Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Jeff Gorton

Status
Not open for further replies.
SnowblindNYR

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
52,094
30,685
Brooklyn, NY
Bozle said:
I know this will be contested

I don’t fault anyone for not wanting that piece of ****, but honestly I just want good players on my team. I can separate off ice from on ice there, I get it if other people disagree.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree. A guy doing a f***ed up thing means he should never work again?
 
silverfish

silverfish

got perma'd
Jun 24, 2008
34,644
4,353
under the bridge
Bozle said:
I know this will be contested

I don’t fault anyone for not wanting that piece of ****, but honestly I just want good players on my team. I can separate off ice from on ice there, I get it if other people disagree.
Click to expand...
Gonna take this thread OT and I don't feel like fighting anyone today. I just want you to know that this is a truly, egregiously trash take.
 
Miamipuck

Miamipuck

Al Swearengen
Dec 29, 2009
7,411
2,693
Take a Wild Guess
SnowblindNYR said:
I guess when I hear character I don't think of the bare minimum that should be expected of a pro athlete. When I hear character I think of players that lay a lot of hits, block a lot of shots, and fight, but don't necessarily have good skill. How often do you hear about Sidney Crosby's character despite having one of the best work ethics in the NHL? You only hear about it with guys like Glass.
Click to expand...

I am fairly certain defining the loose definition of character applicable to Gorton's line of thought or thought process you can look at 2 shining examples: Sidney Crosby and Jagr. They're not only generational talents, they have the work ethic to match their skills.

Of course nowadays, you have to win the lottery outright to receive an opportunity to draft those two. But in the context of examples, they're perfect. You're giving up no skill and getting players that will do the extra work that another will not.

So if there's a choice between 2 players, one where his work ethic or off the ice behavior doesn't match but the other one is a gym rat, gets along with teammates, is always looked as a Captain or volunteers in the offseason at a retirement community in between workouts, the Rangers will pick the guy with the better intangibles.

I think it's just a way of saying absence of other tiebreakers or all things being equal, they're going to look for the little things a player does. It's not science or anything. I also think if there's a disparity in skill they won't ignore that, they'll pick the skilled guy first.

In reality though, there's razor thin margins between all of these kids save for the top 1 or 2. So you're kind of honor bound as a talent evaluator to dig deeper and find the guy with better intangibles you believe will make the chances of player A to be more successful than player B.

It could be anything from work ethic to how he gets along with teammates. Lets face it there's a heck of a lot more to making a team than just finding the 20 most talented players you can. There's a lot of moving parts/personalities needed to make a successful hockey team.


To be clear: I am only concerned about character because of the razor thin margins and a way of differentiating 2 prospects all things basically equal. I don't think it should be a sole reason to draft a player. Also no European players because they're soft and have no character. lol
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides
Oscar Lindberg

Oscar Lindberg

Registered User
Dec 14, 2015
15,647
14,478
CA
Voynov is trash but there’s nothing to see here

He still property of the kings and they been talking about building around character, which goes against everything he is

Just a BS report to drive up interest
 
haveandare

haveandare

Registered User
Jul 2, 2009
18,929
7,462
New York
Bozle said:
I know this will be contested

I don’t fault anyone for not wanting that piece of ****, but honestly I just want good players on my team. I can separate off ice from on ice there, I get it if other people disagree.
Click to expand...
I mean, if it's something like having a big mouth, having strange interests, whatever - being physically abusive to women is pretty far beyond what I'm okay with overlooking for the sake of hockey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miamipuck and silverfish
YoSoyLalo

YoSoyLalo

me reading HF
Oct 8, 2010
79,325
16,781
www.gofundme.com
haveandare said:
I mean, if it's something like having a big mouth, having strange interests, whatever - being physically abusive to women is pretty far beyond what I'm okay with overlooking for the sake of hockey.
Click to expand...
You’re right. I don’t know what I was thinking when i posted that, I guess I was trying to justify our interest in him, but he shouldn’t even be a consideration. Thankfully, it seems to be bogus, I wouldn’t even wanna see the thread on here if we signed him. It’d be ugly, rightfully so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare and Miamipuck
SnowblindNYR

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
52,094
30,685
Brooklyn, NY
Miamipuck said:
I am fairly certain defining the loose definition of character applicable to Gorton's line of thought or thought process you can look at 2 shining examples: Sidney Crosby and Jagr. They're not only generational talents, they have the work ethic to match their skills.

Of course nowadays, you have to win the lottery outright to receive an opportunity to draft those two. But in the context of examples, they're perfect. You're giving up no skill and getting players that will do the extra work that another will not.

So if there's a choice between 2 players, one where his work ethic or off the ice behavior doesn't match but the other one is a gym rat, gets along with teammates, is always looked as a Captain or volunteers in the offseason at a retirement community in between workouts, the Rangers will pick the guy with the better intangibles.

I think it's just a way of saying absence of other tiebreakers or all things being equal, they're going to look for the little things a player does. It's not science or anything. I also think if there's a disparity in skill they won't ignore that, they'll pick the skilled guy first.

In reality though, there's razor thin margins between all of these kids save for the top 1 or 2. So you're kind of honor bound as a talent evaluator to dig deeper and find the guy with better intangibles you believe will make the chances of player A to be more successful than player B.

