as "clutch", and we should know his feelings on that.

Yea, I don't believe in this stuff at all, I was just clearly posting what I thought Weave was hinting at.

Posted (edited)

Yea, I don't believe in this stuff at all, I was just clearly posting what I thought Weave was hinting at.

Ah that's right, you don't believe in momentum. Damn robot Edited by WildCard
Posted

"Ummmm...." - The Atlanta Falcons

 

That's a perfect example. They had ALL the momentum. The Pats should have curled up in the fetal position. If momentum had meaning, Atlanta would have run roughshod in the second half and won by 40.

Posted

That's a perfect example. They had ALL the momentum. The Pats should have curled up in the fetal position. If momentum had meaning, Atlanta would have run roughshod in the second half and won by 40.

All it takes is one play for momentum to shift
Posted

All it takes is one play for momentum to shift

Exactly my point! Why give a damn about momentum if it can stop on a dime and completely reverse itself?

That never struck me as momentum, so much as execution and failure of execution.

One could argue that's all "momentum" actually means.

Posted

Cause I would argue once you lose momentum, it is much more difficult to find that okay to regain it. And while you're struggling to make that big play, the other team is rolling

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...