View Single Post
11-22-2006, 12:47 PM
Join Date: Feb 2003
Originally Posted by
I think it's obvious that we won't be able to reach a consensus and that's fine as long as we keep respect for each other...
I'll just say that I believe that scoring goals is the most important thing as a team, but individualy, I believe that a player who creates more scoring chances (either by scoring goals or setting them up) is more important to a team...would you say that Ryder is a better player than Koivu, of course not, is Cheechoo better than Forsberg...It's sure that it's preferable to have a complete player who can score, pass, hit, perform under pressure, etc. but to say that a passer is less important than a scorer, I have to disagree.
No, I agree with you. One of the many reasons I keep posting is that the makeup of teams is interesting to me. You need a lot of different qualities and few players posess all of them. Serge Savard spoke about teams and roles quite well last Satyrday I thought.
If I'm drafting, I take Koivu before Ryder, Thornton before Cheechoo and down the line if you look at setup man/shooter. I'm not sure it means I like the playmaker more, but it seems that the more complete players play C. I believe the team needs more players that don't have a 'but' after their scouting report, a complete package. I'm not sure which way to get 'the guy' is best, that's all.
Discussing Ryder as an asset is valid, that's what we're doing. Posters must respect the player if they feel he can get a good return. Dismissing him as just a guy who can shoot but doesn't really do much gets tiresome . Note that we're having a civil exchange on something that we disagree on, nice for a change isn't it ?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by mcphee