- Dongull_Trump

he stated holl can play bottom pair d on a contender like it's fact and it's not because he hasn't. hasn't played on a serious contender nor has he played on a cup winner.

I never knew I'd sort of miss Ceci

As long as the M word is never spoken again, I'm good
- TheMussel

Healthy or not, that blueline is doomed to fail under pressure.

he stated holl can play bottom pair d on a contender like it's fact and it's not because he hasn't. hasn't played on a serious contender nor has he played on a cup winner.
- ghetto puck

Neither has Ekblad

That’s not even close to having anything to do with what he’s even talking about

You made the argument that you can’t be considered a piece on a contender unless you’ve been a piece on a contender. So based on this logic ANY player who hasn’t played on a contender has proven that they’re capable of being a piece on a contender.

So......using that line of thinking Ekblad has proven as much as Holl has.

That’s the argument you made.
- Dozzer

not sure if serious or actual simpleton.

liljegren sandin combined -5 tonight, lilj -3.
- ghetto puck

perhaps, maybe ... just maybe we give Lliljegren what 10-15 games before he's written off.

I think he's played like 7-8 games max at this point... so maybe its not reasonable for him to be expected to be Bobby Orr.

but that's just me.

Obvious troll is obvious.
- Dongull_Trump

you're the troll here little guy.

not sure if serious or actual simpleton.
- ghetto puck

You are saying that Holl hasn’t proven he can be on a serious contender because he’s never been on one or been on a cup winner.

Well.. neither has Ekblad

you're the troll here little guy.
- ghetto puck

I’m not the one arguing with everybody about Justin Holl...

I’m not the one arguing with everybody about Justin Holl...
- Dongull_Trump

Like I’m any better

Like I’m any better
- Dozzer

You have a medical condition, so it’s justified.

Neither has Ekblad
- Dongull_Trump

ekblad is a former 1st overall pick and a top 2 defense on almost every team. what are you arguing here? holl is not even close to as good as ekblad, and never will be.

ekblad is a former 1st overall pick and a top 2 defense on almost every team. what are you arguing here? holl is not even close to as good as ekblad, and never will be.
- ghetto puck

Holl hasn’t won a Cup nor has he played on a serious contender.


Ekblad hasn’t won a Cup nor has he played on a serious contender.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You are saying that Holl hasn’t proven he can be on a serious contender because he’s never been on one or been on a cup winner.

Well.. neither has Ekblad
- Dozzer

you are comparing 2 players with vastly different talent levels you are making yourself look really silly right now just fyi.

I’m not the one arguing with everybody about Justin Holl...
- Dongull_Trump

i think your definition of what a troll is is off, might wanna google that.

ekblad is a former 1st overall pick and a top 2 defense on almost every team. what are you arguing here? holl is not even close to as good as ekblad, and never will be.
- ghetto puck

Yes but by your logic unless you’ve played on a contender than you haven’t proven your capable of playing on one.

Ekblad falls into this column. Nobody is saying Ekblad can’t be, that would be ridiculous, but he’s pointing out that your definition of who hasn’t proven themselves capable of playing on a contender includes some pretty impressive names.

you are comparing 2 players with vastly different talent levels you are making yourself look really silly right now just fyi.
- ghetto puck

well you opened up your argument to that rebuttal by using cup contention as a premise of your argument

Yes but by your logic unless you’ve played on a contender than you haven’t proven your capable of playing on one.

Ekblad falls into this column. Nobody is saying Ekblad can’t be, that would be ridiculous, but he’s pointing out that your definition of who has proven themselves capable of playing on a contender includes some pretty impressive names.
- Dozzer

thats not my (frank)ing logic that is your simpleton interpretation.

Yes but by your logic unless you’ve played on a contender than you haven’t proven your capable of playing on one.

Ekblad falls into this column. Nobody is saying Ekblad can’t be, that would be ridiculous, but he’s pointing out that your definition of who has proven themselves capable of playing on a contender includes some pretty impressive names.
- Dozzer

His logic was stupid and was pointed out for being stupid. Like Joel said, he’s a dumbed down version of UG.

thats not my (frank)ing logic that is your simpleton interpretation.
- ghetto puck

cool story, bro. Tell it to St. Peter.

thats not my (frank)ing logic that is your simpleton interpretation.
- ghetto puck

Then what the hell are you talking about you word twisting ass?

You haven’t proven you can play on a contender unless you have played on a contender.

That’s what you said.

Ekblad fits that definition.

Then what the hell are you talking about you word twisting ass?

You haven’t proven you can play on a contender unless you have played on a contender.

That’s what you said.

Ekblad fits that definition.
- Dozzer

And he calls you the simpleton

Don’t argue with these shmucks. They lose sleep when the leafs win.

This is what happens when you don’t have refs in here.
- Dongull_Trump

I blame the ref that's here currently, that wasn't here for months, so he ain't a ref no more. (frank)ing guy!

Uggie calling people out for having multiple accounts.

Oh that's (frank)ing adorable. 🤣🤣🤣
- joel878

And he calls you the simpleton

Don’t argue with these shmucks. They lose sleep when the leafs win.
- Santo_44

You’re right it’s like pounding my head on a table lol

I blame the ref that's here currently, that wasn't here for months, so he ain't a ref no more. (frank)ing guy!
- GreatGigInTheSky

I’m not sorry