obey86
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2009
- 8,013
- 1,274
What did I just read? Anaheim was not the most skilled team? They were captained by one of the most skilled defenseman of his era and were led by Chris Pronger, Ryan Getzlaf, and Corey Perry to round things out. An elite winger, an elite center, and two elite defenseman. Skill out their ears with Kunitz and McDonald holding down the complementary units.
Same with LA. Doughty and Kopitar complemented by a sexy next tier of Richards, Carter, and Voynov.
You may have an argument with Boston because that team probably doesn't win a Cup without Tim Thomas, but they also don't win the Cup with that nasty depth down the middle in the very skilled bunch of Bergeron, Krejci, and Seguin. Having Marchand and Lucic didn't hurt either.
Oh, wait. I see where you're going with this. False dichotomy, eh? Skill is a dirty word here, is it? No. Sorry. That's not how it works. Being a dirty piece of **** doesn't keep Perry, Kunitz, and Marchand outside of the skilled group. Being a wrecking ball doesn't make Lucic or Richards unskilled. Being a wall in front of the net and on the boards doesn't mean Pronger and Doughty aren't skilled defenseman.
Obey's example, as I said previously, is a crock. Again, were operating under a false dichotomy. Give me an example of a player who is "skill" 80 and "size" 65. What does that even mean?
What does size mean? Who gets an 80 in size? Is it the emaciated 6'3" Danny Dekeyser who struggles in front of the net or is it the once dominant bull in a China shop Mike Richards at 5'11."
And who gets a higher skill rating? Patrick Kane, Pavel Datsyuk, or Nikita Kucherov?
And what even is skill? How many skill points does Ovechkin get for being arguably the best goal scorer of all time while also being a very incomplete player? How many skill points does Datsyuk get for his takeaways? What counts for more? How many points are rewarded for a skilled shot versus passing versus takeaways versus dekes?
And where the **** is skating in all of this? What if "80" in "size" and "60" in "skill" is also "15" in "skating?" Do we really need to clone prime Jason Allison to find that out?
This whole disingenuous argument is once against set up to fight an argument no one is making. Size is part of a package as is skill, skating, character, etc. But skill is still king. You have big skilled guys who are dominant, you have small skilled guys who are dominant, but you don't have big unskilled guys who are dominant.
I think you missed the point with my extremely simple video game attribute rankings example. No, there is no player who is ranked an 80 in skill, it was simplified to make a point that the most skilled player (on a 1-100 scale or however the heck else you want to define who is most skilled) is not always the best player or best pick just because they are the most skilled. I ever specifically said there are many other attributed to consider when evaluating players as that seems to go against the "we need to just draft the most skilled players!!!!" mindset.
As for the rest of your goboldy gook incoherent rant; you just wrote like 4 paragraphs saying "what is skill?" "we can't even define skill." "it's not possible to compared skilled players to either other because who is more skilled?" "saying skill and ignoring other aspects of a players game is stupid." and then in your last paragraph you basically just said that skill is all that matters. lolz. What is your point exactly....you don't even seem to know.
As for your sentence in bold, that's great. Rasmussen is not lacking skill. Mantha is not lacking skill. Hell, Svechnikov might have been a crappy pick, but he doesn't lack skill either. Three bigger players. Neither does Chowloski. Neither does Hronek. There's simply no evidence to show the Wings are ignoring the drafting of skill to draft a bunch of big and unskilled players no matter how much people here whine about it.