View Single Post
03-24-2004, 02:59 PM
Registered User
Edge's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I argued that point and have proof in numbers to back that up. What is so wrong about what I said? If you make a blatantly inaccurate statement that noone is watching, and then are proven wrong, and then try to change the argument to say that you meant something else by it, then how is that my fault?
I am not arguing about a pressure situation. I never did.
I simply pointed out (correctly I might add) that your statement was wrong.
Argue the facts based on what I said. Dont try to change it to make it seem like I am arguing something that I am not. You did the same in another thread.
If you would like to argue that it is more pressure playing in NY than in Pitt, you will get no argument from me, as I happen to agree.
As it is, that has nothingg to do with my reply to you.
No one outside of Pitts was watching. Just like for the most part no one knows about Smyth or no one knows about a lot of players outside there city unless you really follow hockey.

My statement was not wrong, I simply have to expand into greater detail because you're looking with a fine too comb for the sake arguing. And I know you're gonna come back and argue what I just said. Again and again and again and again.

So you cant refute my arguments, therefor you attack me as a person? That's really cool.
What is so "out of left field" or "absurd" about disagreeing with you? Aren't you a strong enough person to be able to handle someone who has a differing opinion?
Leave the other thread out of this. You made a statement in this thread that was innacurate. I am allowed to counter that and point out the error in that.

As for why I am here, I happen to like a few of the Rangers players and am interested in the teams rebuilding process, not that I need to explain my presence here to anyone.
Simply put, I am allowed to be here and express my views. If you dont like them, then block my posts.
I can't refute your arguments? You mean like i couldnt refute your other posts where you made yourself look like a clown and had everyone wondering where the heck you were coming from. You're right I can't refute your arguments, you're doing too good of a job all by yourself.

It's not a matter of differing opinion. Ask ANYONE who hasn't just crawled out of the woodwork in this forum some of the great debates I've had with them. That's not what bothers me. It's your absolute arrogance and throwing around of terms at people so freely. How freely you call someone misinformed, uncredible or worse off imply that they are racist. Then on top of that, when people {like the other thread} TELL you that you're wrong and that is the way hockey is played. You disappear.

You're right, you don't need to explain your prescence but at some point you gotta stop and say "is it everyone, or is it me". you have every right to be here, but your out of line strolling in here acting like you know everything {which you have, as evidenced by responses to your other post} and that we some how owe a great privlidge to your prescence here.

I have no arguments with that if that is the true case. He WASNT producing in NY, obviously.
I remember the first time he "opened his mouth". It was to the Pittsburgh press. He felt that he was stifled as a player in NY. Right or wrong in doing so, that is how he felt.
So actually that would make three times then because i forgot about that. He also opned his mouth last week as well. so that's three times now.

And lemme get this because it was how he felt you're okay with it? But yeah when others didn't see it your way in another post, you called them racist and "they jump to conlusions" blah blah blah blah. So which is it? Make up your mind.

Would it have been better for him to keep his mouth shut? Probably so. But perhaps he is like both you and I seem to be....unafraid to share our opinions, no matter how strong they may be. The difference is, we are not professional atheletes and if we say these things there are very rarely strong ramifications.
Perhaps he was just being honest about how he felt. It doesnt make it right, and he was definatley part of the problem.
Again, you will get no arguments from me.
And again he shouldn't be shot for saying it. but simply put it is a very foolish thing for someone to say when they've got no foot to stand on. A guy with 13 goals, who should have 40 has little ground to blast his old team.

You do if your firm wouldnt allow you to do your job the way you felt would maximize your performance of the job.
Perhaps that isnt the case with Kovalev, but i do know from personal experience that he felt this was the case in his first Rangers stint. Maybe it is an excuse, i certainly am not presumptuous to think that is the entire reason, but I simply wont rule it out either.
No I wouldn't because you NEVER burn a bridge. One reason I've often refused to go into more detail about why I left as a writer here. You should never take that approach. I've seen too many people do it {especially kids in or just of college} and it's a quick way to make it so that you need to move to get away from your reputation.

Is this just a general statement or is it directed towards me? I didnt argue that he has proved himself. He played better in Pitt than he did in NY, both times. I don't disagree with that at all.
General statement. It's followed him long before these boards were even built.

