troyerlaw
Life is party again
I can count on one finger the number of truly crappy games i've seen 87 play. But it happened tonite.
Plus, the PIT goalies suck.
Plus, the PIT goalies suck.
I can count on one finger the number of truly crappy games i've seen 87 play. But it happened tonite.
Plus, the PIT goalies suck.
He loafs around on defense half the time. It was especially obvious against Philly last year. For all the crap Ovechkin gets he's a winger who is supposed to be up high and he hustles back as hard as anyone if he's the one who turns the puck over.
Who cares about facts though when you can just be all like controller disconnected herpity derp.
Ok, you baited twice, I'll bite. No where ever have I said I'd prefer Crosby to Ovi, or have I said that Crosby is a better leader than Ovi. Ovi's play and leadership is unrelated to Crosby's, not connected to it other than comparisons made by other people, not by me. But feel free to put any words you want into my mouth to fit your own narrative that says Ovi is in fact a good leader... He's not. But that has nothing to do with Crosby, Crosby's history, or his current choke job after dominating for two previous rounds.
I'm curious as to what experience you have with Ovechkin's leadership that could lead you to forming an educated opinion on the matter.
We've had this discussion already. Its the visible things he does, like pouting on the bench, loafing for long stretches when he doesn't like the coaching system, complaining about the refs after losing a series where he scores 3 points in 7 games, backchecking about 50% of the time to the point where when he does actually back check aggressively, the announcers and the HF boards point it out as some sort of evidence that he's really committed, when he should in fact play like that all the time. Showing up to camp visibly fat then producing one of the slowest starts of his career.
For the salary he's making, and wearing the C, none of those visible things should be accepted.
So, in other words, speculation about whats visible on TV, which really provides no actual insight, whatsoever, into what kind of leader he is.
We'll just assume he sucks at leadership, I guess, because thats what all the visible evidence shows us.
So, in other words, speculation about whats visible on TV, which really provides no actual insight, whatsoever, into what kind of leader he is.
We'll just assume he sucks, I guess, despite any evidence to the contrary.
Maybe leadership is overrated...
Had to stop reading immediately. Leadership is underrated. Its everything, its critical. Leadership is what gets ordinary players to play above their heads, its what gets selfish players to buy into team concepts, its what gets individuals to put the team above their own goals. Leadership is what gets scared men to charge up a beach into machine gun fire, and other incredible acts of bravery throughout history.
While it can be said that not every great leader wins a championship, it can be said that championships are never won without great leadership. That Lidstrom didn't win every Cup, doesn't mean Detroit would have won their last Cup without his leadership. Or Chara, or Toews, etc etc going back through history.
Being a great leader does not automatically win championships, but championships are not won without it. And yes, leadership can and must come from the coach, but it also needs to exist on the ice, in the dressing room, when the coach isn't there.
Leadership is under rated, and its what's missing from the Caps organization for decades, and its why I went on the Scott Stevens rant last week. From Ted to George to the current Captain, there is a leadership void and the results speak for themselves.
Only thing I will say in regards to this is, yes, leadership is underrated. That said leadership is also displayed differently with everyone. Some are more visually leading, some are meek, some lead by example, there are numerous ways someone can lead.
Agreed... but while that is true, what is also true is that leadership always exhibits certain qualities, and some things that we see from a distance are things that real leaders would not do. Pouting on the bench and giving half efforts are not signs of leadership.
Disappointment vs. Pouting. Speculation. Visually I agree, it does not scream "exuberant leader" to me either. However on the flipside, I thought he was one of the few who consistently carried this team on his back, for the playoff push. Something happened mid series, now whether it was injury, or emotions surrounding the officiating, or all of the above, or none of the above. Dunno. You and I, I'm sure would rather him bust through a wall at that point but.
So then the question is, do we give him a free pass for his let downs, because he has carried the team on his back for stretches in the past?
IMO, when you are paid like a top 10 superstar and wear the C, you don't get a free pass for loafing in the playoffs or for extended stretches of the regular season. The demands and expectations are commensurate with the salary, the C, and the talent/potential that the player has. You are expected to give 100% effort 100% of the time. If you do that the results will come.
I'll never understand why some Caps fans feel the need to deify him. He's a great player, and arguably the best in the league, but he's far from perfect.
Hockey basics like offense and defense are not trumped by leadership. Sorry, it still comes down to goals. Goalie play is underrated & is far more important than a player showing leadership on any given day.
GM's do not focus solely on leadership in every player they draft and acquire, it seems secondary. They may add a leader at the trade deadline. How often does that work?
Its easy to look at any teams best player, or the guy that gives the hardest effort, or a vocal guy, and proclaim them the leader. Can it not be argued, that one may just have the most pure skill, one may simply work the hardest, and one may simply be a loudmouth? Or be the oldest, or the big brother type, simply a good fighter.
We seem quick to anoint the king on the ice but at the end of the day, he is just a dude that loves to play hockey.
First guy out the trench may be the bravest, or he may simply be the most angry. Can sheer anger lead to leadership? Dale seemed that type of leader.
If we beat the Rangers two seasons ago and went to the conf finals, who was our leader? Was it low TOI Ovi? Laich, or was it Holtby? We regressed this year, did we lose leaders.
The leadership was provided by Dale. And it was Bruce before that, now it is Oates. When the private refuses to leave thetrenchbench, the coach gets fired.
The coaches role in getting 100% effort (leader material) out of his players is underrated.
Perhaps leaders on the ice are simply future coaches, and current assistants.
Kicksavedave, the leader you want only exist in ferry-tails. Is Ovechkin a perfect leader? Probably not. Do we have anybody better suited for this role? Definitely not.
All the players, to a man, say everything they can to support and elevate Ovie. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that he's respected as a leader.Lets play this game in reverse. Tell me one thing about Ovi that is an indication of his great leadership? Lets not confuse talent with leadership either, Semin was talented, no one ever confused Semin for a "leader".
Of course "we" do. Ovechkin shouldn't have been named captain, but he was, and now there's nothing anyone can realistically do about it.
I guess I have some hope that Holtby can partially fill the leadership void long-term. Backstrom's apparent lack of preparation or whatever in the playoffs has soured me somewhat on his potential. He needs to assert himself more, but Alzner is probably the proper captain of the team. He's actually responsible and team-focused, unlike the big-mouthed media whores everyone thinks are good leaders.