HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Former Ranger and SC Champ Kovalev: NHL is boring

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-19-2011, 04:14 PM
  #51
Johnny Hotrox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 176
vCash: 500
Kovalev not playing defense is like an urban legend that keeps getting repeated. Kovalev was a penalty-killer in Montreal. He was also one of the forwards trusted on the ice in the final minute of games they were holding the lead.

About Kovy not being able to hack it in the league, he was offered one year deals from 2 teams, he left for a two year deal.

Johnny Hotrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2011, 04:19 PM
  #52
HockeyBurd*
 
HockeyBurd*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
I'm pretty sure that Kovalev is an underachiever in any hockey circles. Having 1,000 points and a Cup doesn't change the fact that he could have had a lot more if he just applied himself. He's one of the most talented and skilled offensive playmakers ever.
Right, but that's the point in the end. He's an underachiever in most hockey circles. Which ultimately ends up diminishing a great career. He had a fantastic career by any standards. Any standards what so ever. But the first thing so many people say when mentioning Kovalev is that he is one of the biggest underachievers simply because his natural talent level suggested he should be one of the all time greats. As though we don't see that continuously in sports. There are other components to the game. And it's as if that is what defines him. The guy has achieved a tremendous amount in this sport. But the one huge thing that he never gets credit for is his fan friendly (especially kid friendly) hockey style. He has drawn a very large young fan base to hockey that would otherwise have never even given hockey a second thought.

HockeyBurd* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2011, 04:35 PM
  #53
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex444 View Post
I might be totally way off here but...i think this is an urban legend. I remember watching all the games back then and never remember this happening. Now MSG mentions it from time to time, but it is never accompanied with a video clip. When they show every little quirky thing that has happened from the guys that played on the Cup team to leave something like this out is suspect. I dont even need to see the whole shift, how about Kovalev skating to the bench and being turned away by Keenan.
Then I must be an urban legend too because I watched the game and it did happen. Kovalev was on the ice for almost 8 minutes and JD was laughing so hard by the end he could barely talk. The most amazing thing about it was that Kovalev never looked tired during the whole shift and kept moving the whole time--he was in great condition.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2011, 04:56 PM
  #54
HockeyBurd*
 
HockeyBurd*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
I don't remember it as 8 minutes personally. I always remembered it as 6 minutes. But it's definitely true.

HockeyBurd* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2011, 05:01 PM
  #55
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBurd View Post
Right, but that's the point in the end. He's an underachiever in most hockey circles. Which ultimately ends up diminishing a great career. He had a fantastic career by any standards. Any standards what so ever.
It wasn't a fantastic career by his own standards, because the standards he set when he played his best (and there was a marked difference between the way he played most of the time and the way he played when he was focused) were a lot higher than the standards he met for the majority of his career.

Quote:
But the first thing so many people say when mentioning Kovalev is that he is one of the biggest underachievers simply because his natural talent level suggested he should be one of the all time greats. As though we don't see that continuously in sports. There are other components to the game. And it's as if that is what defines him. The guy has achieved a tremendous amount in this sport. But the one huge thing that he never gets credit for is his fan friendly (especially kid friendly) hockey style.
I think it does define him. What component can be bigger than the fact that he is a disappointment? As a fan of the sport, and sports in general, one of the great things to witness is a career that ends up being a particularly notable one. It's fun to see legends get made, it's fun to witness the rise of superstars. Kovalev should have been one of those kind of notable stories. He was that good. Instead, you have about 4 seasons, scattered throughout his career, where he put up the kind of numbers you know he was capable of putting up every year.

