I don't know why some people think that a person can join a team and have a positive effect on it. Why is that random? What makes that argument even worse is the Oilers without Hendricks around burned this year
I am not saying he is the only reason the Jets were successful there were 5 things in my mind that made us the team we are and Veteran leadership is one of those reasons
Not arguing but what do you base those 2 things on?
Straw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
No one argued against the possibility of having nice coworkers makes working nicer, which potentially may have some sort of unknown degree of positive impact.
What did happen:
Person A: Jets wouldn't have made it past Nashville without Hendricks.
Person B: That's ridiculous.
Person C: But we have Hendricks and we beat them.
Person D: Evidence provided by Person C in no way proves in any shape or form the hypothesis provided by Person A... but said in a more funny way.
I also don't see how Edmonton slumping in net, and moving out better players for slower alternatives, provides any real evidence that Hendricks -- a player who has not once carried a positive EV goal differential in his pro-hockey career -- is worth his placement on the team.
Of course it would be seen as inconsequential to someone who buries himself in numbers without the benefit of real experience. How can you equate the effects of comradeship or leadership or anything that is based in emotion? You can take your equations and numbers but without adding those parts of it to it you don't have the full picture.
Again, strong man. Where did I say intangibles are inconsequential?
If you wish to argue what my point of view on intangibles are, you should properly get a handle what I view them as.
You can get a start is with stuff like this.
If you want in short, and in general: No one has argued against intangibles having potential value. People have argued against the ways they are employed and evaluated.
If you want in short, and in specific: No one has argued Hendricks has potential positive value with his intangibles. People have argued that saying Jets would not win without him is asinine as a Hendricksless Jets win probability doesn't become 0.
I get what you are saying but what I am saying why can't we say Hendricks role on this team helped them get to this point?
I am going to assume he isn't here next year at least as a player and we will get a good idea of his impact or lack of impact next year.
I still believe his part in this teams maturation is undersold around here.
This was one of the most impactful decision that I have ever seen in the nhl. Talk about thinking outside of the box.Early on the season there was the infamous picture of him and buff fishing. The other one is just comments that players and coaches have said all season. How much of an effect it has had is a matter of debate but I think its been fairly positive
Early on the season there was the infamous picture of him and buff fishing. The other one is just comments that players and coaches have said all season. How much of an effect it has had is a matter of debate but I think its been fairly positive
Jets are 3-2 in the playoffs with Hendricks in the lineup. They're 6-2 without.If you can't quantify it, it doesn't matter
I never understood why many were high on Jansen Harkins. He is a bottom 6 Moose player, and has not looked like anything special since turning pro.okay, we definitely need a fishing themed GDT now
we also need to talk about prospects again or a mod will get mad...
*pulls out trivia sheet*
did you know that Michael Spacek scored 17 5v5 points in 70 games, while Jansen Harkins scored 12 5v5 points in 46 games?
Spacek also had 21 power play points.
Interesting statlines...
I never understood why many were high on Jansen Harkins. He is a bottom 6 Moose player, and has not looked like anything special since turning pro.
The biggest problem with this argument is that it's suggesting that Hendricks provides something that a hockey player that at least has a chance of outscoring the opponent while actually on the ice cannot. This is the red herring. The leadership/comradeship that Hendricks provides could be replaced by someone who is also a better player.Of course it would be seen as inconsequential to someone who buries himself in numbers without the benefit of real experience. How can you equate the effects of comradeship or leadership or anything that is based in emotion? You can take your equations and numbers but without adding those parts of it to it you don't have the full picture.
What the hell does Hendricks have to do with a prospect thread?
Here's a Hendricks thread - let's continue the conversation about him there: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/matt-hendricks.2432321/
I agree that Dano should have played over Hendricks at times, but otherwise he wasn't that hard done by.
What the hell does Hendricks have to do with a prospect thread?
When do our CHL prospects need to be signed by this summer?
Rights expiring this season:
C Jordy Stallard - June 1, 2018
RD Jack Glover - August 15, 2018
LW CJ Suess - August 15, 2018
C Matt Ustaski - August 15, 2018
Thanks. Didn't we sign Suess already or was that just an ATO.
Stallard is the only maybe there. I asked someone in the org about Glover and they said he's another Serville so I figured that was pretty damning. Maybe they sign with the Moose if they're lucky.