Hurlshort Posted April 23, 2006 Posted April 23, 2006 Thornton's job is to get points. If he doens't get points he's a failure, imo. He's in the same boat as Jagr in that regard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'd rather see the Sharks win. If the top defensemen are draped all over him, and other Sharks have to put the puck in the net, I'm still happy. He creates space for other guys. Jagr's trouble is that he doesn't have many guys behind him. Mark Smith has two goals for San Jose. Why? Because Nashville is too busy covering the top line.
Volourn Posted April 23, 2006 Posted April 23, 2006 Mark Smith has two goals because he was good enough to score two goals. Stop giving others' credit for HIS success. "I'd rather see the Sharks win." Well, of course. You are more loyal to the team than you are the to the player hence why I believe players shouldn't have loyalty for those who aren't loyal to them. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Delta Truth Posted April 23, 2006 Posted April 23, 2006 Mark Smith has two goals because he was good enough to score two goals. Stop giving others' credit for HIS success. "I'd rather see the Sharks win." Well, of course. You are more loyal to the team than you are the to the player hence why I believe players shouldn't have loyalty for those who aren't loyal to them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Players aren't playing for free you know; players loyalty is with the team that will pay them the most in most situations
Volourn Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 "Players aren't playing for free you know; players loyalty is with the team that will pay them the most in most situations" That isn't loyalty. You can't buy loyalty. Loyalty is earned and is never bought or else it stops being loyalty. That's why i laugh when fans claim that players owe them or their favorite team loyalty just ebcause they're paid x dollars. The only thing they owe their bosses (the team not the silly fans) is their best work possible. In Thornton's case (as well as Jagr) they're paid to produce points so if they don't get points they didn't succeed. of course, they're also paid to helpthe team win so that's also important. Let me put it this way: If next season the Ranmgers win all 82 games +16 games in play-offs the team is a success right. Now, let's say Jagr gets ZERO points in those gamnes... do you think he'd be rewarded for the team's success or will he let go for not performing? He'd be let of course 'cause it would mean others were the reason for the Rangers' success. P.S. the above is an extreme exmaple. Don't worry. It won't happen. :D DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Hurlshort Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 You are really simplifying the game of hockey. Point production is just one facet of the game. Now first off, if the Rangers had an unbeatable team, nobody is going to be getting rid of any players. Winning is the number one goal. Of course certain players are paid extra because they put points up, but there are a ton of different factors behind that. Are they a defensive liability? Can they be used in any situation? Do they score important goals? Point totals are going to fluctuate. Guys like Yzerman, Modano, and Sakic get high salaries because they lead their teams to victory, not because they score both goals in 5-2 losses. I have no clue what the loyalty argument is about. Every player has different priorities, but I agree that loyalty isn't bought. Loyalty comes from having a team that you get along with and being appreciated by the fans. The Sharks have a great atmosphere right now, so I'm guessing the loyalty is rather high.
Krookie Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 Is there a video anywhere of Jagr throwing that punch?
Hurlshort Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 It's on Sportscenter pretty much ever 10 minutes. I wouldn't call it a punch. It looks pretty odd, but when you get old, it doesn't take much.
Volourn Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 Early 30s I believe. He's far from old. And, it's not like Jagr is injury prone.. he did play all 82 games this year even after the stupid Olympics tried to cripple him... just like the Devils tried to break his neck yesterday... yet he gets possibly injured on what look liked an innocent play. LOL DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
DarthVala Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 Or revengeful, considering the day the Dev's gave him. "Great intelligence usually goes hand in hand with great stupdity." Join The Sibilati! -Sibilati retrorsum sibilamus
Volourn Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 You mean like them trying to break his neck? <> DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
alanschu Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 Thornton's job is to get points. If he doens't get points he's a failure, imo. He's in the same boat as Jagr in that regard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This statement does not surprise me.
alanschu Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 "Players aren't playing for free you know; players loyalty is with the team that will pay them the most in most situations" That isn't loyalty. You can't buy loyalty. Loyalty is earned and is never bought or else it stops being loyalty. That's why i laugh when fans claim that players owe them or their favorite team loyalty just ebcause they're paid x dollars. The only thing they owe their bosses (the team not the silly fans) is their best work possible. In Thornton's case (as well as Jagr) they're paid to produce points so if they don't get points they didn't succeed. of course, they're also paid to helpthe team win so that's also important. Let me put it this way: If next season the Ranmgers win all 82 games +16 games in play-offs the team is a success right. Now, let's say Jagr gets ZERO points in those gamnes... do you think he'd be rewarded for the team's success or will he let go for not performing? He'd be let of course 'cause it would mean others were the reason for the Rangers' success. P.S. the above is an extreme exmaple. Don't worry. It won't happen. :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fortunately, most NHL GM's aren't actually this retarded and are able to see beyond mere point contributions. If a team goes 82-0 and wins the Stanley Cup with Jagr scoring 0 points, I'd be surprised if they changed very much with the team at all.
alanschu Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 Early 30s I believe. He's far from old. And, it's not like Jagr is injury prone.. he did play all 82 games this year even after the stupid Olympics tried to cripple him... just like the Devils tried to break his neck yesterday... yet he gets possibly injured on what look liked an innocent play. LOL <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not the Olympics' fault that Jagr wanted to play.
Volourn Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 "I'd be surprised if they changed very much with the team at all." Even the best team make chnages year to year. Can you name even ONE professioanl sports franchise that had the EXACT same roster as the year before. I surely can't. On top of that, if a Jagr or a Thornton - both guys who are point producers - played an entire NHL season without gaining even one point they'd likely retire. And, if the team they played for somehow managed to win 82 games it will be because in spite of them not because of them. Even the best teams have bad players. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
alanschu Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 Even the best team make chnages year to year. Can you name even ONE professioanl sports franchise that had the EXACT same roster as the year before. I surely can't. Because no team is perfect. This is shown by the fact that no team has gone undefeated for an entire season.
Volourn Posted April 24, 2006 Posted April 24, 2006 THE RANGERS HAVE FORFEITED THE SERIES - WILL START BACK UP IN SECOND GAME!!! See you all next year!!! Good luck in playoffs you other 15 teams who are actually trying to win their series!!! DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
DarthVala Posted April 25, 2006 Posted April 25, 2006 HAHAHAHA! THE DEVILS SCORED WHILE PENALTY KILLING!!!!!! HAHAHAHA! "Great intelligence usually goes hand in hand with great stupdity." Join The Sibilati! -Sibilati retrorsum sibilamus
Volourn Posted April 25, 2006 Posted April 25, 2006 NO JAGR, NO CHANCE! NO LUNDQVIST, NO CHANCE X2! 3 GOALS ON NOT EVEN 20 SHOTS AND EVERYONE THOUGH LUNDQVIST WAS BAD WHEN HE GAVE UP 6 GOALS ON 30 AND THEY WERE ALL MORE OR LESS ON THE POWERPLAY AT LEAST! RENNEY SHOULD BE FIRED FOR BEING A MORON!!!!!!!! YOU DON'T BENCH YOUR ACE GOALIE BECAUSE OF ONE BAD GAME BECAUSE HIS TEAMMATES LIKE TO TAKE STUPID PENALTIES AND SCREEN HIM ALL DAY LONG AND THEN PUT IN A HORRIBLE BACK UP WHO COST YOU THE DIVISION!!!! P.S. Yes, I'm being mean!!! DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
alanschu Posted April 25, 2006 Posted April 25, 2006 I was under the impression that there were concerns about Lundqvist's health.
Volourn Posted April 25, 2006 Posted April 25, 2006 (edited) No. The coach just felt Weekes would do better. As per usual is wrong. I thought in the play-offs that you are supposed to go with the best team possible. I guess Renney missed that day in Coach School. Geez.. If Weekes had played in game 1 when the Rangers were doing the Penalty Parade, the Devils would ahve scored 10 goals instead of 4!! 2 short handed goals. Bah humbug! P.S. It's Jagr who missed the game because of an injury. I don't blame the coach for that. It's bad enough Jagr couldn't play let alone one of the best goalies in the league - bad game 1 and all. Edited April 25, 2006 by Volourn DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Recommended Posts