View Single Post
04-05-2013, 02:02 PM
Registered User
Hawkaholic's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,835
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by deytookerjaabs View Post
This is just nonsense. He's a 2C, yet you have NO PROBLEM with him being ineffective at cycling the puck, awful on the offensive boards especially down low, ineffective at creating scoring opportunities, ineffective at cashing on opportunities given by an elite playmaker, and ineffective in the neutral zone. BUT, since he didn't make some awful turnover at the blue line that led directly to the goal then he isn't responsible. Meanwhile, I think it's safe to conclude that when you give him a pass for spending most of his time in the defensive zone that there's a good chance the rest of us can come to terms with the simple fact that more time in your own zone is a bad thing, leads to goals against, and is reflected in his +/- when compared to the rest of the team.
When did I say I have no problem with him being ineffective in those areas (which you have blown out of proportion anyway)?

But ya, since he wasnít the one that was directly responsible for it, and could of done nothing differently to avoid the GA, why should he be dinged for it? Of course itís bad when you spend the majority of the time in your own zone, but why does Bolland get ALL the flak for that? I love Kane, but he isnít doing anything to help Bolland out in the defensive zone. Neither did Sharp nor anybody else that has played with him. Bolland is always the first player back, and the last forward to leave our zone. ALWAYS!!!!!

Iím willing to bet if you put Bolland with Toews, or Hossa, that his all-around play would improve drastically.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote