He was sent to the AHL to work on his defensive game, per Brind'Amour. So no point should not be a concern here.
F Martin Necas - HC Kometa Brno, CZE JRS (2017, 12th, CAR)
- Thread starter Wooren
- Start date
kp61c
Registered User
He's still getting used to the league he should be fine. Short KHL loan would be a better option if anything.
Wow, this is pretty cool. A statement whose premise is questionable and whose conclusion doesn't follow even from it's premise.
that is unfortunate
woops
1+1 so far tonight, weird how these threads work
How is it questionable?
Here is the link: Inside the transaction: Why the Hurricanes sent Martin Necas...
If you want your player to work on his defensive game, you should not be concerned if he doesnt score, I don't see how it doesnt follow the premise.
The link you sent me appears to be an Op-Ed, so unless you have a specific quote you want to draw from it both with pertinent information and that extends to the full scope of the claim you would need to make (that he was sent down *exclusively* to work on his defensive game), it's not particularly relevant.
Alright, let's give that he was sent down *exclusively* to work on his defensive game. Hockey is still a multi-faceted sport. I happen to believe the person who originally bumped the thread was fishing for negative responses, but suppose that Necas was truly demonstrating offensive incompetence. It would be no more irrelevant, than it would be if you took a test like the GRE or the LSAT, failed say Logic Games or Quantitative Reasoning, took the test again and this time passed Logic Games and Quantitative Reasoning but flunked Reading Comp or Verbal Reasoning. You don't get to "superscore" your performance in hockey, because that's practically worthless, every time you go out onto the ice you have to pass all facets of the game. If you happen to fail one facet of the game, just because you initially had failed a different facet of the game, you don't say "well, we'll combine the passing aspects from different iterations and wow, looks good." That's both impractical and also sounds pretty stupid.
Legend123
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2016
- 9,803
- 4,917
"I don’t envision him being down there for long,” Brind’Amour said. “He’s playing a tough position at center, it’s just a really hard position. He’s an NHL-caliber talent, we just need to get him a little better away from the puck and I want him to have confidence when he comes back to us. Give him a little more playing time.”
That's the quote. Pretty much what I said. He was sent down to work on his defensive game.
To get more icetime too, so I guess with your Supreme Court of Hockey criteria, what I said originally is totally unfounded, useless and stupid.
If I follow your reasoning, you can't work on your skating if you don't work on your shot, your passing and your shot blocking at the same time.
Training can be fragmented. The AHL is a development league.
Alright. I'll use a layman's example then. You have a car, the clutch is defective but the brake pads seem to be working just fine. You send it to the repair shop, the clutch is fixed but upon inspection you discover that the brake pads are defective and could fail. Is the car safe for the road? Of course not, no one would say yes.
First, I find it ironic that your quote says nothing of the sort. Whatsoever. Not even close. It says they want him
1. to play better away from the puck
2. to have more confidence
None of those are explicitly defensive, and it's not even clear that defense is what is being implied with regards to either claim. So pretty much not what you said at all.
You're not following my reasoning. Look at the quote from your initial post "no point should not be a concern", most people would find that an absurd claim, because most people (but evidently not you) think it would be a problem if a forward who is expected to play significant minutes in the NHL is incapable of scoring, not some, but ANY points in the AHL. Most people would see not scoring ANY points in the AHL as a clear concern that cannot be dismissed merely because the purpose of the original transfer was for a different purpose. You keep talking about "work on" things, ergo improving things. What must be and what must not be improved. This conversation has nothing to do with improving anything. You are missing the point that others are making entirely, which is a valid point (albeit wildly premature) that being unable to score in the AHL has nothing to do with improving X, Y, or Z but signaling a clear deficiency that must be addressed.
Now, as I mentioned above, I believe the initial bump was merely fishing for premature negative reactions. 4 games was far too small a sample size to be concerned over, and clearly in the 5th game he did significantly better with respect to scoring points. However, that is not related to you claim that, quite literally, he could not score any points whatsoever over any reasonable timeframe in the AHL and it would be of no significant concern or detriment to where he might be with regards to a return to the senior squad because that was not expressed concern being addressed when he was initially being sent down.
Legend123
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2016
- 9,803
- 4,917
dude i understood what u meant in that Gmat-esque post. But this isnt some essay forum. Dont write so much and so fancy, no one will read it all.
It is quite common reference that "Play without the puck" means, mostly, defensive game.
Also, later in the interview, he said : "Obviously it’d be nice if he chipped in (offensively) here and there, but that’s not what we’re expecting. We’re just expecting a good, hard, honest effort.”
So that explains what I said about offensive stats not being a concern, but you probably have a novel to write to dismiss it all...
You did.
Play without the puck is also commonly used to describe offensive movement when not handling the puck...
The supplemental quote does significantly more than your original quote to reinforce your former claim, but again that such a strong statement as your original one follows... we will disagree inevitably...
Legend123
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2016
- 9,803
- 4,917
How is it a strong statement, that a prospect not producing in the AHL should not be a concern after having played 4 (!) games?
Wow you sure have spent a lot of time on this argument that doesn't really make sense. They aren't the same thing.
Obviously you don't want a fully developed player that has to choose between contributing offensively or defensively. Necas is 19 years old. He still has developing to do, nothing wrong with focusing on developing some better defensive tendencies as he adjusts to this higher level of play. The car clutch example is just plain stupid.
Your original comment doesn't assert the "4 game" qualifier. I added that later in my comment when I called the person who bumped this thread premature. You may have intended to only speak with regards to the four games that had transpired, but the text of the original comment clearly instantiates a general claim. Maybe you could claim that the "here" word is in reference to Necas in only AHL outings up to the point, but it seems like it would better be commonly understood as being in regards to the specific situation of Necas.
Things aren't true just because you stipulate them...
Please don't extrapolate on what I said. Obviously if I had written that after he played 70 games and scored zero point, it would have been different.
And yes, in my book, "here" means "at this point". It is not "here" like "in this thread" or "in this immaterial, virtual place called internet. But english is not my first language, so what do I know?
Back to Necas. Great prospect. Some things to work on like his defensive game and his ability on faceoffs, but remember, the kid is just 19.
I suppose it can be used that way, but "here" is a locational indexical, not a temporal one, so I wouldn't consider that the most common usage. However, if that's what you really meant to say, then that's what you meant, just ignore everything I said (if you didn't already haha).
Agreed.
Wow a real winner posting in this thread. Thanks for posting nonsense.
Frolov 6'3
Unregistered User
Correct
Unfortunately only when a player is send down, you get some common sense here.
The last few months i only read Necas was the next best thing, instead of ‘just’ an 11th overall pick who might have some weaknesses.
Last edited:
I just came here to see whats up with Necas...yeeeeet
