TBN: Murray is thrilled by Reinhart’s play

[dasaybz]

I'll reserve my thrills and giddiness for when he doesn't look smallish and overwhelmed at the pro level. His accomplishments in the jr. tourney are great, but it's more of the same with him. He had nothing left to prove there.

Do you always get giddy when guys look big?

 

[Clock]

Use the ignore feature if you want to, but let's please keep this on topic from here out.

 

[Ralonzo]

I don't know why people are freaking out for asking the question of whether lack of speed/physicality would hinder Samson at the highest level. It's the highest level for a reason. I think people can safely say that Hodgson's lack of speed and (perhaps willful) physicality is a detriment to his game. You can argue that point and not be trolling. Hell, didn't Friedmann just say Reinhart's ceiling was Justin Williams?

I haven't come down on one side or the other. Way too early. But stating that he did not cope with the speed and physicality of the NHL this year, is that really all that controversial? And consequently asking will those areas of his game grow enough to become an elite 1C, or a very nice complementary player like Williams, or go down the Hodgson ski slope, that's a valid discussion, is it not?

Murray is happy as can be with his development so far and esp at the WJC, and that can be fairly said for most everyone that's a fan.

 

[Mit Yarrum]

Use the ignore feature if you want to, but let's please keep this on topic from here out.

The issue is that while I can ignore Takeo, I can't do anything about the 20 posts after he trolls a thread predictably and thoroughly.

 

[brian_griffin]

Do you always get giddy when guys look big?

That reads like a line from "Airplane"...

I don't know why people are freaking out for asking the question of whether lack of speed/physicality would hinder Samson at the highest level. It's the highest level for a reason. I think people can safely say that Hodgson's lack of speed and (perhaps willful) physicality is a detriment to his game. You can argue that point and not be trolling. Hell, didn't Friedmann just say Reinhart's ceiling was Justin Williams?

I haven't come down on one side or the other. Way too early. But stating that he did not cope with the speed and physicality of the NHL this year, is that really all that controversial? And consequently asking will those areas of his game grow enough to become an elite 1C, or a very nice complementary player like Williams, or go down the Hodgson ski slope, that's a valid discussion, is it not?

Murray is happy as can be with his development so far and esp at the WJC, and that can be fairly said for most everyone that's a fan.

This is a balanced post / assessment. The length of the reply helps to keep the "load balanced" and not tilt this thread off the rails. Thanks.

As joshjull noted, Murray's quotes were posted, without assigning more or less meaning to them than that.

IMO, the WJC assessment spectrum for any player has 5 delineations of objective / subjective pairings:
1. (Player) Underperforms, and is called out for it (by organization).
2. Underperforms, and is minimized / propped up for it.
3. Matches expectations, doesn't really matter how they spin it.
4. Exceeds expectations, and is minimized / downplayed for it.
5. Exceeds expectations, and is praised for it.

I take Murray's comments in the nearly 5 or 5 range of the spectrum.

Even if a player was a total dominant force playing 40 minutes a game and single-handedly won the tournament for his country, no people-developer / manager worth his salt would use a public forum to do anything other than praise the person and the performance, and publicly encourage that individual to continue advancing to the next level. It would be damning with faint praise to PUBLICLY point out the individual could not stick beyond his 9-game tryout, historic players have had great tournies who didn't translate to dominant NHL careers, etc. What good would that serve?