They have a couple of elite talents in Beckham and Barkley, one very good one in Collins, and virtually the entire rest of the roster is mediocre to atrocious. Culture ain't got a thing to do with it.
This team has a deep farm system, but it does lack that game-changing, revolutionary talent that Hughes and Kakko seem to be. Until we get that, we may be middling.
But I can't root for any of my teams to lose, unless it is officially out of the playoff race. Just can't do it. Don't have it in me.
They have a couple of elite talents in Beckham and Barkley, one very good one in Collins, and virtually the entire rest of the roster is mediocre to atrocious. Culture ain't got a thing to do with it.
Your point about the Giants is also not true. The Giants have other talented players at pretty key positions in Beal, BJ Hill, Hernandez, Carter, Shep and despite his drops Engram.
Need the elite talent. The team can turn it around in two-three years if they win the lottery and hit.
Yeah, you CAN get the elite talent after the top three, but it's very hard.
6 of the last 7 Hart winners were top 2 picks. The other was Price (drafted fifth). Two of the last 13 were none top three picks. Art Ross has two of the last 13 picked outside the top three.
Need the elite talent. The team can turn it around in two-three years if they win the lottery and hit.
Yeah, you CAN get the elite talent after the top three, but it's very hard.
6 of the last 7 Hart winners were top 2 picks. The other was Price (drafted fifth). Two of the last 13 were none top three picks. Art Ross has two of the last 13 picked outside the top three.
This all may be true, but Hughes is going number 1 overall almost guaranteed. Point is, we dont look nearly as bad as the Kings, the Panthers or the Wings. We are not that bad a team and we have a ton of youngsters. I would much rather see competitive play from a team of young guys with 2/3 showing legit top end potential, just miss the playoffs and make picks next year for a run in '20 than straight dump (its the only way to be worse than LA) to get ONE player. Otherwise, why take players back at all last year? Why not insist on picks?
RE: RE: The Giants are a team with very little talent
Your point about the Giants is also not true. The Giants have other talented players at pretty key positions in Beal, BJ Hill, Hernandez, Carter, Shep and despite his drops Engram.
But by all means, keep up the good work.
Loathesome.
I suppose I could cry to eveyone else about how you won't stop being to me, but then I'm not a bitch like you, so have fun screaming at a wall.
What Cup champions have had them best player be a veteran FA signing? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Maybe the Bruins almost a decade ago, if you think Chara was their best player, but it's debatable whether he was or not. Bergeron would certainly be in the conversation, and their most important player in the playoffs was Tim Thomas.
Look, I don't actually enjoy losing. Far from it. I just would rather they take their medicine for a few years and try to build from the ground up. To that end, dump guys like Namestnikov, Spooner, McLeod, McQuaid, Steal, Smith. They serve absolutely no purpose. Trade Zuccarello, Hayes, Vesey, maybe Kreider.
RE: RE: RE: The Giants are a team with very little talent
Your point about the Giants is also not true. The Giants have other talented players at pretty key positions in Beal, BJ Hill, Hernandez, Carter, Shep and despite his drops Engram.
But by all means, keep up the good work.
Loathesome.
I suppose I could cry to eveyone else about how you won't stop being to me, but then I'm not a bitch like you, so have fun screaming at a wall.
What the fuck are you talking about?!!
I didn't whine to anybody about you. I just don't like you. At all. And I think you don't know shit about sports and I don't think you played them at a decent level either. Yet you're condescending and dismissive to everybody who offers a differing opinion of yours.
You're a short, fat fuck who doesn't make any really good points, and on a secondary note I'd love to hold your head in the toilet. LOL, but the idea that I whine about you to other people or posters or whatever the hell you're talking about is absolutely laughable.
I want miller anymore Greg but I think you're one of the biggest pains in the ass on BBI. Even when a thread has zero to do with you like the one giving Mook advice about where to go in Blacksburg, you infect it with your negativity adding nothing to it.
I'd rather read the back of a shampoo bottle than your drivel. It's a shame there isn't a way to make your posts appear in crayon to get a more true to life experience.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide because I'm just petrified by your threats.
I'd rather read the back of a shampoo bottle than your drivel. It's a shame there isn't a way to make your posts appear in crayon to get a more true to life experience.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide because I'm just petrified by your threats.
Didnt threaten you once, and Im not surprised you would be thoroughly entertained by the writing on the back of a shampoo bottle.
is doing. Not there yet obviously, but I like the Kane and ROR trades for them. I like Skinner, Eichel, Reinhart, Mittelstadt, obviously Dahlin plus they have some talent in the minors. and IMO Eichel is absolutely elite talent. Not McDavid or Matthews, but in that tier below them for young stars.
I used to think culture is overrated too but then Mike Sullivan taught my level 3 coaching clinic. I'm not a starstruck person, but he blew me away. So much wisdom and if you look back about how the Penguins were floundering when he took over and led them to the cup, it shows you that talent isn't everything. system, approach, motivation, etc. and culture/chemistry play a role.
I don't think it's more important than talent, but I definitely understand it, and culture for Sullivan is achieved in a variety of different ways.
but once Crosby and Malkin age a little more and the Penguins stink you'll see it more blatantly why talent matters more.
But I'm not sure I'd say culture and coaching are the same thing, at least not in the way people are using "culture" in this thread.
Agree, but in the Mike Sullivan example, his coaching style helped eradicate a country club culture. Before him the Pens stars were treated differently and he came in wiped the slate clean and said 4th line to 1st line here's is how we practice, earn ice time, get to be on the special units, etc.
and we know the results, a talented under-performing team won the cup in his rookie year and repeated the next.
could he have done that on a team without Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang, etc? no.
So I'd put talent #1, but coaching and with it what I'm calling culture #2.
I think Vegas is the only example of a star-less team outperforming their status due to coaching/culture in my recent memory.
and I can separate coaching and culture in this way, coaching is a system, x's and o's, PP approach, PK approach, OT approach, breakouts, in-game adjustments, etc. but culture is getting your players to buy in 100% to that system and develop chemistry playing with each other.
I guess what I'm saying is that a supposed winning culture is essentially meaningless when the roster is full of mediocre players who aren't going to be around anymore if the team ever actually does start winning.
It's Panarin's fourth season in the NHL. He's not the typical 27 year old star with 6-7 seasons under his belt at this point. I don't think he's reached his peak yet.
But I can't root for any of my teams to lose, unless it is officially out of the playoff race. Just can't do it. Don't have it in me.
Your point about the Giants is also not true. The Giants have other talented players at pretty key positions in Beal, BJ Hill, Hernandez, Carter, Shep and despite his drops Engram.
But by all means, keep up the good work.
Loathesome.
Yeah, you CAN get the elite talent after the top three, but it's very hard.
6 of the last 7 Hart winners were top 2 picks. The other was Price (drafted fifth). Two of the last 13 were none top three picks. Art Ross has two of the last 13 picked outside the top three.
*when
Yeah, you CAN get the elite talent after the top three, but it's very hard.
6 of the last 7 Hart winners were top 2 picks. The other was Price (drafted fifth). Two of the last 13 were none top three picks. Art Ross has two of the last 13 picked outside the top three.
This all may be true, but Hughes is going number 1 overall almost guaranteed. Point is, we dont look nearly as bad as the Kings, the Panthers or the Wings. We are not that bad a team and we have a ton of youngsters. I would much rather see competitive play from a team of young guys with 2/3 showing legit top end potential, just miss the playoffs and make picks next year for a run in '20 than straight dump (its the only way to be worse than LA) to get ONE player. Otherwise, why take players back at all last year? Why not insist on picks?
But by all means, keep up the good work.
Loathesome.
I suppose I could cry to eveyone else about how you won't stop being to me, but then I'm not a bitch like you, so have fun screaming at a wall.
Well, that would be the classic Rangers move, wouldn't it? Some issues:
A)They would still lack a true #1 center, which is something they need more than a scoring wing.
B)Panarin will be 28 next year. NHL players' prime scoring years tend to peak early. Odds are, his best will already be behind him starting in 2019.
C)The defense will still be average at best, and that's likely a charitable assessment.
Would they be better with Panarin? Of course. Would they be a contender? Don't think so.
Look, I don't actually enjoy losing. Far from it. I just would rather they take their medicine for a few years and try to build from the ground up. To that end, dump guys like Namestnikov, Spooner, McLeod, McQuaid, Steal, Smith. They serve absolutely no purpose. Trade Zuccarello, Hayes, Vesey, maybe Kreider.
Quote:
Your point about the Giants is also not true. The Giants have other talented players at pretty key positions in Beal, BJ Hill, Hernandez, Carter, Shep and despite his drops Engram.
But by all means, keep up the good work.
Loathesome.
I suppose I could cry to eveyone else about how you won't stop being to me, but then I'm not a bitch like you, so have fun screaming at a wall.
What the fuck are you talking about?!!
I didn't whine to anybody about you. I just don't like you. At all. And I think you don't know shit about sports and I don't think you played them at a decent level either. Yet you're condescending and dismissive to everybody who offers a differing opinion of yours.
You're a short, fat fuck who doesn't make any really good points, and on a secondary note I'd love to hold your head in the toilet. LOL, but the idea that I whine about you to other people or posters or whatever the hell you're talking about is absolutely laughable.
I want miller anymore Greg but I think you're one of the biggest pains in the ass on BBI. Even when a thread has zero to do with you like the one giving Mook advice about where to go in Blacksburg, you infect it with your negativity adding nothing to it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide because I'm just petrified by your threats.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide because I'm just petrified by your threats.
Didnt threaten you once, and Im not surprised you would be thoroughly entertained by the writing on the back of a shampoo bottle.
I used to think culture is overrated too but then Mike Sullivan taught my level 3 coaching clinic. I'm not a starstruck person, but he blew me away. So much wisdom and if you look back about how the Penguins were floundering when he took over and led them to the cup, it shows you that talent isn't everything. system, approach, motivation, etc. and culture/chemistry play a role.
I don't think it's more important than talent, but I definitely understand it, and culture for Sullivan is achieved in a variety of different ways.
but once Crosby and Malkin age a little more and the Penguins stink you'll see it more blatantly why talent matters more.
Just my opinion.
Agree, but in the Mike Sullivan example, his coaching style helped eradicate a country club culture. Before him the Pens stars were treated differently and he came in wiped the slate clean and said 4th line to 1st line here's is how we practice, earn ice time, get to be on the special units, etc.
and we know the results, a talented under-performing team won the cup in his rookie year and repeated the next.
could he have done that on a team without Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang, etc? no.
So I'd put talent #1, but coaching and with it what I'm calling culture #2.
I think Vegas is the only example of a star-less team outperforming their status due to coaching/culture in my recent memory.
and I can separate coaching and culture in this way, coaching is a system, x's and o's, PP approach, PK approach, OT approach, breakouts, in-game adjustments, etc. but culture is getting your players to buy in 100% to that system and develop chemistry playing with each other.
That's a fine move for the 2012 Rangers. Not so much for the 2019 version.
I could go either way on him, if I'm the Rangers.
It depends on the state of the team after the season.
He's 27, not 33 and he's proven to be a creator (the Bowman bet that Panarin couldn't produce without Kane was proved false).
Plus with the impending work stoppage after the 2019-2020 season who knows what's in store for the future.