View Single Post
01-12-2004, 04:04 AM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Originally Posted by
Trying to be “l'avocat du diable” i'll expose you how your post can be wrong: Hockey games are won on the ice, it's something physical, muscular, endurance, especially when a team tries to reach the Stanley Cup, it takes more than a smallish gritty center to acheive it, it takes physical strenght. Which Lecav is more designed to than Koivu.
Speaking of mythical thoughts on players, why do all Lecavalier boosters seemingly believe Lecavalier is more capable of physical play than Koivu? Especially in the playoffs! Whenever it's counted, Koivu's stepped up and played hard and played well. He's far grittier than Lecavalier's ever been. Lecavalier has NEVER led a team to a championship. Not on the international scale (where he flopped), not in TB (where it was only when St.Louis took the reigns of the club offensively did they have any remote success, while Lecavalier was a complete flop in the playoffs), nor on the junior scale.
Koivu's captained an overachieving Finnish club to a load of success on the international scale. He's always provided the grit, intensity, and clutch scoring that the team's needed. Lecavalier's provided the soft, prima donna distraction that a team DOESN'T need during the playoffs. He is entirely unproven to be a star in the NHL, much less a player you want to build a team around. He's posted worse offensive numbers and PPG numbers in seasons than Koivu ever has.
Lecavalier is big. So is Chad Kilger. Doesn't translate to intensity, leadership, or strength. Lecavalier rarely outmuscles the opposition to drive the net. He skates through them. Koivu is a poor man's Forsberg in that he'll play physically, grind it out and come out from behind the net with a defenseman on his back. Lecavalier scores off the rush; something that's important, but the possibility for this decreases as the game gets more important.
You're quite the hypocrite with this post. You claimed in the past you will not speculate as to what goes on in the lockerroom. Now you're pronouncing Souray as the new leader and new captain. Earlier posts, you said Souray should be captain and Koivu should hand it over. Truthfully, you're no different than 110%. You claim to listen to them to laugh, but your ideas are identitical in that there's no substance behind them.
Originally Posted by
Koivu has become the center of a war between french and anglos fans, Koivu is the anglo leader side, and all the success of players speaking french is considered as ennemies, acting in the hidden agendas of french crap journalists.
I mean get this paranoid ideas off of your heads.
How can you not see the hypocrisy here?
You tell people to stop being paranoid all the while you're creating fiction that has you paranoid; thinking Koivu's the center of a "war"? That's just silly. Thinking this has anything to do with language is ridiculous. I can't believe how many times you try to argue these same things: that anglos are supporting Koivu, and bashing everyone else.
Go look at thread history on this board. Look at how many times Ribeiro supporters have brought up Koivu's name to be traded, to lose captaincy, or how many debates they've sparked over whether Koivu's a legit first line center. This is why some people come down hard on Ribeiro, whom some believe is some phenominal talent that he isn't. Don't make this into a language thing, it's incredibly silly. There's loads of francophones who love Koivu and don't see Ribeiro as the best thing since sliced bread, and there's loads of anglos who aren't fanatical about Koivu but think Ribeiro should be in the All-Star game.
I like Koivu loads as a player. I also like Theodore a lot. And Claude Lemieux's probably my favourite all-time player. Lapierre is one of my favourite prospects in the Hab system. Does this make me franco or anglo according to your silly standards?
You may believe Lecavalier will mature and be better. Yeah, look at Sundin for an example of that. Also look at Jagr. And Lang. And Pavel Bure. The list goes on and on and on of selfish players maintaining their selfishness throughout their careers. Lecavalier might mature and become the player he can. And I think there's a decent chance of that but, I would rather see Montreal's prospects mature around the stability of the franchise. That's a proven measure of success and solidarity. I'm not talking about individual talents but the franchise as a whole's future success.
EDIT: Apologies for the tone in this post, but I get tired of people speculating about what goes on in the lockerroom. Your mentioning that Souray is the 'real leader' and constant speculating of Koivu not being a stand-up guy in the lockerroom is nauseating. Reporters and you have no idea, so why post these things as though they're factual? It's ridiculous, and degrades conversation quickly.
Last edited by Mike8: 01-12-2004 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Mike8