Preface: I'm sure I'll catch some flak for this post, but I feel like it's something that ought to be said.
I've loved the addition of Steve Ott. I believe he's a good hockey player that's provided leadership and physical play in a year it's been needed and that he embodies the "blue collar" style of play that hockey fans in Buffalo covet.
But his presence on the team and in this city is reaching Drury-esque exaggeration. There's this idea in Buffalo (particularly among casual fans) that the blue collar style should trump natural skill. That's ridiculous.
I had a discussion with some old friends this past weekend about the Sabres and hockey in general. The consensus from their end was that Ott was the team's best player, by far, and that Thomas Vanek doesn't even compare. They aren't Sekera fans, preferred Regehr to almost every defenseman the Sabres have had in the last ten years except Jay McKee and were very keen on using Euro-stereotypes.
This discussion reached its pinnacle when both guys told me that they'd rather have Dustin Brown than Anze Kopitar. They also noted that they would't trade Ott for Kopitar. That's when I gave up talking to them. They aren't alone in Buffalo - people truly believe that. I've heard from several people that Girgensons won't amount to much in this league because he's "a euro." GIRGENSONS. I've talked to people who hate the addition of Larsson because he's "another soft euro." Nevermind the fact that both of these guys play 200-foot games and work hard on a daily basis. I find that these are the same kinds of people that have never liked Jochen Hecht.
These guys are frowned upon because of their names, really. But Steve Ott is held on some pedestal that truly isn't all that deserving. I don't get it.
Ott's reputation is mostly correct. He's a good, hard-working player that has a voice in the room, hits and chips in offensively from time to time. He's valuable - especially on a contender.
But he's not this tough-as-nails, consummate hockey player that's irreplaceable in Buffalo (the toughness theory should have been debunked the second he didn't come to the aide of Ennis when Simmonds boarded him). That's a myth being perpetuated nearly every game it seems.
I value hard work in hockey players. It's important. But if someone came calling and were to give up some solid assets for Ott, I do it. He's a good player and I'm a fan, but he's not untouchable.
Where did this notion that skill trumps hard work come from? When and why did it develop in Buffalo? I do believe that you need a nice combination of will and skill to win, but will is a lot easier to replace than skill.
I've loved the addition of Steve Ott. I believe he's a good hockey player that's provided leadership and physical play in a year it's been needed and that he embodies the "blue collar" style of play that hockey fans in Buffalo covet.
But his presence on the team and in this city is reaching Drury-esque exaggeration. There's this idea in Buffalo (particularly among casual fans) that the blue collar style should trump natural skill. That's ridiculous.
I had a discussion with some old friends this past weekend about the Sabres and hockey in general. The consensus from their end was that Ott was the team's best player, by far, and that Thomas Vanek doesn't even compare. They aren't Sekera fans, preferred Regehr to almost every defenseman the Sabres have had in the last ten years except Jay McKee and were very keen on using Euro-stereotypes.
This discussion reached its pinnacle when both guys told me that they'd rather have Dustin Brown than Anze Kopitar. They also noted that they would't trade Ott for Kopitar. That's when I gave up talking to them. They aren't alone in Buffalo - people truly believe that. I've heard from several people that Girgensons won't amount to much in this league because he's "a euro." GIRGENSONS. I've talked to people who hate the addition of Larsson because he's "another soft euro." Nevermind the fact that both of these guys play 200-foot games and work hard on a daily basis. I find that these are the same kinds of people that have never liked Jochen Hecht.
These guys are frowned upon because of their names, really. But Steve Ott is held on some pedestal that truly isn't all that deserving. I don't get it.
Ott's reputation is mostly correct. He's a good, hard-working player that has a voice in the room, hits and chips in offensively from time to time. He's valuable - especially on a contender.
But he's not this tough-as-nails, consummate hockey player that's irreplaceable in Buffalo (the toughness theory should have been debunked the second he didn't come to the aide of Ennis when Simmonds boarded him). That's a myth being perpetuated nearly every game it seems.
I value hard work in hockey players. It's important. But if someone came calling and were to give up some solid assets for Ott, I do it. He's a good player and I'm a fan, but he's not untouchable.
Where did this notion that skill trumps hard work come from? When and why did it develop in Buffalo? I do believe that you need a nice combination of will and skill to win, but will is a lot easier to replace than skill.
