Media and fans labelling Players "nice" and "smart"

[Pressure]

Is anyone else sick of this?
For example, Dubnyk was labelled smart because he was a scholastic player of the year in Kamloops, then he was "nice" in the locker room and to media personnel. They literally pull this up everytime they defend or referred to him as if it had an effect on his ice play.
We honestly shouldn't give a crap about how smart or nice they are, just as long as they can play hockey and have the drive to win.

I care about 3 things that will keep a player on my team:

1) Good teammate
2) Motivated to win
3) Skilled/Ice smarts

Dubnyk was hard to move near the end because he was so bloody nice. Fans didn't want to give up on him because he was nice. Give me a freaking break. He was terrible in the net and often costed us games. Move him! Heard if for years, Dan "gd" Tencer liked Dubnyk and often defended him because he was a good quote anytime. Brainwashing fairweather fans like sheep.

I'm seeing the same thing with Scrivens. Geez, the guy is so smart, he's the Professor. He's a nice guy, he's going to pull a dictionary out of his jersey mid game and bore the players to sleep with words they've never heard of. Unless he's using that book as an extra blocker I could care less, get your ass on the ice and give me results, otherwise you're sitting.

/rant.

Click to read more...

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

They've been marketing this for years
Character > Talent

 

[Beerfish]

Our front office is smart though......

 

[Horseradish]

They've been marketing this for years
Character > Talent

Absolutely. Between the triumvirate of Matheson, Jones, and Dan Barnes (who, it seems to me, has been replaced by Spector since moving upstairs to the Journal editorial board), if 2 of those 3 have been critical of players, they were on their way out sooner than later. If all three have been, that player's as good as gone.

And it's always something to do with how the player acts on the ice or in the dressing room, rather than his actual skill..

Hemsky was rather surly and quiet in the room-- enemy.
Gilbert wasn't particularly crusty and mean-looking on the ice-- enemy.
Ryan Jones, pretty much useless outside of the one year he almost potted 20, was a chatty-Kathy in the room and had a mean streak on the ice, so he was given every. single. benefit. of. the. doubt.

The biggest dismay I can remember seeing in the media over a player being traded was Smid. Granted, it was a bad trade. But more than anything, he was a good guy in the room and a mean son-of-a-gun on the ice. But Gilbert for an inferior d-man? Hum and haw. Pitkanen for a pending UFA in Cole? Meh, *insert character/crust/leadership reference*. Lubo for a clearly inferior Whitney (even at his peak)? RAH-RAH. All HORRIFIC trades where we lost one of our most important players. But Smid, a stay-at-home 2nd or 3rd pairing d-man? OUTRAGE.

 

[Tyrolean]

Having knowledge and education doesn't necessarily make you wise. That's been proven over and over again.

 

[oobga]

All I know is in Ben's last post-game interview he didn't seem professorial at all.

And in Ference's he looked like a little wimpy kid that just got his lunch money stolen.

 

[thadd]

I totally agree.

We don't need character. We need more team toughness. Or at least a little.

Seriously. Yakupov is our most dangerous hitter right now.... which is awesome and horribly sad at the same time.

 

[Pressure]

They've been marketing this for years
Character > Talent

This kills me and it's so true. Our team is screaming for that edgy player with some skill for years. We need a **** disturber out there who may not be the most upstanding citizen off the ice.

 

[Pros and Cons]

I totally agree.

We don't need character. We need more team toughness. Or at least a little.

Seriously. Yakupov is our most dangerous hitter right now.... which is awesome and horribly sad at the same time.

Do you win with a line of 3 Yakupov's or 3 Hall's?
Both of those guys have huge hearts and play like they care... Eberle looks like a paycheque casher.

 

[Pressure]

Absolutely. Between the triumvirate of Matheson, Jones, and Dan Barnes (who, it seems to me, has been replaced by Spector since moving upstairs to the Journal editorial board), if 2 of those 3 have been critical of players, they were on their way out sooner than later. If all three have been, that player's as good as gone.

And it's always something to do with how the player acts on the ice or in the dressing room, rather than his actual skill..

Hemsky was rather surly and quiet in the room-- enemy.
Gilbert wasn't particularly crusty and mean-looking on the ice-- enemy.
Ryan Jones, pretty much useless outside of the one year he almost potted 20, was a chatty-Kathy in the room and had a mean streak on the ice, so he was given every. single. benefit. of. the. doubt.

The biggest dismay I can remember seeing in the media over a player being traded was Smid. Granted, it was a bad trade. But more than anything, he was a good guy in the room and a mean son-of-a-gun on the ice. But Gilbert for an inferior d-man? Hum and haw. Pitkanen for a pending UFA in Cole? Meh, *insert character/crust/leadership reference*. Lubo for a clearly inferior Whitney (even at his peak)? RAH-RAH. All HORRIFIC trades where we lost one of our most important players. But Smid, a stay-at-home 2nd or 3rd pairing d-man? OUTRAGE.

I think one of the worst non moves was Gagner to be honest. He had an extremely long leash for sucking up to management and saying the right things in the paper. Media pundits showered him with applause and believe it or not has an impact on how fans think of a player making it harder to move them. He apparently was always available for media scrums and after hard losses. When I think of Gags I think of that kid in class that sat in the front row and nodded his head vehemently as the teacher lectured.

 

[Replacement*]

They've been marketing this for years
Character > Talent

Trouble is they say it so much, and about so many players, that they then have difficulty discerning guys with character from guys without it.

While they toss useful Centers like Stoll, Brodziak, and then suffer on the dot for countless years after.

You can look at a lot of the depth problems in this org, go back to past unneccesary roster changes and letting guys walk and theres players in that list that could have made a difference here.

When this team actually has character players it feels they're not talented enough or something. A whole lot of grass is always greener goes on with this org. I don't know that any other team in the league comes close to the amount of roster changes we've had since the lockout. We've had like multiple different complete lineups since then

its a bloody expansion team.

California Seals model