Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension

    I wonder how Logan Couture would react knowing that a hockey forum on the other side of the country has dedicated seven pages and counting to his contract signing.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension

    In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension : Got no idea what changing my tune you are referring to.  Read my first post on this thread regarding what Craig Button said in which I agreed . Wouldn't this be classified as his ....style of play ?  I thought you mentioned you were a former professor. How'd you give grades on exams when you didn't read them properly. I guess it's former for a reason. If it's okay with you I'll stick to my original thought of why I likedMarchand more despite all of your stats ( and claims of outperforming Marchand throughout the playoffs ). And no a person doesn't have to support why they like a player more with numbers . Beauty is in the eye of the beholder doesn't mean you have to look up stats to explain why.Button referred to Marchand as being a special talent. Do you think that all of these special talents show up in boxscores ? btw to heck with the double , make my smug a triple.  
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    Great.  Let's stick to that.  If one doesn't have to support an opinion with numbers (facts), than one doesn't have to support dislike with numbers (facts).

    So, in the future, when I say I don't like him because he acts like a jerk on the ice and an imbecile off the ice and you attempt to mock me for it, I'll remind you that I don't have to support my opinion with facts.


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension

    In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension : I included more than their total goals to avoid this angle.  Read it again.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Yes you included references of future captain and jerk along with the goal totals. My mistake for believing that goal totals was your main angle for who a person would want more.

    It was lower goal totals and being a jerk.

    God NAS , your posts are depressing. The Bruins won the cup . Aren't we supposed to be happy with last years team and what they all achieved ?

    How about giving us a post with a bunch of happy faces and 'everything in Bruins land' is fantastic thread.

    LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension

    In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension : What did I predict? Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    "and is seen by his coach as a future leader" Yah I know "that's not what I meant" or you will back off n say "your reading into what I stated" because your out of excuses as to why you dislike Marchand.

    Again I'll question your scouting abilities because your judgement is clouded with blind dislike of a very good hockey player on the rise.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension

    In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension : Great.  Let's stick to that.  If one doesn't have to support an opinion with numbers (facts), than one doesn't have to support dislike with numbers (facts). So, in the future, when I say I don't like him because he acts like a jerk on the ice and an imbecile off the ice and you attempt to mock me for it, I'll remind you that I don't have to support my opinion with facts.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    No I'll just take it as you being you. Haters will hate ( fact ).

    If you didn't have something bad or negative to say you'd be mostly non-existent on these boards . It's expected from you . It's who you are. 

    If its not Thornton, it's McQuaid or Savard or Marchand or Caron ( who did I miss ) or you'll find someone else down the road. They are all jerks or lousy hockey players.

    It must be great to be you.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension

    "Got no idea what changing my tune you are referring to. Read my first post on this thread regarding what Craig Button said in which I agreed . Wouldn't this be classified as his ....style of play ?"

    Sure...that post from three days ago - that was part of the general discussion of why you like Marchand and why you think he should get money comparable to Couture - is about his style of play.  However, when you responded to the direct question "would you take Marchand or Couture," your rationale for taking Marchand was that Couture only had the potential to be a better player.

    "I thought you mentioned you were a former professor. How'd you give grades on exams when you didn't read them properly. I guess it's former for a reason."

    I had busloads of students who would try this excuse: you just didn't understand what I meant!  That's why I got an F!  And I would patiently explain that I can only go by what you've put on the page, including the way you've organized and supported your arguments.  One of my favorite comments was that an unsupported opinion tells us more about you than about your subject. 

    It's "former" because I got tired of having to explain this to 19 year olds.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension


    Are people thinking that without Marchand this team wouldn't have won the cup? 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension

    In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension:
    [QUOTE]Are people thinking that without Marchand this team wouldn't have won the cup? 
    Posted by BadHabitude[/QUOTE]

    That is exactly what some people are arguing.. I think the only players I would make a case for, saying they would not have won with out is Thomas, and Chara.. Bergeron wen't down and they closed a series out, lucic was hurt and they closed a series out, and horton who (aside from thomas) was there most "clutch" player missed most of the finals..  Marchand played great, but his totals were a little inflated as well..
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension

    In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension:[QUOTE]Are people thinking that without Marchand this team wouldn't have won the cup? 
    Posted by BadHabitude[/QUOTE]

                                        Blaspheme I tell yah!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension

    In Response to Re: Logan Couture signs 2 year/$5.75 mil extension:
    [QUOTE]"Got no idea what changing my tune you are referring to. Read my first post on this thread regarding what Craig Button said in which I agreed . Wouldn't this be classified as his ....style of play ?" Sure...that post from three days ago - that was part of the general discussion of why you like Marchand and why you think he should get money comparable to Couture - is about his style of play.  However, when you responded to the direct question "would you take Marchand or Couture," your rationale for taking Marchand was that Couture only had the potential to be a better player. "I thought you mentioned you were a former professor. How'd you give grades on exams when you didn't read them properly. I guess it's former for a reason." I had busloads of students who would try this excuse: you just didn't understand what I meant !  That's why I got an F!  And I would patiently explain that I can only go by what you've put on the page, including the way you've organized and supported your arguments.  One of my favorite comments was that an unsupported opinion tells us more about you than about your subject.  It's "former" because I got tired of having to explain this to 19 year olds.
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    I know where you're coming from. I'm tired of explaining too.

    First a lawyer then a professor and now a psychologist ^^^. You are too smart for these boards BB.

    And I still like Marchand better for his style of play. No explanation needed . Hee Hee.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share