Eichel switching to #9 (OFFICIAL)

[Doohicksie]

I just get really worn out when a thread about a player changing his number gets hijacked into a thread about ownership conspiracy theories.  Can't we all just talk about Jack in Jack's thread and leave it at that?

[LGR4GM]

 

[Doohicksie]

Jack's scoring is a nice balance of wicked shot and nice hands/poise around the net.

[Doohicksie]

...and add to that, a nice two-step acceleration from cruising along to full speed to get past the defense.

[Stoner]

11 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

Gotcha.

in my mind, you were more honed in — and wound up pretty spot on.

I wish I could take credit for presaging his support of his head coach's wife's conservative leanings.

20 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Jack's scoring is a nice balance of wicked shot and nice hands/poise around the net.

What does this have to do with his number? Why can't we talk about his number? Threads with hundreds of replies never waver from the original topic.

What conspiracy theory are you talking about? That Terry is a conservative dude and he and his wife contribute money to conservative candidates? If I had predicted in 2011 that Terry would eventually hire a head coach whose wife's political ambitions he would support, would I have been a conspiracy nut?

Anywho, take your conspiracy crap and shove it. Uh-oh, is "civility manager" Eleven going to pay me a visit? LOL

Edited July 11, 2018 by PASabreFan

[Doohicksie]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

What does this have to do with his number? Why can't we talk about his number?

and to ignore you go.

 

 

[That Aud Smell]

47 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I wish I could take credit for presaging his support of his head coach's wife's conservative leanings.

Well, I thought you more generally caught a whiff of some dormant political interests. I understand if you've subsequently concluded that your BS radar (or however you'd phrase it) was more triggered and later confirmed by the purchase of the Sabres being a prelude to buying the Bills.

[That Aud Smell]

48 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

What does this have to do with his number? Why can't we talk won't anyone endorse my wacky theory about his number?

Lots of people in this thread have spoken to the issue of his changing his number. And everyone, and I think I mean everyone (other than you), who has spoken to the issue has said that it's unremarkable. Hence my proffered correction above.

You're entitled to your theory, of course. It's just that, IMO, it's a wackadoo theory.

[Thorner]

6 hours ago, Doohickie said:

I just get really worn out when a thread about a player changing his number gets hijacked into a thread about ownership conspiracy theories.  Can't we all just talk about Jack in Jack's thread and leave it at that?

Didn't really want to start a new thread for this, and it pertains to Jack specifically so I'll drop it here:

I've been seeing it stated on Twitter frequently that Jack Eichel hasn't yet proven he can stay healthy for a full season. Health is something we all wish for Jack going forward, after the last 2 seasons, but do people seriously not consider his first year in the NHL, where he played 81 games, a full season?

To say a player has to play all 82 in a season for it to be qualified as "full", or a "healthy season" seems odd to me. 

[That Aud Smell]

^

He played just about his entire rookie season.

But his past 2 seasons have been significantly compromised by high ankle sprains - missed nearly 20 games in both instances (I think more for the first one he sustained).

I believe it was @pi2000 who theorized that the high ankle sprains may partly be a result of Eichel having unconventional skating mechanics. He's often not "on his toes."

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

^

He played just about his entire rookie season.

But his past 2 seasons have been significantly compromised by high ankle sprains - missed nearly 20 games in both instances (I think more for the first one he sustained).

I believe it was @pi2000 who theorized that the high ankle sprains may partly be a result of Eichel having unconventional skating mechanics. He's often not "on his toes."

Right. But I was referring more to the fact that plenty of people are literally saying Eichel hasn't proven he CAN play a full season yet without suffering an injury. I don't know where people set the line at, but mine is closer to 77-78 games than 82. 

I certainly see Jack's 81 game, '15-'16 campaign as a full season.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Thorny

[Randall Flagg]

Also Jack's injuries were such flukes that no player would have come out of without high ankle sprains. He was standing by the boards, and skating in practice. He was doing nothing more risky than any other skater does every day. 

[Hoss]

51 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Also Jack's injuries were such flukes that no player would have come out of without high ankle sprains. He was standing by the boards, and skating in practice. He was doing nothing more risky than any other skater does every day. 

I'd argue being on the ice with Zemgus Girgensons is a health risk.

[Thorner]

So what does one consider a "full" NHL season? 75 games? 80? 82?

Had a brief discourse with Rivet on Twitter where I mentioned Jeremy Roenick was wrong when he said EIchel hasn't managed to play a full season yet, and Rivet seemed to agree with JR so...I suppose it's 82 games or you are injury prone. ?

Edited July 11, 2018 by Thorny

[Sabres Fan in NS]

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So what does one consider a "full" NHL season? 75 games? 80? 82?

Had a brief discourse with Rivet on Twitter where I mentioned Jeremy Roenick was wrong when he said EIchel hasn't managed to play a full season yet, and Rivet seemed to agree with JR so...I suppose it's 82 games or you are injury prone. ?

He hasn't.

[That Aud Smell]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So what does one consider a "full" NHL season? 75 games? 80? 82?

I'll weigh in: If you play 75 games, you've played a substantially full season.

I'm not sure where the line is on having missed substantial time. Is 10 games "some" time? Is 15 "substantial" time?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

The season is 82 games, so to play a full season that would be 82 games.

[Thorner]

42 minutes ago, N S said:

The season is 82 games, so to play a full season that would be 82 games.

But I'd argue the literal definition is useless in the context of his argument. Roenick was saying that Eichel had not proven an ability to remain healthy for a full year. So:

A) How is playing 81 games, missing one due to the flu, evidence that he can't avoid serious injury? Isn't that 81 game season representative of the complete opposite? If Bogosian played 81 games next season, would anyone argue, "nope, not the full 82!"? And, 

B) If we have to stick to a strict 82 games definition of "full", it renders the argument basically irrelevant, because I don't think anyone actually demands the full 82 from any given player. In fact, it's happens far less than not, across the board. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Thorny

[dudacek]

Yeah, well Roenick only managed to play a full season twice in 20 years, so he would know.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

52 minutes ago, Thorny said:

But I'd argue the literal definition is useless in the context of his argument. Roenick was saying that Eichel had not proven an ability to remain healthy for a full year. So:

A) How is playing 81 games, missing one due to the flu, evidence that he can't avoid serious injury? Isn't that 81 game season representative of the complete opposite? If Bogosian played 81 games next season, would anyone argue, "nope, not the full 82!"? And, 

B) If we have to stick to a strict 82 games definition of "full", it renders the argument basically irrelevant, because I don't think anyone actually demands the full 82 from any given player. In fact, it's happens far less than not, across the board. 

You know, you are very cute with steam coming out of your ears.

[Hoss]

I'd consider a full season to be 78-ish games. Missing a seven-game stretch is pretty big for momentum regardless of the timing. Missing one or two games because of the flu isn't quite the same.

[Andrew Amerk]

A full season is 82 games. 

Would your employer pay you for a full 8 hour shift if you only worked 7 hours?

[ubkev]

1 hour ago, Andrew Amerk said:

A full season is 82 games. 

Would your employer pay you for a full 8 hour shift if you only worked 7 hours?

Mine does ?

[WildCard]

6 hours ago, Andrew Amerk said:

A full season is 82 games. 

Would your employer pay you for a full 8 hour shift if you only worked 7 hours?

That's basically anybody who's salaried 

[LTS]

4 minutes ago, WildCard said:

That's basically anybody who's salaried 

Of course you also get paid for an 8 hour shift if you work 10 as well.