View Single Post
10-05-2003, 07:56 AM
Registered User
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,110
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Originally Posted by Munchausen
Except there's a slight (ok big) difference between Ryder and Balej/Czerkawski. He's a complete player, they're not. If they can't score, they're useless. If Ryder can't score, he still can deliver hits, grind it up in the corners and play well defensively, meaning it's not justified to compare those cases. There's nothing one-dimensional about Michael Ryder, which makes it that more easy for management to keep him.
I agree but totally disagree. What you are saying is because he is a diffrent player then chow and Balej that he can't be bad on the team? Well look at Kilger, he through his body around, but he doesn't score all that much and we ride him like a dog. I want Ryder to be a great player, but they have to proove it over countless seasons, not just one. I also worry about Markov now. He had one good season, will he have a nother or was that his peak? I am not putting either of these guys down, just merely looking at the bare essentials of everything not the great upsides or even the terrible downsides, but the hard on facts of the possibility of them stumbling.

CrAzYNiNe is offline