Again, that wasnt my point. You said he did good in Pitt because noone was watching. I thought that was a false statement on a few levels and I happened to point that out. You obviously felt like I am targeting you I would guess so you responded in that type of fashion.
I ont disagree that NY has much more pressure or media attention on it. I never said that. I simply said that you cant attribute his good play in Pitt solely to the reason that noone was watching because:
A) It is presumptuous and speculative, and
B) People were watching alot of the time he was here. In fact, he outshined Jagr for the most part when he was here.
Well for someone who praches about speculating and being presumptuous didn't you JUST do the same exact thing by assuming what i was talking about? You couldn't just leave it as "But if i remember correctly they had sellouts", in which i could say "nationwide, not just in pitts." But you HAD to get the jab in with your own beliefs about others that don't agree with you. and for the second time in as many days, THAT is what has gotten you into an argument. Not the argument itself.

Put it this way for you. Some of the people I've had the best debates with {NYIslesMod1, Laches, Melnyk, Park2} have becomes the people that I respect THE most on these boards. I don't care if you disagree with and there are times I might win your opinion and vice versa but you gotta learn to keep your assumptions of people off the table because it comes back to bite you in the butt after a while. That is just good advice for anywhere. A message board or real life. You might have some EXCELLENT points, but the minute you take that jab to get to people they are gonne tune out and that's a fast path to get many of your opinions ignored.

Don't you think we oughta give him more than six games to prove himself? I think that would be more than fair.
Richard Jackman has 21 points in 20 Pens games. Does that mean those few games exemplify the type of player he is going to be for the rest of his career? Of course not.
And to dismiss the injury as a contributing factor to his slowish start isnt exactly fair either. Perhaps there IS SOME validity to that.
The biggest problem I have is that for over a year now there's always been something. Remember right before he left pitts he was slumping just a little. He blamed it on the trade rumors. When he slumped in NY it was because he was out of position. To start the year it was his sticks, now it's a new team again. I mean when Brian Leetch at 36 can do what he has done for Toronto after spending his entire career here, I just don't think Kovalev's excuses are fair. to anyone.

I dont know if he did or not, but I'll take your word for it. If that is the case then he certainly needs to put more of the onus on himself to perform and less on contributing factors.
It seems out of character to not at least accept SOME of the responsibility.
My question is this:
Has he said at times, that he is not playing up to par? Or that he should be playing better? That is to say, has he ever taken some of the responsibility for himself?
Again, I dont know and am only asking.
He has taken some responsibility for himself. in words. Then he'd go out there and hardly look like he was trying.

It was kind of the same way when he was younger. "I know i need to focus more and not try to get too fancy with the puck". But then the next game he'd go right back out and do it again.

Sometimes it was the point where you'd smack your head and say "Alex, what in god's name are you doing. You JUST told yourself not to do that".

I actually HAVE met him. Quite a bit. And have talked with him at length on a few occasions. And having said that, i disagree. Kovalev seemed pretty well adjusted and insightful the times I have talked with him. He seemed to have alot going on for him in the depth and brains department.
That is just how he struck me though. If he struck you as dumb then i can't argue that. That is how you saw him and is your opinion. Mine differs and that is ok.
And that is fine. That's a matter of opinion, but I remember even watching him in Pitts and at times it was like someone with ADD. Incredibly bright at times and then you'd hear someone {like a coach or others, i'm not gonna name the names} who sit there and talk to him and he'd zone out.

Or at practice {and this i do remember} someone on the staff.

"okay Alex you need to cut left when that happens...Alex....Alex! ALEX!! Wake up"

When he's tuned it he's right there. But there are times when it's like "where the hell is your head".

I would say that is 90% accurate. Regardless of the situation he was put in, he certainly could have tried harder to overcome it.
And had he done that I think you'd see less bitterness. Kovalev is at his best when things come easy to him. When he has to think or work or practice it, he falls apart. If it's not there automatically, he doesn't drive himself to find it.

Most of this post I cant disagree with. You gave reasons as to why the anger is directed towards Kovalev and i can respect that.
But please recognize that I wasn't arguing those points. I am simply arguing that the only reason he succeeded in Pittsburgh is because "noone was watching". I dont see the harm in taking exception with that point, as it is not the case. As i stated before, I am not targeting you at all. I am disagreing with certain innacuracies that you happen to post. I dont see the need for turning it into something personal here.
Look i don't care if you disagree with 90% of the things i say, you SERIOUSLY need to watch your assumptions about other people. I'm telling you honestly and without any malice that you're coming off like someone who thinks their you know what doesn't stink and you're gonna get people riled before you even have a chance to make a point.

Last edited by Edge: 03-24-2004 at 03:13 PM.
Edge is offline