catomatic said:No, the overall point was that it didn't qualify as domination. I was responding to the argument that their effort level in game 6 belied my characterization that they were missing a key percentage of desire and focus. Someone wanted to SSS my assertion in true reductio ad absurdum fashion. But yeah, those defensive lapses—whoever it was that committed them—spoke to poor concentration. Why is this even arguable? Why do you think they played the way they did in games 6 and 7? Was it the same level of effort and intensity as earlier in the series or were they demoralized by dominating territorially and having nothing to show for it? Will and desire get obstructed by such things. Again, is this arguable? The determination to frame emotion as irrelevant to this game of hockey is really extraordinary. The worship of the infallible professional will is frankly a little strange.
Again, you've completely distorted what I wrote—completely. The reductio ad absurdum approach is not even worthy of game thread level commentary. Go back and read what I wrote before you say stuff like that. Did I say Kevan Miller didn't want to win? Did I say that a couple of defensive miscues are the sole and most damning evidence of a "lack of desire?" Lack of desire is a phrase you have used, not me. Was I going crazy on this message board questioning their desire or were others going crazy questioning my assessment of Games 6 and 7? Who was going crazy? Show me please which parts of my post sound like I'm going crazy> No, I'm serious, pull out the offending text, cite it, back it up or toddle off into the kitchen and fix yourself a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up.veritas said:
The Blackhawks got dominated by an inferior Minnesota team in game 6 and still advanced to the next round. Why do you think they played that way? Seriously, explain it. They looked like shit all game. Should Blackhawks fans be going crazy on message boards questioning their desire?
The Bruins outplayed the Canadiens in game 7 and lost. It happens. If anything you could argue they were pressing too much, trying too hard. A lot of their mistakes and missed chances, IMO, were due to hurrying and/or playing too tightly. I saw no lack of effort. Blaming a couple defensive lapses by a couple of players on the team's collective "lack of desire" is just asinine. You think Kevan Miller didn't want to win? To speak in your terms, he's a "scrappy underdog" who has "fought his way into the NHL", and "gets by on heart more than skill". His gaffe in game 6 and a few poor passes in game 7 had nothing to do with a lack of desire.
Did you say this? "But yeah, those defensive lapses whoever it was that committed them spoke to poor concentration."catomatic said:Again, you've completely distorted what I wrotecompletely. The reductio ad absurdum approach is not even worthy of game thread level commentary. Go back and read what I wrote before you say stuff like that. Did I say Kevan Miller didn't want to win? Did I say that a couple of defensive miscues are the sole and most damning evidence of a "lack of desire?" Lack of desire is a phrase you have used, not me. Was I going crazy on this message board questioning their desire or were others going crazy questioning my assessment of Games 6 and 7? Who was going crazy? Show me please which parts of my post sound like I'm going crazy> No, I'm serious, pull out the offending text, cite it, back it up or toddle off into the kitchen and fix yourself a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up.
Edit: Typo
Because those are all "going crazy"? Sure thing, hoss. I'm guessing you guys all think that emotion played no part in Montreal's performance in Game 1 either. Anyone care to step up and explain that by sheer Xs and Os? I would really like to hear that one. And then you can walk into the locker room and tell them that their effort "as it is with every professional athlete every time out is 100%" or some other bullshit blather that was supposed to sit my ass back dow the other night. Okay guys, get behind it. If the Bruins had no emotional letdown in Games 6 and 7 then Montreal did not suffer one either—how do you want to slice it? And who ever tried to puncture my argument by saying the Bruins dominated in Game 7 against Montreal is flat out high. That's not the game I nor any of the guys I skated with tonight saw at all. So—Desire/Will/Emotion have nothing to do with these games is what I've been bludgeoned with by the cool kids. Who's gonna step up and make the asinine case that this is so and can be substantiated to the point that a detractor warrants an internet stoning. Come tell me how you can have it both ways.veritas said:
Just so we know the ground rules in this argument… because you and a bunch of guys you're friends with and play hockey with agree about something then therefore it is true. So if some of us and our friends have a differing opinion we're high?catomatic said:And who ever tried to puncture my argument by saying the Bruins dominated in Game 7 against Montreal is flat out high. That's not the game I nor any of the guys I skated with tonight saw at all.
