View Single Post
06-25-2012, 09:08 AM
Tender Rip
#Haz supa line mates
Tender Rip's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,957
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Uncle Jorgi View Post
1) We haven't gotten pushed around the last few years. The reasons we lost had nothing to do with a lack of physicality, it had to do with how poorly we were playing as a team. Hell, a big reason we sucked against Philly is because we were running out of position being TOO physical.
We weren't particularly physical, just small and undisciplined. There's a difference .

Originally Posted by Uncle Jorgi View Post
2) Being hard to play against =/= being big and nasty. Being hard to play against means being hard to play against. Having a bigger defense is just as easy to exploit and dominate as having a more positional and more talented defense. Remember the Detroit Red Wings from a few years back? They were incredibly hard to play against, and i don't recall anyone comparing them to the Broad Street Bullies.
Perhaps because Brad Stuart, Kronwall, Chelios and Lilja delivered pain while Rafalski was insulated by the best D-man since Orr. Lebda fit in because of his minor role.
They plainly had the right mix, were supremely well coached and talented, and then of course they could still be troubled by Anaheim - and such - playing them hard.

Originally Posted by Uncle Jorgi View Post
3) We do always go bpa, the Pens just obviously don't consult with you or whoever it is that you get your info from before they decide who their bpa is. If we were drafting for organizational need, we wouldn't have taken a defenseman at all. Forward and Goaltender are much bigger needs in both blue chip skill and overall depth.
I think stating BPA has been getting religious connotations here. You have different teams with different perspectives on what constitutes the best player available.
Drafting is not an exact science but if we habitually (and I am not saying I disagree with it in principle) draft D-men first, then it is also because the ones who decide our picks are skewed towards them. Arguably even a certain type of D-men. On other teams you will find different tendencies and they will also say that they pick BPA. It is in the eye of the beholder.

BPA to some extent is something you say to validate what you do/confirm your won bias. We all have blind spots. You cannot tell me that our preference for drafting players from teams where we already have players in the first rounds, with St.Mary or just Minnesota background whatever, is not so much of a statistical aberration, that you have to say we pick BPA within certain confines. The first part of that - that we have player(s) there, is likely more about simply having seen them more times, and thus being more sure. But that doesn't say better - or BPA - that says less risky,
Again - this is not atypical. You could find such patterns on many teams, I am sure.

Originally Posted by Uncle Jorgi View Post
4) You talk about management being obsessed with "possession" dmen, and yet our recent high rounder defenseman in Despres, Morrow, Harrington, Pouliot and Maata ... they are all very different from one another in a multitude of ways. But since none of them are Derian Hatcher, you lump them together like they're all the same beast.
If sina is really talking about drafting here, exclusively, then of course it makes no sense. But if you consider the pro-team also, then it certainly is true. We have gotten D-men who fit a certain paradigm (good skaters - more than anything, then big minutes capacity... same thing really), never mind how they complimented what we had. And virtually all of them have been pretty soft. And that has proven a disaster. When you then see that the vast majority of those D-men we draft have that same relative weakness, not that they're all soft, but on the balance you'd like most of them to be more physical, it starts to look like a pattern.

Tender Rip is offline   Reply With Quote