• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Guest DeGraa55

Honest question for everyone.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest DeGraa55

How long do you have to see a player or team doing something before you put a label on them?

Like for example I've seen people call Franzen a 30 goal a year scorer even though he has done it once.

I'm just curious what peoples timelines are for putting a label on someone.

For me it's 2-3 years.

That's why I've personally given Weiss the injury prone tag cause that's how his last few years have been. But if he stays healthy for the rest of this year and next then I'll remove that injury prone label and pencil him in as a reliable second line player(hopefully center).

I only ask because people call me negative by using this method. But I feel that usin a 2-3 year rule is the best way to form an educated guess.

The last two years the wings finished 8th. So my educated guess was they'll finish in the 6th-10th range just because that's been the trend.

If Tatar scores 30 goals this year some people will consider that enough to label him a 30 goal a year guy? I want to see it for two years back to back or two out of three.

Some people jumped on the helm bandwagon last year when he scored at a higher rate than he ever did. I was called negative for saying that won't continue because of several years of stats showing that.

Would people consider nyquist and Tatar proven NHLers yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long do you have to see a player or team doing something before you put a label on them?

Like for example I've seen people call Franzen a 30 goal a year scorer even though he has done it once.

I'm just curious what peoples timelines are for putting a label on someone.

For me it's 2-3 years.

That's why I've personally given Weiss the injury prone tag cause that's how his last few years have been. But if he stays healthy for the rest of this year and next then I'll remove that injury prone label and pencil him in as a reliable second line player(hopefully center).

I only ask because people call me negative by using this method. But I feel that usin a 2-3 year rule is the best way to form an educated guess.

The last two years the wings finished 8th. So my educated guess was they'll finish in the 6th-10th range just because that's been the trend.

If Tatar scores 30 goals this year some people will consider that enough to label him a 30 goal a year guy? I want to see it for two years back to back or two out of three.

Some people jumped on the helm bandwagon last year when he scored at a higher rate than he ever did. I was called negative for saying that won't continue because of several years of stats showing that.

Would people consider nyquist and Tatar proven NHLers yet?

The problem with Weiss is that he has been the player he has been for the last 10 games or so pretty well all his career. And you tend to base him off of a couple seasons of terrible luck. So in his case, he has shown enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. It's not like he had one good season, got his payday, then s*** the bed after the fact.

With young players, I hope they keep it up. I understand they are going to go through growing pains. I understand that they are going to make mistakes. But this franchise has been great at developing players. There have been very few one and done players on this team over the years.

Guys like Goose and Tatar are definitely proven at this level. They are still young, and might slump here and there. There is no reason to think that they will suddenly start to struggle big time. If Tatar is able to pot 30 this year, I see no reason why he wouldn't do it again. So yes, I would call him a 30 goal scorer. If he were to never do it again, I'd call him a former 30 goal scorer. Unlike Franzen, Tatar has always been a go to guy for scoring. Franzen's scoring just suddenly came out of nowhere. So when he goes through his scoring slumps I see no reason to be surprised. But scoring is what Tatar does. It's what he is on this team to do.

As for the standings the last 2 years, those two years vs this one were very different circumstances. Without the injuries that hit last season, this team we are seeing right now could have very well been last year. So the only way to expect another 8th place finish this year is to either be riddled with injuries again, or just have the older players on the team regress and the young players have zero improvement. Hardly a cause for concern.

I simply don't put labels on players. I see no point really. Kronwall used to be brutally unlucky with injuries. But things have changed. Helm had his rough luck as well. And of course most recently Weiss. But in neither case did this scream 'injury prone' to me. Just tough luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55

The problem with Weiss is that he has been the player he has been for the last 10 games or so pretty well all his career. And you tend to base him off of a couple seasons of terrible luck. So in his case, he has shown enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. It's not like he had one good season, got his payday, then s*** the bed after the fact.

With young players, I hope they keep it up. I understand they are going to go through growing pains. I understand that they are going to make mistakes. But this franchise has been great at developing players. There have been very few one and done players on this team over the years.

Guys like Goose and Tatar are definitely proven at this level. They are still young, and might slump here and there. There is no reason to think that they will suddenly start to struggle big time. If Tatar is able to pot 30 this year, I see no reason why he wouldn't do it again. So yes, I would call him a 30 goal scorer. If he were to never do it again, I'd call him a former 30 goal scorer. Unlike Franzen, Tatar has always been a go to guy for scoring. Franzen's scoring just suddenly came out of nowhere. So when he goes through his scoring slumps I see no reason to be surprised. But scoring is what Tatar does. It's what he is on this team to do.

As for the standings the last 2 years, those two years vs this one were very different circumstances. Without the injuries that hit last season, this team we are seeing right now could have very well been last year. So the only way to expect another 8th place finish this year is to either be riddled with injuries again, or just have the older players on the team regress and the young players have zero improvement. Hardly a cause for concern.