What is controversial about poor concentration? Is there no link between sub-optimal will/desire/emotion and poor concentration? What are you arguing? Where are your characterizations besides "You're crazy dude!" Quality stuff from SOSH on display here. Step up and state your case as to the influences on Boston Games 6 and 7 and Montreal Vs. Rangers Game 1. Stop hiding behind "you're crazy dude"—come with something analytical that eliminates the unquantifiable and therefore nonexistent influences I've suggested—sanely, not crazily—might be pertinent. I haven't read it yet and I sure am reading a ton of posts from a ton of people who are very, very exercised over this and have zero to offer.lars10 said:Did you say this? "But yeah, those defensive lapses whoever it was that committed them spoke to poor concentration."
Or was that you making fun of someone making fun of one of your posts? I honestly can't tell anymore.
And that post above is downright crazy.
Exactly no one has said that emotion played no part in any of the Bruin's losses.catomatic said:Because those are all "going crazy"? Sure thing, hoss. I'm guessing you guys all think that emotion played no part in Montreal's performance in Game 1 either.
You've ignored everyone that's argued against you thus far…and where is your case and info to prove your points?catomatic said:What is controversial about poor concentration? Is there no link between sub-optimal will/desire/emotion and poor concentration? What are you arguing? Where are your characterizations besides "You're crazy dude!" Quality stuff from SOSH on display here. Step up and state your case as to the influences on Boston Games 6 and 7 and Montreal Vs. Rangers Game 1. Stop hiding behind "you're crazy dude"—come with something analytical that eliminates the unquantifiable and therefore nonexistent influences I've suggested—sanely, not crazily—might be pertinent. I haven't read it yet and I sure am reading a ton of posts from a ton of people who are very, very exercised over this and have zero to offer.
Good stuff. Because I said that playing hockey legitimizes my point of view.lars10 said:Just so we know the ground rules in this argument… because you and a bunch of guys you're friends with and play hockey with agree about something then therefore it is true. So if some of us and our friends have a differing opinion we're high?
Just want to make sure..so if you and 11 other guys or so have a similar opinion then everyone else can't possibly win that argument…correct?
Also…see how some people break their thoughts into different paragraphs? It makes it a lot easier to read.
Such as your own?lars10 said:You've ignored everyone that's argued against you thus far…and where is your case and info to prove your points?
catomatic said:Good stuff. Because I said that playing hockey legitimizes my point of view.
I cited the other guys because there's a bunch of guys in here enjoying their strength in numbers enough to start calling people crazy. Playoff hockey is widely and sometimes deeply discussed in my locker room and there was plenty of talk about the Bruins getting worn down by not scoring despite all the chances—that they were a bit demoralized by spending 75% of the game (up to Game 6 and 7 where that was clearly not the case) in the Montreal zone and having nothing to show for it.
Folks in here argue adamantly and quite personally that that is simply not a factor in these games and I call horses hit and I call horses hit in the misplaced arrogance of the people who are so convinced of their rightness on the subject.
And congratulations on successfully avoiding bringing a counter-argument once more. Well done. Call the other dude crazy, arrogant and bad at graf breaks but for god's sake don't show your hand—it's too much fun right now indulging in ridicule. This dynamic is way too prevalent and predictable on this board. Come with something.
"Can TheoShmeo choke on his smug self satisfaction hard? Like really, really hard?"TheoShmeo said:Can we re-name him Catatonic?
That's just flat out bullshit.lars10 said:Exactly no one has said that emotion played no part in any of the Bruin's losses.
I'd actually be kind of interested if you could actually find one post that says emotion (or whichever) played NO part... I think that a lot of people have said that there are many other reasons. Also, it's really hard to either prove or disprove whether emotion, determination, etc played a part in the B's losing...so there really is no argument that can prove you're right or wrong...right?catomatic said:That's just flat out bullshit.