View Single Post
12-14-2012, 11:07 AM
Bender's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,507
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by Drizzt1 View Post
I'll try and address each comment

I think it has more to do with your understanding of the game of hockey than anything else.

Don't really get what you are trying to say here? That I don't understand / get hockey, because I'm disappointed with our present situation, regardless of what others think? Each to their own, but I stand by my comment, that we have now been in a state (by my reckoning) of rebuilding for four years - that's getting on (almost 1/2 a decade).

Oh yeah, and our blind optimism isn't shared by fans of other teams at all on this teams' future :

"Our" is such a big and generalistic term mate. I also see plenty who are erring on the side of caution (like me, yeah) when claiming things will just "get better" at some point, and we will contend.

You want to talk about our glory years, with Hall-of-Famers like Roy, Bourque, Sakic and eventually Forsberg (and possibly even Blake & Foote), ask yourself why those teams actually UNDERACHIEVED only winning 2 Stanley Cups when they SHOULD have won 4 or even 5 during that span.

Whole heartedly agree in that statement (especially Granato's 1st stint in the chair), BUT I also disagree to an extent, and want to clarify that I originally stated that it's many elements that go into the success of the team, not just drafting (Pracey). I think it's a scout's job to find a few diamond's in the rough, but more so, I'm a firm believer in character, which leads to chemistry, and that IS something Pracey may be building well in my opinion, with the Landeskog, O'Reilly (I hope), Duchene (remembering his home town discount contract). BUT, I also think at the end of the day, regardless of an individual's ability and level of play, it's the team's end of season position that determines the scouts, coaches, players, ownerships ability, and for mine, four years of grinding up and down, isn't that fantastic in a very fickle world. Plus, I'm not keen on suggesting we can re-build for X number of years, because others have. All I really want and care about, is that we contend here and now, plus into the future. Remember, the future is always unknown, the here and now is something we CAN control.

You can't compare our current team to those teams, it's ridiculous. First of all the salary cap (and floor) has leveled the playing field, so 4-5 hall-of-famers on the same team probably won't happen again, unless they are taking a major discount.

Unless for example your a team like the Penguins, and I know the stank for ages, but I also wrote above why I think that means nothing when relating that to us.

At minimum, you need to be able to appreciate our current team for what they currently are: a team comprised of a very good core of young players, who are only going to get better. You need to compare them to the rest of the 2012-13 NHL, not to the 1995-2003 Avalanche.

Point of conjecture. Are we all show sure we "are" going to get better? No-one "really" know that mate, and to suggest it as fact, is pretty daring. I don't compare them skill wise to the teams of the past, but I'm sure they could learn plenty about commitment and attitude from those champions. I mean, a lot are still around the current team and could have influence.

Most of the Avs fans on here 'get it' well as fans of OTHER TEAMS who voted the Avs by more than 50 votes (I'd love to believe that it's all Avs fans voting here, but we just don't have that many supporters) so what exactly is it that you can't grasp??

I grasp what your trying to suggest I do, but we have different outlooks (which is healthy). You, and others as you have stated, are claiming Avs are on the improve, and will continue to do so. Projecting the future is always difficult. Who would have thought O'Reilly would be our top scorer, Hejduk would have a shocker, and Duchene would need a rebound year this year? I on the other hand, have reservations, and think a lot needs to change for that to occur.

Show me one team that has never rebuilt or gone through lean years before rising up again....just ONE. If you mention the Red Wings than clearly you didn't follow the 1982-1987 piss-poor Wings before they drafted one of the best d-men of all time.

Understand what your saying, but just because other teams have gone through lean years, for mine anyways, doesn't mean we have to, because that is "just what happens". Nah man, turn it around pronto. Make it happen. Invest in the team. Be on the front foot - don't leave our better players unsigned etc etc etc.

So, to summarize, I'll be looking at the standings, the chemistry, the trends and ALL that when I consider if Pracey is doing an ok job. For mine, with a team that started with the likes of Varlamov, Giguere, Quincey, Johnson, McClement, Stazz, Duchene, Mueller, O'Reilly, Landeskog etc is better than 20th overall, but I won't just blame Sacco (who I actually like !!!), but focus on all the elements, including Pracey, because as good as Duchene (as an example only) IS, maybe he wasn't the right piece in order for our group as a whole to improve.

Good rebuttal. I understand more where you're coming from.

For me, the deal is this. Our young players ARE going to get better. I can say that with enough certainty based on 30 years of watching NHL hockey and seeing young star players play at age 21 and then seeing them at age's just not the same thing. I haven't done the math, but I can safely say that over 80% of the players who play in the NHL at age 18-21 just get better as they gain experience. That's just a universal FACT. Sure, you can choose to believe that 50% of our core will stagnate or get worse but that would go against the odds. (Please note, I'm not talking about 3rd/4th liners or depth players)

Bender is online now