Eric Staal, greatest player of hockey

[DaveG]

Some posters just want to watch the boards burn.

A large number of them tend to be us.... I wonder why.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

A large number of them tend to be us.... I wonder why.

Well, to be fair, the vast majority of the users douse themselves in kerosene, then hand us the matches.

At what point does personal responsibility for your own stupidity become an issue?

 

[DaveG]

exactly.

 

[the halleJOKEL]

Do they not have sarcasm detectors in Philly? Some of those guys are frothing at the mouth over this.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

The latest guy is exactly what I'm talking about. If you can't get the fact that BCC doesn't take this seriously, if not from the posts he's directed at you, then at least from the context clues in the rest of the topic, you deserve to be trolled.

 

[PaulProteus]

The latest guy is exactly what I'm talking about. If you can't get the fact that BCC doesn't take this seriously, if not from the posts he's directed at you, then at least from the context clues in the rest of the topic, you deserve to be trolled.

Moreso when you've got 9 freakin' pages of people saying, "lol, this is classic hilarity" when you decide to show up and try to be serious. The people who fell in the trap right off the bat can be excused, but now?

 

[the halleJOKEL]

He still hasn't learned.

Wat.

 

[jbkellner]

De-lurking to let you all know you're my heroes. Well done.

 

[LadyCane]

Do they not have sarcasm detectors in Philly? Some of those guys are frothing at the mouth over this.

That's the thing, I worked up in Flyers country this past summer, and all the ones I met were rude, crude, socially unacceptable, and knew two things: the game of hockey, and how to speak sarcasm fluently. I showed the thread to one of my former coworkers and he was about to bust a gut laughing. These *******s just haven't been let out of their caves very much, apparently.

Maybe we should send them some of our fine Carolina meth. Sarcasm is easier when you're smoking it.

 

[caniac315]

Since they refuse to believe we might know a little something about hockey, they probably don't think anyone down here has the mental capacity to do anything like sarcasm.

I'm surprised they think we are such prolific meth manufacturers.

 

[ChuckW]

I know this whole thread is a joke, etc. But speaking seriously for a moment about Staal...

When he's motivated, and on his game, I think he's top 5 in the league.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all to compare Eric Staal to Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin.

Admittedly, Staal has elements of his game that aren't as good as either of those other players, but he also has parts of his game that are far superior to what they can do.

In fact, I would NOT trade Staal for Ovie. Straight up, I'd rather keep Staal.

 

[PaulProteus]

I know this whole thread is a joke, etc. But speaking seriously for a moment about Staal...

When he's motivated, and on his game, I think he's top 5 in the league.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all to compare Eric Staal to Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin.

Admittedly, Staal has elements of his game that aren't as good as either of those other players, but he also has parts of his game that are far superior to what they can do.

In fact, I would NOT trade Staal for Ovie. Straight up, I'd rather keep Staal.

I shudder to think of what Staal would be capable of given the right talent around him, actually.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Ovie got payed, and is no longer the dynamic player he once was.

I would also not trade Staal for Ovie straight up.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I know this whole thread is a joke, etc. But speaking seriously for a moment about Staal...

When he's motivated, and on his game, I think he's top 5 in the league.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all to compare Eric Staal to Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin.

Admittedly, Staal has elements of his game that aren't as good as either of those other players, but he also has parts of his game that are far superior to what they can do.

In fact, I would NOT trade Staal for Ovie. Straight up, I'd rather keep Staal.

I agree that I would not trade Staal for Ovie straight up, and I agree with most of the sentiment of this post, but I'd probably change "top 5" to "top 10." I think at any given time, regardless of how well Staal's playing, I would be able to pick 5 players I would take over Eric Staal to have on my team for the year. Crosby, obviously, Malkin as well, Stamkos definitely, and then "flavor of the week" players to fill out the top 5. However, when he's on his game, there AREN'T 10 players I'd take over him in this league.

Key part of my statement, though, is WHEN he's on his game. When he's off he's not even the second best player on his own team.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Staal's inconsistency knocks him down in the rankings. If he played the entire year like he's done in the 2nd half, absolutely, he'd be in the rankings with Malkin, etc.

Right now, it looks like Staal could finish the season with 70 points, despite the poor start. However, it is mainly because of that poor start that this team missed the playoffs. So I pose a question:

Let's assume, that for the rest of his career, Staal is as inconsistent as he was this year. He'll have a dominant second half, but a very poor first one. Despite this, he finishes the year with a PPG consistently.

Now take another player, like Patrick Sharp. Sharp is the definition of consistency. He's produced at least a point in 42 of the 69 games he's played. Over an entire season, that comes out to about 70 points.

Would you take the player A: A Staal-like player that, when he's on, plays at a higher level and produces more points at the end of the season or player B: the Sharp-like player that's consistent throughout the year, but doesn't produce the same numbers?

And if you picked player A, how little can the difference in production be between the two players before you picked player B?
If you picked player B, how big can the difference in production be before you picked player A?

