View Single Post
12-28-2011, 12:07 PM
eco's bones
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,744
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
I don't even think the issue is if Wolski has talent, or if he can bring it consistently. The issue is if he fits into the puzzle with what he has to offer. Right now, Hagelin adds a very dangerous element with his speed. Mitchel has size, checking, defense and a good all around game. Boyle has size and a two way game. If I was building an all star team maybe I go with Wolski over someone, but we are building towards the playoffs and that means role players and identity. We don't lack scoring at the moment, until we hit the skids Wolski sits.
So much to agree with here. I was re-watching the HBO thing and at one point Laviolette talks about talent and passion--that talent is just not enough--and that's the kind of teams we're going to have to go through to win a cup. Wolski's always had these issues and maybe he's going to finally get it right this time but until it's evident it's not evident.

The Rangers Stanley Cup team was not just a collection of stars. The stars we did have were 100%'ers but even beyond all them that team had guys who could really grind and play physical. They weren't stars but they fit into roles and those roles were essential to the team winning the cup. People remember Messier, Leetch, Graves, Richter the most but guys like Kocur, Lidster, Nemchinov, Noonan, Matteau, Wells also made key contributions. Would not have won without Steve Larmer, Esa Tikkanen or Kevin Lowe either all of whom took on secondary roles where if they had been elsewhere they would have been top players.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote