View Single Post
Old
10-09-2003, 02:07 PM
  #37
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandebean
Never would I imply that. I'm just stating the fact that while Savard was praising ad nauseam his own picks, those of Houle were neglected. Wrongfully so. Michael Ryder (and you'll find out pretty soon), if given a chance to play in this league, will enventually play an important role on a winning team. He,s got the talent and the intelligence to do so. With Savard at the helm, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have happened. But he's more Gainey's type of player.

Houle was a bad gm. But I found it ridiculous that Savard thought of his picks and his picks only as the future of les Glorieux.

Si Savard était encore en poste, est-ce que les jeunes de Houle auraient eu préséance comme c'est le cas aujourd'hui? Permettez-moi d'en douter.

As for Plekanec's future with the Habs, even though I love this kid, Julien's comments (probably shared by Gainey) are pretty much self explenatory. He's small and Gainey favors bigger players. We can't have 2 small centermen at the same time in the lineup.
When exactly did Andre Savard praise his own draft picks?

Did you know that Ryder and Ward progressed far more under Savard's development staff than Houle's?

Do you realize Hainsey is a year older than Komisarek, plays on a weaker side of Montreal's defense, and plays a completely different style of hockey, which all factor into why he may be more NHL ready (even though he was clearly not last season)?

Do you realize Houle's draft picks have had years longer to develop than Savard's?

If you realize all of the above, do you then understand why this post is flawed?

Mike8 is offline