HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Rucchin

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2005, 09:21 PM
  #26
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khelvan
Nope, only in fantasy leagues does Hossa block Prucha. Hossa is the only RW other than Jagr on the Rangers' roster that has the skill for playing on the top two lines.
Wait. Let me hear this again. Hossa has the skill for playing the top 2 lines? Only if you take that into the same context that Daigle has the skill to be a top liner and so does Fedor Federov.

"Don't say Straka; "
Don't say Staka what? You could lace skates onto a dead man and have the same practical success that Hossa has had.

"every time I say this no one can point out any time in Straka's career that he has played RW effectively"

Just becuase he has not played a lot of it, does not mean that he cannot play it. And, let's be practical, can he really do worse than 1 goal in some 25-odd games and one assist in 11?

" You may feel free to ignore the fact that Straka does not seem to be effective on RW, but the coaches don't."

No. He is there becuase Jagr wants him there and Jagr himself occupies the RW spot.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-09-2005, 11:25 PM
  #27
Capitain Midnight
Trust me, I'm a doc
 
Capitain Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United Nations
Posts: 629
vCash: 500
if it makes everyone feel better...i wrote a song.....
sing to the tune of ole,..... ole, ole, ole,...... ole, ole.......






rucchiiiiiiiiiiiiiin......rucchin, rucchin, rucchin..ruuuuuuchin..ruuuuuuuuchiiiiin..

Capitain Midnight is offline  
Old
12-10-2005, 12:36 AM
  #28
Khelvan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,376
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Khelvan Send a message via AIM to Khelvan Send a message via MSN to Khelvan
He's a rookie who has 1 goal in 25 games. He hasn't been hurting the team, he does his job in his own end, and does forecheck hard; he just hasn't been producing. He has skill, and not like Daigle. He's not a lazy player. I don't see the harm in trying to develop him as a player, it isn't as if the team has been losing. Developing young players is, supposedly, what this rebuild is about. Hossa needs to play on the top two lines to develop his role in the organization.

But instead you would prefer to make Straka LESS effective by playing him out of position. In essence, to get rid of a player you don't like, you want to mess with a combination that works, that the players, and the coach feel comfortable with (Straka - Jagr), making both players less effective, moving a 33-year old veteran to a basically unfamiliar position.

You basically want to give a veteran a spot over a rookie as well as messing with the line combinations that work because the rookie isn't playing well, and has had a real rough stretch.

I, for one, stick with the rebuild plan.

Khelvan is offline  
Old
12-10-2005, 10:16 AM
  #29
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khelvan
He's a rookie who has 1 goal in 25 games.
He's not a rooke. He played in over 50 games prior to this year. He has had 88 career games. And even if he was just a first year rookie, I woud still state that after playing as a top 6 forward, 30 games into the season and notching 1 goal in 25 games, it is time to sit and regroup.

"He hasn't been hurting the team, he does his job in his own end, and does forecheck hard; he just hasn't been producing."

He does not forecheck enough. And his backcheckng is not anywhere near as good as the other forwards. And since when has the standard become that as long as a player is not hurting the team, that he should stay in the lineup? I could argue that he is hurting the team beucase he is not coming close to doing the single thing that is being asked of him to do. His very presence in the everyday lineup prevents another player from dressing.

"He has skill, and not like Daigle."

Do you remember Daigle when he first came up? Talk about skill. He had it in spades. He just could not put it all together. Much like Brian Lawton. Much like Marcel Hossa.

"He's not a lazy player."

I disagree. Trying hard for 3 shifts every several games does not make for a hard worker.

"I don't see the harm in trying to develop him as a player, it isn't as if the team has been losing. "

Eventually you need to see that something is just not working. He may not be a complete liability, but in no way does he contribute a single thing to this team. It is one thing to develop if the player in question gives you hope by being visible and making things happen, despite not scoring. This is not Hossa. He creates absolutely nothing. He is immensely talented, but so was Daigle.

"Developing young players is, supposedly, what this rebuild is about. Hossa needs to play on the top two lines to develop his role in the organization."

He has played nowhere else but the top 2 lines. And players with far less talent have made more of an impact in one game than he has the entire year. I am not saying to trade him, but right now he should not be on the ice. He needs to regroup. Maybe even play in Hartford for a while to get his confidence level up. Right now, we could probably find a few posters here that could match his impact.

"But instead you would prefer to make Straka LESS effective by playing him out of position."

Only in your opinion.

"In essence, to get rid of a player you don't like, you want to mess with a combination that works, that the players, and the coach feel comfortable with (Straka - Jagr), making both players less effective, moving a 33-year old veteran to a basically unfamiliar position. "

Again, only in your opinion. This has nothing to do with whom I like or do not like. You keep talking about what the coach feels comfortable about, but keep glossing over the fact that Straka's presence to begin with, is due to Jagr. Adn his presence on Jagr's line is due to Jagr. Don't ask me when Straka played an effective RW, as opposed to LW. Does he play effective as a center? All I know is that he has been an effective forward in all three spots, throughout his career.

"You basically want to give a veteran a spot over a rookie as well as messing with the line combinations that work because the rookie isn't playing well, and has had a real rough stretch."

Please show what part in the "the line combinations that work" part of the plan, does Hossa play a role in. And you are contradicting yourself. Didn't you say that Hossa plays a good forecheck and backchecks all the time.? Now you are saying that he is not playing well. So, is your sole reason for saying that he is not playing well is becuase he is not scoring? And 25 games is not just a "stretch of games".

"I, for one, stick with the rebuild plan"

What a coincidence. Me too.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-10-2005, 01:32 PM
  #30
Khelvan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,376
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Khelvan Send a message via AIM to Khelvan Send a message via MSN to Khelvan
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
He's not a rooke. He played in over 50 games prior to this year. He has had 88 career games. And even if he was just a first year rookie, I woud still state that after playing as a top 6 forward, 30 games into the season and notching 1 goal in 25 games, it is time to sit and regroup.
Silly me, I thought he was under the rookie amount. I never said "first-year rookie," did I? Regardless, regrouping is one thing, replacing him with a veteran is another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
He does not forecheck enough. And his backcheckng is not anywhere near as good as the other forwards.
In your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
And since when has the standard become that as long as a player is not hurting the team, that he should stay in the lineup?
You tell me when it has become "the standard," o high and mighty one.

Here we have a young player who has the skill to play on the top two lines, is doing his job without the puck (i.e. not hurting the team), and hasn't put it together offensively, though we have seen flashes of it. This is the definition of a young, developing player, exactly the type of player that needs patience. Which is exactly what he is not getting here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Do you remember Daigle when he first came up? Talk about skill. He had it in spades. He just could not put it all together. Much like Brian Lawton. Much like Marcel Hossa.
Yes, I remember Daigle, which is why I say not like Daigle. I'm not saying Daigle didn't have skill, I am saying that in my opinion, there is no way to equate these two players. I don't think 25 games is enough to write off a young player with skill who has bought into this team's system.

Especially when there are no other RW's on the payroll with the skill to play in that spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Trying hard for 3 shifts every several games does not make for a hard worker.
It is my opinion that if you think he only tries hard in three shifts out of every game, you are looking at him with tinted glasses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Eventually you need to see that something is just not working.
This many games into the season isn't enough for me to make that determination. Thankfully it isn't enough for the coaches to make it either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
He may not be a complete liability, but in no way does he contribute a single thing to this team.
In your opinion. I see him contributing in other ways. Obviously the coaches do too, or they wouldn't play him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Right now, we could probably find a few posters here that could match his impact.
Hyperbole doesn't suit you, though based on what you have said above about Hossa I wouldn't doubt if this were your true evaluation of his talent, which I find amusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
This has nothing to do with whom I like or do not like.
In my opinion, it does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
You keep talking about what the coach feels comfortable about, but keep glossing over the fact that Straka's presence to begin with, is due to Jagr.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never glossed over anything. If the coach, the players, and the results show that this is a good line combination, WHO CARES if the players want and ask for it? If it is good for the team I don't care if Jagr wants it or not. Though, frankly, we have seen that giving Jagr what he wants is generally good for both Jagr and the team. This team doesn't seem to be suffering from "we hate Jagr because he gets what he wants"-itis, does it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Don't ask me when Straka played an effective RW, as opposed to LW.
Because you don't have a clue when he's actually played RW, have never seen it, and don't know if he's effective, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
All I know is that he has been an effective forward in all three spots, throughout his career.
Name one line combination in Straka's career where he proved himself to be an effective RW over a period of time.

No? I didn't think so. But feel free to keep playing Rotisserie league coach. Maybe Straka can play D full time, I mean he plays point on the power play, right? So all I know is that he has been an effective defensemen throughout his career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Please show what part in the "the line combinations that work" part of the plan, does Hossa play a role in.
The team is one of the best in the league with a 2nd line RW who is having a hard time scoring. Why would the team mess with the line combinations that work to take a developing player off the 2nd line? The makeup of all three lines work, and Nylander-Prucha, though only a short time in, looks very nice as well. Hossa is 24 and obviously needs some patience, which is exactly what people here have been preaching for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
And you are contradicting yourself.
No, but you may need work on reading comprehension.

Don't like my reply? Don't put words in my mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Didn't you say that Hossa plays a good forecheck and backchecks all the time.? Now you are saying that he is not playing well.
Ok, try to understand: As a "scoring" winger he is looked to for "scoring." Even though he is contributing in other ways, he can be said to not be "playing well" when his name is not showing up on a consistent basis on the scoresheet. We could even call him "playing well" when he is generating offense that his linemates capitalize on, even if it isn't showing up on the scoresheet.

He's been generating some chances, though not as many as someone with his skill should. Until now he was playing with Rucchin and Niemenen, who aren't exactly offensive dynamos, and play a very different style. With Nylander and Prucha we'll see a very different second line, and I think he's going to start showing up on the scoresheet, because his style is better suited to playing with them. He's not the type of player who is going to be generating a lot of offense on his own, he needs these offensive wingers to play well.

Hey, I understand that for you, 25 games is enough to write off a 24-year old. For me, it is a stretch of games, and there is room for development. If Hossa were a player who did not buy into the work ethic (see Fedorov), I would want him off the roster. But he does, he works out there on the ice. There is plenty of time for him to improve, and as I am committed to the rebuild having a player with a ton of skill, who buys into the work ethic of this team and has been a part of its success even though he hasn't shown up on the scoresheet (and doesn't throw big hits, which is how some people define "impact"), giving this type of player the opportunity to improve should be a given.

Giving up after 25 games is the type of thing the team of the past 7 years would do.

Check that, he would have been gone after 5.

Khelvan is offline  
Old
12-10-2005, 01:44 PM
  #31
Bretzky*
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,525
vCash: 500
Oh my lord Khelvan lol

Bretzky* is offline  
Old
12-10-2005, 08:17 PM
  #32
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khelvan
I never said "first-year rookie," did I? Regardless, regrouping is one thing, replacing him with a veteran is another.
Nice term there. First year rookie. By the way, how am I replacing him with a veteran when I want him benched so that Hollweg can play?

"In your opinion."

Yes, in my opinion. Just like you think the opposite, in your opinion.

"You tell me when it has become "the standard," o high and mighty one"

Huh? Try answering the question. Here it is again. And since when has the standard become that as long as a player is not hurting the team, that he should stay in the lineup?

"Here we have a young player who has the skill to play on the top two lines"

So too does Daigle.

"is doing his job without the puck"

He is not doing his job at all. You know perfectly well what his job is. He is the ONLY forward, in the lineup or scratched, who is NOT doing his job.

"This is the definition of a young, developing player, exactly the type of player that needs patience."

He is the definition of a player whose presence takes away from a more deserving player (Hollweg). He is the definition of a player who lost whatever confidence he may have had and shows absolutely no sign of regaining it by playing. He is not playing through his problems. He may as well not be playing.

"I'm not saying Daigle didn't have skill, I am saying that in my opinion, there is no way to equate these two players."

Daigle has as much skill as anyone. He just could not put it all together and did not try hard enough to. I see the same thing. You may not, so we will have to agree to disagree.

"I don't think 25 games is enough to write off a young player with skill who has bought into this team's system."

No, but it is more than enough to recognize that he needs to sit and regroup or play in Hartford to get his confidence back.

"Especially when there are no other RW's on the payroll with the skill to play in that spot."

Frankly, who cares? He has one more goal in 25 games than Fedor Federov. One more point in 11+ games than Jeff Taffe.

"It is my opinion that if you think he only tries hard in three shifts out of every game, you are looking at him with tinted glasses."

Fair enough. Just like it is my opinion that you view him through "Hossa"-tinted glasses.

"In your opinion. I see him contributing in other ways. Obviously the coaches do too, or they wouldn't play him."

Are you telling me that all players who play, play becuase the coaches see them contributing? Tell me what he contributes.

"Though, frankly, we have seen that giving Jagr what he wants is generally good for both Jagr and the team. "

Aren't we a rebuilding team? Didn't you say that? Why does one players opinion matter so much on a rebuilding team?

"Because you don't have a clue when he's actually played RW, have never seen it, and don't know if he's effective, right?"

He's played games at RW in Pittsburgh and LA.

"Name one line combination in Straka's career where he proved himself to be an effective RW over a period of time."

Name when Hossa has proven himself as a RW, considering most of the games that he played in Montreal were at LW.

"No? I didn't think so. But feel free to keep playing Rotisserie league coach. Maybe Straka can play D full time, I mean he plays point on the power play, right? So all I know is that he has been an effective defensemen throughout his career."

Insert Hossa's name and you have the same thing since I am betting you had no clue that he was actually a LW.

"The team is one of the best in the league with a 2nd line RW who is having a hard time scoring. "

The teams record is in spite of Hossa.

"Why would the team mess with the line combinations that work to take a developing player off the 2nd line?"

They are obviously not all working if people are complaing about lack of scoring from anyone but Jagr (and more recently, Prucha).

"Hossa is 24 and obviously needs some patience, which is exactly what people here have been preaching for."

He's been give patience. He is failing and needs to regroup and rethink the way he plays his game.

"Don't like my reply? Don't put words in my mouth."

Then don't contradict yourself.

"Even though he is contributing in other ways"

How is Hossa contributing to the teams' success?

"Until now he was playing with Rucchin and Niemenen, who aren't exactly offensive dynamos, and play a very different style."

Prucha excelled while playing with Ward and Betts, both of whom are even more offensively challenged than Rucchin and Neimo. Less with more. Lundmark never got the chances that Hossa is getting.

"If Hossa were a player who did not buy into the work ethic (see Fedorov), I would want him off the roster. "

And that is the way that I see him. This little argument is going nowhere. You want to continue it, fine. We can do this until the cows come home. But unless you show how Hossa is contributing more than Hollweg, it is all moot.

"Giving up after 25 games is the type of thing the team of the past 7 years would do."

Oh, right. Becuause we are a real rebuilding team,right? Weren't you one of the ones who screamed not to trade Jagr? If we really are a rebuilding team, then how do you not? Nevermind, no need to go off on a different tangent.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-11-2005, 01:58 AM
  #33
Khelvan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,376
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Khelvan Send a message via AIM to Khelvan Send a message via MSN to Khelvan
We have established that you either deliberately twisted or simply didn't understand that I did not state a standard, you deliberately twisted or couldn't understand my explanation of that statement afterward, you put words in my mouth without which I did not contradict myself in the first place, and failed to understand my clarification of the statement afterward, assumed that I did not know Hossa ALSO played LW (which you were dead wrong about), fail to understand that Hossa and Hollweg are playing different positions and have different roles on -this team-, skirt the fact you can't support your statement that Straka has proven that he is an effective RW, lack the ability to think outside of a rotisserie league coach role (i.e. any player can play out of position), and seem to enjoy imitation.

We can agree to disagree on Hossa, but I think it is safe to say that whether you deliberately twist words or you simply lack understanding, arguing about anything is pretty much pointless. Either way, I'm pretty much done with this conversation. I was at the game tonight, and I saw a Hossa who backchecked very hard, forechecked, and had body language of someone who doesn't have confidence. I am willing to be patient with him hoping that he finds confidence, and playing with Nylander and Prucha seems a good place for that, assuming Nylander can play a shift without taking a penalty.


Last edited by Khelvan: 12-11-2005 at 02:07 AM.
Khelvan is offline  
Old
12-11-2005, 02:14 AM
  #34
Corto
Faceless Man
 
Corto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Braavos
Country: Croatia
Posts: 12,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue


Again, only in your opinion. This has nothing to do with whom I like or do not like. You keep talking about what the coach feels comfortable about, but keep glossing over the fact that Straka's presence to begin with, is due to Jagr. Adn his presence on Jagr's line is due to Jagr. Don't ask me when Straka played an effective RW, as opposed to LW. Does he play effective as a center? All I know is that he has been an effective forward in all three spots, throughout his career.
Not to get in the middle of this, just to add on that comment.

Straka's played either center or LW for the vast majority of his career. Believe it or not, when he's healthy, he's a point per game guy, and Jagr loves playing with him because he has speed to carry the puck and enough hockey sense and good enough hands to compliment him.

He's mostly played LW in Pittsburgh (on Jagr's line in his comeback , 33 goals year in 99 and then LW on the KLS line, with Kovalev as RW and Lang centering them). He has in fact said back then, that he feels most comfortable playing LW, doesn't mind at all playing center, but does not favour playing RW.
He played a bit there after Jagr was traded, when Jagr was traded and Morozov was injured. Overall, he's played like 0.5% of his games at RW, for a good reason. He is simply better at LW/C.

Corto is offline  
Old
12-11-2005, 10:19 AM
  #35
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khelvan
We have established that you either deliberately twisted or simply didn't understand that I did not state a standard, you deliberately twisted or couldn't understand my explanation of that statement afterward,
I understood you just fine. I just disagree with just about every one of your assertions.

"assumed that I did not know Hossa ALSO played LW (which you were dead wrong about)"

Ok. Sorry for assuming incorrectly. But if you are going to ask me when Straka played an effective RW, I could just as well ask you the same question about Hossa, since you are apparently in the know about his playing LW.

" of the statement afterward, assumed that I did not know Hossa ALSO played LW (which you were dead wrong about), fail to understand that Hossa and Hollweg are playing different positions and have different roles on -this team-, "

I understand that perfectly well. You fail to address the fact that one is doing his job and one is not. You have not presented any argument that counters the fact that Hollweg contributes and Hossa does not.

"the fact you can't support your statement that Straka has proven that he is an effective RW"

No, it may be his least favorite to play, but does not mean that he is an ineffective clod like Hossa seems to be.

"lack the ability to think outside of a rotisserie league coach role (i.e. any player can play out of position), and seem to enjoy imitation."

So allow for me to get this straight. Because I do not see the same Hossa as you do and feel that the team would be better off without him in the lineup, I am a rotisserie coach. Wow, you sure pegged me. Praytell, how do I enjoy limitation?

"Either way, I'm pretty much done with this conversation."

Likewise. You are guilty of many of the same issues that you are accusing me off. It is best to let this lie before this thread disintegrates into further pettiness.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-11-2005, 02:01 PM
  #36
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
I disagree somewhat as to what level of player

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
is in a different situation than Prucha. Hollweg's a fourth liner who will likely not amount to much more than a fourth liner. I don't think his development hurts much by bouncing back and forth. His game is one-dimensional and is not going to develop much more.

Prucha is a potential top six forward (and has been one thus far this season). The Rangers actually may hurt more with him in Hartford than his development would hurt. I think with Prucha, he still needs to work on his defense and the system, and he needs to do that at full speed. Being in the AHL does him no good, and there really isn't a reason why he shouldn't be on an NHL roster.

But this isn't really about what's best for Hollweg, or Prucha, or Kondratiev - it's what's best for the team now and in the future. Hollweg, who I like a heck of a lot, has a lot of competition for his position. Rightly or wrongly, Hossa has been, and may continue to be, in the lineup. The purpose, of course, is to generate offense from a second line; something that is sorely needed now, and would only benefit Prucha (who's the future). There may be nights when Renney feels he needs someone to 'enforce'. There's Moore, Betts, Ward, Rucchin, Ortmeyer, and Niemo bying for spots.
he will ultimately become. He is very much like Mathew Barnaby which is the player I immediately thought he reminded me of when I first so him. I think he will become a much more useful player as he gains experience in the NHL. At the top end he could be a very marginal 2nd line player. I think he will settle into a 15+ goal 3rd liner. He has good hands which he really hasn't had the opportunity to display thus far for obvious reasons. However, Hollweg deserves to be in the lineup every night, or at the least most nights. They asked him to calm his game down and not take undiscplined penalties which he has done. Can the same be said of some others?

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
12-11-2005, 04:01 PM
  #37
Khelvan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,376
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Khelvan Send a message via AIM to Khelvan Send a message via MSN to Khelvan
I tried to end this, but you had to bring up the old stuff. I would have ignored it if you hadn't continued to put words in my mouth.

The fact is, I never wanted Hossa on this team in the first place, and I don't want him here now. I think there were much better options out there. I would be happy to see him traded away in a package for someone else that can better help this team. I only took up this argument because I look at the kid objectively. He has been given vitriol he hasn't earned, because of other young, fan favorites in the organization. I look at both the good and the bad of the player, which many fail to do with this kid.

His (temporary, hopefully) place in the organization is not being viewed objectively, especially by people who want to turn the Rangers into a rotisserie team. I would much rather have a younger scorer who does NOT need to develop his game, and need patience. But we have Hossa now, and he may yet be a part of the future of the organization if he is given the chance to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Nice term there. First year rookie.
Thanks; I assume this was an attempt at being facetious, but if so you should really try reading before you post. I didn't make it up, you did:
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
He's not a rooke. He played in over 50 games prior to this year. He has had 88 career games. And even if he was just a first year rookie,
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I understood you just fine.
Since you state this, we can only assume you are twisting my words on purpose, since you don't have an argument. However, I will try to tone down the level at which I write, to assist you in case you just don't realize that you are misunderstanding what I wrote. We'll start again:

I began with "He hasn't been hurting the team, he does his job in his own end, and does forecheck hard; he just hasn't been producing."

Somehow you either twist this completely or simply lack the ability to understand it, and it becomes a "standard" for you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
And since when has the standard become that as long as a player is not hurting the team, that he should stay in the lineup?
This is what we call a "straw man" argument. By stating this you are making the claim that I say that people who aren't hurting the team should be in the lineup, that somehow this is the standard that should be followed. Because you can't address my real points, you put words in my mouth by stating I argued something that I never did.

Well, I never stated that. So you can ask your question again all you like; I never stated that was the standard. -I feel- that he should be in the lineup because he does contribute in ways without the puck, that when he gets his confidence back the numbers will follow, that he is the person best suited to be in that position because of his skill level who is following into the team system and work ethic (see Fedorov as an example of someone with as much skill, or more, but who shouldn't play because he hurts the team by not following the work ethic). I feel that a kid that just turned 24 needs patience when he isn't scoring and that coaches showing confidence in him by playing him through this bad slump can only assist his development.

I only said "it isn't as if he is not hurting the team" as an aside. In case you don't understand that, I meant it as saying that I understand that if he were hurting the team by, for instance, not following the system or not buying into the work ethic, he should be scratched immediately. If the young player is not doing what he is asked to do without the puck, he shouldn't be in the lineup, period. If he is, as Hossa is, then his play with the puck is what should matter, and this is where patience must come with a very young player.

You say that Daigle, too, had a high skill level and wasn't playing well. So tell me, was Daigle following his coach's system without the puck? Was he forechecking, backchecking, and in general working hard without the puck (and Renney sits those who don't, so you may not think Hossa does these things, but Renney does, as do impartial observers)?

So then, assuming Daigle is Hossa's equal here (i.e. he was not a lazy player, he bought into the team system, he was coachable) you must then have been the personal counselor for each player, yes? This is the only way to equate the players. You must know what is going on in both their heads. I have heard often that Daigle's problem was motivation and drive, and selfishness. Please let me know what the truth of the matter is, however, since you have the inside information. Was his problem really just a matter of confidence, as it seems to be from watching Hossa in person (though of course people not named True Blue can't really know for sure)?

Please, do tell why these two players are the same. Inquiring minds want to know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Are you telling me that all players who play, play becuase the coaches see them contributing? Tell me what he contributes.
He forechecks (he skates hard to the man with the puck, and though he almost never takes the body he does create turnovers by playing the puck), he backchecks (when the opposing team gets the puck he puts his head down and skates as hard as he can, when he gets to his blue line he looks around for his assignment and picks him up), he plays the team system, he gets shots on net though he has no confidence with the puck, he is as hard to take off the puck as anyone not named Jagr, and he does sometimes make good decisions with the puck even though his confidence with it is shot and right now he makes more bad ones than good. He is playing the team system and working hard. That is how he contributes. He does everything short of throw body checks.

