Machinehead
Fox Mafia Consigliere
You're talking about defensive quarterbacks, guys who have an actual role.
Not somebody who's making his team better by going "rah rah let's go boys"
News Article: Brooks speaks with Dolan.
- Thread starter rangers1314
- Start date
Not somebody who's making his team better by going "rah rah let's go boys"
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Not one of the quotes I posted have anything to do with an on-field role in terms of play execution. I mean, the last quote is literally about a player igniting his unit... or in your terms, making his team better by going “rah rah let’s go boys”
Besides, do hockey players given leadership roles not have “actual roles” on their teams?
I like some of the interesting conversations you and I get into sometimes, but you’re really grasping here.
Machinehead
Fox Mafia Consigliere
Regardless, my argument is not that we should play without captains and have 20 vagabonds on the team.
I just think this upcoming project -re-whatever you want- should put skill ahead of character. That should be obvious. It shouldn't even be a talking point.
It's frustrating and discouraging to hear the GM and owner talk about character and leadership when they have a massive mess to clean up in the defensive half of the game. That's especially true since it sounds like they made that mess twice as big themselves because McDonagh was "a bad captain." Dolan didn't mention his contract or his injury history. He mentioned leadership. (Correct me if I'm wrong) If that's why we traded McDonagh, that's frankly embarrassing.
Toews is considered the best captain in the game. People make fun of Zibanejad for his lack of "alpha." Switch Zibanejad and Toews and this team drops in the standings in 2018. I don't see an argument to the contrary.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
I'm confused. If skill ahead of character shouldn't even be a talking point, then why are you upset that it's not a talking point? Of course they're looking for skill. But they're not JUST looking for skill, because most successful teams aren't about skill alone. Bill Belichek will tell you that every time. And Dolan did talk about the need for a game-breaking talent. People want to make this whole thing simple. "We just need to do this" or "we just need to do that." It doesn't work that way. "Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns." You need to do everything and I believe that Gorton will be trying to.
I don't know that I agree with that bit about Toews vs Zibanejad. I mean, the two players produced at roughly the same clip last season, both playing for bad teams. It's at least debatable... although Toews has finished top 5 in Selke voting for the last 5 seasons. He's not a top-3 vote-getter this year (finalist is such a misnomer), but I think it's tough to deny his defensive abilities. Of course, I'd rather have Zibanejad's age and contract.
Zibanejad is still growing as a person and not everyone comes out of the draft having the level of leadership ability that Toews did (although Andersson might already be at that level). I don't think it is unreasonable to say that Zibanejad needs to discover consistency to his game. It's not the lack of intensity that's his problem. It's that sometimes he has it and sometimes he doesn't. If I were choosing between a guy who brings the same game every night and gets 55-ish points and a guy whose game fluctuates from stretch to stretch and gets 55-ish points, I want the consistent guy. Of course, if Zibanejad does find that, he should be more like a 65-70 point guy. Given where the team is right now, I'd rather have Zibanejad too. If the team was close to a Cup, I'd rather have Toews at this moment. Zibanejad can change my mind on that one.
I think that Machinehead might take it a tad too far, but I tend to agree with him that all of this "emotional nature" stuff is something that's not only overblown but an archaic way of thinking. Does it play a role in all sports? Sure. Does it play a central role in hockey? No. It's one element and not even close to the biggest element. Talent, strategy, and luck are way bigger. As long as we have GMs believing that emotion and toughness for the sake of toughness are more important than skill we'll have garbage teams like the Devils get bailed out by incompetent boobs like Chiarelli who should be working in McDonald's. We can measure more of what actually matters in the game than ever before but older GMs and fans want to hold on to their romantic notions and nostalgia. Would I take a committed, hard working player over a lazy player of the same caliber, sure, but this is the NHL the truly lazy players get weeded out pretty quickly.
egelband
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2008
- 16,210
- 15,069
He’s a bit past his prime, I guess. Also didn’t Kim injure his foot or something? Doesn’t he also have the gout?
He’s a Far Left Wing, isn’t he?
Chimpradamus
Registered User
I think the key here is Dolan knows he doesn't understand hockey, so he delegates responsibility to other people who does. Which the Knicks, he might think he knows something about basketball, which is a disaster. He's a businessman, period. He might be a businessman that is passionate about sports, but so is every other beer fan, so it doesn't say much.
Kudos to him at least for speaking out and being frank about the situation. He knows how to talk, that's for sure and he said all the right things. I just hope it was his honest answers, because I liked what he said, especially about AV. That was spot on, he can't build a team, he can only do something with a set team - until he runs it into the ground IMO.
Kudos to him at least for speaking out and being frank about the situation. He knows how to talk, that's for sure and he said all the right things. I just hope it was his honest answers, because I liked what he said, especially about AV. That was spot on, he can't build a team, he can only do something with a set team - until he runs it into the ground IMO.
Wow. Ok. The Oilers have a boatload of talent. How did they do? Top to bottom I would argue the Islanders have some of the best offensive talent in the league how did they do? In the Islanders case I would actually argue that when they got rid of Martin breaking up their fourth line they lost their emotion and passion. Their team fed off of that
Just watch the first ten minutes of the Predators last night and tell me emotion and physicality is overblown.
I’m not trying to be a douche here but I legitimately believe a bunch of you that post frequently have never been part of a team in a high level competitive aggressive sport.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
If hockey is 30% talent, 30% strategy, 30% luck and 10% group dynamics (a breakdown I wouldn’t disagree with), that means that group dynamics is still a crucial aspect for success.
Talent is straightforward.
Strategy is straightforward.
Luck is uncontrollable.
The most complex and difficult aspect of hockey to figure out is group dynamics. It’s also the most variable. No matter who you are, you’re going to run up against other teams with lots of talent and a good strategy. The difference between your team and theirs is likely to be more defined by that 10% than the other 90%. That’s why it gets discussed so much. It’s not archaic, but the space it takes up is bigger than the piece of the puzzle it is.
The crux of the dispute in these conversations is that a lot of people seem to think that if you bring up one thing, that’s the only think you think matters. No one who talks a lot about leadership believes that talent and strategy and luck are unimportant.
Inferno
Registered User
I think character is supremely important. I also think it's really hard to gauge who has it and who doesnt. Frankly reading all the stuff about kovalchuk being a great leader should make that obvious....97% of us would have assumed kovy was a cancer.
The Oilers talent was somewhat overblown. They had zero defensive talent or structure. I'm talking about the pre-McDavid Oilers. They current Oilers are like 2 guys with talent. The Islanders were missing goalie and defensive talent and any defensive structure. They didn't miss the playoffs because of their offensive talent or leadership issues.
I just think that group dynamics is overblown. All things being equal, fine take the guy perceived as being the better leader. But rarely are all things equal. And GMs who are like 50+ plus have an archaic way of building teams, especially in today's NHL. Look at the Oilers they trade away a Hart candidate for a tough leader or whatever they think Larsson is and sign Lucic another tough leader. The end result is that a team with the best teenage player since Gretzky is considered a cup contender finishes one point ahead of a Rangers team with its worst season in 14 years that sold off half the team.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Well, that is not the end result though. Because whatever's going on in Edmonton isn't over and there are other factors. Chiarelli made those moves (Larsson isn't a tough leader anyway) and the team immediately had the best Oilers season in 30 years. Then this season, they lost something like 80 man games to their top-4 D. In particular, Sekera only played 36 games. I would not at all be surprised to see the Oilers back in the playoffs next season.
The advisability of signing a player like Lucic at 28 when we've seen lots of other players who play his style experience declines in their late-20s is a different question. As is trading Eberle for Strome and thinking that a 35-year old Mike Cammalleri is going to make up the difference. And of course, they traded a 1st for Reinhart for really no good reason and that first turned into Barzal.
And yes, there isn't enough speed on that team. There have definitely been mistakes made But the problems they have aren't caused by trying to bring in better leadership. They're mostly caused by bad luck and bad talent evaluation. The leadership might be lacking too, but again... it's the most difficult piece of the puzzle to solve.
A lack of back checking equates to low character for some.
Ovi doesn't back check, but no one questions his character.
GregSirico
KakkoSZN
GregSirico
KakkoSZN
GregSirico
KakkoSZN
I don't normally say this but ... this might be one of the best, most spot on posts ever. We all think that the more emotional a player is the better he is, that could not be further from the truth. Is a hard work ethic critical of a player? ABSOLUTELY. Is it the driving force of what makes a player great? NO! Hate to say it, but athletics have evolved into a full time JOB, therefore talent wins out. Decades ago when there wasn't multi billions invested in franchises there were smaller gaps of talent, room for guys at the bottom that could skate by with a strong work ethic, but today the playing field is just way too even and that's a good thing because now if you don't work your tail off, you won't last, PERIOD. But to further note, emotion and drive are components but if you aren't talented it doesn't even matter. Messier and Leetch were examples of players who hard world class talent and a diligent work ethic.