Quote:
He has drawn a very large young fan base to hockey that would otherwise have never even given hockey a second thought.
What are you basing this on? Kovalev played for the the Cup team. There were going to be plenty of young fans anyway, and it's not like young kids weren't already watching the Habs when he got there. I'm not so sure all that many young fans without prior interest turned to hockey on account of Alexei Kovalev. He probably got more Russian kids interested in the NHL, I guess.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2011, 06:22 PM
  #56
HockeyBurd*
 
HockeyBurd*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
It wasn't a fantastic career by his own standards, because the standards he set when he played his best (and there was a marked difference between the way he played most of the time and the way he played when he was focused) were a lot higher than the standards he met for the majority of his career.
I don't know what standards you are talking about. There are a set of reasonable standards by which we judge all hockey careers. It's not a sliding scale. He had a fantastic hockey career. It's not something that is open for debate. 1000 points. 4 time all star. All Star MVP. A Gold Medal. A Bronze Medal. Stanley Cup that he was an integral component of. 100 post season points. So I'm not going to indulge in a ridiculous discussion that says THAT is not a fantastic career because bla bla bla.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
I think it does define him. What component can be bigger than the fact that he is a disappointment? As a fan of the sport, and sports in general, one of the great things to witness is a career that ends up being a particularly notable one. It's fun to see legends get made, it's fun to witness the rise of superstars. Kovalev should have been one of those kind of notable stories. He was that good. Instead, you have about 4 seasons, scattered throughout his career, where he put up the kind of numbers you know he was capable of putting up every year.
He's a disappointment to you. So it defines him to you. Because of these mythical standards that have been concocted by people that sit in couches and judge people all day long and can't separate talent level from all the other components required to achieve in this sport. And it's always easy to say a guy is lazy... when you're sitting on a couch watching him. Doesn't make it true. Not even remotely. All players have better seasons and worse seasons. Brad Richards gets crazy praise for his big seasons that are "scattered thought his career". Because people misinterpret what it takes to succeed.

People are born with talents that sometimes manifest themselves more visually than others. These people are then labeled as people that should achieve such and such. Nothing else is taken into account as something you are born with. They may not have the stamina, will power, capacity for certain physical strengths, aptitude for certain components of the game, etc, etc. etc. But because they visually appear to be able to do anything they want to do and because they are able (and willing) to elevate their game at certain times and under certain circumstances (as ALL players do), they are demonized for not being able to sustain that permanently (which only a minute few could for various reasons). Very a simplistic way of judging athletes. Similar to how we judge people. Very simplistic. Very common. Very lazy. Very unreasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
What are you basing this on? Kovalev played for the the Cup team. There were going to be plenty of young fans anyway, and it's not like young kids weren't already watching the Habs when he got there. I'm not so sure all that many young fans without prior interest turned to hockey on account of Alexei Kovalev. He probably got more Russian kids interested in the NHL, I guess.
I'm basing that on the articles written locally on that very subject over the years when he was a young Ranger. I'm basing that on the droves of little kids that poured into the Garden wearing Kovalev jerseys. A phenomenon I have never witnessed for any other Rangers player over the years. Not even Messier, Leetch, Graves, Richter, etc. I'm basing that on the droves of little kids that go to Kovalev signings. Again, I've never witnessed anything like that at any of the other signings. I'm basing that on what I have witnessed with kids that I knew in the neighborhood and in the Russian community. He was immense in driving in those fans. Absolutely immense. I'm basing that on common sense... His style (that you use to unrealistically raise your level of standards by which you judge him) is the most kid and casual fan friendly style that there is. That's just a fact. And nobody did it in a more exaggerated way than he did. He dipsy doodled and dangled all over the offensive zone for entire shifts at a time. Drove many adult fans crazy. Kids loved it.

HockeyBurd* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2011, 10:16 PM
  #57
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex444 View Post
I might be totally way off here but...i think this is an urban legend. I remember watching all the games back then and never remember this happening. Now MSG mentions it from time to time, but it is never accompanied with a video clip. When they show every little quirky thing that has happened from the guys that played on the Cup team to leave something like this out is suspect. I dont even need to see the whole shift, how about Kovalev skating to the bench and being turned away by Keenan.
I was there. No urban legend.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 12:18 AM
  #58
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
I was there. No urban legend.
Please, do tell.

Sounds like an interesting moment.

Jabroni is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 12:28 AM
  #59
JeffMangum
Ra shi da
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 55,747
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex444 View Post
I might be totally way off here but...i think this is an urban legend. I remember watching all the games back then and never remember this happening. Now MSG mentions it from time to time, but it is never accompanied with a video clip. When they show every little quirky thing that has happened from the guys that played on the Cup team to leave something like this out is suspect. I dont even need to see the whole shift, how about Kovalev skating to the bench and being turned away by Keenan.
I've seen partial clips of it on MSG...think it was on Behind the Bench.

__________________

#TannerGlass2014
SEEN YOUR VIDEO!
#SheWentToHarvard
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 12:44 AM
  #60
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBurd View Post
I don't know what standards you are talking about. There are a set of reasonable standards by which we judge all hockey careers. It's not a sliding scale. He had a fantastic hockey career. It's not something that is open for debate. 1000 points. 4 time all star. All Star MVP. A Gold Medal. A Bronze Medal. Stanley Cup that he was an integral component of. 100 post season points. So I'm not going to indulge in a ridiculous discussion that says THAT is not a fantastic career because bla bla bla.
It's all relative, but I think it's plenty reasonable to hold different players to different standards based on what they are capable of. It's ridiculous to you, maybe, but it's certainly not ridiculous to the people that have coached him throughout his career, or the teams that have paid him money and not gotten consistent returns on that investment. I'm not saying that his career was some sort of failure. In the grand scheme of things, yes, he had a brilliant career. More than most hockey players could dream of accomplishing. But his career was an especially frustrating one to follow, not only because his potential was higher than even most underachievers, but because of the reasons why he was an underachiever. I, for one, think he could have been a Hall of Famer.

Quote:
He's a disappointment to you. So it defines him to you. Because of these mythical standards that have been concocted by people that sit in couches and judge people all day long and can't separate talent level from all the other components required to achieve in this sport.
He's not just a disappointment to me. He's a disappointment to a lot of people. Most of the times I have a conversation with someone about him, fan or otherwise, that's generally the defining point of view people have of him. I think there is a pretty good reason for that.

Quote:
And it's always easy to say a guy is lazy... when you're sitting on a couch watching him. Doesn't make it true. Not even remotely. All players have better seasons and worse seasons. Brad Richards gets crazy praise for his big seasons that are "scattered thought his career". Because people misinterpret what it takes to succeed.
I don't think it matters much what fans say about it, because his coaches have said it. Scouts have said it. Regardless, when it comes to Kovalev, I do think it's pretty easy to say it when it's so easy to spot the difference between when he played the right way and when he played the wrong way.

Kovalev didn't just have better and worse seasons; he had seasons where he was an MVP-caliber player and he had seasons where he played like he couldn't possibly care less. The fact that he still put up relatively solid numbers those years is a testament to how good he was.

Quote:
People are born with talents that sometimes manifest themselves more visually than others. These people are then labeled as people that should achieve such and such. Nothing else is taken into account as something you are born with. They may not have the stamina, will power, capacity for certain physical strengths, aptitude for certain components of the game, etc, etc. etc. But because they visually appear to be able to do anything they want to do and because they are able (and willing) to elevate their game at certain times and under certain circumstances (as ALL players do), they are demonized for not being able to sustain that permanently (which only a minute few could for various reasons). Very a simplistic way of judging athletes. Similar to how we judge people. Very simplistic. Very common. Very lazy. Very unreasonable.
It seems just as lazy and unreasonable to bring these elements into the discussion when they really aren't relevant to Kovalev the way they may be to some other underachieving athletes. The difference between Kovalev's play when he was playing great and when he was playing not so great was never really about stamina or the aptitude or capacity for anything. Willpower, perhaps, because what set his best days apart from his worst was simply one thing: discipline. The times when he was at his best, all he really did differently was make disciplined plays. He made smart decisions, and considering that he displayed the ability to do that throughout different points in his career, it's unlikely that it was an issue of learning something as he got older or anything like that. I never watched him play a game where he wasn't playing well and thought that it was about the shape he was in or anything like that. It was always clear what the reason for his lackluster play was: poor decisionmaking, and what usually appeared to be indifference over it. He knew what the right play was, he just didn't always feel like making it, and you knew he knew it, because the next night he might decide to play smart, and he'd be making that right play every time he had the puck for 60 minutes. That's how he played for a couple of seasons in Pittsburgh, or that one season in Montreal: consistently playing smart, focused hockey most nights. Other seasons...not so much.

Quote:
I'm basing that on the articles written locally on that very subject over the years when he was a young Ranger. I'm basing that on the droves of little kids that poured into the Garden wearing Kovalev jerseys. A phenomenon I have never witnessed for any other Rangers player over the years. Not even Messier, Leetch, Graves, Richter, etc. I'm basing that on the droves of little kids that go to Kovalev signings. Again, I've never witnessed anything like that at any of the other signings. I'm basing that on what I have witnessed with kids that I knew in the neighborhood and in the Russian community. He was immense in driving in those fans. Absolutely immense. I'm basing that on common sense... His style (that you use to unrealistically raise your level of standards by which you judge him) is the most kid and casual fan friendly style that there is. That's just a fact. And nobody did it in a more exaggerated way than he did. He dipsy doodled and dangled all over the offensive zone for entire shifts at a time. Drove many adult fans crazy. Kids loved it.
First of all, his style has nothing to do with the standards I was referring to. This goes back to your bit above about his talents manifesting themselves visually, but that has little to do with what I'm talking about. If anything, his play was at it's best when he altered his style significantly. As exciting as his dancing with the puck was, that wasn't what made him a great player when he decided to be one. That kind of simplification would be akin to saying that Pavel Datsyuk is one of the top hockey players in the world today and basing that primarily on his ability to deke and puckhandle, when that isn't the case. He's so much more than that, and so many more important things, and that was true for Kovalev, too. It was his vision as a playmaker, and his technical prowess as a passer, not his tricks, that made him great. It's when he spent too much time trying to play tricks or attempt high-risk passes or plays that he regressed as a player.

I was a kid during that time (and part of the Russian community, too), and I can't say that anything I ever witnessed regarding Kovalev amounted to a "phenomenon." I knew a lot of kids who liked the Rangers, and I knew a lot more who liked the Rangers only as a result of the Cup win. I don't know anyone that got into hockey simply because of Kovalev. He was a very popular player with the fans for a couple of seasons, but it was hardly anything out of the ordinary, and I think the number of kids that knew about the players you mentioned dwarfed the number of kids who were primarily Kovalev fans. I can remember one kid from my childhood who wasn't Russian who had any sort of particular affinity for Kovalev above any of the other popular players on the team. He was without a doubt HUGELY popular among Russian kids, but outside of that, I just never saw what you're talking about. We'll have to agree to disagree on the role he played in driving in those fans, because I don't think it was anywhere near as big as you're making it out to be. I don't think saying that Kovalev did more to get non-hockey fans into the game than Messier, Leetch, Graves and Richter is common sense.


Last edited by NYR Sting: 11-20-2011 at 12:51 AM.
NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 11:37 AM
  #61
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,619
vCash: 500
Kovalev definitely underachieved as a Ranger. His first few seasons were promising and he never really built upon that. If Nik Sundstrom can score 24 goals on Gretzky's wing, then Kovalev should be able to score (or be on pace to score, since he was injured a bunch) at least 30 goals. And he probably should have had more assists when he was playing on a line with Messier and Graves in the mid-90s.

I'll always be thankful for what Kovalev contributed in 94, but it's still frustrating that he could never put it all together as a Ranger. He played with some good linemates in his first stint on the Rangers, and a player with such natural talent should have been racking up the points. For whatever reason, the focus and determination that he played with during some of his seasons in Pittsburgh and Montreal was rarely present when he was a Ranger.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 06:35 AM
  #62
Superstar Carwash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 211
vCash: 500
On topic: The guy definitely has some points, and I don't see it as a bash on the NHL or that he holds a grudge or something. It's his opinion and he's entitled to one. The game has become a bit boring, and, in my opinion, it's because of some of the stupid penalties (the lame ass instigator and hooking penalties for example) which causes stoppage of play, and it ****s up the flow and momentum of the game.

Regarding Kovalevs talent though, he's probably a Hall of Famer, which says quite a lot considering he could've been a sure-fire HoFer. Talentwise, Kovalev is probably on par with the likes of Lemieux and Gretzky. When he put his mind to it, he could dominate ANY game like it was the easiest thing in the world for him. That's why people still believes him to be an underachiever. Overachieving and underachieving is always put in contrast to what is expected of the player considering his talent level, or the level people know he can play at. If Crosby scores 50 points in 82 games, he'd be underachieving, but if Parros scores 50 points in 82 games, he'd be overachieving. It's that simple. Kovalev could've easily had 1500 points in his career or more, if he'd just played on the level he can play at most games instead of every 5th game.

Superstar Carwash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 06:57 AM
  #63
HoosierDaddy
Registered User
 
HoosierDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBurd View Post
I don't know what standards you are talking about. There are a set of reasonable standards by which we judge all hockey careers. It's not a sliding scale. He had a fantastic hockey career. It's not something that is open for debate. 1000 points. 4 time all star. All Star MVP. A Gold Medal. A Bronze Medal. Stanley Cup that he was an integral component of. 100 post season points. So I'm not going to indulge in a ridiculous discussion that says THAT is not a fantastic career because bla bla bla.


He's a disappointment to you. So it defines him to you. Because of these mythical standards that have been concocted by people that sit in couches and judge people all day long and can't separate talent level from all the other components required to achieve in this sport. And it's always easy to say a guy is lazy... when you're sitting on a couch watching him. Doesn't make it true. Not even remotely. All players have better seasons and worse seasons. Brad Richards gets crazy praise for his big seasons that are "scattered thought his career". Because people misinterpret what it takes to succeed.

People are born with talents that sometimes manifest themselves more visually than others. These people are then labeled as people that should achieve such and such. Nothing else is taken into account as something you are born with. They may not have the stamina, will power, capacity for certain physical strengths, aptitude for certain components of the game, etc, etc. etc. But because they visually appear to be able to do anything they want to do and because they are able (and willing) to elevate their game at certain times and under certain circumstances (as ALL players do), they are demonized for not being able to sustain that permanently (which only a minute few could for various reasons). Very a simplistic way of judging athletes. Similar to how we judge people. Very simplistic. Very common. Very lazy. Very unreasonable.

I'm basing that on the articles written locally on that very subject over the years when he was a young Ranger. I'm basing that on the droves of little kids that poured into the Garden wearing Kovalev jerseys. A phenomenon I have never witnessed for any other Rangers player over the years. Not even Messier, Leetch, Graves, Richter, etc. I'm basing that on the droves of little kids that go to Kovalev signings. Again, I've never witnessed anything like that at any of the other signings. I'm basing that on what I have witnessed with kids that I knew in the neighborhood and in the Russian community. He was immense in driving in those fans. Absolutely immense. I'm basing that on common sense... His style (that you use to unrealistically raise your level of standards by which you judge him) is the most kid and casual fan friendly style that there is. That's just a fact. And nobody did it in a more exaggerated way than he did. He dipsy doodled and dangled all over the offensive zone for entire shifts at a time. Drove many adult fans crazy. Kids loved it.
Beautiful post.

HoosierDaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 07:54 AM
  #64
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashiva View Post
On topic: The guy definitely has some points, and I don't see it as a bash on the NHL or that he holds a grudge or something. It's his opinion and he's entitled to one. The game has become a bit boring, and, in my opinion, it's because of some of the stupid penalties (the lame ass instigator and hooking penalties for example) which causes stoppage of play, and it ****s up the flow and momentum of the game.

Regarding Kovalevs talent though, he's probably a Hall of Famer, which says quite a lot considering he could've been a sure-fire HoFer. Talentwise, Kovalev is probably on par with the likes of Lemieux and Gretzky. When he put his mind to it, he could dominate ANY game like it was the easiest thing in the world for him. That's why people still believes him to be an underachiever. Overachieving and underachieving is always put in contrast to what is expected of the player considering his talent level, or the level people know he can play at. If Crosby scores 50 points in 82 games, he'd be underachieving, but if Parros scores 50 points in 82 games, he'd be overachieving. It's that simple. Kovalev could've easily had 1500 points in his career or more, if he'd just played on the level he can play at most games instead of every 5th game.
On a par with Gretzky and Lemieux? Hyperbole goes to a new level. Get a grip.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 09:20 AM
  #65
Radek27
Registered User
 
Radek27's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Radek27
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
On a par with Gretzky and Lemieux? Hyperbole goes to a new level. Get a grip.
Can someone find the original Mario quote? I'm pretty sure he said Kovalev was one of the most talented players he's ever seen. Jagr said as much about playing with him.

Stop hating on a guy who helped us end 54 years of losing.

Radek27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 10:30 AM
  #66
dynamoovechkin
Registered User
 
dynamoovechkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Country: United States
Posts: 454
vCash: 500
Does anybody know what's going on with Kovalev this year? I see only 5 games played all year for Atlant.

dynamoovechkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 11:01 AM
  #67
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamoovechkin View Post
Does anybody know what's going on with Kovalev this year? I see only 5 games played all year for Atlant.
He is bored.


Jabroni is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 01:18 PM
  #68
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
1. Kovalev will enter HOF when it will be his time. It is Rangers fault they could not accommodate him. Campbell screwed up anything he ever did.
2. He doesn't have to keep his mouth shut, NHL should listen to people like him.
3. A system in sport is a method for less talented to defeat more talented. Due to its obsession with systems NHL has became the place where talent is constantly terrorised by mediocrity. It became the place where non-ordinary people are getting out either by injury or expelled by management that works hand-by-hand with media and the league (Lindros, Crosby, Avery as an examples). Those who want to stay in one piece stopped being a treat that attracts goons (LeCavalier, Ovechkin, Heatley , Thornton and many more) The end result - the product on the ice - is a boring struggle that is mixed with some random violence. It is not a sport at all, just hard work.
4. Respect your veterans. That is what you will become.
5. There is no alternative to NHL. At least a charter flights here complete its trips. It is bad, but it is much better than than it was or could be. Bobby Holik use to be the NHL before, now it is Jonathan Toews.


Last edited by 94now: 11-21-2011 at 01:26 PM.
94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 02:10 PM
  #69
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
3. A system in sport is a method for less talented to defeat more talented. Due to its obsession with systems NHL has became the place where talent is constantly terrorised by mediocrity. It became the place where non-ordinary people are getting out either by injury or expelled by management that works hand-by-hand with media and the league (Lindros, Crosby, Avery as an examples). Those who want to stay in one piece stopped being a treat that attracts goons (LeCavalier, Ovechkin, Heatley , Thornton and many more) The end result - the product on the ice - is a boring struggle that is mixed with some random violence. It is not a sport at all, just hard work.
What does Crosby & Lindros have to do with your argument? Lindros was injured because he had a bad habit of skating with his head down & Crosby is the victim of...I don't know, bad luck?

