- Aug 25, 2006
- 10,125
- 8,731
Agree on all of this. Mack had his best game of the season and he still managed to do at least three bonehead plays that I counted when he had time and space to do much better plays instead of turning over the puck. Great players are great players because they take some chances but his are not calculated. I find that his turnovers kill momentum especially on the PP. If he would go for safer plays there would be less turnovers which means the PK players wouldn't be able to change. They would get more tired which in turns would start opening up lanes.That proves nothing in terms of hockey sense.
Guy Lafleur was legendary in terms of his talent and also his lack of hockey sense. Larry Robinson said in an interview that in practice, Flower was always the first guy to screw up a basic drill. Didn’t matter though because his skills and talent were more than enough to make up for it. And Lafleur had plenty of end-to-end rushes himself.
I don’t see why it’s so controversial to say Nate isn’t great in terms of hockey IQ. Neither was Eric Lindros and he’s in the Hall of Fame.
Also, while 29 isn’t a hockey scholar, he ain’t Sampo Ranta either. He just gets it done with skill, speed, size, and work ethic. Different players get it done different ways.
At this point in his career he is what he is. He would have changed by now if he could. We just have to accept it. I am not looking forward for the years when he loses a few steps. That will be even more frustrating than it is now. He will need to adjust his game accordingly but then again it brings us back to same issue...does he have the hockey IQ to do that? I believe he doesn't.