Thread: Artem Anisimov
View Single Post
02-01-2012, 07:36 PM
Registered User
smoneil's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
That's interesting, since less than a month ago, you agreed with virtually everything I said in this load of crap, other than the assertion that Dubinsky is the bigger issue with the forwards.
That assertion was the entire point of the post that was a load of crap. I also completely agreed with a post you wrote earlier in this very thread. I base my opinions on the content of the posts, not the name of the person who posted it. That's a weakness now? You tried to blame Dubinsky for Anisimov's poor play. That was the point of the post I quoted. That post was a load of crap.

No, he wasn't. No one expected Anisimov to be the team's 2nd line center. How on Earth was Anisimov expected to be the 2nd line center on a team with Richards and Stepan?
You're just making **** up, now. At the start of the season, the VAST majority of this board was penciling Stepan in at 3rd line C. The Pack line was this team's best line last year, and everyone was expecting that to be our 2nd line. If you think that Anisimov was expected to be the 3rd line C, then you must have also thought that Callahan and Dubinsky were expected to be the 3rd line wingers.

I'm not even sure what that means. Which teammates? What position? Wasn't Anisimov the player who "rose to the challenge" as a result of Dubinsky's poor play, since Anisimov was moved to play Dubinsky's position? The difference between Anisimov's season and Dubinsky's is that you can't label Anisimov's season a disappointment, considering offense has never been the focal point of his game. Considering he was moved out of his comfort zone and had his role flipped on its head. The fact that he's a stronger defensive player than Dubinsky also means it's harder to get upset with him, especially when he's still meeting the standards of the strongest part of his game.
Again, you see what you want to see. Dubinsky and Anisimov have both surged and slumped this season, often at the same time. Anisimov was moved to the LW to shake things up. It worked for a while, so he stayed there for a month or so. The only reason you view that as Anisimov being forced to cover for Dubinsky is that you WANT to see it that way. Dubinsky was moved to center for about a month. Was that move done to cover for Anisimov's incompetence? Of course not. It was just Torts trying to get his lines to work.

Finally, you can keep on repeating your claim that AA is better defensively than Dubinsky until you're blue in the face. It won't make it true. PKing, key situations, own zone situations--Torts has made it more than obvious that he views Dubinsky as the better defensive player of the two (not to take anything away from AA, who I do think is an exceptional defensive player).

I have no bias against Dubinsky, and I never have. I've spent his entire Rangers career trying to convince myself to like him because I enjoy the way he spices up the action. My only bias is against inconsistent players who routinely display flawed hockey sense, which Dubinsky is doing frequently for the second season in three years. Since you chose to label my post a "complete load of crap" for seemingly no reason other than my criticism of Dubinsky, I'd argue that if anyone here has a bias regarding Dubinsky, it would be you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of the guys that has been trying to convince us that Dubinsky is a superior player to Callahan for years now? Talk about bias. Talk about comical.
With the exception of Henrik and the defense, EVERY PLAYER ON THIS TEAM is "inconsistent." With Dubinsky, you bleat on about it incessantly. For the players you like, you make excuse after excuse. Yes, you have a bias. Yes, it is comical.

Yes, I am the poster who believes that Dubinsky is a superior player to Callahan (marginally). The thread you refer to was another fine example of your bias. I used YOUR OWN ARGUMENT (you routinely use stat-based arguments to bash Dubinsky) to defend that view, and you started posting in a pretentious "I feel sorry for you" tone. Yes, you are comical. And for the record, I don't have a bias. My favorite Rangers have almost always been D-men. Dubinsky is one of my favorite forwards (along with Callahan and Stepan), but he's far from my favorite Ranger. Put another way--I would be depressed to see Staal or Del Zotto traded, regardless of the return. If Dubinsky were to be traded for somebody like Ryan? I'd be thrilled. I went on a tear in December not because I'm some kind of Dubinsky fanboy, but because people on here were suggesting that he be moved in a lateral move or for a lesser player.

smoneil is offline   Reply With Quote