View Single Post
09-22-2010, 03:40 PM
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
I am sorry that you interpret it like that, wasn't my intention.

Look, I don't know how many times I've seen Kreider. Definitely more then 10 games but less ten 20. Thats more then enough. I am not saying that I am right or wrong, its just my opinion -- but I can guarantee you that I would have had the same opinion of him if I just had seen 2 games or 40 games. I wouldn't need more then 1 period to see that McIlrath isn't the second comming of Brian Leetch, and as underdeveloped as Kreider is in terms of creativity, I probably wouldn't need more then a couple of periods to see that he is a kid who lives on his fantastic engine but lacks in terms of smarts when it comes to creating offense.

Also, could you please explain to me how his previous roles/teams are relevant in this discussion? I've never said that its strange and what not, you take what you get and are thankful for it. Kreider is a great prospect. But world class creativity -- that he have not.

Please explain?

For a rangerfan who have followed this team for over 20 years, if someone shows 1st line potential -- thats tremendous potential. We aren't spoiled with that. I remember when Filip Novak was our nr 1 prospect. You know, the year after Jeff Brown was our nr 1 prospect. Which was the year after Christian Dube was our nr 1 prospect...
As far as please explain go read the comment you responded to. I quote myself from earlier saying the same exact "underdeveloped" comment that you blatantly steal. Several times was it mentioned and yet you quoted it as if it was your original thought. So either you didn't bother to read the responses (I wouldn't be surprised it would explain how your responses are so bad) or you just don't comprehend.

So again we get to your ridiculous point that his IQ is set in stone and won't develop which you said twice now you were not trying to say that and then you go and say it aagain so this is my last paragraph and then I'm done with you b/c clearly you're just clueless on the your own point let alone this topic

How are his previous roles credible? If his role is to simply learn behind the seniors and not screw up, D first, O second than of course he might not show much creativity. You definitely have NOT seen enough. 10 games in 1 season...a prospects FIRST season is a pathetic sample with which to judge a future NHLers career. What was the time frame in which you saw these games? You say 2 games are enough for you so if you had just happenned to oinly watch two ranger games where Hank got pulled in both Hank is a horrible goalie to you? Your comments make no sense whatsoever. Your method of sampling required to make an observation is wrong. Since prospects develop then common sense says you watch over years not 10 games in 1 year multiple games in multiple years.

I don't care about your listing of former number 1 prospects who panned out or didnt. Hank was also a number 1 so was Staal only unlike your horrible point this was more RECENT memory with THIS set of scouts and office. Anisimov, Cherepanov, Stepan, grachev< MDZ, etc. Comparing the guys you mentioned to them and the scout team that drafted them is just insane. So that's another horrible point by you. Your points are horrible and your opinion is ridiculous and ill thought out with no real evidence or common sense applied to it. I tried desperately to NOT attack your opinion but maybe you need to hear that your opinion on this is a joke. For further proof read the comment that I'm responding to. 2 games is all you need? Wow.

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote