Players who had everything.. BUT hockey sense.

[KenAF]

Kovalev is the first player I thought of. If he had the hockey sense of some others, I think he'd be one of the best players of his generation.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Ed Jovanovski was the first name to come to mind. Capable of dominating games when he made the right choices. But some nights, wow, he was a liability out there. He seems to have settled down since losing his wheels. But he was practically bi-polar for a while there, and when he was down, he had absolutly no hockey sense.

 

[Vector]

Ed Jovanovski was the first name to come to mind. Capable of dominating games when he made the right choices. But some nights, wow, he was a liability out there. He seems to have settled down since losing his wheels. But he was practically bi-polar for a while there, and when he was down, he had absolutly no hockey sense.

He's another one. At times could dominate and then make you think "Why are you doing that?". To me Jovo was overly enthusiastic.

 

[Stephen]

He's another one. At times could dominate and then make you think "Why are you doing that?". To me Jovo was overly enthusiastic.

Interesting. Jovo didn't start playing hockey till the age of 11, so I think his hockey sense really lags behind.

 

[Killiecrankie*]

Alexandre Daigle

No, daigle was a smart hockey player. His problem was he didnt want to play hockey. Knowing you have to go into the corners but not feeling like it is completely different from not being able to read the play. Even when he was "dedicated" during his "comeback" the guy clearly didn't want to go into the high traffic areas to score goals. The guy had everything....but desire.

When he finally did start to put it together with the Wild it was too late, he was what 35 years old and still a very soft player.

 

[Killiecrankie*]

Kovalev is the first player I thought of. If he had the hockey sense of some others, I think he'd be one of the best players of his generation.

Agree to an extent, though Kovalev was also guilty of taking of taking a skate in the park a few times a year also....

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Interesting topic, I like the vote for Fata. However, how about the player who had the least limited ability but the best hockey sense, and was able to have a successful career because of it?

depends how you define success. michel petit was in the league for nearly 20 years without a lick of hockey sense.

 

[seventieslord]

No, daigle was a smart hockey player. His problem was he didnt want to play hockey. Knowing you have to go into the corners but not feeling like it is completely different from not being able to read the play. Even when he was "dedicated" during his "comeback" the guy clearly didn't want to go into the high traffic areas to score goals. The guy had everything....but desire.

When he finally did start to put it together with the Wild it was too late, he was what 35 years old and still a very soft player.

Keep in mind Daigle is a 1993 draft pick, so he's only as old as Pronger, Kariya, McCabe, and Gratton.. they're all 33 right now... Daigle played his last NHL game three seasons ago at age 31.

 

[BNHL]

How about Brian Lawton?

 

[MasqueOfTheRedDeath*]

Stan Chistov comes to mind.

 

[brownman*]

With a career PPG near 0.8, I just don't see how you can put Kovalev in this thread. He hasn't tallied 879 points on skill alone. Could he have A LOT more? Yes. But Daigle, Fata, Tanabe, Kovalev? Nope.

 

[Dark Shadows]

With a career PPG near 0.8, I just don't see how you can put Kovalev in this thread. He hasn't tallied 879 points on skill alone. Could he have A LOT more? Yes. But Daigle, Fata, Tanabe, Kovalev? Nope.

I think you missed the point of this thread.

The point was not to find unsuccessful players who had skill. But players who had tremendous skill, but little in the ways of hockey sense. Whether they had success or not with their lack of hockey sense was not the point.

And yes, Kovalev fits that description like a glove. Kovalev's skating, shooting, passing and stickhandling was on par with the greatest ever. His lack of hockey sense is a big part of what kept him out of the greatest ever.

 

[brownman*]

Truth be told, only Paul Gross' latest directorial outing knows what the exact point of the thread was. All it says is "Players who had everything.. BUT hockey sense."

That had, to me, insinuates players who got nowhere.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

Billy Tibbetts

This is the big people room, please behave

 

[Dark Shadows]

Truth be told, only Paul Gross' latest directorial outing knows what the exact point of the thread was. All it says is "Players who had everything.. BUT hockey sense."

That had, to me, insinuates players who got nowhere.

And to me, it insinuated Kovalev, and many others echoed that sentiment.

 

[brownman*]

That direction makes it an even less interesting topic of discussion. What's the point in keying on Kovalev's below-average hockey sense when he has almost 900 points? Everyone knows he could have 1200 by now. Seems more "worthwhile" to key on ultra-talented busts or long-timers who accomplished squat.

Again, when someone asks me, "do you remember any players who had everything.. BUT hockey sense," the last player I think of is one who is currently considered amongst the finest in the league.

 

[Epsilon]

That direction makes it an even less interesting topic of discussion. What's the point in keying on Kovalev's below-average hockey sense when he has almost 900 points? Everyone knows he could have 1200 by now. Seems more "worthwhile" to key on ultra-talented busts or long-timers who accomplished squat.

Again, when someone asks me, "do you remember any players who had everything.. BUT hockey sense," the last player I think of is one who is currently considered amongst the finest in the league.

No, Kovalev is the perfect type of player to bring up in a thread like this because he completely fits the thread topic. A lot of "ultra-talented busts" were missing a lot more than just hockey sense, whereas guys like Kovalev and Ed Jovanovski (a great contribution to the thread, kudos to whoever brought him up first) are not.

 

[Beauty eh?]

Steve Kelly. Great wheels, no hockey sense whatsoever.

 

[Dark Shadows]

That direction makes it an even less interesting topic of discussion. What's the point in keying on Kovalev's below-average hockey sense when he has almost 900 points? Everyone knows he could have 1200 by now. Seems more "worthwhile" to key on ultra-talented busts or long-timers who accomplished squat.

Again, when someone asks me, "do you remember any players who had everything.. BUT hockey sense," the last player I think of is one who is currently considered amongst the finest in the league.

Yet just about everyone else said "The first person I thought of was Kovalev"

I think the problem here is YOU have a different definition of what this topic should be about than everyone else.

Kovalev had almost as much individual skill as Mario Lemieux. Given a lick of Mario's hockey sense and anticipation, Kovalev could have been a 1800 point player. To me, and just about everyone else, that fits this discussion like a glove.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Jimmy Carson or Petr Klima

 

[brownman*]

Somehow I don't equate 4 or 5 people as "everyone else" but that's neither here nor there.

I guess where I differ with "everyone else" on the OP is the use of the word HAD, the past participle of have, as in who HAD all the tools and gifts except brains, indicating players who aren't in the league today be it prospect busts or players from the past that, again, stuck around but didn't do much. The "Can you recall any?" kinda nails home that interpretation for me as well.

Regardless, we can all agree that Kovalev could have been so much more.

EDIT: Funny though, until last night I completely forgot about my Kovalev avatar making me look like a homer.

 

[Matty Sundin]

Alexei Kovalev.

People talk about how he underperforms because he is lazy or doesn't try hard, but I really think it's just a lack of good hockey sense.

As soon as I saw this thread, the first person I thought of was Kovalev.

 

[raygunpk]

How do you define hockey sense?

 

[poise]

I had great expectations from Janne Niinimaa who impressed me a ton as a rookie (one Philadelphia writer commented that he was the Flyer's best Player in the Playoffs), but God help him, the guy just wasn't so bright. Still a good Defenseman for some time.

 

[MXD]

I kinda missed the early part of his career, but would Behn Wilson fit this description? Ian Turnbull (or was it just pure inconsistency...)