GDT: Rookie Showdown: Montreal Canadiens vs. Winnipeg Jets (7PM on RDS.ca, TSN.ca)

[SergeConstantin74]

I have received few attacks from fan when i saidwe havent elite player. Thats what this tournament explain. If suzuki/piehlig/brook were in another league, they had to destroy this tournament. They were just okay.

Didn't KK look bad last year?

 

[Maitz]

A lot of you will disagree but I think Suzuki is a better fit at center and Poehling on LW

 

[Andrei79]

It's not about winning the games. It's about talking about players that were there. Not sure why people can't handle that. And by the way, I don't know why people keep saying it's meaningless. Do you think the management don't take those games into account when it's time to invite guys to the main camp or let them play a preseason game?

The great part about people defending players having bad games would be the first to praise them if they would have great games. Suddenly, the meaningless games wouldn't be so meaningless after all.

Yes, those games don't say who will have a career or not. You shouldn't define a player's future based on that. But if you already had an idea on this or that player, it's possible that those games were added to what you already thought of those guys good or bad. I personnally always loved Cale Fleury. From the day he was picked and before. Those games make me think that I'm not wrong to like it. Should I be punish for it? Or because it's positive, everything is good? At the same time though, while I didn't like Fondstad and McShane progression good enough....to see them be so invisible this weekend dissapoint me. Am I allowed to? I also believed Leguerrier was a stupid pick based on his play and stats. And this weekend, he did look out of place. Though, pretty normal for a 1st year player. He clearly didn't make me change my position on him though...that' sfor sure. Yet, Fairbrother made me want to look at him more this year...etc.

In the end...why creating a thread on a game if we can't discuss it?

There's a nuance here. The players being discussed (namely Suzuki) have consistent high end pre and post draft performances. He even had a great game yesterday. Setting arbitrary and ridiculous expectations on players after months without competitive hockey and making conclusions after they don't achieve those expectations basically closes any potential constructive discussion. I think, for example, that it would likely be very easy to find high end players who didn't dominate these tourneys. All the prerequisites for someone not being at the top of his game are there. Is a good performance a positive ? Of course it is. Can you project future performance from a poor showing ? Likely not. Likely even less with a player with a history consistent high end league play. It likely speaks more of the real value of the tournament than of the player.

 

[ZUKI]

Zero wins in two consecutive rookie tournaments. Not sure what value they bring

 

[Skip Bayless]

I told y'all they were all busts

 

[Habs Icing]

In the end...why creating a thread on a game if we can't discuss it?

Discussing the game is one thing. Predicting an Apocolypse is another thing.

Maybe if in the offseason we hadn't made predictions where a Poehling displaced a Domi to the wing or even traded off the team, we would have watched these past two games with a little more objectivity. The sports cliche "don't get too high or too low" should not apply only to athletes. Fans should also follow that advice.

 

[Just Linda]

It's not about winning the games. It's about talking about players that were there. Not sure why people can't handle that. And by the way, I don't know why people keep saying it's meaningless. Do you think the management don't take those games into account when it's time to invite guys to the main camp or let them play a preseason game?

The great part about people defending players having bad games would be the first to praise them if they would have great games. Suddenly, the meaningless games wouldn't be so meaningless after all.

Yes, those games don't say who will have a career or not. You shouldn't define a player's future based on that. But if you already had an idea on this or that player, it's possible that those games were added to what you already thought of those guys good or bad. I personnally always loved Cale Fleury. From the day he was picked and before. Those games make me think that I'm not wrong to like it. Should I be punish for it? Or because it's positive, everything is good? At the same time though, while I didn't like Fondstad and McShane progression good enough....to see them be so invisible this weekend dissapoint me. Am I allowed to? I also believed Leguerrier was a stupid pick based on his play and stats. And this weekend, he did look out of place. Though, pretty normal for a 1st year player. He clearly didn't make me change my position on him though...that' sfor sure. Yet, Fairbrother made me want to look at him more this year...etc.

In the end...why creating a thread on a game if we can't discuss it?

Discussing if is one thing but so far in this thread I've seen people talk about us overrating our pool and down right dismissing players. Discussing say Brook's wrong decision making is one thing, saying our pool is bad is another.

Saying that I wish Brook and Shank would have battled is a third thing but far more highly specific and irrelevant to anything (Yohohoho)

 

[Andrei79]

Didn't KK look bad last year?

Some Leafs fans were losing their minds about Marner after the 2016 rookie tournament. Only 1 point, didn't dominate offensively, looked weak physically, most people saying he needed to be sent down... Only to proceed and score 60 points that year.

 

[expy]

Man, that game last night was brutal, it was like watching the NHL team, but 500 times worse.

 

[Treb]

Back to rookie thread.