Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Yes. Exactly. And this makes my point for me: the "chemistry" argument fails because in all of these instances it was something that occurred right away. Bennett has had time and opportunity playing with top-line players, and has never looked great, to my eye. Counter to your earlier points, he is not nearly the equivalent to a player like Monahan who was instantly dominant with Gaudreau, and who was badly missed by Gaudreau when he was injured.
I'm the one framing this poorly? Unbelievable. I think you are getting frustrated by your own feeble attempts to move the goal posts in this argument.
And you are ignoring the point that I was making with the Gaudreau piece; a point that I have already repeated, and will do so one more time: GAUDREAU HAS STRUGGLED WITHOUT MONAHAN. This has nothing to do with my malleability. It has to do with data and evidence. If you had any to bolster your ideas about Sam Bennett and Sean Monahan I would happily deal with it. But so far, there has been nothing but platitudes about "intangibles" and "chemistry."
|
I did share evidence eventually. Yet, I will admit most of my assessment is from the eye test. I have also tried to respond to your points and the others that I have amassed from my comments.
Let’s see then how many games they have been apart! Is that enough to say it’s comparable towards suggestion you make? I don’t think so. But I see the point you’re trying to make and I don’t agree with it.
Your emboldened all caps sentence doesn’t give this point your arguing for any more merit by screaming. Really the sample size isn’t there enough to say that Johnny struggles without monny. It’s a few games. I can dig it up when I get to a desktop. Yet, Even with their alleged chemistry Jonny and monny are with their deserved warts. To argue Johnny struggles without monny is a problematic notion. I believe they are too I intrinsic to each other to suggest personally but I think Johnny does better without monny than monny does without Johnny. And there is no way to get an adequate sample without cherry picking. Johnny was apart of the American team lumping squad and played well though.
I like Sam Bennet. I’m a team player and I respect those who go above and beyond for a squad. Sam does this. He may not be the most statistically valuable guy but I think he’s been developed incorrectly. Yet what does my opinion matter? A hill of beans.
I want to like Monahan. He’s a high character kid. He’s been a good soldier. He’s been a productive draft pick. I just struggle to see him as this complete player. Neither is Sam. I see that.
Platitudes aside. I agree with the point VilleN made earlier in this little episode: “when a third line player is the best player on your team you have bigger problems. “. That fits with I think the angst that’s emerged here but I am pretty remorseful for my ostensible representation of self. I didn’t really come to the thread with a well rehearsed and planned attempt. I came in with a hot take and have been reeling ever since. I’m not trying to be a jerk. It’s just that the figh comment was silly and I tried to be silly in return. It didn’t translate and I look agro. I’m not I’m pretty relaxed.
I just wanted to stand up for a guy that did a lot of dirty work for my favourite team.
I think I’d like to hear why the stats I have referenced are being construed the way they are in more articulation though please.