So yes, I would say that I believe that Renney only plays people (for more than a game or two) who buy into the system and work hard. Those who don't get scratched or sent down to the minors. There have been other reasons for him to bench people, such as putting players in the lineup who contribute in other ways, putting players in the lineup to test their contribution to the team, trying to get a player going, trying to teach a player a lesson, scratching players who were injury callups when the injured player returns, that sort of thing. There are lots of reasons to take a player out of a game, and Renney seems willing to do it for a great number of reasons. However, based on their play, the players who did not (or could not) buy into the team system and work ethic only played a few games, or one game, and sat thereafter, or were sent down.

Renney doesn't have to say that (hell, he may have); his actions are obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Ok. Sorry for assuming incorrectly. But if you are going to ask me when Straka played an effective RW, I could just as well ask you the same question about Hossa, since you are apparently in the know about his playing LW.
Here we see another attempt to set up a straw man. I never claimed Hossa was an effective left wing. I never claimed that Hossa having played LW in the past had anything to do with the conversation at all. In fact, the only thing I said was that Hossa has played LW when you claimed I did not know this, and as I did not use Hossa's having played LW as any sort of point in an argument I didn't bother to support that claim. This was either an attempt by you to say "I told you so!" or another straw man. It would be a straw man if you tried to state that somehow if I don't support that Hossa played LW while still saying "I know he has played LW" that it would mean you didn't have to support claiming that Straka can -play RW on this team because he has been effective at that position in the past-. Heh, right.

Just to clear up the question, I will agree now to say "I don't really know that Hossa has played LW." I choose not to support this because I only vaguely recall him skating on the left side in preseason though I have no idea who he played with, Habs fans continue to say he played both positions, and I think I saw him listed as playing LW in some box scores I have no idea of his effectiveness there compared to the right side. Since I am not using this claim to support anything at all, here we may say "ok, you're right, I don't know he played LW."

Let me show you why this straw man actually hurt you (you can imagine me typing slowly for effect, if you like). Because you actually tried to support the claim that Straka should be removed from line combinations that work to play RW on this team, simply because of your undeserved hatred of Hossa, and lack the inability to support this statement, you tried to skirt the issue altogether by baiting me into saying Hossa played LW. So, how I've said I don't know that Hossa can play LW. Will you say that you don't know Straka can play RW?

So all the claims that Hossa was somehow blocking Prucha from playing on the top two lines, even though they do not play the same position on this team, were wrong, and you will never say that again?


Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
You have not presented any argument that counters the fact that Hollweg contributes and Hossa does not.
Hollweg and Hossa contribute in different ways. Hollweg and Hossa play different positions. See the above destruction of your straw man. Hossa is not blocking Hollweg any more than he was blocking Prucha, unless you can come up with something to support that these players play the same position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
So allow for me to get this straight. Because I do not see the same Hossa as you do and feel that the team would be better off without him in the lineup, I am a rotisserie coach.
No, because you insist on playing players outside of their position, and then, being unable to support this, make up strawmen in a vain attempt to hide the fact you can't support your claims.

I admit, I was wrong in saying I was done because I feel the need to further this as long as you continue to put words in my mouth.


Last edited by Khelvan: 12-11-2005 at 04:09 PM.
Khelvan is offline  
Old
12-12-2005, 09:02 AM
  #38
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khelvan
I only took up this argument because I look at the kid objectively.
Ok. If you insist.
You took up the argument becuase you look at him objectively. Try to understand that so do I. I just see things differently than you do.

"His (temporary, hopefully) place in the organization is not being viewed objectively, especially by people who want to turn the Rangers into a rotisserie team."

No offense. But this is one of the biggest loads of crap that I have seen. How is not wanting Hossa to be in the lineup, making the Rangers a rotisserie team? Pleasee explain.

" I didn't make it up, you did"

Here you are correct. I did in fact use that term. For that part in this little discussion, I appologize. That one was my fault.

"Since you state this, we can only assume you are twisting my words on purpose, since you don't have an argument. "

No, I have an argument. You just cannot see past your own points to be able to fathom that a different opininion and argument can exist. There is not twisting involved, you are just refusing to answer questions.

"-I feel- that he should be in the lineup because he does contribute in ways without the puck,"

Let's try this argument a different way. You feel that he is a contributor, correct? Otherwise he would not be in the lineup, correct? You DID make that assesertion, right? How does he contribute? Does he go out and play with energy? Does he kill penalties? Is he asked to check the other teams top players? Which aspect of the teams success is he an integral part of?

"(see Fedorov as an example of someone with as much skill, or more, but who shouldn't play because he hurts the team by not following the work ethic)"

Again, the problem here is that I view Hossa as someone who is half a step ahead of Federov. To me, there is not very much difference between the two.

"I only said "it isn't as if he is not hurting the team" as an aside. In case you don't understand that, I meant it as saying that I understand that if he were hurting the team by, for instance, not following the system or not buying into the work ethic, he should be scratched immediately."

I understand perfectly what you say. But do not see it that way. I do not see the constant work ethic. I see him showing up on a hanfull of shifts every several games. I do not see Hossa as a contributor to the teams success. He has been given only one job. And he is failing miserably at it. Do you deny this? Or does he have something in his job descrition that I am not seeing?