I simply don't put labels on players. I see no point really. Kronwall used to be brutally unlucky with injuries. But things have changed. Helm had his rough luck as well. And of course most recently Weiss. But in neither case did this scream 'injury prone' to me. Just tough luck.

So why using facts now please. Why is it in the offseason (not now but back in the offseason) we had reason to believe this would randomly be the year we would be healthy and do better? After two years straight I finishing 8th and having injury concerns?

An actually I think it's safe to at we really do still have the injury bug. Franzen dat Weiss smith Howard monster an others have all missed time. I just think the kids progressed more than we would've thought. They haven't been in a sophomore slump and are continuing to carry this team.

Also with the kronwall note I believe the reason why is because he doesn't kronwall near as much any more. He is saving his body now and think more about defense instead of a huge hit. Just my opinion obviously but I believe the lack of kronwalleds is why he has been staying healthier.

Edited by DeGraa55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when I think I have it all down, I know it all, I can make bold predictions that come true, I take Jonathan Cheechoo in the 2nd round of my fantasy hockey draft and finish in dead last place.

There is a fact in that amusing (and true) statement, that even as incredible as one player can look for one or two week, up to two full seasons, there is always the chance that they flop, fall off, stop producing, lose that "spark" to the point where I am not only very reserved on my predictions and statements about players, I only find comfort in those like Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom that have proven time and time again for most of their career that they just have it.

On LGW here, we see many sides of a lot of fans, those who still aren't convinced about a lot of our players, to those who debated and argued for a year about Brunner and Clarkson being on this team or not, just to see them inevitably flop hard and become terrible acquisitions for the teams they signed with. Yet a lot were tooth and nail convinced they were the answer, Clarkson after one good season was worth 5 million to bring in here and take the place of some of the youth that eventually came up like Nyquist and Tatar. If you look on it now, which I can safely say 30% of the LGW community wanted us to have Brunner and Clarkson right now, what position would we be in if both were signed to 4-5 year conctracts keeping Nyquist and Tatar in the minors?

But the fact is, no one knows what the future will bring. We make predictions on our observations as fans, sometimes they are right, a lot of times they are wrong. It's part of the spine that makes a forum posting sports fan thrive, it sparks our conversations and debates, disagreements and arguments. We like to act like we know everything, that management is moronic and we could run the team better than the real higher ups do, but at the end of the day we are just passionate fans with strong opinions on the team that we dedicate a portion of our life watching, loving, and talking about who are more often wrong than we care to admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long do you have to see a player or team doing something before you put a label on them?

Like for example I've seen people call Franzen a 30 goal a year scorer even though he has done it once.

I'm just curious what peoples timelines are for putting a label on someone.

For me it's 2-3 years.

That's why I've personally given Weiss the injury prone tag cause that's how his last few years have been. But if he stays healthy for the rest of this year and next then I'll remove that injury prone label and pencil him in as a reliable second line player(hopefully center).

I only ask because people call me negative by using this method. But I feel that usin a 2-3 year rule is the best way to form an educated guess.

The last two years the wings finished 8th. So my educated guess was they'll finish in the 6th-10th range just because that's been the trend.

If Tatar scores 30 goals this year some people will consider that enough to label him a 30 goal a year guy? I want to see it for two years back to back or two out of three.

Some people jumped on the helm bandwagon last year when he scored at a higher rate than he ever did. I was called negative for saying that won't continue because of several years of stats showing that.

Would people consider nyquist and Tatar proven NHLers yet?

2 to 3 periods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long do you have to see a player or team doing something before you put a label on them?

Like for example I've seen people call Franzen a 30 goal a year scorer even though he has done it once.

I'm just curious what peoples timelines are for putting a label on someone.

For me it's 2-3 years.

That's why I've personally given Weiss the injury prone tag cause that's how his last few years have been. But if he stays healthy for the rest of this year and next then I'll remove that injury prone label and pencil him in as a reliable second line player(hopefully center).

I only ask because people call me negative by using this method. But I feel that usin a 2-3 year rule is the best way to form an educated guess.

The last two years the wings finished 8th. So my educated guess was they'll finish in the 6th-10th range just because that's been the trend.

If Tatar scores 30 goals this year some people will consider that enough to label him a 30 goal a year guy? I want to see it for two years back to back or two out of three.

Some people jumped on the helm bandwagon last year when he scored at a higher rate than he ever did. I was called negative for saying that won't continue because of several years of stats showing that.

Would people consider nyquist and Tatar proven NHLers yet?

Weiss was injured for about as long as Brendan Smith was making boneheaded mistakes in the defensive zone (the lockout season and last season) and I didn't see you "labeling" Smith a turnover machine or f*** up. Why? Because you don't want to think that about Smith. Just like you do want to think that about Weiss. Because you'd rather be right than be accurate. You can say "I've always said I want to be wrong about Weiss" but your entire body of work here on LGW suggests otherwise.

Which, I suspect, is why people respond to you the way that they do. I said the same thing you did about Helm's shooting percentage and wasn't called negative. Again, why? I'll tell you why. Packaging. If you don't want to be perceived as negative, then stop presenting your thoughts in a negative way. If you don't care, then why make this thread?

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being negative is easier than being positive. It's also easier, as a sports fan, to ***** and moan about current maladies then it is to be pragmatically optimistic about the future.

No one knew that Weiss was going to turn it around this quickly. The same way no one knew that Sheahan, Tatar, Nyquist, Jurco etc would be so valuable to this team so quickly.

The thing is, there were those of us who "hoped" this would happen, who "hoped" this team would be good and maybe even contend again while Datsyuk and Zetterberg were still players. But there were certainly those of us who seemed to be hoping for failure. Either as a way to promote some sort of "I told you so" agenda, or maybe because of just plain old sports-style masochism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55

Weiss was injured for about as long as Brendan Smith was making boneheaded mistakes in the defensive zone (the lockout season and last season) and I didn't see you "labeling" Smith a turnover machine or f*** up. Why? Because you don't want to think that about Smith. Just like you do want to think that about Weiss. Because you'd rather be right than be accurate. You can say "I've always said I want to be wrong about Weiss" but your entire body of work here on LGW suggests otherwise.

Which, I suspect, is why people respond to you the way that they do. I said the same thing you did about Helm's shooting percentage and wasn't called negative. Again, why? I'll tell you why. Packaging. If you don't want to be perceived as negative, then stop presenting your thoughts in a negative way. If you don't care, then why make this thread?

But I also never said he wasn't bad defensively either. I believe the best I said about his defense this year was average?

To me I try to separate what I feel is players potential and what the facts are. When speaking about smith it's mostly about his potential(except his offense which last year was good but not where it needs to be).

Like Tatar could potentially be a 30 goal a year guy. But it would be wrong of me to label him as such now right?

Tatar is terrible defensively but I don't feel the need to rag on him constantly(like you do with smith).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I also never said he wasn't bad defensively either. I believe the best I said about his defense this year was average?

To me I try to separate what I feel is players potential and what the facts are. When speaking about smith it's mostly about his potential(except his offense which last year was good but not where it needs to be).

Like Tatar could potentially be a 30 goal a year guy. But it would be wrong of me to label him as such now right?

Tatar is terrible defensively but I don't feel the need to rag on him constantly(like you do with smith).

So why not talk about all of Weiss' potential? You had no problem harping on him and ignoring how great an impact he could "potentially" have on this lineup. Instead you acted like it was the worst signing Holland ever made. If you're all about judging on potential how'd you miss that?

Like I said, this is just you trying to justify yourself after the fact. If you were consistent in your analysis of players you'd have to A) give all players (including the ones you don't like) credit for their potential, or B) Judge all players (including the ones you do like) based on their current play.

You do neither, and both. You gloss over the shortcomings of players you like, based on their potential benefits, and you harp on players you don't like based on their current play. It's a not so clever way for you to avoid saying anything that could be wrong. People do it all the time. You're not some special case.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeGraa55

So why not talk about all of Weiss' potential? You had no problem harping on him and ignoring how great an impact he could "potentially" have on this lineup. Instead you acted like it was the worst signing Holland ever made. If you're all about judging on potential how'd you miss that?

Like I said, this is just you trying to justify yourself after the fact. If you were consistent in your analysis of players you'd have to A) give all players (including the ones you don't like) credit for their potential, or B) Judge all players (including the ones you do like) based on their current play.

You do neither, and both. You gloss over the shortcomings of players you like, based on their potential benefits, and you harp on players you don't like based on their current play. It's a not so clever way for you to avoid saying anything that could be wrong. People do it all the time. You're not some special case.

Actually I have said Weiss would be a good addition and have an impact if he could stay healthy. I just didn't think he would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why using facts now please. Why is it in the offseason (not now but back in the offseason) we had reason to believe this would randomly be the year we would be healthy and do better? After two years straight I finishing 8th and having injury concerns?

An actually I think it's safe to at we really do still have the injury bug. Franzen dat Weiss smith Howard monster an others have all missed time. I just think the kids progressed more than we would've thought. They haven't been in a sophomore slump and are continuing to carry this team.

Also with the kronwall note I believe the reason why is because he doesn't kronwall near as much any more. He is saving his body now and think more about defense instead of a huge hit. Just my opinion obviously but I believe the lack of kronwalleds is why he has been staying healthier.

Franzen has always been oft injured. Datsyuk had an unlucky injury in preseason that lingered. Smith had a freak infection. Weiss had a sore groin which happens when you barely play any hockey in 2 years.

In the off season, Datsyuk got healthy, Zetterberg had already had his back surgery and was healthy, Weiss got healthy, Howard got healthy. Last season players were banged up out of the gate. That was not the case this year. There was bound to be more optimism, paired with the experience the youth on the team has gotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this