Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
C4L then wrote a 4000 word essay questioning my judgment as an evaluator because I don't share his sentiments.
But yeah, I don't let others disagree with me.
|
WHAT? I wrote that 'essay' because I am questioning your judgement as an evaluator because you don't share my sentiments?? Sorry Ashax, the world does not revolve around you or what I think of you. I was attempting to correct the MISINFORMATION you seem intent on passing off as fact - every time doing so without supporting your opinion. When confronted, you suggest "Please put me on ignore".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
How many times have you seen Ritchie play?
|
Two full games + a period or so here and there amounting to perhaps at best 2 more full games. I am hardly an 'expert' on Ritchie - my arguments have been all based on scouting reports.
What is really annoying with your posting style is that FDW kept asking you how many times you have watched Ritchie. You failed to reply every time. I asked you twice (or was it 3 times now?) where you got your 'lacking any hockey sense' from - which is contradictory from every scouting report mentioning hockey sense - and yet you have not answered it a single time. I bolded the question the very last time - and instead you quote me and respond with a question (and one I answer immediately).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
Please look at the post I was responding to in order to understand the context.
I was saying if you expect Ehlers/Nylander to be 50 point players, then you can't possibly expect Ritchie to equal those numbers.
|
Why is it so? Please explain why Ehlers/Nylander are much more likely to score at a higher rate than Ritchie? You keep stating this as fact. It is not fact. This is your opinion - and it is 100% fine to have this opinion - but you give zero support to it and incessantly state it as fact. I think those players have a higher skill level and different strengths that a powerforward game like Ritchie, but it is hardly 'more of a sure thing'.
I have made a point of answering each and every single one of your questions. Please do me the courtesy in return of answering the question (and sorry for the rest of the posters for changing the font size - it is becoming sort of frustrating here repeating the same question without ever getting an answer):
Where exactly did you get the 'lacking any hockey sense' from with respect to Ritchie?
It is the one question I have asked you - the ONLY question I have asked you. I did you the service of taking time to answer every question you have. If you don't know where, just say "I don't know". The more you talk about Ritchie, the more it contradicts the albeit extremely small sample size I have watched him in, but also every scouting report I have ever read from this summer to this very day.
I am actually quite interested to know where you got that piece of information from to more fully form my personal opinion of this prospect. The question may sound like I am 'attacking' you or perhaps calling into question your 'skills as a talent evaluator' (I actually suspect you never watched him at all really, rather than thinking you are a bad talent evaluator lol), but I am actually genuinely interest in where you got this bit of information from.
Thanks.
Edit: Just to add: You are making definitive statements stating that Ritchie is a probable 'bust' and the Flames should stay clear of him, yet you provide no solid argument for doing so. I provided a list of scouting resources, and so has FDW with comments from scouts giving their own perspectives as to why he is a top prospect. You gave 2 reasons - Lack of any hockey IQ and inability to use teammates effectively (which are seemingly both refuted by most scouting services). I am not even calling your opinion wrong - but you have not supported your argument. Sorry if I can't find your 'talent evaluation capability' to be superior than the scouting reports I have seen, especially since you have yet to answer how many times you have seen him play, or have listed any scouting reports conducted that supports your position.
I think this is why you have suddenly been inundated with a bunch of posts attempting to 'argue' with you. Just state where you got your information from, and we can at least have a larger scope of information than those seemingly only supplied by FDW and myself in regards to Ritchie.