It could be anything from work ethic to how he gets along with teammates. Lets face it there's a heck of a lot more to making a team than just finding the 20 most talented players you can. There's a lot of moving parts/personalities needed to make a successful hockey team.


To be clear: I am only concerned about character because of the razor thin margins and a way of differentiating 2 prospects all things basically equal. I don't think it should be a sole reason to draft a player.
Click to expand...

But my point is Crosby was all those things in 2005 and no one talked about his character because he had so much else to offer. That's why I think it's a red flag when the first thing you hear about is a player's character.
 
Miamipuck

Miamipuck

Al Swearengen
Dec 29, 2009
7,411
2,693
Take a Wild Guess
SnowblindNYR said:
But my point is Crosby was all those things in 2005 and no one talked about his character because he had so much else to offer. That's why I think it's a red flag when the first thing you hear about is a player's character.
Click to expand...


They didn't have to Crosby was that talented. Let's face it even if he was a lazy player with his skill level he would have been drafted first. I think it's applicable when the difference is negligible like pretty much every player say 5 or 6 thru 14 or 14 thru 25. I just used Crosby as an example. I am just thinking it's basically a tie breaker absent a noticeable difference between a block of available players.
 
Off Sides

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
Miamipuck said:
I am fairly certain defining the loose definition of character applicable to Gorton's line of thought or thought process you can look at 2 shining examples: Sidney Crosby and Jagr. They're not only generational talents, they have the work ethic to match their skills.

Of course nowadays, you have to win the lottery outright to receive an opportunity to draft those two. But in the context of examples, they're perfect. You're giving up no skill and getting players that will do the extra work that another will not.

So if there's a choice between 2 players, one where his work ethic or off the ice behavior doesn't match but the other one is a gym rat, gets along with teammates, is always looked as a Captain or volunteers in the offseason at a retirement community in between workouts, the Rangers will pick the guy with the better intangibles.

I think it's just a way of saying absence of other tiebreakers or all things being equal, they're going to look for the little things a player does. It's not science or anything. I also think if there's a disparity in skill they won't ignore that, they'll pick the skilled guy first.

In reality though, there's razor thin margins between all of these kids save for the top 1 or 2. So you're kind of honor bound as a talent evaluator to dig deeper and find the guy with better intangibles you believe will make the chances of player A to be more successful than player B.

It could be anything from work ethic to how he gets along with teammates. Lets face it there's a heck of a lot more to making a team than just finding the 20 most talented players you can. There's a lot of moving parts/personalities needed to make a successful hockey team.
Click to expand...


You've played, you know good teams have talented yet difficult personalities (jerks) on them and there are several ways to mitigate that sort of stuff without the standard operating procedure being not to have them on the team. Does not mean if a equally talented "nice" player were available a team would not make that trade, but that is almost never the case, and sometimes those "jerks" actually have ways to influence a team in a positive manner because they are also bigger "jerks" to the other team, and oddly enough in certain games those "jerks" get their own team woken up, to put it one way, where as they'd be sleep walking through that game if not for them. There is no way to build a perfect locker room atmosphere and really I'm not sure if there was it would not just end up in complacency.

Not saying they need a felon or someone who would be or anything towards that effect, but they also do not need a group of nice guys who all get along either.
 
Miamipuck

Miamipuck

Al Swearengen
Dec 29, 2009
7,411
2,693
Take a Wild Guess
Off Sides said:
You've played, you know good teams have talented yet difficult personalities (jerks) on them and there are several ways to mitigate that sort of stuff without the standard operating procedure being not to have them on the team. Does not mean if a equally talented "nice" player were available a team would not make that trade, but that is almost never the case, and sometimes those "jerks" actually have ways to influence a team in a positive manner because they are also bigger "jerks" to the other team, and oddly enough in certain games those "jerks" get their own team woken up, to put it one way, where as they'd be sleep walking through that game if not for them. There is no way to build a perfect locker room atmosphere and really I'm not sure if there was it would not just end up in complacency.

Not saying they need a felon or someone who would be or anything towards that effect, but they also do not need a group of nice guys who all get along either.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with you.

Well to speak of character in a forum setting you have to use glaring polar examples. Sure you can have a jerk on a team. I was a jackass on the ice when I was younger. Not dirty just I had the unique ability to find the asshole on the other team. I was the Captain an awful lot when I was younger. I just wanted to win and did all the little things needed to do to win, for context I was a Stepan like player, with a worse temper.lol For example, I was adept at knowing when the team needed a timeout or crap like that. Obviously there are no coaches in a beer league.

I think there are 2 distinctions. Using the beer league as anecdotal evidence, jerks on the ice do not equal jerks off the ice. Plus not everyone liked each other per se but the best teams I was on always got along outside of hockey. Of course, it was broken up into 2-3 groups. Can you accomplish that in a pro setting? I am not sure, I have never had to build a team and I am not going to lie, I am pretty far from a pro hockey player. I have played with 100's though. Quite honestly, apart from skill, which is otherworldly compared to a beer league guy, they're just like you or I. Almost all the ones I have met are really cool guys.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom