Guys, there's this magic thing called an ignore list. Adding that troglodyte to it will set you free.
Of course I'm saying this mainly out of self-interest as I'm equally as tired of people pointlessly arguing with that hopeless mongoloid as I was of reading his half-baked posts in the first place.
I've stated my points many times here, including the irrefutable evidence he is not a very proficient playmaker when his enablers claim he is, when you have never had more than 29 assists in 1 season in your career, how can one claim Grabo is a good playmaker is beyond me.
Really they addressed? I know He had crappy wingers last year? Is that what you are going to? Same wingers that scored 30 and 21 goals the year before? The only wingers thus far that Grabo has been successful with.
Your problem is that you're dissapointed that he's not putting up 1st line type of assists/production. You're also the one who keeps stating that we think he is some great #1C when none of us have said it at all.
Guys, there's this magic thing called an ignore list. Adding that troglodyte to it will set you free.
Of course I'm saying this mainly out of self-interest as I'm equally as tired of people pointlessly arguing with that hopeless mongoloid as I was of reading his half-baked posts in the first place.
The thing is he's not really a bad poster, he's just out-right clueless when it comes to Grabo.
I've stated my points many times here, including the irrefutable evidence he is not a very proficient playmaker when his enablers claim he is, when you have never had more than 29 assists in 1 season in your career, how can one claim Grabo is a good playmaker is beyond me.
Really they addressed? I know He had crappy wingers last year? Is that what you are going to? Same wingers that scored 30 and 21 goals the year before? The only wingers thus far that Grabo has been successful with.
Grabo has had roughly the same point pace every season with the Leafs with numerous wingers.
And yes, I did address you're whole 'only 29 assists' garbage already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunjay
You seem to think that 29 assists is bad.
Last year Grabovski had 28, and that was good for 41st among centers in the league. Only 5 of those assists were on the powerplay, putting him at 24th league-wide in even strength assists. And the only person ahead of him on that list that played fewer games was Datsyuk, who played in 4 fewer games.
That's one less even strength assist than Stamkos and Brad Richards. Three less than Getzlaf. 5 less than Eric Staal and Datsyuk. Only 10 players had 30 or more even strength assists.
The year before he was 23rd in even strength assists in the league amongst centers. Tied with Mike Richards. One less than Joe Thornton. Two less than Bergeron and Eric Staal. 3 less than Stamkos, all these players within 1 GP of each other.
In conclusion, you demonstrably have no clue.
The only part of your response to this that even came close to making sense was to say that Grabo sucks on the PP. Which was addressed in turn:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunjay
Lets take a highly regarded #2C from a much better team....Patrice Bergeron. He averaged one point every 14.6 minutes of PP time. Grabovski averaged one every 15.5 minutes.
Lets take the #2C from the stanley cup winners. Mike Richards averaged one point every 16.4 minutes of PP time.
Lets take a random #1C from a much better team just for ***** and giggles....Brad Richards. He averaged one point every 14.2 minutes of PP time.
So in my 30 wasted seconds of research you wouldnt bother to do yourself, I find that you're wrong again. Quelle surprise.
Guys, there's this magic thing called an ignore list. Adding that troglodyte to it will set you free.
Of course I'm saying this mainly out of self-interest as I'm equally as tired of people pointlessly arguing with that hopeless mongoloid as I was of reading his half-baked posts in the first place.
Grabo has had roughly the same point pace every season with the Leafs with numerous wingers.
And yes, I did address you're whole 'only 29 assists' garbage already.
The only part of your response to this that even came close to making sense was to say that Grabo sucks on the PP. Which was addressed in turn:
I already defuted this silly arguement, ignoring PP points, is a desperate and creative attempt by apologists to prop up a career high 29 assists Center, only the foolish would attempt to do so. Anyway Getzlaf is a proven playmaker and winner, he also has a career high 66 assists and often averages over 50 assists a year, almost as high as Grabo's career high in points.
Anyway if you are so inclined on re-posting posts, here is mine.
12 pages discussing if Grabo is a top 6 Center on a contender or Stanely Cup team.
Unbelievable.
When the answer is a resounding, No. He has never won at any level in the NHL. Just how do some come to a conclusion it is yes when you look at the standard of #2C's that have won the cup is a mystery.
The fact he is a #2C on a perennial non playoff team and a mediocre one at that, just tells you all you need to know.
1. First off let this guy prove he can be part of a winning team before saying he is a 'great' <chuckle> #2C on Cup contender, I won't even say Cup winner because we know this is not true.
2. If the guy is so great, why do all his backers always say he needs better wingers, or a better supporting cast? Great players make players around them better, but Grabo is not a particular strong playmaker nor does he bring a lot of "Bergeron, Richards intangibles to a team".
He is what he is, a default best C on a team with little strength up the middle, only 4 points the better of the 2nd highest point getting C on the team last year with a lot more fanfare and less intangibles ie. Faceoff inabilty just to name one thing. He rarely plays consistently, often dissapears when the games are important.
In short, he is the poster boy of this losing era. I will say it again, and it's sounding like a broken record, when the Leafs get a better top 6, one where players have better intangibles. The almost 29 year old will be gone, and mark these words, the Leafs will improve in the standings.
This I have no doubt you can count on, and some of the Grabo fans will say it is a coincidence no doubt. If this is what they want to cling to, be my guest.
The fact is The Leafs will improve in the standings when the Grabo era is over.
Originally Posted by bunjay
Lets take a highly regarded #2C from a much better team....Patrice Bergeron. He averaged one point every 14.6 minutes of PP time. Grabovski averaged one every 15.5 minutes.
Lets take the #2C from the stanley cup winners. Mike Richards averaged one point every 16.4 minutes of PP time.
Lets take a random #1C from a much better team just for ***** and giggles....Brad Richards. He averaged one point every 14.2 minutes of PP time.
So in my 30 wasted seconds of research you wouldnt bother to do yourself, I find that you're wrong again. Quelle surprise
Your argument is comparing flawed apples to flawed oranges, did 30 secs of your research or probably less, given it is so simple given the perameters of our discussion, consider the intangibles Richards, Bergeron bring to a team?
I didn't think so, that took me about 15 secs to refute another silly comparison. Why are you so obsessed with cherry picking PP time, we all know Grabo is ineffective on the PP because he is a transition fwd, when he is stationary he lacks vision to make plays. In your own way you made the point for me. It's another weakness in his game, a top 6 fwd without Richards or Bergeron's intangibles that is less then mediocre on a very important facet of the game, the PP, *hint *hint watch playoff hockey. lol
So what are we left with? A mediocre #2C that can play relatively well 5 on 5 when one of his wingers is Kule who is by far the best defensive fwd on the team, he was a - when Kule went down last season, (what did your research tell you there BJ?) who has only played well with 2 winger thus far with the Leafs.
Can't wait to hear another creative response. LOL
Last edited by Interactif: 12-09-2012 at 09:31 AM.
Reason: Add
Who's +/- wouldnt change going from Kulemin to a rookie Matt Frattin?
I could smack the next person I hear say the word 'intangibles' I'm pretty certain you don't even know what the word intangible means. Faceoff ability is not intangible. It's actually measured, you know? As a percentage won? You can even sort results by zone?
That's funny, I thought most intelligent hockey people including GM's, Coach's and certain bright TSN analysts have used the term "intangibles" to describe a player.
Sure beats, "this energizer bunny is a warror" whatever this means.
Your problem is that you're dissapointed that he's not putting up 1st line type of assists/production. You're also the one who keeps stating that we think he is some great #1C when none of us have said it at all.
Really my only issue is with people propping him up as a key player to a team that could be a Cup contender without any evidence to back it up, mostly as a top 6 C if we are to become a cup contender in the next few years. I know I have illustrated many times and ignored this is far from being the case.
Really my only issue is with people propping him up as a key player to a team that could be a Cup contender without any evidence to back it up, mostly as a top 6 C if we are to become a cup contender in the next few years. I know I have illustrated many times and ignored this is far from being the case.
Leafs sucking is a team effort.
How can you justify keeping any Leafs' player with your criteria?
Rielly isn't on a very good team, obviously he was a bad pick.
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. As quoted in Listening and Speaking : A Guide to Effective Oral Communication (1954) by Ralph G. Nichols and Thomas R. Lewis, p. 74
That's funny, I thought most intelligent hockey people including GM's, Coach's and certain bright TSN analysts have used the term "intangibles" to describe a player.
Sure beats, "this energizer bunny is a warror" whatever this means.
They also say things like "give it 110%" and "locker-room cancer." Tired sports cliches just fill space. Scouts dont give GMs their recommendations based on 'intangibles' any more than GMs make their decisions based on them.
You guys realize that Interactif will never, ever change his opinion on Grabo right? He's far too narrow-minded and stubborn. Meanwhile every other person on the board knows he's wrong, so why should it matter what he thinks?
How can you justify keeping any Leafs' player with your criteria?
Rielly isn't on a very good team, obviously he was a bad pick.
Exactly, the Leafs have sucked for the past 4 seasons and even beyond that, when do you hold the players accountable? Especially the one's that are a top 6 fwd, that have been here the longest. He isn't to blame on a personal level, but he is for not being a player that has made a difference to a winning line up. Thus, he just isn't good enough when the team is a good team due to that team having a better alternative. I have made this point over and over again, where is the evidence he could be a top 6C on a good team? There is none.
