View Single Post
01-31-2013, 11:45 PM
Registered User
TheHudlinator's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,652
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by Northern Neighbour View Post
Oh yeah, actually, I gave you more than one example - I gave you several. And when you look at that Penguins team that won the Cup, they didn't have a lot of players that were skilled and gritty. Actually, that team had more grit than overall skill.

The Bruins and Kings won the Cup because they were big and physical up and down their lineup. They had some skilled players, but they wore down Vancouver and New Jersey, respectively. You name Lucic, but he wasn't the only one. The Bruins' third line that year of Kelly, Peverley, and Paille were very instrumental in the Bruins' Cup run.

Obviously, it would be great to have such teams. I just wished that Feaster would have tried to create more balance on the team. It was clear that the team needed more skill, but I think he went too far and completely neglected the importance of toughness and grit. It's a little surprising since Feaster put together a well-balanced team in Tampa Bay as he complemented Lecavalier, Richards, St. Louis, and Boyle with players like Fedotenko, Modin, Andreychuk, Taylor, Lukowich, Sarich, Kubina, Cullimore, Pratt, and Andre Roy. At the very least, he could have added more toughness on the backend.
Yes I agree those teams had grit but the reason they were/are great is that they have skilled players who are gritty just the gritty is about as useful as **** on a bull. I am saying that the reason those teams are great are the Malkins, the Lucics, the Browns not the Konopkas/Janssens or else they would have more cups.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote