Player Style Preference

[Randall Flagg]

"I think this debate - like the Reinhart debate and the Larsson debate currently occupying the board - is more proof that style matters.
It's not just what you do, it's how and when you do it, that matters to people.

There is a pretty good argument that Thomas Vanek was every bit the player Danny Briere was. Or Ryan O'Reilly is superior to Chris Drury. But our opinions are coloured by the joys those Briere/Drury teams provided that the O'Reilly teams haven't and the Vanek teams never did.

We all have things we look for in a hockey player, that we value more than others: I love guys that outthink the opponent, and guys that are willing to get dirty and pay the price and that's why I like like Larsson despite the fact he doesn't skate well or produce much. Pokey focuses on the latter. Pi loves skating, thus his infatuation with Tyson Barrie despite his disastrous defence, Deluca loved Lucic for his machismo to the point he ignored how many games he slept through. Some guys loved Pysyk for his smoothness. Freeman looked at him and said "what does he actually do out there?" Some guys see Bailey's skills to and get excited. Flagg says he might look good some times, but he doesn't actually accomplish anything.

I'm not saying we can't appreciate different nuances, but we each tend to focus on those areas we value more. We tend to judge our players - positively and negatively - a lot more strongly than we do guys on other teams. And once we make up our minds, we struggle to change them. "

 

Dudacek gave us this lovely post in the training camp thread. Describe in here your ideal NHL player. The guy that, if your team had him, would be your favorite all-time. You can use real players as comparables or as the legitimate answers. You can also list the styles you detest that other people place value on. 

 

My contribution:

 

My ideal forward is high skill and high IQ. He can stickhandle through people at speeds which most players can't reach without the puck. He manipulates the space around him at will. At center, he is Connor McDavid exactly. I could watch that guy play hockey 20 hours a day and not tire. The most skilled NHL player to ever exist, with elite-of-the-elite vision and IQ, and jet packs on his feet on top of that, perhaps the greatest NHL skater ever, hands not only able to keep up with his feet at that speed but somehow three steps ahead. At wing, he's like Nikita Kucherov, Patrick Kane. Malkin is another I adore, a thoroughbred horse whose peaks bring him higher than those of some generational talents. All of these guys can move in straight lines, laterally, or both at exceptional speeds, and their hands are faster than that, and their brains are even faster than THAT. That is what I love. 

My ideal defenseman can deke guys walking backwards on the blue line to keep the puck in. They may not be the greatest in the d-zone at rubbing guys out and being tough in front of the net but there is no passing lane that goes unchecked by a quick stick, and their angles are great. Ryan Ellis, Erik Karlsson, Victor Hedman are my guys. Rasmus Dahlin - if this kid translates, he could revolutionize the way defensemen use the line and control the offensive zone.

 

I can tolerate a lack of speed if IQ and hands make up for it, but those players need both, not just IQ (Doan) or just hands (Pouliot). Not a fan of speed-only guys either (Grabner, Laich, Hagelin - though he's becoming a nifty guy). I need my D to move the puck, of course. 

I don't like any goalies, which is why roughly .0003% of my posts talk about goaltending. I'd just as soon switch every NHL goalie out for a robot that performs exactly to league average, as long as they still personalize the masks/pads. I suspect this opinion would be much different in an era where pads and styles weren't like they are now.

 

What about the rest of ya?

 

 

 

 

[ubkev]

Pavel Bure

 

That's it.

[Marions Piazza]

"I think this debate - like the Reinhart debate and the Larsson debate currently occupying the board - is more proof that style matters.

It's not just what you do, it's how and when you do it, that matters to people.

 

There is a pretty good argument that Thomas Vanek was every bit the player Danny Briere was. Or Ryan O'Reilly is superior to Chris Drury. But our opinions are coloured by the joys those Briere/Drury teams provided that the O'Reilly teams haven't and the Vanek teams never did.

 

We all have things we look for in a hockey player, that we value more than others: I love guys that outthink the opponent, and guys that are willing to get dirty and pay the price and that's why I like like Larsson despite the fact he doesn't skate well or produce much. Pokey focuses on the latter. Pi loves skating, thus his infatuation with Tyson Barrie despite his disastrous defence, Deluca loved Lucic for his machismo to the point he ignored how many games he slept through. Some guys loved Pysyk for his smoothness. Freeman looked at him and said "what does he actually do out there?" Some guys see Bailey's skills to and get excited. Flagg says he might look good some times, but he doesn't actually accomplish anything.

 

I'm not saying we can't appreciate different nuances, but we each tend to focus on those areas we value more. We tend to judge our players - positively and negatively - a lot more strongly than we do guys on other teams. And once we make up our minds, we struggle to change them. "

 

Dudacek gave us this lovely post in the training camp thread. Describe in here your ideal NHL player. The guy that, if your team had him, would be your favorite all-time. You can use real players as comparables or as the legitimate answers. You can also list the styles you detest that other people place value on. 

 

My contribution:

 

My ideal forward is high skill and high IQ. He can stickhandle through people at speeds which most players can't reach without the puck. He manipulates the space around him at will. At center, he is Connor McDavid exactly. I could watch that guy play hockey 20 hours a day and not tire. The most skilled NHL player to ever exist, with elite-of-the-elite vision and IQ, and jet packs on his feet on top of that, perhaps the greatest NHL skater ever, hands not only able to keep up with his feet at that speed but somehow three steps ahead. At wing, he's like Nikita Kucherov, Patrick Kane. Malkin is another I adore, a thoroughbred horse whose peaks bring him higher than those of some generational talents. All of these guys can move in straight lines, laterally, or both at exceptional speeds, and their hands are faster than that, and their brains are even faster than THAT. That is what I love. 

 

My ideal defenseman can deke guys walking backwards on the blue line to keep the puck in. They may not be the greatest in the d-zone at rubbing guys out and being tough in front of the net but there is no passing lane that goes unchecked by a quick stick, and their angles are great. Ryan Ellis, Erik Karlsson, Victor Hedman are my guys. Rasmus Dahlin - if this kid translates, he could revolutionize the way defensemen use the line and control the offensive zone.

 

I can tolerate a lack of speed if IQ and hands make up for it, but those players need both, not just IQ (Doan) or just hands (Pouliot). Not a fan of speed-only guys either (Grabner, Laich, Hagelin - though he's becoming a nifty guy). I need my D to move the puck, of course. 

I don't like any goalies, which is why roughly .0003% of my posts talk about goaltending. I'd just as soon switch every NHL goalie out for a robot that performs exactly to league average, as long as they still personalize the masks/pads. I suspect this opinion would be much different in an era where pads and styles weren't like they are now.

 

What about the rest of ya?

So what you're saying is, you want a whole team of complete players with an all around perfect game?  Sign me up!

[SabresFanInRochester]

I want a winner with that x-factor mentality. Give me Drury. Put Doug Flutie or Jim Kelly on ice skates -- they don't care about excuses; they just hate losing and will do anything they can to win in the clutch. I want the consummate professional who has skill, but has a deeper drive to win than anyone else. 

[ubkev]

I want a winner with that x-factor mentality. Give me Drury. Put Doug Flutie or Jim Kelly on ice skates -- they don't care about excuses; they just hate losing and will do anything they can to win in the clutch. I want the consummate professional who has skill, but has a deeper drive to win than anyone else.

Do USFL championships and grey cups count as winning?

[SabresFanInRochester]

Do USFL championships and grey cups count as winning?

You have to have accompanying pieces. Arguably, that team was better with Flutie at the helm, but didn't seem to play the same when Johnson was under center.

 

I will make my point with Ottawa and Erik Karlsson. I think that team sucks when he is out of the lineup.

 

Having one person make a measurable impact when there are 10 other people on the field with you is more difficult than when there are only 4 others.

 

My point -- there's an x-factor, and I want that winner leading my team.

[Weave]

Ideal? Mark Messier. Leadership, tough as nails, high skill level.

 

I want an injury free Pat LaFontaine on this team. But I want Wendel Clark on his wing so Lance Pitlick doesn't shorten his career.

[ubkev]

You have to have accompanying pieces. Arguably, that team was better with Flutie at the helm, but didn't seem to play the same when Johnson was under center.

 

I will make my point with Ottawa and Erik Karlsson. I think that team sucks when he is out of the lineup.

 

Having one person make a measurable impact when there are 10 other people on the field with you is more difficult than when there are only 4 others.

 

My point -- there's an x-factor, and I want that winner leading my team.

I don't know, man. Kelly had hall of famers on both sides of that team and they still didn't win. Sure, Jimbo and Flutie had fire and were leaders but they didn't win. So they can't be winners. Drury won. So did Messier.

[darksabre]

For me, you can pick pretty much anyone from those Stanley Cup winning Colorado Avalanche teams. Sakic, Bourque, Forsberg, Drury, Ozolinsh, Deadmarsh...

[WildCard]

There is a pretty good argument that Thomas Vanek was every bit the player Danny Briere was. Or Ryan O'Reilly is superior to Chris Drury. But our opinions are coloured by the joys those Briere/Drury teams provided that the O'Reilly teams haven't and the Vanek teams never did.

That's all this boils down to honestly. People have a tough time comparing players on garbage teams to those on teams that win

 

Anyways, Patty Kane is my ideal player. I like creativity in a player, and tight stick handling. Kane does things with a puck that I've never seen before, and nobody even tries. Sure McDavid is better, because he's smarter and faster. But Kane can make you look like an idiot, and pulls out a new trick every game. Kane is that guy in pond hockey who makes everyone look like an idiot. On top of all that, he's a cocky ###### that wins. He's fun and makes the game fun because he treats it like that, a game. I hate athletes that are boring and treat this like a 9-5. Treat it like a backyard game with all your buddies, you're living the dream after all

 

Give me a team of Patty Kanes

Edited September 29, 2017 by WildCard

[SabresFanInRochester]

I don't know, man. Kelly had hall of famers on both sides of that team and they still didn't win. Sure, Jimbo and Flutie had fire and were leaders but they didn't win. So they can't be winners. Drury won. So did Messier.

You're right. That's one thing that sucks is that there is only one winner. When Brady beats Manning, does that mean Manning is a loser? The runner-up trophy is a participation medal, right, and I think as stated by Seinfeld, "Congratulations, you are the first loser."

 

Maybe Kelly and Flutie didn't have enough of that x-factor and that's why their teams didn't win. But, anecdotally, they represent what I want on my team.

[WildCard]

I don't know, man. Kelly had hall of famers on both sides of that team and they still didn't win. Sure, Jimbo and Flutie had fire and were leaders but they didn't win. So they can't be winners. Drury won. So did Messier.

Well I blame Marv Levy for that

You're right. That's one thing that sucks is that there is only one winner. When Brady beats Manning, does that mean Manning is a loser? The runner-up trophy is a participation medal, right, and I think as stated by Seinfeld, "Congratulations, you are the first loser."

 

Maybe Kelly and Flutie didn't have enough of that x-factor and that's why their teams didn't win. But, anecdotally, they represent what I want on my team.

But Manning did win. Until Elway won a SB, he was a loser. But he want to 30 of them and at least won 2, so he's a winner

[SabresFanInRochester]

Well I blame Marv Levy for that

But Manning did win. Until Elway won a SB, he was a loser. But he want to 30 of them and at least won 2, so he's a winner

Not that the NFL HOF is only for winners, but there are many more losers enshrined than winners -- so much for recognizing the elite of the group.

[WildCard]

Not that the NFL HOF is only for winners, but there are many more losers enshrined than winners -- so much for recognizing the elite of the group.

I mean that makes sense though. There are more losers than winners in the total group, so to have more losers than winners in the HoF is natural; the HoF shouldn't judge based on your winning, but of course it does. You can put up meh numbers but winning championships and get in, but if you put up meh numbers and don't, no cigar

[SabresFanInRochester]

I mean that makes sense though. There are more losers than winners in the total group, so to have more losers than winners in the HoF is natural; the HoF shouldn't judge based on your winning, but of course it does. You can put up meh numbers but winning championships and get in, but if you put up meh numbers and don't, no cigar

Really? Joe Flacco is a winner and will be in the HOF? And Dan Marino didn't deserve to get in, and is a loser compared to Flacco. You really take that "winner" title quite literally. 

[WildCard]

Really? Joe Flacco is a winner and will be in the HOF? And Dan Marino didn't deserve to get in, and is a loser compared to Flacco. You really take that "winner" title quite literally. 

What?

 

Eli Manning will get into the HoF, and the very first thing people will point to is his rings. I have no idea what you're saying. I said there are more 'losers' in the HoF because there are more 'losers' in general. But if you win just a little bit, it makes your case for the HoF way stronger

[pi2000]

My love for T. Barrie was mostly because his skill set is what the Sabres were desperately lacking on the back-end at that time.

 

I recognized the NHL was trending in the direction of plus skating defensemen, so he seemed like a perfect fit.   

 

I've since been more focused on TRpm where Barrie doesn't score that well (+4 on the worst team in the league), so my stance on him has altered a bit.

[SabresFanInRochester]

What?

 

Eli Manning will get into the HoF, and the very first thing people will point to is his rings. I have no idea what you're saying. I said there are more 'losers' in the HoF because there are more 'losers' in general. But if you win just a little bit, it makes your case for the HoF way stronger

Flacco won a Super Bowl ring but will not sniff the HOF. And Eli Manning will not be in the HOF -- No way.

 

But coming back to the original argument, I said I wanted someone who has that x-factor... that winning attitude. And you criticized Flutie and Kelly for never winning on the big stage. I would take those two and their winning attitude over Doug Williams and Joe Flacco any and every day.

 

I cannot speak for you, but surely it would be a mistake to think you need a Cup ring to be a winner. Wouldn't you like to have Jack's attitude leading this Sabres team? Or, if you want the only "winner" on the Sabres right now, we can stitch the "C" on Jordan Nolan's jersey. When I say I want the guy who is the winner, I want the guy with the attitude that will lead. Not just the guy who is the winner by the literal use of the word. 

 

I don't mean to be argumentative, because you are right when you take "winner" literally. But winners don't always win, and there is usually no consideration provided to why someone wins and someone loses -- just the final results. What I am referring to is the x-factor, and I guess that doesn't always translate to having a championship.

[mjd1001]

Pavel Bure

 

That's it.

I agree 100%. I love speed guys..pure blazing speed...it is what I enjoy watching.

 

Most of my favorite players of all time were in this category....Bure....Federov....Karlsson, Peter Bondra.

[dudacek]

Intriguing question.

He's not the best player, or my favourite player, but after some thought, my answer is Peter Forsberg.

He embodies what I value in a player.

 

Not a brute, but tough as nails. Not flashy, but extremely skilled.

Willing to take a stick in the mouth to make a play.

A game focused on utlilizing and supporting his teammates, rather than doing it himself.

Utterly about beating than the guy across from him.

Yet still classy.

[darksabre]

Intriguing question.

He's not the best player, or my favourite player, but after some thought, my answer is Peter Forsberg.

He embodies what I value in a player.

 

Not a brute, but tough as nails. Not flashy, but extremely skilled.

Willing to take a stick in the mouth to make a play.

A game focused on utlilizing and supporting his teammates, rather than doing it himself.

Utterly about beating than the guy across from him.

Yet still classy.

I'm glad to see another Forsberg fan in here. 

[North Buffalo]

Two things come to mind, post Perrault my favorite player has been Datsyuk, he was so lethal in clutch moments with a quiet assassins style. He and Zetterberg were something else...

 

That being said, at this point I dont care how they get there, just win baby!

Edited September 29, 2017 by North Buffalo

[WildCard]

Flacco won a Super Bowl ring but will not sniff the HOF. And Eli Manning will not be in the HOF -- No way.

 

But coming back to the original argument, I said I wanted someone who has that x-factor... that winning attitude. And you criticized Flutie and Kelly for never winning on the big stage. I would take those two and their winning attitude over Doug Williams and Joe Flacco any and every day.

 

I cannot speak for you, but surely it would be a mistake to think you need a Cup ring to be a winner. Wouldn't you like to have Jack's attitude leading this Sabres team? Or, if you want the only "winner" on the Sabres right now, we can stitch the "C" on Jordan Nolan's jersey. When I say I want the guy who is the winner, I want the guy with the attitude that will lead. Not just the guy who is the winner by the literal use of the word. 

 

I don't mean to be argumentative, because you are right when you take "winner" literally. But winners don't always win, and there is usually no consideration provided to why someone wins and someone loses -- just the final results. What I am referring to is the x-factor, and I guess that doesn't always translate to having a championship.

Eli Manning will be in the HoF, easily. And it's solely because his rings, and that he played in NY

 

TBF I never criticized Flutie and Kelly for winning. 

 

Winners win. Jack is not a winner yet. Nolan is. I didn't say I have anything against Jack's attitude, or like Nolan's more. Nor did I say Nolan should get the C. But he's won, so he's a winner. 

 

I mean you're right, I get the winner mentality and all that. But what's the point of that mentality if you don't, you know, actually win? Unless you have an out of your mind performance on the big stage and just get shafted. But ask anyone, Kelly is a loser, Marino is a loser, and Eli is a winner

Intriguing question.

He's not the best player, or my favourite player, but after some thought, my answer is Peter Forsberg.

He embodies what I value in a player.

 

Not a brute, but tough as nails. Not flashy, but extremely skilled.

Willing to take a stick in the mouth to make a play.

A game focused on utlilizing and supporting his teammates, rather than doing it himself.

Utterly about beating than the guy across from him.

Yet still classy.

I don't hate him, but personally I don't care about class or grit or anything like that in sports. Give me a player that 'wows' me. Give me a guy that is unique, has fun, and treats the game like a game. That might just be me though

[SabresFanInRochester]

Eli Manning will be in the HoF, easily. And it's solely because his rings, and that he played in NY

 

TBF I never criticized Flutie and Kelly for winning. 

 

Winners win. Jack is not a winner yet. Nolan is. I didn't say I have anything against Jack's attitude, or like Nolan's more. Nor did I say Nolan should get the C. But he's won, so he's a winner. 

 

I mean you're right, I get the winner mentality and all that. But what's the point of that mentality if you don't, you know, actually win? Unless you have an out of your mind performance on the big stage and just get shafted. But ask anyone, Kelly is a loser, Marino is a loser, and Eli is a winner

I don't hate him, but personally I don't care about class or grit or anything like that in sports. Give me a player that 'wows' me. Give me a guy that is unique, has fun, and treats the game like a game. That might just be me though

 

Anyone -- chime in on this:

 

Is Jim Kelly a loser?

Is Dan Marino a loser?

Is Eli (Manning) a winner?

[qwksndmonster]

I always fall for the players that win primarily with their smarts. Datsyuk and Larionov come to mind.

 

I liked watching Legwand in his last year with us because he made his living purely with his savvy.

Edited September 29, 2017 by qwksndmonster