Thread: Help everywhere
View Single Post
Old
04-26-2004, 02:10 PM
  #14
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
The mistake this team made was thinking everything could be fixed in 5 years. The teams had no prospects, no farm system and the scouts weren't used to having draft picks.
I consider 97-99 warm up years. We have made amazing strides since them with our drafting and we are very clsoe to seeing the fruits of their labor.

The problem was in 1997 we didn't have a solid young core to build around. For the 5 year plan to work we would have needed a bunch of 20-25 year olds who were already contributing.
We have that now and now we should make a run and get rid of the Stumpels of the world

Excellent points John.

I agree and feel that we are right close with our next batch of prospects to seeing how truly deep we are going to be with the kind of players that are Andys lads types who fit his system better then what we have seen.


*
I agree with what you are saying Nav and that means I am not explaining my position propperly. (not that you cannot be right, just that for you to disagree with my position then I am saying something wrong since I thought I were saying something similar).


Here is what I mean. Of course Every Player HAS to be solid defencively. I used the same teams that you did to make my example. The Sharks have Cheechoo amoung many who are banging hitting grinding snipers on their team as do the flames so of course, every player HAS to be able to play effectively defencively as well as offencively.

That isn't what I were saying at all, hence the idea that I must not be explaining myself correctly.

What I am saying is this. If you draft a sniper who ISN'T a grinder it isn't out of line to demand he plays solid defencively, it IS out of line to force him to play as a checking forward when that isn't what his game is or has ever been about.

It is about asset management. If a player that you have drafted has solid skills but they don't fit the system or team you have built or are tring to build, the right answer is to trade him rather then force him into becoming recognized as a failure when he simply hasn't been one. He just hasn't fit in *your* desires of what You wanted to mould him into.

For example, Mike Cammelleri is never going to be a banging third or fourth line player and that isn't what he was drafted to be nor was it close to what he has ever played throughout his entire hockey career. To give him limited minutes on the third line while giving him a sniff of the second line is as good of a way to develope his game as any but, to place him on the fourth line and then not be happy with his play is the coaches fault, not the players.

You could argue the same with Pavel Rosa with the exception of the fact that we have no idea if Pavel can play better defencively then he did when he were younger in the NHL.

It is like making Craig Johnson be a first line winger. It simply isn't his game.


Now I am not saying that Andys system is wrong at all and I do agree that the Sharks/Flames/Blues/Leafs and a few other teams that have built a team full of hitting tough to play against players who can also score is the right way to go, but, each of these teams drafted or acquired their players looking for the kind of games that they have delivered and expected.

They didn't draft players who are snipers and get upset when they couldn't be bangers.

The next wave of prospects that we are likely to see are closer to Andy types of players as well as the type that the Flames Sharks Leafs et al are having so much success with.

Kanko, Hogeboom, Karlson, Boyle, Steckle, Guerin, Murray and a few others are all bangers and a couple of them have hands as well. That isn't Cammelleris game nor is it ever going to be. It isn't allot of players in our systems game but that doesn't make them unworthy of NHL ice time. It means they don't fit Andys style or system and should be dealt in favor of players who do.

I would also say that I don't blame DT for drafting players that don't fit what our teams system has become. It takes time to develope and recognize a style that you want for your team.

Since Cammelleris draft I think we have been picking up exactly the kind of prospects that we have seen on the Flames/Sharks etc.

That is why I would love to see players like Rosa and Cammelleri traded to another team and become great players. I would expect us to get back players that fit our system or style better for them and that since they were Kings that they will always get my support.


Also, if anything, by putting young players out of your fourth line, a line who's job is to be the stopper for the opositions scoring lines typically, you are in my opinion doing nothing more then putting them in a situation where they have a better chance at failing then anywhere else on the team.

For snipers I would rather they have to earn their spot straight out of camp and if they can't then they should only come up when a player at their spot goes down. Putting Squidd on the fourth line, a line he played very well on by the by, were a mistake and a misuse of his talents. If he didn't have the salt to be in the top six, then send him down until he does.

Of course, we could get into a debate about Andy Murrays desicion making regarding young players but that has been beaten to death, no point. I just think that if you have players who don't fit what you expect out of them that you have mistakenly drafted then you should accept the mistake and trade them rather than try and mould them into something that they aren't.

I hate to keep using squid because there are a number of other players that we have mistakenly played out of position but, in his case, he played as well as anyone else we had everywhere he were put but, a 5'9" sniper banger of Squidds type wasn't the best man for the job on the fourth line when Brown/Barney/Cowan types were available. So, I agree that it is everyones responsibility to be hitting grinding snipers or stoppers, it Isn't every players responsibility to play positions they were never trained for or drafted to be and then be upset with them when they aren't as good as the players who are of those particular skillsets.


It weren't CJ's fault he could never ever be a legitimate top six player in the NHL, using him there only pointed that out and made him a failure when he played there and took ice time away from players who were better suited to the position.

I hope that explains what I was trying to say better as I think we are saying close to the same things

punchy1 is offline