Players have been getting hurt in this sport for a long time. Way before the increased emphasis on 'systems' came along.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 03:01 PM
  #70
satrabyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,865
vCash: 500
sounds like an excuse as to why he cant make it anymore in the league. imo the game is better than every besides the "boring" shootout which please replace with 3 v 3 and if u tie U TIE. Anyway ya hes hands were always good but hes speed slowed down and just wasent effective at that pace. Young guys who cant skate are not boring lol.

satrabyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 07:44 PM
  #71
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini View Post
What does Crosby & Lindros have to do with your argument? Lindros was injured because he had a bad habit of skating with his head down & Crosby is the victim of...I don't know, bad luck?

Players have been getting hurt in this sport for a long time. Way before the increased emphasis on 'systems' came along.
Players were getting hurt before... may be. May be in today's NHL Lindros would have gone the whole distance, and Steve Moore may be able to play and even finish his career years from now. When coaches teach the players that opponent "has to pay the price" the game actually pays it.
Kovalev was fine under proper coach. Keenan was good for him and opposite was also true. You give a stallion to Clouston or Martin or Tortorella and they will make a workhorse out of it at best.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:30 AM
  #72
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
I remember when Steve Larmer retired in 1995, he mentioned that hockey got boring and wasn't fun anymore.

Over the years, I always wondered how the 1995-96 season would have went had he stayed. The one thing we were missing that year (where we spent weeks on end during the winter leading the league in points) was two-way veteran presence on the second or third line.

That's why we gave up so much to get Kurri, who was washed up by then.

If Larmer stayed, I really think there's a good chance we'd have won the Cup that year, especially if Robitaille didn't have his two worst seasons in Ranger uniform, but even with Robitaille struggling, I still say we could have won it all with Larmer still in the lineup.


Graves - Messier - Verbeek
Robitaille - Ferraro - Kovalev
Sundstrom - Nemchinov - Larmer
Langdon - Lapperiere - Kocus
____________________________
Presley, Kypreos

That's a hell of a lineup, definitely good enough to win the Cup.
Not even close in 1995-96. You had more talented, hungrier, younger teams that year in Colorado and Detroit, not to mention the Penguins who were loaded with skill as well as the Panthers who were on fire.

Stephen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:39 AM
  #73
StaalWars
TeaOrrCoffey
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,168
vCash: 500
Alex Kovalev is not getting into the Hall of Fame.

StaalWars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 09:27 AM
  #74
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaalWars View Post
Alex Kovalev is not getting into the Hall of Fame.
1024 points + SC should be enough to enter for anyone. Historical figure for NHL - 1st Russian drafted in 1st round.

Played in the NHL All-Star Game in 2001, 2003 and 2009.
Named NHL Player of the Month in February 2001.
Named the World Championship Best Forward in 2005.
Won the Molson Cup (monthly) in November 2005, November 2007, December 2007, January and February 2008.
Won the Molson Cup (season) in 2008.
Won The Hockey News' Saku Koivu Award (comeback player of the year) in 2008.
Named to the NHL Second All-Star Team in 2008.
Won the NHL All-Star Game MVP Award in 2009.

Calling NHL boring and its media incompetent don't help, but as time passes it will fade while his accomplishments will not.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 09:34 AM
  #75
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaalWars View Post
Alex Kovalev is not getting into the Hall of Fame.
1024 points + SC should be enough to enter for anyone. Historical figure for NHL - 1st Russian drafted in 1st round.

Played in the NHL All-Star Game in 2001, 2003 and 2009.
Named NHL Player of the Month in February 2001.
Named the World Championship Best Forward in 2005.
Won the Molson Cup (monthly) in November 2005, November 2007, December 2007, January and February 2008.
Won the Molson Cup (season) in 2008.
Won The Hockey News' Saku Koivu Award (comeback player of the year) in 2008.
Named to the NHL Second All-Star Team in 2008.
Won the NHL All-Star Game MVP Award in 2009.

Calling NHL boring and its media incompetent don't help, but as time passes it will fade while his accomplishments will not.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.