 

[tomdundo]

Staal's inconsistency knocks him down in the rankings. If he played the entire year like he's done in the 2nd half, absolutely, he'd be in the rankings with Malkin, etc.

Right now, it looks like Staal could finish the season with 70 points, despite the poor start. However, it is mainly because of that poor start that this team missed the playoffs. So I pose a question:

Let's assume, that for the rest of his career, Staal is as inconsistent as he was this year. He'll have a dominant second half, but a very poor first one. Despite this, he finishes the year with a PPG consistently.

Now take another player, like Patrick Sharp. Sharp is the definition of consistency. He's produced at least a point in 42 of the 69 games he's played. Over an entire season, that comes out to about 70 points.

Would you take the player A: A Staal-like player that, when he's on, plays at a higher level and produces more points at the end of the season or player B: the Sharp-like player that's consistent throughout the year, but doesn't produce the same numbers?

And if you picked player A, how little can the difference in production be between the two players before you picked player B?
If you picked player B, how big can the difference in production be before you picked player A?

I don't think it's fair to fault Staal's slow start alone on why we didn't make the playoffs. That said, I choose both.


Nah, I'd rather keep Player A than have Player B, even if the points are almost exactly equal. If Player A is heating up towards the end of the season and his team makes it into the playoffs, then you'd better watch out. He'll probably be a force to be reckoned with (ask Chara). I'm not sure that Sharp/Player B could necessarily prove to be the same force if he's a reliable threat but not a deadly one at that time of year.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I don't think it's fair to fault Staal's slow start alone on why we didn't make the playoffs. That said, I choose both.

I didn't put all the blame on him, I just stated that his start was the main reason why. And I don't think that's a stretch. He had 5 points in the first 15 games, 10 points in the first 24. The team won a grand total of 8 games in those 24 games, while Staal was a -17 in that time span. By the time he found his game, the Canes were in a hole that was almost impossible to dig out of.

There were other factors, of course. Maurice's coaching and Ward didn't have a great start himself, but if I had to pick one reason why we missed the playoffs this year, Staal's slow start would be it.

Granted, if I had to pick one reason we were as close as 3 points out of a playoff spot in March, Staal's strong finish would be that reason as well.

Nah, I'd rather keep Player A than have Player B, even if the points are almost exactly equal. If Player A is heating up towards the end of the season and his team makes it into the playoffs, then you'd better watch out. He'll probably be a force to be reckoned with (ask Chara). I'm not sure that Sharp/Player B could necessarily prove to be the same force if he's a reliable threat but not a deadly one at that time of year.

I can see the logic behind that. Would you pick the Staal/Player A if the Sharp/Player B had more points? Let's say 90 to Player A's 80?

 

[ChuckW]

I pose a question:

Let's assume, that for the rest of his career, Staal is as inconsistent as he was this year. He'll have a dominant second half, but a very poor first one. Despite this, he finishes the year with a PPG consistently.

Now take another player, like Patrick Sharp. Sharp is the definition of consistency. He's produced at least a point in 42 of the 69 games he's played. Over an entire season, that comes out to about 70 points.

Would you take the player A: A Staal-like player that, when he's on, plays at a higher level and produces more points at the end of the season or player B: the Sharp-like player that's consistent throughout the year, but doesn't produce the same numbers?

Player A if he's like Staal and heats up in the playoffs. He dominated NJ in that series...Player B is consistent but that means probably not being able to elevate his game in the second season.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The problem with Player B is that he might not actually win games for you. His tendency to score a point every game is great, but it may not have a hugr effect on the final results of his games. He might be scoring the lone goal in a 3-1 loss, or an assist on the last goal in a 3-1 win. His points ensure you're always in the game, but that's all.

Player A is going to be dead weight sometimes, but he's going to practically guarantee a certain number of wins by himself. If he scores 3 points in a game, the team should win. Let alone 4 or 5 points, in which case he singlehandedly gives you a W.

If I'm just trying to make the playoffs, I want Player A every time. That's a guy you build around. Player B sounds more like a key complimentary player who you'd want on a contender.

As far as the second part of the question, it's hard to put a specific number on it... I'd say about a 10-point buffer zone for Player A.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

Player A every time. Come crunch time I want a guy who's gonna go out and win you games by himself.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Player B reminds me too much of Ray Whitney.

And the idea of building a contender around Ray Whitney is....

 

[Mr Whipple]

Staal would be the ultimate rental player.

 

[Anton Babchuk]

Staal would be the ultimate rental player.

Yeah, the team that gets him at the 2016 deadline is going to get a steal.

 

[ChuckW]

Player B reminds me too much of Ray Whitney.

And the idea of building a contender around Ray Whitney is....

I hear he wasn't a "real" Hurricane anyway.

 

[RobbyPancakes]

I shudder to think of what Staal would be capable of given the right talent around him, actually.

This. Staal's already got Skinner, who has amazing potential and could be better than Ovie and Crosby, but with even more talent, this team WILL be Stanley Cup Finalists again.