If there were signs this team is on the verge of winning, you may want to tweak the line up to get over the hump, but the common theme here is Grabo is not the problem, whereas I have been consistent he isn't the answer either.
If there were signs this team is on the verge of winning, you may want to tweak the line up to get over the hump, but the common theme here is Grabo is not the problem, whereas I have been consistent he isn't the answer either.
I would say being in the playoffs for 2/3 of a season is a sign of being able to win.
What you don't seem to understand is that GRABOVSKI DOES *NOT* NEED TO BE THE ANSWER. HE IS NOT A #1 CENTER. You seem to think a #2 center is some elite player who is PPG, has 60 assists, wins 60% of face-offs, is the best defensive player in the world, raises the play level of all individuals who play with him, regardless of situation or age, and scores a point in every single game he ever plays, never having a bad game, plays PP, PK and ES at an elite level, and single-handedly wills a team to the playoffs/cup.
That is not realistic for a #1 center, let alone a #2. Get a reality check.
Really my only issue is with people propping him up as a key player to a team that could be a Cup contender without any evidence to back it up, mostly as a top 6 C if we are to become a cup contender in the next few years. I know I have illustrated many times and ignored this is far from being the case.
What criteria do you have to prove that he can't be a key player for us when we're ready to contend? You also haven't illustrated anything to back up your claims except your false wolf cries.
I would say being in the playoffs for 2/3 of a season is a sign of being able to win.
What you don't seem to understand is that GRABOVSKI DOES *NOT* NEED TO BE THE ANSWER. HE IS NOT A #1 CENTER. You seem to think a #2 center is some elite player who is PPG, has 60 assists, wins 60% of face-offs, is the best defensive player in the world, raises the play level of all individuals who play with him, regardless of situation or age, and scores a point in every single game he ever plays, never having a bad game, plays PP, PK and ES at an elite level, and single-handedly wills a team to the playoffs/cup.
That is not realistic for a #1 center, let alone a #2. Get a reality check.
You forgot to add that he also has to play goalie.
I would say being in the playoffs for 2/3 of a season is a sign of being able to win.
What you don't seem to understand is that GRABOVSKI DOES *NOT* NEED TO BE THE ANSWER. HE IS NOT A #1 CENTER. You seem to think a #2 center is some elite player who is PPG, has 60 assists, wins 60% of face-offs, is the best defensive player in the world, raises the play level of all individuals who play with him, regardless of situation or age, and scores a point in every single game he ever plays, never having a bad game, plays PP, PK and ES at an elite level, and single-handedly wills a team to the playoffs/cup.
That is not realistic for a #1 center, let alone a #2. Get a reality check.
Before I go any further with you, do you think the last 5 Stanley Cup winning teams could have won the cup without their their #2C?
Quote:
*NOT* NEED TO BE THE ANSWER. HE IS NOT A #1 CENTER. You seem to think a #2 center is some elite
To make it easier for you since you might not know who they are they were, these guys aren't elite?:
Henrik Zetterberg
Evgeni Malkin
Patrick Sharp
Patrice Bergeron
Mike Richards
What criteria do you have to prove that he can't be a key player for us when we're ready to contend? You also haven't illustrated anything to back up your claims except your false wolf cries.
I have, you just continue to ignore it, I have the list of top #1C and #2C's the past 10 years. Do your homework, I may post them again just to see how you try to explain away how Grabo matches up to these Stanley Cup finalist Centers. Until then, I guess we can keep saying Grabo is a great #2C that would make a cup winning team despite there being overwhelming evidence that says this just isn't so.
Before I go any further with you, do you think the last 5 Stanley Cup winning teams could have won the cup without their their #2C?
To make it easier for you since you might not know who they are they were, these guys aren't elite?:
Henrik Zetterberg
Evgeni Malkin
Patrick Sharp
Patrice Bergeron
Mike Richards
Only Zetterberg and Malkin in that list are elite, and Sharp only broke out at Grabovski's age. They aren't even all centers, so way to cheat, and you are completely ignoring the 5 other players that make up the top-6. Not to mention only mentioning cup-winners is an extremely flawed way of comparing.
3 out of 5 of those would have won with Grabovski instead of the center listed. 5 out of 5 of those would have won with Grabovski instead of one of their top-6 players, and that is really the only point that matters.
A #2 center DOES NOT need to be the 2nd-best player on a team. He just has to be one of the 6-best forwards.
I'm pretty certain you don't even know what the word intangible means. Faceoff ability is not intangible. It's actually measured, you know? As a percentage won? You can even sort results by zone?
