Norstrom "lost his game" gets a D, Pushkarev has been with the team for a week, apparently is one of the Kings best players, and Armstrong gets an A because he has points and is a plus player. Sean Avery gets bagged on despire completely turning his image around and actually becoming a hockey player instead of a superpest and Ivanans gets D+ even though he does his job while Cammy gets a B and is bagged on
This is some of the most ***-backward logic I've seen in my entire life.
I fixed the Pushkarev grade for you. Armstrong grade is by SI and Allan Muir, not me. My comment on Cammy was a compliment and a criticism. I'd give him an A if he were perfect. Ivanans hardly even fights anyone, so really, is he doing the team any good? We can argue about Avery on another thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=331492
About the logic thing, I can only assume that your life has been a short and sweet one so far. If out of the 20 grades or so you found fault with only a handful, I think I did okay.
Ivanans can't fight is no one wants to. He's shown he can take a regular shift and not hurt the team...much.
Let me tell you all something about Armstrong. He's one of those guys who has points because he's on a bad team. When you're on a bad team, guys who don't normally get points...do. While Armstrong has been better than even I thought he could, if he were traded to a good team he would barely step on the ice. Randy Robtialle is a prime example of this. I'd give him a B-ish (I don't do grades), but please, he is a 4th liner at best.
Last time I checked the Kings finished in 10th place in the Conference in 2005-06. If this years team is worse than least year.....How could he have been looking at a 7th or 8th place finish? Doesn't add up.
Also the Kings only averaged 3 goals/game last year. I don't see how he could have expected to win with "defense" while scoring with less than 3 goals/game. Even he was not deluded enough to think this team was capable of holding the oppositition to less than 2 goals/game on a regular basis.
Last year's team underperformed in the second half, on paper, we were a helluva good team. did Lombardi expect to be a great team? absolutely not, but he was expecting to foot out a competitive team, not this joke of a collaboration. I actually do believe he was hoping to win very low scoring games, if you look at our defense, on paper, we are very decent.
How many teams can boast a top 6 of Blake, Miller, Norstrom, Sopel, Tverdovsky, and Visnovsky. If they all played as well as they were expected, I wouldn't be surprised to see us place as one of the top defensive teams int he league. With average goaltending, we could win enough games to get into playoffs. Again, Lombardi said he was going to beefen up the backl end and if you look at our defense, you could see why on paper it does look pretty damn good. It failed and what he thought was our strength became our weakness and vice versa. No where did Lombardi expect to be playing like this.
I thought he was going to make us forget about Demitra.(???)
What? Another Pavol Rosa?
I watched O'Sullivan in camp and I commented on it then and i'll stick to my guns. He was floating around 90% of the time and looked totally disinterested out there. Besides name and reputation I don't buy into it like the rest of the HF posters do. I'd definitely move him if the price is right. He seems very insecure and he has a long way to go. Lewis will be the gem out of that deal in my book.
I think Sully will be a good player in the NHL and I don't doubt his skills but I think the hype on this kid is beyond overkill.