HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The return of Bob Gainey?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-11-2010, 10:34 AM
  #126
David_99
Registered User
 
David_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jigger77 View Post
Or it could just be that he really likes the magnetic hill.
lol I could just see Gainey giggling like a school girl as his car rolls backwards uphill.

David_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 10:39 AM
  #127
David_99
Registered User
 
David_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Chezz View Post
He could also be here to announce a new CFL team in Moncton.




OK, I think steered this thing a little too OT... especially for a Mod.

David_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 10:40 AM
  #128
Jigger77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_99 View Post
lol I could just see Gainey giggling like a school girl as his car rolls backwards uphill.
Put Youppi in the passenger seat and the picture is complete.

Jigger77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 10:47 AM
  #129
Lord Chezz
Registered User
 
Lord Chezz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_99 View Post




OK, I think steered this thing a little too OT... especially for a Mod.
Come on Dave...stay on the dark side.

Lord Chezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 10:48 AM
  #130
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Des Louise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 20,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jigger77 View Post
Good points and I agree with this. But it could be that this has to do more with JM's system than the players in place. JM isn't exactly known for "dynamic free flowing offense".
I'm unsure that anything else could be done.

All of our good forwards are the same. Small, speedy talented types. We can't create traffic in front unless we start playing Moen on the top two lines which is exactly what happend in the end and is far from an ideal scenario. And this was also the reason MAB was in the line up, because he was the only one that could score from the point.

Minus Markov and Subban, our defense was incapable of helping the rush or providing much offense at all. And of course, Markov was out and Subban as a rookie got slightly exposed in 2 of the 5 games. Guys like Gorges, Spacek, Hammer, Gill, O'byrne couldn't make anything happen offensively because they just don't have what it takes on the offensive part of the game.

I'm not Martin's biggest fan because of how he handles certain type of players (mostly young guys), but I think Martin did the only thing possible for us to have a chance against Pittsburgh and Washington. Even if Markov had been there, the difference was just far too great to be overcome.

In the end that is the squad Gainey assembled. It had obvious and very large flaws. As we saw for most of the season and against the flyers.

Quote:
And also defense is just as important as offense. And you acknowledge the fact that the Habs played very good defense. They were one of the last 4 teams remaining last spring they didn't do it with luck.
They played solid overall defense in the sense that they blocked shots and didn't give too many odd man rush and breakaways in the games they won. But that's just part of the equation when it comes to defense. The part where you try to limit the other team's time in your zone, and limit the number of shots taken was on the laughable level.

Des Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 10:52 AM
  #131
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,565
vCash: 500
Gainey??? He was terrible...give me Houle any day of the week over Gainey.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 11:31 AM
  #132
habfan1968
Registered User
 
habfan1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,137
vCash: 400
The thing I don't understand is how people on here are saying that others need to separate the two Bobs. Gaineys work a GM saw the habs into the playoffs more often than not, I think we missed once. Overall in 16 seasons he has only missed 3 playoffs as the GM of Stars and Montreal, he has 1 cup. Not a bad record at all if you ask me.

If the only result that could be acceptable for you is a Stanley Cup win every year well, sorry, but you have unrealistic expectations. Gainey handed a competitive team to Gauthier to work with and how it all plays out is yet to be seen.

habfan1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 11:49 AM
  #133
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
Gainey??? He was terrible...give me Houle any day of the week over Gainey.
Wow what a wonderful observation. There is no in between? Houle, one of the worst GMS in NHL history and Gainey, just an average at best GM.

Where are these Gainey is the worst GM ever posts. When you find them, let me know.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 11:51 AM
  #134
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Wow what a wonderful observation. There is no in between? Houle, one of the worst GMS in NHL history and Gainey, just an average at best GM.

Where are these Gainey is the worst GM ever posts. When you find them, let me know.
Haha, knew you were going to quote me in multiple page thread.

It's amazing how one sentence with no substance can result in such an emotional post, that is topped off with a smarty pants comment at the end of it.

Make your own observations instead of attacking posters all the time.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 12:06 PM
  #135
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Des Louise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 20,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jigger77 View Post
Come on man. You write good posts, why can't you read them properly?

I never ever said the team decided to play with character because Bob Gainey was there. I said character in itself is synonymous to Bob Gainey. The man is a picture of character. That's all I said.

I did imply that he picked players that mirror this characteristic.

Do you not think the UFAs we signed last year had character? For crying out loud Habs fans are arguing over who can be captain and there are like 5 legitimate candidates on this team.
Didn't he get Gainey type players in his first 5 years here ? If not then why did it takes 5 years for him to decide to get guys with character ? Was Kovalev a Gainey type player ? It's interesting to me that there was an offer on the table for Kovalev (which he refused), and that money went to Gionta. Gionta would be the prototypical Gainey type player, little guy with a metric crap ton of character and heart. Yet he was the plan B to Kovalev. Even Gomez was option B after the Lecavalier deal got vetoed by either the president, owner or GM of TB (can't remember which, but it was kind of the same deal as the Sather-Stamkos deal).

I mean, what happened last summer wasn't some well thought out master plan, it all happened really fast. Some of the options we got weren't even Gainey's first option. Just like Halak was Gainey's plan B.

To think Gainey suddenly woke up, cleaned house, got exactly the guys he wanted and is largely responsible for our ECF appearance (or disappearance depending on how you want to look at it) is attributing too much credit to Gainey. And often, those that do that are people who can't separate the man/player from the GM, and people who hide their head in the sand with banalities like "it was a team effort" made possible by "Gainey type players with character" when it was mostly a hodge podge patchwork plan B job consisting of a one dimensional attack, stay at home dmen who can't help the transition and an exceptional goalie tandem. Proof is in the pudding. Our attack was terrible all year (25th). We allowed millions of shots (25th). And our goaltenders had to be amazing all year for us to make the playoffs in the weakest eastern conference in decades (Halak top 5 in save%, top 10 in GAA and top 10 in SO). And once in the playoffs we were 14/16 for G/G, 12/16 for SA/G, 15/16 for S/G. Nothing changed there except Halak was even better than in the regular season and Price didn't get to play much at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan1968 View Post
The thing I don't understand is how people on here are saying that others need to separate the two Bobs. Gaineys work a GM saw the habs into the playoffs more often than not, I think we missed once. Overall in 16 seasons he has only missed 3 playoffs as the GM of Stars and Montreal, he has 1 cup. Not a bad record at all if you ask me.

If the only result that could be acceptable for you is a Stanley Cup win every year well, sorry, but you have unrealistic expectations. Gainey handed a competitive team to Gauthier to work with and how it all plays out is yet to be seen.
I want a contender. Contenders don't always win the cup. But they have a strong regular season with stanley cup hopes. That is not what we had last season, or at any point during Gainey's tenure. And there was never really any signs that we were headed there. I can't say that we were ever expected to win a Stanley Cup at any point in time, or a team that you would look at and say : "Man, that team is sure headed in the right direction, look at all those young players, when they come unto their own the habs will be a force".


Last edited by Des Louise: 08-11-2010 at 12:12 PM.
Des Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 05:04 PM
  #136
Max Levine
Registered User
 
Max Levine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
Didn't he get Gainey type players in his first 5 years here ? If not then why did it takes 5 years for him to decide to get guys with character ? Was Kovalev a Gainey type player ? It's interesting to me that there was an offer on the table for Kovalev (which he refused), and that money went to Gionta. Gionta would be the prototypical Gainey type player, little guy with a metric crap ton of character and heart. Yet he was the plan B to Kovalev. Even Gomez was option B after the Lecavalier deal got vetoed by either the president, owner or GM of TB (can't remember which, but it was kind of the same deal as the Sather-Stamkos deal).

I mean, what happened last summer wasn't some well thought out master plan, it all happened really fast. Some of the options we got weren't even Gainey's first option. Just like Halak was Gainey's plan B.

To think Gainey suddenly woke up, cleaned house, got exactly the guys he wanted and is largely responsible for our ECF appearance (or disappearance depending on how you want to look at it) is attributing too much credit to Gainey. And often, those that do that are people who can't separate the man/player from the GM, and people who hide their head in the sand with banalities like "it was a team effort" made possible by "Gainey type players with character" when it was mostly a hodge podge patchwork plan B job consisting of a one dimensional attack, stay at home dmen who can't help the transition and an exceptional goalie tandem. Proof is in the pudding. Our attack was terrible all year (25th). We allowed millions of shots (25th). And our goaltenders had to be amazing all year for us to make the playoffs in the weakest eastern conference in decades (Halak top 5 in save%, top 10 in GAA and top 10 in SO). And once in the playoffs we were 14/16 for G/G, 12/16 for SA/G, 15/16 for S/G. Nothing changed there except Halak was even better than in the regular season and Price didn't get to play much at all.



I want a contender. Contenders don't always win the cup. But they have a strong regular season with stanley cup hopes. That is not what we had last season, or at any point during Gainey's tenure. And there was never really any signs that we were headed there. I can't say that we were ever expected to win a Stanley Cup at any point in time, or a team that you would look at and say : "Man, that team is sure headed in the right direction, look at all those young players, when they come unto their own the habs will be a force".
Some good points here. I was one to consider that Gainey's 5-year plan was a mess and I thought he was done last summer. The team was out of control, nothing working, going nowhere. I had defended Gainey before and had to admit that a change was vital. But I won't condemn Gainey today as he proceeded to make changes which resulted in a better team spirit.

Your last quote of 'a team heading in the right direction with all those young players' is often a last place team mission; it's about rebuilt. I think Gainey offered hope in 2007-2008 with a 1st place finish. I think he did the right thing changing the core of the team last summer (although I cannot agree more with you that offering Kovalev a contract in these circumstances make absolutely no sense). I think this team is better than what was shown during the regular season.

Now, does any of this have anything to do with Gainey himself? Could it be that Martin was imposing himself? I think Gainey is responsible for most if not all of what happened in the last 5 years and should be acknowledged for the good decisions as well as the bad ones.

Max Levine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 05:16 PM
  #137
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
Haha, knew you were going to quote me in multiple page thread.

It's amazing how one sentence with no substance can result in such an emotional post, that is topped off with a smarty pants comment at the end of it.

Make your own observations instead of attacking posters all the time.
I'm not attacking you, i'm wondering why such a meaningless post from an otherwise usually decent poster. We don't agree on most things, but I value your opinion.

It's the samething I quoted the other guy the other day about when he said everyone is disrespecting Gainey. Where are they all? Surely if you say it you must have at least 2 or 3 examples.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 05:19 PM
  #138
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
I want a contender. Contenders don't always win the cup. But they have a strong regular season with stanley cup hopes. That is not what we had last season, or at any point during Gainey's tenure. And there was never really any signs that we were headed there. I can't say that we were ever expected to win a Stanley Cup at any point in time, or a team that you would look at and say : "Man, that team is sure headed in the right direction, look at all those young players, when they come unto their own the habs will be a force".
I still don't know what you're getting at. Coming in first in the East was accomplished during Gainey's tenure. The Habs beat out 14 other teams in doing so. Thus they met your first benchmark fairly easily. I don't remember the expectations for the Habs in that season's playoffs. They won a round. Both the Caps and the Pens had high playoff expectations last season but between them they won exactly one round.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 06:36 PM
  #139
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Chezz View Post
I thought you saw Idiocracy?


Im downgraded from the rooftop to the patio. But mind you, thats a personal choice and the wife has no influence on that decision whatsoever (at least consciously).
I did. Still, I don't remember that. If I missed it, might've been the moments when I was crying over the fact that Mike Judge will someday be seen as a prophet, then after awhile, he'll be seen as a God, but not because of his foresight, unfortunetly, because of boob jokes by beavis and butthead.

I have it on my HD, think I'll take out the kleenex box and watch it again.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 06:39 PM
  #140
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
I'm not attacking you, i'm wondering why such a meaningless post from an otherwise usually decent poster. We don't agree on most things, but I value your opinion.
Good, though we don't agree, it generates good discussions as both points are usually logical on both sides, which doesn't happen much with other posters. I'm happy it's not a personal level thing because it ruins the quality of the discussions which is bad for everyone. We learn from having our own perspective on a particular subject challenged by someone with a different view.

Quote:
It's the samething I quoted the other guy the other day about when he said everyone is disrespecting Gainey. Where are they all? Surely if you say it you must have at least 2 or 3 examples.
I haven't seen them either and the intention of the post was to imply that people say Gainey is the worst GM, I just felt like acting stupid as I was at work and had nothing else better to do than say provoking things for no particular reason other than to be annoying.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 06:57 PM
  #141
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
Good, though we don't agree, it generates good discussions as both points are usually logical on both sides, which doesn't happen much with other posters. I'm happy it's not a personal level thing because it ruins the quality of the discussions which is bad for everyone. We learn from having our own perspective on a particular subject challenged by someone with a different view.



I haven't seen them either and the intention of the post was to imply that people say Gainey is the worst GM, I just felt like acting stupid as I was at work and had nothing else better to do than say provoking things for no particular reason other than to be annoying.
Fair enough.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 06:59 PM
  #142
JayBee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 500
I like Gainey, but he's been pretty average as a GM. How can you even debate that? Yes, he wasn't left with much when he got here...but that will only get you so far.

JayBee* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 07:09 PM
  #143
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Des Louise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 20,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Levine View Post
Some good points here. I was one to consider that Gainey's 5-year plan was a mess and I thought he was done last summer. The team was out of control, nothing working, going nowhere. I had defended Gainey before and had to admit that a change was vital. But I won't condemn Gainey today as he proceeded to make changes which resulted in a better team spirit.
I was also really down on Gainey last summer before the moves but remained a little hopeful something good would come out of it. I was hoping we would have no luck on the UFA market so we could rebuild but I am fully aware that I'm in the minority and that there are other ways.

Quote:
Your last quote of 'a team heading in the right direction with all those young players' is often a last place team mission; it's about rebuilt. I think Gainey offered hope in 2007-2008 with a 1st place finish. I think he did the right thing changing the core of the team last summer (although I cannot agree more with you that offering Kovalev a contract in these circumstances make absolutely no sense). I think this team is better than what was shown during the regular season.
You're right, this is usually indicative of teams that rebuilt.

As for the team being better than what they did in the regular season, I saw mostly a continuation of the regular season in the playoffs. We were still terrible offensively, still terrible for shots against and shots for and still got destroyed in puck possession. And the goaltending was exceptional. And that was with Markov in the line up for the first series.

Now my hope is that Subban brings the transition game from the back end that we were missing last season with only Markov able to properly do it. And hopefully Price doesn't have to be much better than he was last season and we could control the play a bit more. If we play the same way as a team as last season with Price and Auld instead of Halak, I just don't think it's going to end well.

Quote:
Now, does any of this have anything to do with Gainey himself? Could it be that Martin was imposing himself? I think Gainey is responsible for most if not all of what happened in the last 5 years and should be acknowledged for the good decisions as well as the bad ones.
Well, for one, Gainey chose Martin. He could have gotten Lemaire who was ready to sign with us. And maybe we could have Boucher now. But still, even if you want to put the blame on Martin which I don't think is fair necessarily, Gainey hired him so that's his responsibility.

For the most part, Gainey reaped the benefits of his predecessors. He did not vastly improve the team. Plekanec, A.Kost, Higgins, Koivu, Markov, Rivet, Komisarek, Ribeiro, Ryder, Souray, Julien, Timmins were all there when Gainey took the job. They were, for the most part, the guys that carried the team over his 5 year tenure or parts of it at least. Gainey brought in Kovalev which probably hurt us as much as it helped with the up and down performances and the prima donna stuff. Then Streit replaced Souray. Ribeiro was squandered. He basically had to steer the boat and not screw up too much for us to make the playoffs.

His real legacy is the team we see today. We'll see what happens next season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
I still don't know what you're getting at. Coming in first in the East was accomplished during Gainey's tenure. The Habs beat out 14 other teams in doing so. Thus they met your first benchmark fairly easily. I don't remember the expectations for the Habs in that season's playoffs. They won a round. Both the Caps and the Pens had high playoff expectations last season but between them they won exactly one round.
ONE season where you finish first when everything that could go right does go right with the healthiest line up ever with no hint of repeat in sight with said team blown up 2 years later isn't what I call a contender. That season was a huge surprise to everyone. No one had the habs pegged to finish first in the east. No one that wasn't a die hard homer anyway.

Much like I never saw the bruins as cup contenders even when they had those 1st and 2nd place finish. But that was for another reason.

Des Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 07:24 PM
  #144
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Des Louise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 20,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
I like Gainey, but he's been pretty average as a GM. How can you even debate that? Yes, he wasn't left with much when he got here...but that will only get you so far.
Souray
Komisarek
Markov
Rivet

Koivu
Plekanec
Higgins
Ryder
Ribeiro
AK

Timmins
Julien

He had much more than what A.Savard started out with.

Des Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 07:27 PM
  #145
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
I like Gainey, but he's been pretty average as a GM. How can you even debate that? Yes, he wasn't left with much when he got here...but that will only get you so far.
How can you even try to quantify that?

How many GMs have won the cup in the last 20 years (out of how many total GMs who worked in the NHL in that span?)? How many GMs have had their team go to the Stanley cup finals two years in a row in the last 20 years? In the last 6 seasons, who are the teams who made the playoffs 5 times or more? Just considering what success or failure would constitute good or average or bad, would easily put Gainey in the good category as he is in a very select minority. Now if you wanna single-out his time as a Habs GM, then it becomes even more complicated, because of a lack of empirical data (too short a term, wasn't placed in the same situation as other GMs, whether good or bad) and doing such an estimate, and believing it with every once of your soul as if it were the single obvious truth, is just plain silly. There is too much to consider. Even with a thourough analysis, good or bad, there will data tinted by interpretation, lack of data to find cohesive trends to compare data and cases where data can't even be compared.

It's simple. You and I, have no idea the true worth of his work. All is left is subjective opinion. But one thing can easily be seen, is that you, of all people here, lack the proper skills to recognize all the dynamics, relations, particularities, events and results, to give something close to an objective statement.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 07:39 PM
  #146
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
Souray
Komisarek
Markov
Rivet

Koivu
Plekanec
Higgins
Ryder
Ribeiro
AK

Timmins
Julien

He had much more than what A.Savard started out with.
Do you think it is just coincidence Markov broke out in his first full season with Kovalev? Plekanec, when Hamrlik came in?

What will be said of all the players drafted under Gainey in 5-10 years from now and what other GMs will inherit from Gainey?

Take that list, and compare it to what Gauthier had when he came in.

Cammalleri
Plekanec
Gionta
Gomez
AK
Pouliot

Markov
Subban
Hamrlik
Spacek

Price
Halak


BTW, when Savard came in, he had

Ribiero, Koivu, Markov, Rivet, Souray, Theodore

The difference being : Higgins, Pleks, Ryder, Komi


I won't count AK, as I was saying before, interpretation, BG was still the GM, he could've changed the dynamic of the management from the get-go, but it was HIS decision to keep Savard and Timmins and see what they could bring. This is what a GM does, take decisions, and anyway you wanna put it, BG is part of the causality that got us AK.

Just the fact that you discount AK from Gainey's tenure shows that the sum you are looking for will always be skewed, a trait far too common among Gainey nay-sayers.


Last edited by Ozymandias: 08-11-2010 at 07:50 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 09:25 PM
  #147
Little Nilan
Registered User
 
Little Nilan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Praha
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 8,209
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Little Nilan
Markov broke out in 02-03. 03-04 was tough(er) because of his fathers death, but he was an awesome player the year before.

I don't know how can say Plekanec either. He was steadily getting better from his first day in Hamilton. He "broke" out because he had a new coach and was put with a motivated Kovalev.

Little Nilan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-11-2010, 09:27 PM
  #148
Little Nilan
Registered User
 
Little Nilan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Praha
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 8,209
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Little Nilan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Knowledge is knowing that we cannot know
On a funnier note, was that your reflection post-Guy Boucher?

Little Nilan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 07:29 AM
  #149
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty hates Sergei View Post
On a funnier note, was that your reflection post-Guy Boucher?
That was exactly my point in that thread too. People were assuming he would go away based on emotional reactions. That's not knowledge. Just the fact you are posting this shows how you do not understand that quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson, and how you highly misinterpret what happened in the Boucher thread.

What's really funny is how you twist the causality. What I posted in the Boucher thread was to show people that they jumped to conclusions based on nothing much. The reasons given, when Columbus wanted him, was that he would not miss out on a single chance to go to the NHL, which was ludicrous, as he already had a chance staying with the Habs, and he didn't take his 'single' chance with Columbus. Somebody had to convince him. it's human decisions and to pretend knowing that he would jump on any contract offer was exactly the same kind of speculation held as fact as there is in this thread, hence the RWE quote. You do realize that I never said Boucher wouldn't go anywhere else, right? I said it was still a possibility, but that IMO, based on what BOUCHER SAID, it didn't seem like he was going to do it. I was opened to possibilities, always am, whereas, like you, those posters thought they knew what was going to happen based on emotional jump to conclusions. Can you at least make the difference between your perception of what happened in that thread and the reality of it? I doubt it.

Any person that brings up the Boucher thread is showing me how frustrated and childish they are that I'm right more often than not. What about all the times I was right, and all those times it was based on careful analysis and not blind emotion? Do you want me to bring them up. How about all the times YOU were wrong. I have quite a collection of quotes from people just like you (and YOU specifically), that make the Boucher thread pale in comparison.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2010, 07:38 AM
  #150
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty hates Sergei View Post
Markov broke out in 02-03. 03-04 was tough(er) because of his fathers death, but he was an awesome player the year before.

I don't know how can say Plekanec either. He was steadily getting better from his first day in Hamilton. He "broke" out because he had a new coach and was put with a motivated Kovalev.
Like I said, you leave it to coincidence because it doesn't match your perception of Gainey.

Players develop for many reasons, and usually, the players they are surrounded with has a huge impact on their development. Gainey got the players they needed to help Pleks and Markov develop, whether you want to admit it or not.

In 02-03, Markov didn't even have 0,50 PPG. In fact, he was 0,47 PPG. In 05-06, he was 0,69 PPG which is now his regular average for most seasons (maybe just a bit over that).

Markov's breakout season was 05-06. A breakout season is when a player reaches his full potential. For Markov, that was the 05-06 season.

As for Hamrlik, I'm not surprised how you would discount the fact that having a countryman (one who is known to take young players under his wing) with experience in the lockeroom didn't help Pleks? Who brought in Kovalev and Carbo too, which in your own words helped Pleks?

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:58 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.