Thread: Player Discussion: Team better off without Kovalchuk?
View Single Post
Old
07-28-2013, 12:02 AM
  #152
JimEIV
Registered User
 
JimEIV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 25,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggers View Post
Of course there's a reason for that, and it's not Kovalchuk. Aren't you the one routinely chiding the "potential" of those bottom-feeding teams that always seem to make some late, futile push as soon as the games mean nothing?

Besides, Winnipeg finished only 3 points ahead of one of the worst shooting teams in the league, and gave up the fourth most goals in the process. If that's "far better shape" then I'm not sure why I care who or what you think is good or bad in the first place.
My point is having the "Super Star" player by himself has made no difference to the Atlanta /Winnipeg or New Jersey franchises ...the question of this thread is are we better or worse? Atlanta was not worse and Winnipeg is probably in better shape today than Atlanta has been at any point in the last 5 years....draw your own conclusions but that guy was simply not the impact player many believe or wished he was.

JimEIV is online now   Reply With Quote