@ Point Blank
[/QUOTE] First of all, lay off the insults. No one made it personal against you so don't act like you're above anyone unless you're actively trying to become a lightning rod for criticism on this forum. [/QUOTE]
You took a little shot and I escalated it, I agree no reason to take it to personal level, it will not happen again. Let bygones be bygones.
Clearly we have a difference of opinion on what can be compared.
@Point Blank
[/QUOTE]
If you want to make the point that Feaster's prior drafting in Tampa has no effect, then the same holds true for Burke. Therefore there was no reason for you to have brought up Burke's drafting record..[/QUOTE]
I was not comparing lifetime Feaster/Burke draft records. What I said was that Burke's record was brutal and that Feaster draft record with Flames was good. Therefore, sample size and length are not relevant to argument at hand which is about Feaster's impact on Flames drafting record vs possible future impact of Burke's on Flames drafting record.
In case of Feaster I have his draft record with Flames.
Therefore, his Tampa Bay record has no influence on what happened later with Flames.
On the other hand, in case of Burke, there is no Flame drafting record, so previous drafting was mentioned. That is completely admissible if trying to predict future direction and impact on drafting by Flames.
@ Point Blank
[/QUOTE] If you really insist that it's logical then there's another problem: you are comparing two records, one with a sample size of two draft years and one with a sample size of 13 draft years. [/QUOTE]
@ Point Blank
[/QUOTE]
You were wrong from the moment you used to word "prove". Feaster hasn't proved anything yet. I think most of us would be more than willing to credit Feaster if the prospects he drafted turn out to be successful (which would be fantastic). Yes you're right in that the prospect pool is deeper than it has ever been, but it won't mean jack s*** if none turn out to be successful in the NHL. Granted, chances are high and I really hope Feaster showed that Burke made the wrong decision in firing him based on the drafts he made, but as of right now, it's not even close to "proving" anything about Feaster yet.[/QUOTE]
I assume you are referring to what I wrote here: "The fact that our prospect pool was just rated as #6 in NHL is encouraging and proves the point that Feaster did some things right."
If you read the sentence all it says that Feaster improved the prospect pool and must have done something correctly.
The word 'prove' is being used in context of improved prospect pool and
the better prospect pool proves that Feaster did at minimum one thing correctly. I don't know how my statement is ambiguous.
Yes, it is too early to know the outcome but signs are encouraging.
I don't mind my opinion being criticized but I don't like it being twisted.
Cheers
|