Calling out Ovi

[HTFN]

I think you'e confusing the term "complimentary player" with "fringe player". This is no insult to Lafleur or Ovechkin, we all know they'e they're great players, that's not the question or the issue at all.
On Pittsburgh, Crosby is the center of the team, the rest are complimentary players, including Malkin. Now, Malkin can be the center of the team, if Crosby is not around, but a guy like Kessel will never be a guy that the team centers on. The Oilers of the 80's had the same scenario with Gretzky, Messier and Kurri. The Oilers of today, moved Taylor Hall, because Hall was the center of the team and they wanted to change that to Connor McDavid. Hall had to go. The Islanders of the 80's had Trottier with Bossy (and many others) as complimentary players. You can look at players like the wings Yzerman or Sakic on the Avs with the complimentary players like Forsberg. Most every team is structured this way and certainly most teams that win the cup.

You mention Montreal. Well, they might be slightly different but through the Lafleur years of the 70's, their team was centered around their veteran players such as Richard and Cournoyer etc. But as good s Lafleur was, he was a complimentary player - so was Shutt.

If that's your definition for centerpieces v. complimentary players, how on earth is Ovechkin the latter?

 

[Varan]

one more time, u still calling him out fam?

 

[bur and 666 others]

This isn't aging well.

the series hasn't finished yet. he needs to be better

 

[Future GOAT]

Ovi holding his own.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I think you'e confusing the term "complimentary player" with "fringe player".

There's no confusion on my part whatsoever. I think you simply don't understand what a "complimentary player" is.

This is no insult to Lafleur or Ovechkin, we all know they'e they're great players, that's not the question or the issue at all.

Once again, they are two of the greatest players who ever played the game. That does not fit the definition of "complimentary player." Where does this nonsense end? Is Gretzky a complimentary player? Bossy? Lemieux? What the hell are you talking about man?

On Pittsburgh, Crosby is the center of the team, the rest are complimentary players, including Malkin.

Lafleur was the best player on his team, maybe the best player of the decade. Kane is the best player on his.

And I'm not sure on what planet Malkin is a complimentary player. He's no more of a complimentary player than Denis Potvin or Ken Dryden or Larry Robinson or Mark Messier was. He's a superstar in his own right. Just like Ovechkin is.

Now, Malkin can be the center of the team, if Crosby is not around, but a guy like Kessel will never be a guy that the team centers on.

So what? Without Kessel the Pens probably are stuck on one cup. And that's despite having two generational players in their lineup. Kessel was a top five scorer for the better part of five years. He'd be a HOFer regardless of whether he joined Pittsburgh or not.

The Oilers of the 80's had the same scenario with Gretzky, Messier and Kurri. The Oilers of today, moved Taylor Hall, because Hall was the center of the team and they wanted to change that to Connor McDavid. Hall had to go. The Islanders of the 80's had Trottier with Bossy (and many others) as complimentary players. You can look at players like the wings Yzerman or Sakic on the Avs with the complimentary players like Forsberg. Most every team is structured this way and certainly most teams that win the cup.

This is just flat out dumb. So Doug Harvey (one of the best blueliners ever) was a complimentary player? Or was that Beliveau, Plante or Rocket Richard Richard? Bossy was a complimentary player? Oh wait sorry, that was Trottier... no wait it was Potvin... um.... which one was the center of the team again? Which one was the superstar? Yzerman was the superstar but Lidstrom was complimentary?

Btw, the Oliers moved Taylor Hall because they were stupid. Why the hell would you have to move him so McDavid could be the center of the team? That is a ludicrous argument.

You mention Montreal. Well, they might be slightly different but through the Lafleur years of the 70's, their team was centered around their veteran players such as Richard and Cournoyer etc. But as good s Lafleur was, he was a complimentary player - so was Shutt.

The team was in no way shape or form centered around H Richard or Cournoyer. You need to brush up on your history. You have no idea what you're talking about here. There are at least three other players ahead of those guys on that roster. Try Lafleur, Dryden and Robinson. You could also throw in Serge Savard into that mix. It's probably the best team ever assembled and the idea that there's only one player that wasn't considered complimentary is stupid. The idea that you'd think it would be Cournoyer over Lafleur or Robinson is even crazier. Messier was complimentary but then won a cup after Gretz left? Was Mario Lemieux complimentary on the Canada cup teams only to go back to being a real player on the Penguins? And what about Jagr? I mean seriously man...

Once again, when you get multiple superstar players on a roster your odds of winning cups go way up. Crosby has had the good fortune of having two other superstars to help him win. Ovechkin has not. That's the real difference here.

A seven time Richard winner is complimentary? That's absolute nonsense.

Here's what's really going on here. You tried to undermine OV with a nonsensical argument and were called on it. Rather than just own up to this, you've decided to double down. And in doing so, you've now talked about players like Malkin, Guy Lafleur and Mike Bossy as being complimentary players. I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

 

[SabresSharks]

In games when the Capitals are trailing in a series, Ovechkin has 43 points in 32 games.

Those numbers prove he's selfish, lazy, a giveaway machine, out of shape, and not a leader. Did I miss anything?

OP, get in here to claim Ovi heard you.

 

[RageQuit77]

A seven time Richard winner is complimentary? That's absolute nonsense.

Poor, complimentary, and under performing goal scoring machine have had never anything to do with Capitals' entries to a NHL Playoffs...

These kind threads makes me sad.

3+3 in 4, and 2-2, but it's not enough for this "complimentary" player, that will be The Greatest goal scorer in the history of game of hockey...

 

[SabresSharks]

With apologies, everyone, it's complementary. And Ovi ain't.

 

[RageQuit77]

With apologies, everyone, it's complementary. And Ovi ain't.

Ah!

'Compliment' -> 'Complimentary' (expressing a compliment; praising or approving / given or supplied free of charge (addj.))
'Complement' -> 'Complementary' (combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another (addj.))

Thanks! That's easy error to make.

Learning English and complimenting Ovi for not being a complementary player.

 

[SabresSharks]

There's no confusion on my part whatsoever. I think you simply don't understand what a "complimentary player" is.

Once again, they are two of the greatest players who ever played the game. That does not fit the definition of "complimentary player." Where does this nonsense end? Is Gretzky a complimentary player? Bossy? Lemieux? What the hell are you talking about man?


Lafleur was the best player on his team, maybe the best player of the decade. Kane is the best player on his.

And I'm not sure on what planet Malkin is a complimentary player. He's no more of a complimentary player than Denis Potvin or Ken Dryden or Larry Robinson or Mark Messier was. He's a superstar in his own right. Just like Ovechkin is.

So what? Without Kessel the Pens probably are stuck on one cup. And that's despite having two generational players in their lineup. Kessel was a top five scorer for the better part of five years. He'd be a HOFer regardless of whether he joined Pittsburgh or not.

This is just flat out dumb. So Doug Harvey (one of the best blueliners ever) was a complimentary player? Or was that Beliveau, Plante or Rocket Richard Richard? Bossy was a complimentary player? Oh wait sorry, that was Trottier... no wait it was Potvin... um.... which one was the center of the team again? Which one was the superstar? Yzerman was the superstar but Lidstrom was complimentary?

Btw, the Oliers moved Taylor Hall because they were stupid. Why the hell would you have to move him so McDavid could be the center of the team? That is a ludicrous argument.

The team was in no way shape or form centered around H Richard or Cournoyer. You need to brush up on your history. You have no idea what you're talking about here. There are at least three other players ahead of those guys on that roster. Try Lafleur, Dryden and Robinson. You could also throw in Serge Savard into that mix. It's probably the best team ever assembled and the idea that there's only one player that wasn't considered complimentary is stupid. The idea that you'd think it would be Cournoyer over Lafleur or Robinson is even crazier. Messier was complimentary but then won a cup after Gretz left? Was Mario Lemieux complimentary on the Canada cup teams only to go back to being a real player on the Penguins? And what about Jagr? I mean seriously man...

Once again, when you get multiple superstar players on a roster your odds of winning cups go way up. Crosby has had the good fortune of having two other superstars to help him win. Ovechkin has not. That's the real difference here.

A seven time Richard winner is complimentary? That's absolute nonsense.

Here's what's really going on here. You tried to undermine OV with a nonsensical argument and were called on it. Rather than just own up to this, you've decided to double down. And in doing so, you've now talked about players like Malkin, Guy Lafleur and Mike Bossy as being complimentary players. I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

Way off topic here, but I'd rate Lapointe, Shutt, and Lemaire all more important to the 70s Habs dynasty than H. Richard, at the tail end of his remarkable career. Arguably over Cournoyer as well.

 

[HF007]

OV underrated in the playoffs, it's just all those series against those defensive-minded rangers that hamper his numbers

 

[SabresSharks]

Ah!

'Compliment' -> 'Complimentary' (expressing a compliment; praising or approving / given or supplied free of charge (addj.))
'Complement' -> 'Complementary' (combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another (addj.))

Thanks! That's easy error to make.

Learning English and complimenting Ovi for not being a complementary player.

Cheers, mate. Happy to help.

My Finnish isn't great, but I'll try ... Suomi. Sauna. Loyly. Sisu. How am I doing? ;-)

 

[RageQuit77]

Cheers, mate. Happy to help.

My Finnish isn't great, but I'll try ... Suomi. Sauna. Sisu. How am I doing? ;-)

Hehe. You know some important core words of Finnish. There are no 'Suomi' without 'saunas' and 'sisu'.

Contrary to some comments in this thread that essentially claim that Ovi lacks some grit, I happily confirm that he has been demonstrating a lot of sisu over his career curriculum.

Sisu - Wikipedia

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Way off topic here, but I'd rate Lapointe, Shutt, and Lemaire all more important to the 70s Habs dynasty than H. Richard, at the tail end of his remarkable career. Arguably over Cournoyer as well.

The club was stupidly stacked. But yeah, there's just no way that those guys would be the center of the club. Roadrunner won a Smythe which is great but that was before Lafleur came into his prime.

 

[Hal 9000]

There's no confusion on my part whatsoever. I think you simply don't understand what a "complimentary player" is.

Once again, they are two of the greatest players who ever played the game. That does not fit the definition of "complimentary player." Where does this nonsense end? Is Gretzky a complimentary player? Bossy? Lemieux? What the hell are you talking about man?


Lafleur was the best player on his team, maybe the best player of the decade. Kane is the best player on his.

And I'm not sure on what planet Malkin is a complimentary player. He's no more of a complimentary player than Denis Potvin or Ken Dryden or Larry Robinson or Mark Messier was. He's a superstar in his own right. Just like Ovechkin is.

So what? Without Kessel the Pens probably are stuck on one cup. And that's despite having two generational players in their lineup. Kessel was a top five scorer for the better part of five years. He'd be a HOFer regardless of whether he joined Pittsburgh or not.

This is just flat out dumb. So Doug Harvey (one of the best blueliners ever) was a complimentary player? Or was that Beliveau, Plante or Rocket Richard Richard? Bossy was a complimentary player? Oh wait sorry, that was Trottier... no wait it was Potvin... um.... which one was the center of the team again? Which one was the superstar? Yzerman was the superstar but Lidstrom was complimentary?

Btw, the Oliers moved Taylor Hall because they were stupid. Why the hell would you have to move him so McDavid could be the center of the team? That is a ludicrous argument.

The team was in no way shape or form centered around H Richard or Cournoyer. You need to brush up on your history. You have no idea what you're talking about here. There are at least three other players ahead of those guys on that roster. Try Lafleur, Dryden and Robinson. You could also throw in Serge Savard into that mix. It's probably the best team ever assembled and the idea that there's only one player that wasn't considered complimentary is stupid. The idea that you'd think it would be Cournoyer over Lafleur or Robinson is even crazier. Messier was complimentary but then won a cup after Gretz left? Was Mario Lemieux complimentary on the Canada cup teams only to go back to being a real player on the Penguins? And what about Jagr? I mean seriously man...

Once again, when you get multiple superstar players on a roster your odds of winning cups go way up. Crosby has had the good fortune of having two other superstars to help him win. Ovechkin has not. That's the real difference here.

A seven time Richard winner is complimentary? That's absolute nonsense.

Here's what's really going on here. You tried to undermine OV with a nonsensical argument and were called on it. Rather than just own up to this, you've decided to double down. And in doing so, you've now talked about players like Malkin, Guy Lafleur and Mike Bossy as being complimentary players. I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

I'm not trying to undermine Ovie, not in the least. I don' know why you get that idea. I'e said over and again that he's a great player. I don't think you people should take the word complementary (my spell check on tablet doesn' like that spelling) for something negative. There is a certain psycholoy that goes with a team mentality.
Lafleur was by far the best player, but was never considered the team leader.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I'm not trying to undermine Ovie, not in the least. I don' know why you get that idea. I'e said over and again that he's a great player. I don't think you people should take the word complementary (my spell check on tablet doesn' like that spelling) for something negative. There is a certain psycholoy that goes with a team mentality.
Lafleur was by far the best player, but was never considered the team leader.

So what? He led the club to four straight cups. He led the playoffs in scoring three straight years. He could easily have had three Smythes. Who cares what people thought about his leadership abilities? The guy led his teams to cups just like Patrick Kane did. People think leadership is something that fits in a neat little box... it doesn't.

 

[Eisen]

It's not supposed to be easy but we were supposed to be good enough for it at least once.

Pens have a winning culture, established by Mario, Jagr and Francis a long time ago. Sid & Geno were moulded by this winning culture.

Meanwhile, the Caps have had a losing culture since day 1, and we asked Ovi to establish a winning culture. We asked too much of him in that regard. We should have hired a Cup winning coach right from the start of the Ovechkin era to establish this winning culture. Now the losing culture is deeply rooted inside the spirit of the franchise, and we will have to change everything about the way this team operates if we hope to be a more respectable team in the playoffs. Unfortunately, Ovi will hang up his skates before the culture changes.

I don't buy the "molded by a winning culture". Do we forget that they had Tarnström as their leading scorer once, after Jagr and Francis? Or how about the Habs winning culture doesn't help the current team one bit. Pittsburgh has two star centres, that's the reason.

 

[Eisen]

Doughty was a great player on a great team. Ovechkin has been a greater player on a mediocre team.
He has been the Caps' biggest contributor pretty much every post-season, yet he is singled out as the reason for the Capitals failures. We all know why.
The bias against him at this site is too obvious.

Probably because he is not a two way grinder. HF is in love with those guys. Not because he is Russian. It's the same with Karlsson.

 

[Eisen]

Ovi AGAIN responsible for 2 goals against

2:15 that pass should not have even gone across if he recognizes there is a man wide

Edited to say that was orlov and not Ovi. I was half asleep during the game

I mean that's just brutal

But I'm sure we'll here: HE SCORES X GOALS PER GAME IN THE PLAYOFFS

Well he apparently gives up X + 1 goals against. When he doesn't have the puck, he just doesn't care. You can't win with 1 dimensional players

You play players according to their strenghts. If you want a guy to be the vacuum cleaner on a line, you put a guy there who can do that. You shouldn't ask Ovechkin to do that. That would be a complete waste.

 

[thekernel]

Ovechkin is the only reason they haven't been swept yet

 

[Leonhard Euler]

If Caps won't advance it will have nothing to do with Ovechkin. This narrative (throughout his career) is complete bogus.

 

[ovikovy817]

4 games
6 points
3 goals
3 assists

 

[BackToTheBasics]

OV underrated in the playoffs, it's just all those series against those defensive-minded rangers that hamper his numbers

Checked the numbers on this to see if there was any truth to it and sure enough there is. Not including the games against the Rangers, Ovechkin has 73 points in 68 playoff games or 1.07 PPG which is around his regular season average.

 

[txpd]

Ovechkin is the only reason they haven't been swept yet

That's not true. Ov is leading his team but Holtby has provided the needed security to play their game. John Carlson has 8pts in 4 games. Backstrom, Kuznetsov and Oshie are all doing their part. And then there is Tom Wilson.

 

[Crosbyfan]

So...thread was premature after just one game, eh?