View Single Post
Old
03-14-2012, 02:00 PM
  #88
Khelvan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,515
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Khelvan Send a message via AIM to Khelvan Send a message via MSN to Khelvan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza View Post
Well said.

Avery was a critical piece of the team at one point. He was a bad guy, but he was our bad guy. The Rangers needed that at one point. Then things changed.

My take is that he failed to adapt in a team first environment. The culture of the team was changing and Avery was no longer a fit. The Rangers were the one team willing to accommodate him to a point, but I suspect that Avery crossed yet another line.

He had a choice and he made it.

He would not compromise. Outlaws don't do compromise. No one should feel sorry for Sean. He made the bed he sleeps in at night.
Sean Avery is an illustration of the finer points of being a Ranger when they were a group of individuals rather than a cohesive team. In my opinion he was most successful because his antics lit a fire under a group of people who weren't playing for each other like the current team is, but were playing for themselves, as individuals.

That he was so successful here is more a function of how much the Rangers lacked cohesion and motivation than it is related to Avery's on-ice performance in any way. On a team run by a coach that demands motivation and respect from his players, Avery was detrimental and superfluous. I wouldn't be surprised if Avery's polarizing personality would help a team like Columbus, for a very short time.

But it's sort of like implementing a scorched earth policy in war. You might capture the land and it may be an effective way to win in the mid-term, but long-term you're burning it all away.

Khelvan is offline   Reply With Quote