Pierre from Orleans
Registered User
- May 9, 2007
- 27,817
- 20,737
Two of the three analysts inbetween periods said they would build a team around Brady & they were both former players. That says something.
Why would anyone need to hear that from anyone else? Former player or not?Two of the three analysts inbetween periods said they would build a team around Brady & they were both former players. That says something.
Two of the three analysts inbetween periods said they would build a team around Brady & they were both former players. That says something.
for the sake of a discussion, there is only one player in the league that can will his team to victory every time and thats mcdavidBuffalo and Detroit both have former players who are now GMs who have been with their organizations for 4+ years. They are 1. and 2. in active playoff droughts.
I wonder if Detroit fans say similar things about Larkin and Raymond that some of you say about Tkachuk.
The team wins a game that Brady Tkachuk is essentially a passenger in and people rant and rave like we've clinched a playoff spot all thanks to him.
He was a passenger because Brady can't do anything right in his eyes.for the sake of a discussion, there is only one player in the league that can will his team to victory every time and thats mcdavid
brady plays his role and does it well, also even if you were stat watching brady had a goal and an assist last night lol, how was he a passenger?
for the sake of a discussion, there is only one player in the league that can will his team to victory every time and thats mcdavid
brady plays his role and does it well, also even if you were stat watching brady had a goal and an assist last night lol, how was he a passenger?
so i want to understand your pointBrady Tkachuk had a freebie tap-in from Batherson to make the game 5-0 and his assist was a rebound picked up by Batherson who then tried to pass it to Stutzle. It went off Fowler's skate and in the net instead.
Stat watching would be looking at 1G-1A and going "wow" not realizing he was irrelevant to the team's win.
Watching the game would be going "wow the play dies on Tkachuk's stick so damn often with a giveaway or a low percentage, low velocity shot".
The player driving most of the play on Tkachuk's line is once again not Tkachuk. It's Batherson. Was Stutzle when he was with Stutzle.
He's a star player who needs help to be effective because he cannot create on his own. It's that simple. And for years this team has been designed like he can create on his own. It's been designed like he'll have this breakout season and be similar to Matthew Tkachuk. It's clear at this point in his career he doesn't have the offensive talent or instincts for it. That's not his fault. But it should also mean fans aren't so attached to him he can't be moved. He is not critical to the success of the Ottawa Senators.
If this team makes the playoffs, you keep him. If it misses, you move him and focus on Stutzle/Batherson and drafting.
so i want to understand your point
you are saying brady basically got 31 points in 28 games and his team leading 14 goals accidentally? or by being in the right place at the right time (sens have been trying and plugging people in the top 6 and it hasnt worked like ever haha) do you realize how stupid that sounds lol
of course he doesnt have the same offensive skillset as stutzle but if we are discounting how he impacts the play in other ways then i dont know what to say
gaudette has more points than pinto and greig, still wouldnt trade either of them for gaudette
Right because Stamkos and Brady play the same type of game. What a stupid comparison. About as stupid as complaining Brady can't score like Matthews.Cheechoo won the Richard Trophy one year. Brady Tkachuk is just leading his own team in goals.
Would you say Cheechoo is a transformational player who was a player San Jose had to keep?
No. He was a product of Joe Thornton. The same way Tkachuk's offense numbers are a product of Stutzle and Batherson.
If people want a more flattering comparison - Stamkos had 1 year of playoff success before Kucherov came around. Stamkos is getting lambasted for his performance in Nashville when he doesn't have a top playmaker.
If this team fails to make the playoffs what you do: keep Stutzle and Batherson, trade at least one of Tkachuk and Norris if not both.
Tampa Bay traded Stamkos and plugged in another in Jake Guentzel. The team didn't crater. It didn't lose its heart or identity. Turns out Stamkos wasn't driving that much offense by himself but instead more of a recipient of great play by others like Kucherov or Point.
Right because Stamkos and Brady play the same type of game. What a stupid comparison. About as stupid as complaining Brady can't score like Matthews.
If you want to trade Brady out of fear for his NMC, that's one thing. But the stuff you're spewing is beyond ridiculous.
We get it, you don't like him. But do you need dozens of posts to say the same thing over and over?He is not critical to the success of the Ottawa Senators.
lol yes because 3rd line pluggers score 30 goals with regularity and sometimes flirt with 40. What a joke. Do you actually hear yourself?So what does he do? Third line plugger shit? $8M for third line plugger shit. Truly an invaluable monster of a player.
Some of you move these goalposts a country mile.
Okay - so he's not a goalscorer. He's not a passer. He's not a defender. He's not a 200ft player.
What is he? What does he do that's so invaluable to this team that continues to fail to make the playoffs under his leadership? What is it? Tell me. Put it in words. Stop dodging like you're Neo in the Matrix.
In my eyes the only things he does well is throwing a lot of body checks and taking a lot of shots. So he's Jonathan Cheechoo. So lets ask the question again - did San Jose think Cheechoo was absolutely critical to their success? No. They traded him. And life went on. They got Logan Couture, Joe Pavelski and went to a Stanley Cup Final with Thornton still on the team.
lol yes because 3rd line pluggers score 30 goals with regularity and sometimes flirt with 40. What a joke. Do you actually hear yourself?