Vanek's a warrior. Leads the team in scoring season after season, takes a beating like a lot of NHL stars and has his ups and downs, but I'd take three more like him. It'd be great to see him finally have a big, true # 1 center like Joe Thorton or Ryan Getzlaf to help take some of the physical abuse off his shoulders.
Vanek is a heck of a lot closer to Miro Satan than he is Steve Yzerman. The excuses made for this guy are unbelievable. Vanek would be the same player a #1 center as he is with Hodgson and as he was with Roy. He's a complimentary player and that's all he'll ever be.
Vanek is a heck of a lot closer to Miro Satan than he is Steve Yzerman. The excuses made for this guy are unbelievable. Vanek would be the same player a #1 center as he is with Hodgson and as he was with Roy. He's a complimentary player and that's all he'll ever be.
Complimentary players don't lead the team in points for multiple years... If your meaning is that he can't carry the team on his own, then you're right. However, as a counter point, there are very, very few players who can do that, and even that's debatable.
Complimentary players don't lead the team in points for multiple years... If your meaning is that he can't carry the team on his own, then you're right. However, as a counter point, there are very, very few players who can do that, and even that's debatable.
Derek Roy led this team in scoring two straight season, and was well on his way to a third before he got hurt (one of the two seasons Vanek led them, kind of takes away from it IMO), should he not be a complimentary player? Pomminville too? And by complimentary, I mean they shouldn't be the guys that you're looking to at the most important times. If we were a top notch team, Vanek and Pominville would Hossa and Sharp to Toews and Kane. And say what you want about Hossa leading in scoring this year, it's still Kane and Toews' team.
Derek Roy led this team in scoring two straight season, and was well on his way to a third before he got hurt (one of the two seasons Vanek led them, kind of takes away from it IMO), should he not be a complimentary player? Pomminville too? And by complimentary, I mean they shouldn't be the guys that you're looking to at the most important times. If we were a top notch team, Vanek and Pominville would Hossa and Sharp to Toews and Kane. And say what you want about Hossa leading in scoring this year, it's still Kane and Toews' team.
I would say all of the players you've listed are key or core players. Maybe we're speaking in different languages here, but scoring leaders year in and year out don't seem to fit the bill as complimentary players in my opinion.
I would say all of the players you've listed are key or core players. Maybe we're speaking in different languages here, but scoring leaders year in and year out don't seem to fit the bill as complimentary players in my opinion.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that Vanek shouldn't be counted on as a player that helps form the teams identity, which I think is much narrower than key or core players. Does that make sense?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that Vanek shouldn't be counted on as a player that helps form the teams identity, which I think is much narrower than key or core players. Does that make sense?
Definitely -- I get that. Unfortunately for us, that cuts out a lot of our current players.
For what it's worth, I think Vanek has his team's respect for pushing through injuries, taking abuse in front of the net, etc. Regardless of whether it's fair or not, however, injuries have to be a concern going forward.
There are 5 players who have scored at least 25 goals in each of the last 7 seasons. Vanek is one of them. Nash, Ovechkin, Iginla, and Kovalchuk are the others.
He's worth keeping around. Guys like him -- soft or not, injured or not, defensively responsible or not, or consistent or not -- don't just grow on trees.