"You say that Daigle, too, had a high skill level and wasn't playing well. So tell me, was Daigle following his coach's system without the puck? Was he forechecking, backchecking, and in general working hard without the puck (and Renney sits those who don't, so you may not think Hossa does these things, but Renney does, as do impartial observers)? "

Having a high skill level has nothing at all to do with hard work. While, yes, Hossa does forecheck and backchecks, it is not nearly as sure a thing as you make it out to be. I do not see this as a constant from his game. I see it in Ward's game. Not in Hossa's. Your assertion that I am not impartial becuase I do not think that Hossa works hard is pretty weak. Seeing a player in a different light does not make someone partial or impartial. Just a different opinion.

"you must then have been the personal counselor for each player, yes? "

Off course.

"Was his problem really just a matter of confidence, as it seems to be from watching Hossa in person "

Hossa's problems extend pasat simply not having confidence.

"Inquiring minds want to know."

When you actually answer the questions that have been asked of you in this thread, I will answer yours.

"He forechecks (he skates hard to the man with the puck, and though he almost never takes the body he does create turnovers by playing the puck), he backchecks (when the opposing team gets the puck he puts his head down and skates as hard as he can, when he gets to his blue line he looks around for his assignment and picks him up), he plays the team system, he gets shots on net though he has no confidence with the puck, he is as hard to take off the puck as anyone not named Jagr, and he does sometimes make good decisions with the puck even though his confidence with it is shot and right now he makes more bad ones than good. He is playing the team system and working hard. That is how he contributes. He does everything short of throw body checks."

You are not listing what he contributes You are telling me how you think he plays. Without picking apart every point that you have made here, simply playing hard is not a contribution. Ward does everything you state. But he also kills penalties and goes against other teams top lines (when Jagr's line is not on the ice). Ditto for Ortmeyer. They contribute to the team's success. Hossa makes no such contribution. Hollweg does everything you state. And he brings physical play and energy to each and every shift. He contributes. Hossa makes no such contributions. Or any contribution for that matter. Unless you can somehow point out to me which facet of the Rangers formula to winning he helps in.

"Because you actually tried to support the claim that Straka should be removed from line combinations that work to play RW on this team, simply because of your undeserved hatred of Hossa, and lack the inability to support this statement, you tried to skirt the issue altogether by baiting me into saying Hossa played LW".

Please do not attempt to create false arguments. I have no hatred of Hossa. I just feel that he is not a part of the future and that the team is better without him in the starting lineup. I feel that his spot is better taken by Hollweg (amongst the 12 forwards, not the 2nd line). I have supported my beliefs and have given you my reasons for it. In short, I believe that his presence in the starting lineup weakens the overall team, as currently is seems that him being dressed is causing Hollweg not to dress. I am trying to think of what would make the team better. And removing Hossa and allowing someone else to play on the 2nd line is a step towards that direction. Again, I almost could care less who plays in his spot as it really makes no difference. ANYONE can do what he is doing.

EDIT: Upon further review, there is no need for you to respond to this. It is rather obvious that neither of us is getting through to the other one so let's just agree to disagree.


Last edited by True Blue: 12-12-2005 at 09:49 AM.
True Blue is offline  
Old
12-12-2005, 10:02 AM
  #39
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,252
vCash: 500
Khelvan...

quick question (and I haven't scrolled through your battle with TB, so I apologize if this has been answered). First, I'm not a Hossa fan for many reasons, but do believe he should be in the lineup, for now. But the question to me becomes, at what point do you cut Hossa off and accept the criticisms of him to be true? Montreal got rid of a talent for a reason, and it was likely not just because they had other players like him, as they decided on other players over him. The fans seemed to think he just couldn't put it together, that perhaps the drive/ambition to do what it takes night-in and night-out just wasn't there. At what point do you say that this kid with great size and immense talent, just isn't going to amount to much? He's played parts of three NHL seasons, and in his fourth, hasn't been productive (and while one may think it doesn't hurt the team, having a guy play on a 'scoring' line, getting 11-12 minutes and some PP time, is hurting his team by not scoring). I give him leeway because he's young and you hope that with that talent he can be useful. But at the same time, how much leeway do you give him and at what point is enough enough? Personally, I don't have the answer, and believe that he should be on the right wing, Prucha on the left and Nylander in the middle of a second line - one that should get decent even strength time. But for how long?

Atlanta - I'd love Hollweg to be a 15 goal scorer, but he didn't even do that in Hartford (8 goals is what he achieved, I believe). While AHL goal production aren't always indicative of NHL goal production, it's a start for me. I don't see 15 goals. 5 or so? Yeah.

Fletch is online now  
Old
12-12-2005, 02:33 PM
  #40
Khelvan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,376
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Khelvan Send a message via AIM to Khelvan Send a message via MSN to Khelvan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
quick question (and I haven't scrolled through your battle with TB, so I apologize if this has been answered). First, I'm not a Hossa fan for many reasons, but do believe he should be in the lineup, for now. But the question to me becomes, at what point do you cut Hossa off and accept the criticisms of him to be true?
Frankly, the Rangers are doing well enough that if there were another skilled talent available to play RW on a scoring line who does the things necessary away from the puck to get ice time, and the organization had assets in the pipeline projected to fill that spot later, I would be happy to see Hossa go now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
Personally, I don't have the answer, and believe that he should be on the right wing, Prucha on the left and Nylander in the middle of a second line - one that should get decent even strength time. But for how long?
I don't really have the answer to your question, either. If NY were in a different situation I would be happy to play him until he gets a few fluke goals and then see how he does. If that takes months, so be it. But right now, I would rather see another asset in the organization.

Does that mean Sykora? Only if he is willing to play hard away from the puck. By that I mean, when I was at the game Saturday, I focused on Hossa every time he was on the ice. I watched him when the camera would have been off him. Every single time the Blues got the puck, he put his head down and skated as hard as he could back to his zone, whether he had a chance of catching someone or not. He just did it. When he was in the right position (as you know, not all players are going hard into the zone in this system) he forechecked hard, though of course wasn't throwing huge bodychecks.

I don't want another player, skilled or not, to be the 2nd line RW who doesn't work hard. I don't know if Sykora does this or not; if he doesn't, I don't want this organization to give up assets for him.

Anyway, as it is, for now; I play Hossa until there is a better option to play him. Fedorov may have more talent, but doesn't have the work ethic. Ward may play physical, but doesn't have the hands. The organization just doesn't have someone to take that spot. Unless Renney feels that Hossa just needs a lucky break to get going, and is trying to show him confidence, I suspect he feels the same way, that there really isn't anyone available with skill, with the work ethic to fill that spot in the lineup.

That is probably why we've heard so many trade rumors; A team doing so well doesn't want to have to be patient with a project, for good or ill. It is happy with the veterans, and the quick learners (Prucha), but the projects belong on true rebuilding teams, and the Rangers really aren't that. The organization is rebuilding; the team was rebuilt over the summer.

Khelvan is offline  
Old
12-12-2005, 02:58 PM
  #41
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Just remember, if Jagr goes down, Hossa will become our FIRST line right winger. I think we need Sykora more than we care to admit. And Burke knows this.We've been a little lucky lately,and barring injuries I would go to war the rest of the season with Sykora as our second line winger. Maybe add another D-man if the price is right. That move would be for depth purposes,not a necessity.

HAPPY HOUR is offline  
Old
12-12-2005, 11:32 PM
  #42
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khelvan
Frankly, the Rangers are doing well enough that if there were another skilled talent available to play RW on a scoring line who does the things necessary away from the puck to get ice time, and the organization had assets in the pipeline projected to fill that spot later, I would be happy to see Hossa go now.


I don't really have the answer to your question, either. If NY were in a different situation I would be happy to play him until he gets a few fluke goals and then see how he does. If that takes months, so be it. But right now, I would rather see another asset in the organization.

Does that mean Sykora? Only if he is willing to play hard away from the puck. By that I mean, when I was at the game Saturday, I focused on Hossa every time he was on the ice. I watched him when the camera would have been off him. Every single time the Blues got the puck, he put his head down and skated as hard as he could back to his zone, whether he had a chance of catching someone or not. He just did it. When he was in the right position (as you know, not all players are going hard into the zone in this system) he forechecked hard, though of course wasn't throwing huge bodychecks.

I don't want another player, skilled or not, to be the 2nd line RW who doesn't work hard. I don't know if Sykora does this or not; if he doesn't, I don't want this organization to give up assets for him.

Anyway, as it is, for now; I play Hossa until there is a better option to play him. Fedorov may have more talent, but doesn't have the work ethic. Ward may play physical, but doesn't have the hands. The organization just doesn't have someone to take that spot. Unless Renney feels that Hossa just needs a lucky break to get going, and is trying to show him confidence, I suspect he feels the same way, that there really isn't anyone available with skill, with the work ethic to fill that spot in the lineup.

That is probably why we've heard so many trade rumors; A team doing so well doesn't want to have to be patient with a project, for good or ill. It is happy with the veterans, and the quick learners (Prucha), but the projects belong on true rebuilding teams, and the Rangers really aren't that. The organization is rebuilding; the team was rebuilt over the summer.
I haven't followed Sykora a great deal since he was traded from the Devils, but I can't imagine that lack of effort woul be an issue if he was traded here. If nothing else, he will be playing for a contract next year, which is a great motivator alone. Plus, he's coming to a winning team, where he will be playing RW behind one of the best in the world--no pressure, no burden of having to carry a bad team all alone. We pretty much have an ideal situation here at the moment and that makes it a lot easier to get a new player used to the new environment.

Until then, I agree with pretty much everything Fletch said. Play Prucha/Nylander/Hossa together for several games and hope that it becomes on the ice, what it looks like on paper--a very solid 2nd line. If Hossa can't pot some goals and get some assists on a line like that, I have absolutely no idea what would get him going.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
12-12-2005, 11:36 PM
  #43
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy hour
Just remember, if Jagr goes down, Hossa will become our FIRST line right winger. I think we need Sykora more than we care to admit. And Burke knows this.We've been a little lucky lately,and barring injuries I would go to war the rest of the season with Sykora as our second line winger. Maybe add another D-man if the price is right. That move would be for depth purposes,not a necessity.
If Jagr gets hurt, there would be a lot more to worry about than Hossa becoming our first line RW.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:31 PM.

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.