Jump to content

Eichel switching to #9 (OFFICIAL)


Hoss

Eichel changes to 9  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. Which number do you prefer for Eichel?



Recommended Posts

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 by PASabreFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...