its a shame the Rangers traded him. rangers should have kept him. he had some skill but traded too quickly.
He's a nice supplementary player, but he looks much better on a deep roster like Vancouver's than he otherwise would. I wouldn't mind having him back, but he's not a guy I'm banging my head against a wall for giving him up either.
I had a Samuelsson jersey when I was younger, and I really liked him while he was here. I would chalk that up to being like 8 and being told by my uncle about how he thought Samuelsson was going to be a big player for us in the future
love nashville right now. really don't like their home jerseys. the blue is cool but the silver/grey sleeves are a bit weird - i know it's random, but just watching them their jerseys look like a bad echl team.
Yeah, always liked Sammy. He didn't really blossom until 3 years after we let him go though, so it's hard to fault the organization for moving on.
He has also had the fortune of playing on two perennial powerhouses.
it was after the lockout that he blossomed. he honed his game in the SEL that year "off" came back with Detroit and really took his game to the next level. Even still on a strong Detroit lineup, he was only a meh 2nd liner or solid 3rd liner. His game got a slight boost in Vancouver from occasionally playing with the Sedins. The Rangers were notorious for not cultivating their young players to fruition our playoff drought era. Savard, Knuble, Samuelsson, York, D.Moore
always like samuelsson...he wasn't even close to the player he is now, he found his game during the lockout...but i always felt he was unfairly bashed here simply because there were so many other guys that should have been getting the job done ahead of him. if lindros, nedved, bure, etc were getting it done then his play on the 3rd/4th line would have been 'ok'
it would be like now ripping on boyle and prust for not scoring instead of gaborik, dubinsky, prospal, etc
always like samuelsson...he wasn't even close to the player he is now, he found his game during the lockout...but i always felt he was unfairly bashed here simply because there were so many other guys that should have been getting the job done ahead of him. if lindros, nedved, bure, etc were getting it done then his play on the 3rd/4th line would have been 'ok'
it would be like now ripping on boyle and prust for not scoring instead of gaborik, dubinsky, prospal, etc
I agree. Also if Nedved, Bure, Lindros, ect did play like they should have those teams would have made deep playoff runs, or atleast the playoffs . Sad to think "what if"
I agree. Also if Nedved, Bure, Lindros, ect did play like they should have those teams would have made deep playoff runs. Sad to think "what if"
I agree, but what killed us mostly with those teams was defense. We had an injured Richter, Blackburn,Dunham and Holmqvist. Outside of Leetch the defense was anchored by guys like Malakhov,Mironov and Kasparitus.We were an old slow team from the backend. Lindros' numbers weren't that bad when he was here, he just had no supporting cast.
Don't blame the victim. He should have had his head up, yes. But Torres had no designs on playing the puck, and crushed a guy in the skull instead. If players are going to continue to knock each other retarded and show no respect to their fellow athlete, the league is going to have to step in and police things.
I'm a huge fan of violent, physical hockey. But that hit was not okay.
The only thing laughable is that you think it's a laughable statement. Datsyuk is such an all universe player he's perfect for almost any system and he'd be perfect for Torts too. Pretty obvious answer to your second question in fact it's pretty laughable you don't know the answer there. Datsyuk is so good people want to imagine him on their team. ..perhaps you're failure to comprehend something so simple is indicative of the fact you have no outside social interactions besides this board?
But the poster didn't say he was imagining Datsyuk on his team. His point was in regards to Datsyuk and Torts' system. Two different things. I understand what the poster may have meant to imply. But perhaps people should say what they mean. As I stated before, it's pointless to think about how a player of Datsyuk's ability would fare in the system the team currently uses since the only reason the system is in place is precisely because we don't have players like Datsyuk. Teams that have great players don't employ systems like this one. The fact that you fail to understand such a basic concept yourself is indicative of the fact that your knowledge of the sport of hockey is minimal. This team's entire mission should be to do what is necessary so that we no longer have to play such a system.
But since you want to go there, let me tell you what else I think is laughable:
-that you would talk to me about social interactions. In 5 years, my inbox has never been full. You've been a member here for what, 1 year? I know yours has. I know that because the one time I attempted to reply to one of the numerous long, inappropriate and frankly disturbing messages you've sent me, I was unable to. I don't come here to socialize, but it sure seems like you do. I wonder what that says about your ability to socialize away from this place.
-the number of posts in which you levy personal attacks against other posters.
-that you are attacking me with the ingenious tactic of paraphrasing the exact point that I made.
-that you are attacking anyone for a lack of reading comprehension when you, even in this very instance, have proven that you need serious practice in that same basic educational skill.
-that you would attack people for their ability to read when you have the grammar of a below average high school student.
-that, in over 1,000 posts of your own, you've yet to contribute a single post that provides any sort of insight or interesting/original point or thought about hockey. I guess it's tough to do, however, when the vast majority of your posts feature you in your power trip of a persona as the self-appointed sheriff of HFBoards, projecting your own flaws as a poster (and, boy, are there many) onto others, especially those that have in a solitary post provide more useful information than you have in a thousand.
