Yea, he kinda look like one of the first men on earth 🤣
- Landsbergfan

Neck injury with surgery would do it for you.

We had a team in Philadelphia itself that had a great, great defense, but never won.I refer to the late eighties and early 90s defense of the Eagles.

Was that team defense a factor in making it a strong team? You bet. Was the existence of that defense also a factor in making it never go the Superbowl? You bet.

The reason that team had a great defense is because most of the team's energies and talent was concentrated there. The coaching style and manner was downright dismissive of offense. The offense, with 2 exceptions, had no stars among 11 players. The defense had 8-9. Most of the money that was spent by the skinflint owner was on defense.

That team is known as much for its great defense as it is for the fact it caused heartbreak and never won. Would you say to a football team: gee, this defense is looking like the Gang Green defense without someone pointing out the obvious: that that great defense never won anything?

Sorry bud, it is
- Sublime55

Sorry bud, but its not.

Sorry bud, but its not.
- PT21

Yep, it was. But by all means to continue to live in your fantasy that building young homegrown depth like Nashville is nothing to emulate because Nashville did not win....this of course excludes the reality that winning is cup is hard and multiple variables and factors play into it, not just defense. Post hoc fallacy all day long, whether you admit it or not

So you are saying its not good that the Flyers developing a strong young defense core? Because, I gotta say, that is all he was saying.
- MBFlyerfan

That's not all he was saying though. Maybe he meant to, but he brought up a team that put most of its eggs in one basket and failed.

Would you tell some team with a dominant first line: gee, this looks like we could really be like the Flyers teams of the 90s with their LOD line?

That's not all he was saying though. Maybe he meant to, but he brought up a team that put most of its eggs in one basket and failed.

Would you tell some team with a dominant first line: gee, this looks like we could really be like the Flyers teams of the 90s with their LOD line?
- PT21

Yes it was Professor. Write another doctoral thesis about what you think he meant, but the rest of us got it right away.

Sorry bud, it is
- Sublime55

I love rhetoric.

Yeah, it would be easier saying that focusing on Defense on up would be easier in hindsight.

I guess it depends on the thought process at the time?

What do most people believe (outside Andy Reid)?

Defense wins chips.

In retrospect, the Jones/Johansen trade was pretty bad.

Yep, it was. But by all means to continue to live in your fantasy that building young homegrown depth like Nashville is nothing to emulate because Nashville did not win....this of course excludes the reality that winning is cup is hard and multiple variables and factors play into it, not just defense. Post hoc fallacy all day long, whether you admit it or not
- Sublime55

Go and take an elementary logic class, and give it the multiple tries it would take a guy like you to pass it before you start splattering around post hoc ergo propter hoc misapplications.

Yes it was Professor. Write another doctoral thesis about what you think he meant, but the rest of us got it right away.
- MBFlyerfan

Given the nature of the people who got it right away, are you certain that strengthens your case?

Go and take an elementary logic class, and give it the multiple tries it would take a guy like you to pass it before you start splattering around post hoc ergo propter hoc misapplications.
- PT21

It means taking info after the fact and using it to argue the original scenario.

You can't do that, because you don't have that info at the time.

Go and take an elementary logic class, and give it the multiple tries it would take a guy like you to pass it before you start splattering around post hoc ergo propter hoc misapplications.
- PT21

I went to college too and took a logic class also. Yours is a classic case and lines like "There is nothing to admire about them." or "Must have been a few, under that modern mastermind Barry Trotz?" indicate there may be some underlying animus you have for Nashville or Trotz that clouds your view of them objectively for some odd reason. Resorting to telling me to "take an elementary logic class" shows you have no argument here.

I went to college too and took a logic class also. Yours is a classic case and lines like "There is nothing to admire about them." or "Must have been a few, under that modern mastermind Barry Trotz?" indicate there may be some underlying animus you have for Nashville or Trotz that clouds your view of them objectively for some odd reason you do not explain further. Resorting to telling me to "take an elementary logic class" shows you have no argument here.
- Sublime55

I keep offering that argument, but you are not taking the time to understand it, because you are convinced I am saying something I am not.

There are 2 things here:

1. Is it good to have a young homegrown capable defense? Of course it is. Who can argue with that?

2. Is it good to compare it with a team that never won anything? The latter comparison is not good. Because whenever you use a team comparison from the past, all aspects of it come to mind. The good and the bad. And a natural reaction would be the one I brought up.

And the logical fallacy you mention is just irrelevant here.

It means taking info after the fact and using it to argue the original scenario.

You can't do that, because you don't have that info at the time.
- DrMidnite

Let me ask you - would you say a statement like this?

Gee, Couturier looks like a dominant, puck-possessing 1C, just like Joe Thornton during the great Sharks teams of a few years ago?

Is it possible to make that statement without also being reminded of the fact that those teams ultimately never won anything?

I keep offering that argument, but you are not taking the time to understand it, because you are convinced I am saying something I am not.

There are 2 things here:

1. Is it good to have a young homegrown capable defense? Of course it is. Who can argue with that?

2. Is it good to compare it with a team that never won anything? The latter comparison is not good. Because whenever you use a team comparison from the past, all aspects of it come to mind. The good and the bad. And a natural reaction would be the one I brought up.

And the logical fallacy you mention is just irrelevant here.
- PT21

"Is it good to have a young homegrown capable defense? Of course it is. Who can argue with that?" That's nice, but you're backtracking now as you never mentioned that originally...which you could've done

"logical fallacy you mention is just irrelevant here" So first you admit that I am misapplying post hoc fallacy (in essence falsely) to now it being irrelevant. You can't have it both ways.

Let me ask you - would you say a statement like this?

Gee, Couturier looks like a dominant, puck-possessing 1C, just like Joe Thornton during the great Sharks teams of a few years ago?

Is it possible to make that statement without also being reminded of the fact that those teams ultimately never won anything?
- PT21

Sure, I guess.

However after trading Coutourier for Seth Jones, then lose.

CLB go on to win.

You shouldn't say.....see you needed Coutourier!!!

I flipped the O & D for the example.

"Is it good to have a young homegrown capable defense? Of course it is. Who can argue with that?" That's nice, but you're backtracking now as you never mentioned that originally...which you could've done

"logical fallacy you mention is just irrelevant here" So first you admit that I am misapplying post hoc fallacy (in essence falsely) to now it being irrelevant. You can't have it both ways.
- Sublime55

Backtracking from what? The erroneous interpretation you ascribed to me?

And the logical fallacy was both irrelevant and misapplied. The former makes the latter moot, but does not negate it incorrectness.

Sure, I guess.

However after trading Coutourier for Seth Jones, then lose.

CLB go on to win.

You shouldn't say.....see you needed Coutourier!!!

I flipped the O & D for the example.
- DrMidnite

My point was pedantic, snarky, but there was no frikking propter hoc fallacy.

My comment about Trotz was sarcastic, how he suddenly became the anointed after the Caps win.

Given the nature of the people who got it right away, are you certain that strengthens your case?
- PT21

Please stop trying to insult everyone (but yourself) on this board.
I suggest you quietly go back and read the post in question. You will be embarrassed of yourself.

Please stop trying to insult everyone (but yourself) on this board.
I suggest you quietly go back and read the post in question. You will be embarrassed of yourself.
- Stanley Cup

I suggest you (frank) off.

I suggest you (frank) off.
- PT21

I see that you re-read the post. Don't take it out on me that you can not read nearly as well as you type (and type, and type...).

Provy, sanheim, Meyers, we really do have some great home grown D. Hoping a couple other prospects can come along as well. We could end up with that Nashville type unit.
- ClaudeFather

Get it yet?

My point was pedantic, snarky, but there was no frikking propter hoc fallacy.

My comment about Trotz was sarcastic, how he suddenly became the anointed after the Caps win.
- PT21

I get it, it's just he is a good coach, looking like a Bond-villain or not. So I wouldn't say he was the reason for NSH never winning.

But to his credit, that apparently is now a hockey town thanks to him.

That is good for everyone.

Has anyone been there? I would like to visit 3rd Man records (Jack White) and A NSH game.

I see that you re-read the post. Don't take it out on me that you can not read nearly as well as you type (and type, and type...).
- Stanley Cup

Don't take it out on me that you are a numbskull.

Here is the post, for your leisurely perusal:

Provy, sanheim, Meyers, we really do have some great home grown D. Hoping a couple other prospects can come along as well. We could end up with that Nashville type unit.
- ClaudeFather

The gentleman in question expressed unholy geriatric delight at the prospect of the Flyers ending up with a "Nashville type unit"

There is nothing wrong whatsoever in the context that this is an inelegant comparison because this great "Nashville type unit" was part of a team that never won anything.

I get it, it's just he is a good coach, looking like a Bond-villain or not. So I wouldn't say he was the reason for NSH never winning.

But to his credit, that apparently is now a hockey town thanks to him.

That is good for everyone.

Has anyone been there? I would like to visit 3rd Man records (Jack White) and A NSH game.
- DrMidnite

Yeah, I have been there. Nice place. Long ago though. There is a poster on Ek's thread who posts sometimes about Nashville. Forget his name.

Get it yet?
- Stanley Cup

I gotten it plenty in my life. You are a virgin to elementary reasoning.