View Single Post
Old
06-22-2004, 04:14 PM
  #71
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prucha73
What I am saying is if you are to provide us with your scouting reports on some of the players I wish it would be more precise, not as generalized. Not be biased against a player, just because you don't prefer his style or something and vice versa. Saying that Player A reminds you of Inman and player B reminds you of Peca is very misleading. You have to specify in which way does he remind you that player and you shouldn't use players that barely played in NHL or never played in NHL as comparisons, IMHO.
It has nothing to do with style. I've complemented Ladd and Malkin and they are two totally different styles. I've complemented Picard and Green, Montoya and Zajac. All different players, all different styles.

But they all have one thing in common. Desire and effort to grow and progress.

How are my reports generalized. I told you Schultz played positional hockey, wasn't physical and prefered to force his man to the outside. You proceeded to try and convince yourself he could be taught to be physical.

I made references to other big men who weren't physical {Peter Popovic being the main one} and you insisted that it could be taught.

I mean if you can't agree with the style of play I saw or a player comparison then it's kind of hard to draw more comparisons up.

As far as comparing players, I do that every once in a while. When i compare a player to someone who hasn't played in the NHL there is a reason for that. In fact the reason that player didn't play in the nhl is exactly why the comparison to a kid might be warranted.

But again, as a whole people on these boards understand that. Many of these people remember Inman very vividly.

Even giving the benefit of the doubt and saying "okay fine he didn't know Inman". I could name three kids off the top of my head whom I described that you sat there and tried to convince me could be turned into something else. Schultz, Schremp and Wolski were all given vivid discriptions. Of those three, I did make a comparison with Schultz but in all three instances I told you the game they played, their strengths and their weaknesses.

But if you haven't seen them, what exactly am I supposed to tell you? If I describe a player's style and you can't grasp it and I make a reference that you don't know, than I am beging to run out of ideas to throw your way. That is exactly where the problem of having a two way conversation comes into play. If we don't even have a point of reference it makes going back and forth about a prospect next to impossible.

Edge is offline