Who gives a **** about the player's "name". Kovalev was once a top 15 player in the NHL and a star. His name might be widly known, but he's ****.
We need current or rising stars, not have-beens.
True, but for the most part, a former star brings experience and other things a team needs. Roenick is still playing because he's still somewhat usefull, in some way.
And your point on Kovalev proves my point that this team lacks good stars. Has beens are good if you have a supporting cast. Pheonix has Nolan and Roenick, but they also have Doan and JovoCop.
What a star is is all a matter of opinion but I've thought about what waffledave is saying and Montreal has some of the worst best players in the league. Montreal plays a better all round team game, has better depth players and more depth in general than teams like Atlanta or Washington though.
For me Higgins is more a star than Koivu ; He's better in the overall game and just look at the number of goals he did when he was mute to the first line , untile he got injured .
What a star is is all a matter of opinion but I've thought about what waffledave is saying and Montreal has some of the worst best players in the league. Montreal plays a better all round team game, has better depth players and more depth in general than teams like Atlanta or Washington though.
Basically you got it. Montreal has one of the best TEAM systems, but the problem is that if one of the cogs in the system doesn't work the system crashes. Other teams can rely on their superstars to be individual threats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milou
For me Higgins is more a star than Koivu ; He's better in the overall game and just look at the number of goals he did when he was mute to the first line , untile he got injured .
Higgins is pretty rough as a goalscorer without his chemistry with Koivu.
Basically you got it. Montreal has one of the best TEAM systems, but the problem is that if one of the cogs in the system doesn't work the system crashes. Other teams can rely on their superstars to be individual threats.
Don't get me wrong, the team needs a star player or two. I was just pointing out that having a lack of star players isn't as devastating as it seems.
Ouch, that thread hurts. It just shows how we suck, and the future doesn't look brighter (no superstar coming).
Reality check
nah we have some potential superstars coming...price, kosty*2, maxwell, white, even lats could develop nicely. basically we have one of the better set of prospects, we just need to develop them properly and not treat them like perezhogin.
Price is the only player I'd consider a star in the making. We have lots of prospects who'll be good players down the line but none of them'll be winning any Art Ross or Richard trophies (well, you could argue Chipchura'll win a Selke somewhere along the line).
nah we have some potential superstars coming...price, kosty*2, maxwell, white, even lats could develop nicely. basically we have one of the better set of prospects, we just need to develop them properly and not treat them like perezhogin.
Except maybe Price, these guys won't develop into superstars... I'm talking about a real superstar, a 45 goal scorer...
Those kind of thread are made to depress people. ''We don't have superstars, we don't, have any 50 goal scorers, where's Crosby??...''
I prefer having that team like the 2006-07 Montreal Canadiens than teams like Philly or Washington where there's star but nothing else. The deepest team ever assembled could win the Stanley cup without any of those stars. I'm not saying we are that team, far from that, but I just think that ''Stars'' are to showcase. While they bring a lot to their teams, they are not garanteed success. I'd prefer concentrate on having an balanced fonctional team before starting running after a star player. Hope i'm not misleading.