The point I was trying to make is that although other sports have captains, the role of the captain in hockey is unique, both on and off the ice. A part of that "uniqueness" comes from it history. Having a designated captain (football captains seem to vary from week to week) whose job comes with certain expectations and responsibilities, seems to be unique to hockey.
In every sport we hear about "the room" and the importance of good leadership. Todd Frazier, last year with the Yankees and this year with the Mets, seems to be a veteran leader who has a positive influence. But his role is unofficial. He might be fulfilling the role of captain, but again, hockey has that designated captain.
To discount group dynamics as unimportant because it can't be measured analytically is a mistake. Yes, sometimes teams succeed with a "bad room' (old Yankee and A's teams from the 70's come to mind) but more often than not group dynamics is exceedingly important. If anyone has worked in any environment as both a team member and a team leader (I have been both), you understand the value of leadership. The military certainly understands the value of leadership. It would seem that you can't move up through the ranks without demonstrating leadership ability in some capacity. To discount group dynamics and leadership is to discount human nature.
Of course skill and talent are paramount. Leadership enhances skill and talent. Leadership harnesses skill and talent. Yes, that largely comes from the coach or manager, but we all know that in any work environment, leadership that comes not from "the boss" but from within the team, often brings respect and results.
Group dynamics is fascinating. A hockey team that lives, eats, travels, and plays together for six months provides a crucible for leadership from within to have a positive impact. Sometimes we forget that players are people: they carpool together, hang out in hotels together, moan, groan, and complain together, sit next to each other on the bus or plane together. They are just like each of us, except for their unworldly athletic skill. We shouldn't forget that.
In every sport we hear about "the room" and the importance of good leadership. Todd Frazier, last year with the Yankees and this year with the Mets, seems to be a veteran leader who has a positive influence. But his role is unofficial. He might be fulfilling the role of captain, but again, hockey has that designated captain.
To discount group dynamics as unimportant because it can't be measured analytically is a mistake. Yes, sometimes teams succeed with a "bad room' (old Yankee and A's teams from the 70's come to mind) but more often than not group dynamics is exceedingly important. If anyone has worked in any environment as both a team member and a team leader (I have been both), you understand the value of leadership. The military certainly understands the value of leadership. It would seem that you can't move up through the ranks without demonstrating leadership ability in some capacity. To discount group dynamics and leadership is to discount human nature.
Of course skill and talent are paramount. Leadership enhances skill and talent. Leadership harnesses skill and talent. Yes, that largely comes from the coach or manager, but we all know that in any work environment, leadership that comes not from "the boss" but from within the team, often brings respect and results.
Group dynamics is fascinating. A hockey team that lives, eats, travels, and plays together for six months provides a crucible for leadership from within to have a positive impact. Sometimes we forget that players are people: they carpool together, hang out in hotels together, moan, groan, and complain together, sit next to each other on the bus or plane together. They are just like each of us, except for their unworldly athletic skill. We shouldn't forget that.
So you question every move except for the one where they gave up Hall? Maybe Larsson is not a tough leader, but the primary consideration there wasn't actual talent.
GregSirico
KakkoSZN
Let's see, they traded away Hall and Eberle for well ... NOTHING. Signed Lucic who sucks to an awful long term deal, Talbot is not very good, and Klefbom was injured a good part of the year. You take McDavid off that team and they are comfortably worse than the Buffalo Sabres. The problem w/ Edmonton is they have a generational player and have no CLUE what they are doing.
Um who said anything about physical play not being important in the NHL? This is a contact sport bro.
I've played hockey and basketball as a kid, and competitive martial arts in my older years so yes I have, please don't label me.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
No, the primary consideration was team balance. The feeling that Sekera and Klefbom weren't, by themselves, enough to have a solid defense and the feeling that their forward group was an area of strength. A middling first line winger, which is what Taylor Hall was for 3 years before this one, when he had to be convinced to care about winning, is worth a 2nd pairing defenseman on the trade market. That's just the nature of these things. Chiarelli, in my book, has made 3 good moves (Sekera, Talbot, Maroon), two ok ones (Larsson and Lucic, who had a good season his first year), and two bad ones (Reinhart, Strome).
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
Ever wonder why great books, plays, etc. from up to 1000 years ago [when translated into contemporary regional language] make perfect sense in regard to the human condition and interpersonal dynamics ?
The human condition and interpersonal dynamic drives change very, very slowly even if the surface issues change rapidly these days.
I mean I can’t think of any well functioning team based battle structure from the police / fire department to sports or to the armed forces where there aren’t leaders and a pretty rigid heirarchal structure where leaders and veterans have a lot of control and new players and softies either pay there dues or get cast aside.
That’s why I scratch my head when people get confused when 3rd round pick rookies with high potential upside don’t get big game minutes their first run.
And a lot of my pre conceived notions of the glaring lack of understanding of team dynamics and other similar vectors by several posters has pretty much been confirmed with the Messier criticism.
And no not just because it a “sacrilege” to criticize him.
The human condition and interpersonal dynamic drives change very, very slowly even if the surface issues change rapidly these days.
I mean I can’t think of any well functioning team based battle structure from the police / fire department to sports or to the armed forces where there aren’t leaders and a pretty rigid heirarchal structure where leaders and veterans have a lot of control and new players and softies either pay there dues or get cast aside.
That’s why I scratch my head when people get confused when 3rd round pick rookies with high potential upside don’t get big game minutes their first run.
And a lot of my pre conceived notions of the glaring lack of understanding of team dynamics and other similar vectors by several posters has pretty much been confirmed with the Messier criticism.
And no not just because it a “sacrilege” to criticize him.
Give me a "middling 1st liner winger" who has the potential to be more over a middling 2nd pair defenseman every day of the week.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
In a vacuum, I might agree with you. In a situation where my team is bottom-5 in GA, I might not.
Talent without drive and motivation=underachiever. And, we've all seen players with the talent to be top players fail. We've also seen players with lesser talent level become successful. What's the defining character? What makes scouting 18 year olds so hard?
Yes, you draft on talent, no questions asked. But a career depends on maximizing that talent, activating that inner ability. To be talented in today's NHL is simply not enough, and frankly it never was. It is not a generational thing. It is not that today's NHL is somehow different. Yes, the players are bigger, stronger, faster, better conditioned, more skilled...without a doubt. But intangibles often separate the good from the great, the failure from the success. Always have, always will.
The difference is a player's inner motor, his drive, his will. Hockey is a tough physical game. It comes with hurt. It comes with pain. All the talent in the world will only take you so far. The problem is that inner motor, that inner drive, cannot be measured. It is genetics, it is environment, it is teaching, it is the example set by others. It is being pushed to realize that nothing is a given. You have to earn it. It is not some outdated, nostalgic, romantic notion. Natural talent is the base, certainly. But there is so much more.
Yes, we may question it when players are drafted on intangibles (Andersson vs Mittelstadt), and in individual cases talent may certainly win out. Perhaps this was a mistake (I personally would have taken Mittelstadt). For Ranger fans, these two are joined at the hip and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the years ahead.
But, talent is not enough. It will take you far, for sure. But to truly excel, you need that inner motor. Certain players have it more than others. But give me those players with "push" to their game, with the inner motor and drive to do well, who play with intensity and heart. When you find a player with talent and drive, you have something special. Dismiss those extras at your peril.
Yes, you draft on talent, no questions asked. But a career depends on maximizing that talent, activating that inner ability. To be talented in today's NHL is simply not enough, and frankly it never was. It is not a generational thing. It is not that today's NHL is somehow different. Yes, the players are bigger, stronger, faster, better conditioned, more skilled...without a doubt. But intangibles often separate the good from the great, the failure from the success. Always have, always will.
The difference is a player's inner motor, his drive, his will. Hockey is a tough physical game. It comes with hurt. It comes with pain. All the talent in the world will only take you so far. The problem is that inner motor, that inner drive, cannot be measured. It is genetics, it is environment, it is teaching, it is the example set by others. It is being pushed to realize that nothing is a given. You have to earn it. It is not some outdated, nostalgic, romantic notion. Natural talent is the base, certainly. But there is so much more.
Yes, we may question it when players are drafted on intangibles (Andersson vs Mittelstadt), and in individual cases talent may certainly win out. Perhaps this was a mistake (I personally would have taken Mittelstadt). For Ranger fans, these two are joined at the hip and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the years ahead.
But, talent is not enough. It will take you far, for sure. But to truly excel, you need that inner motor. Certain players have it more than others. But give me those players with "push" to their game, with the inner motor and drive to do well, who play with intensity and heart. When you find a player with talent and drive, you have something special. Dismiss those extras at your peril.
Latest posts
-
-
HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #91: 2025 Trade Deadline edition- Latest: MarkovsKnee
-
