View Single Post
Old
09-17-2012, 03:34 PM
  #175
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,544
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Hon, if you're going to disagree, do so competently and with reasoned analysis, not blind assertions and insults.



See above reply. Also, please compare and contrast results under Scott Howson versus results under Doug MacLean in re: "you were worse" someday.

I don't mind debates and figuring out where I may have gone wrong. But neither of you two are contributing effectively at all.

* * *


Oh, certainly. The goaltending is a decisive factor there. I think he was referring to the rest of the lineup.

* * *


Not really, no. Please read that Elliotte Friedman article I've cited before; he did a much better job of the analysis. Here's a link:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...cks-trade.html

* * *


And if that was the player we'd had on the ice, that would have been quite sufficient. We didn't even get that much out of him.



I'm sorry, how did Mike Richards (traded under identical circumstances) work out for LA?

Jeff Carter's problems are largely due to Jeff Carter. Where Howson can be faulted (and where, if you look carefully in the OP, I do fault him) is not fully realizing who Jeff Carter was as a person.



Um. We added a lot of players this offseason addressing that very point.



Doug MacLean hasn't worked here in over five years.

It may behoove you to review how player development has operated here since he left. By and large we've stuck to long-term project guys, particularly NCAA folks, and it's been working out slowly.

Also, this makes it sound like you're surprisingly unfamiliar with Derick Brassard and/or Ryan Johansen.



I can tell you what it is right now:
  • Ice a team with a never-say-die-never-quit mentality, as pushed by existing guys like DD and Prospal and Wisniewski and additions like JMFJ, Dubinsky, and Foligno.
  • Draft talent - and/or take existing guys (particularly Johansen, Atkinson, Murray, Moore, Savard, and Erixon) - and have them "grow up" in that environment.
  • Let simmer for a year or three.
  • Profit.
There had appeared to be a "team mentality"/responsibility culture installed when Hitchcock came in. It abruptly fell apart completely the year after the playoffs (partly due to confidence in Mason dropping, partly due to regression to the mean, partly due to the departures of Peca and Malhotra, and partly because Hitchcock is not an easy guy to work for), and he couldn't put it back together no matter what he did, which is why he got removed. When what little bits were left started getting actively sabotaged by certain rogue elements which are now in Los Angeles, Arniel proved worse then hopeless at righting the ship. So now, we're going back to what was working when we did happen to make the playoffs by putting that workload on the players and letting the coach just strategize.



What it did was identify those qualities that were actually leading to guys working well here, and adding more to that. We used to be in a situation where if DD went down, the whole team was demotivated. That won't happen anymore.

* * *


I suspect the wing is where he'll be playing. The centers who'll actually be playing center IMO (not particularly in order) are Brassard, Anisimov, Johansen, and one of MacKenzie or Letestu.
Blind assertions and insults? For all the loooong posts you love to write, you generally refuse to read what other people write. i find this pretty insulting to be honest.

Quote:
I still want a response to my accusations that no competent NHL GM would believe in Wisniewski as a #1, Mason as a starting goalie, RJ Umberger + ancient Prospal as 1st liners, letting the Nash situation devolve as it did.
In fact, you chose to avoid including my criticisms in your quote. why are you doing this man?

Also I would like to point out that I am skeptical that your posts which describe your torpid emotional state and use excessive emoticons can possibly be called "rational". Perhaps you define this word differently than me and the rest of society?

For example, logic would dictate that Carter's season is at least partially the result of injury, which he sustained (factually speaking). Now, you say that Carter is solely to blame for his problems. I rest my case


Last edited by LAX attack*: 09-17-2012 at 03:41 PM.
LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote