|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 28, 2024 22:38:33 GMT
I've been taking a closer look every game at 48...Trying to find things that are positives...I'm not kidding, I want to desperately think, root, and say "Gryz is helping the team win." And every time I watch the other 5 guys on D, I see positives, like Peeke playing super well with Lindholm as his partner after looking super bad with Lohrei as his partner (more 6 to me hurting him, team getting hemmed in). I see Wotherspoon make a lot of good plays, and sure he coughs a puck or two--which I expect-but you see him be physical and mostly making smart outlets and passes in general. But then I watched 48, I thought well he's still good at that once the puck is on his stick along the boards, he seems to quickly move it up or get it into transition, but I'm still looking for him on offense once it's past the blue line (almost nothing to report because he is incredibly absent when 73 is doing all the work--you would think that would open things up to allow 48 to be creative). Also he doesn't give stretch passes or seem to try to make that big offensive play in the neutral zone or past his blueline. Then I watch when the puck is high danger areas in front, and I see what sandog and others see, a guy who is not able to defend quickly enough or have the physicality to move a forward out of high scoring chance zones. Then I watched that fucking icing when he simply has to make a good pass to 13, sends it hard and long (almost a panic pass) and then it's icing which kills the B's right there as they wanted to pull Ullmark. Finally, I feel like he just is afraid to make a mistake, plays it safe (you can say that's a good thing I guess), but I think you have to take chances sometimes and he refuses or stopped doing it long ago. I just feel like he doesn't help, maybe that's the bottom line. I don't see him helping Bs, and I don't think he deserves top billing with 73 or even ice time over the guys who have been scratched for him. Carlo, Lindholm have earned their stripes as veterans (73 is of course I agree Mr. Norris for them), but I still think 48 hasn't deserved the same scrutiny or that all day pass in the clubroom. He needs to be held accountable. That's bottom line. When are the coaches ever going to make him accountable? Reminds me of the Sox, in the 80s, there love for fucking Bob Stanley. It comes down to someone upstairs loves to say, "He's staying and fuck everyone else". A short mans ego game. I have some power. Truly puzzling.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 29, 2024 0:16:27 GMT
"It's that he has somehow managed to mitigate the negative impacts of those failings while at the same time providing some relatively consistent, supporting role defensive zone play that has helped get the best out of McAvoy.' That is a ridiculous statement. And the talking heads ? Like who ? The ones you often mock and downplay. Yes everyone Grzelcyk helps McAvoy actually. You read that here. Holy shit LoL Actually, the point with the talking heads is that I never hear them talk about Grz as a problem. Pre-game on SN or TSN against Canadian teams, they'll spend maybe 15 or even 20% of their time talking about the Bruins and how to beat them, and you'll hear about Marchand being in a goalscoring slump, or Ullmark having a blip in his record or their vulnerability because they have a number of inexperienced blue-liners if both Lohrei and Wotherspoon or Peake are in the lineup. They might talk about the Bruins not being as big and bad as they used to be, but mostly they talk about that from the perspective of it being less of a heavy night for the D on the other team. I never hear them say "for some reason, maybe a serious brain injury, Jim Montgomery continues to play systemic liability Matt Grzelcyk, so the Laffs/Lames/Spoilers/Nucksacks should be able to exploit him with a hard forecheck." Your comments here add nothing to the debate. You have no answer for what I showed in terms of how many more goals are scored against the Bruins when McAvoy plays with any other D vs. when he plays with Grz. None. Zero. You're floundering around making snarky comments because other than "that's what I think" you have no explanation for why not one but three coaches have liked Grz enough to play him and praise him, why his teammates don't seem at all bothered by him having the role he has. Other than suggesting that you sitting on your couch see more and know more about the game than the coaches and players. You haven't shown anything. And then you double down by saying Grzelcyk improves McAvoya game. Which is completely ridiculous. How many more goals are scored, when Grzelcyk is in the ice, is your core argument ? Holy fuck where are all the assists ? Grzelcyk is fucking terrible and when he's away from McAvoy it's worse. The only person who's been floundering is you and its become pathetic in your defense of Grzelcyk. Based on someone else putting the puck in the net. Drives zero play. But the cherry ontop is Grzelcyk makes McAvoy better. I have heard it all and enough. What a joke!
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 29, 2024 2:40:42 GMT
I've been taking a closer look every game at 48...Trying to find things that are positives...I'm not kidding, I want to desperately think, root, and say "Gryz is helping the team win." And every time I watch the other 5 guys on D, I see positives, like Peeke playing super well with Lindholm as his partner after looking super bad with Lohrei as his partner (more 6 to me hurting him, team getting hemmed in). I see Wotherspoon make a lot of good plays, and sure he coughs a puck or two--which I expect-but you see him be physical and mostly making smart outlets and passes in general. But then I watched 48, I thought well he's still good at that once the puck is on his stick along the boards, he seems to quickly move it up or get it into transition, but I'm still looking for him on offense once it's past the blue line (almost nothing to report because he is incredibly absent when 73 is doing all the work--you would think that would open things up to allow 48 to be creative). Also he doesn't give stretch passes or seem to try to make that big offensive play in the neutral zone or past his blueline. Then I watch when the puck is high danger areas in front, and I see what sandog and others see, a guy who is not able to defend quickly enough or have the physicality to move a forward out of high scoring chance zones. Then I watched that fucking icing when he simply has to make a good pass to 13, sends it hard and long (almost a panic pass) and then it's icing which kills the B's right there as they wanted to pull Ullmark. Finally, I feel like he just is afraid to make a mistake, plays it safe (you can say that's a good thing I guess), but I think you have to take chances sometimes and he refuses or stopped doing it long ago. I just feel like he doesn't help, maybe that's the bottom line. I don't see him helping Bs, and I don't think he deserves top billing with 73 or even ice time over the guys who have been scratched for him. Carlo, Lindholm have earned their stripes as veterans (73 is of course I agree Mr. Norris for them), but I still think 48 hasn't deserved the same scrutiny or that all day pass in the clubroom. He needs to be held accountable. That's bottom line. When are the coaches ever going to make him accountable? Well, this is the crux of it. Accountable for what? I think it's like any job - you don't hold your carpenter accountable for building a doghouse instead of a mansion if you told him to build a doghouse. I wonder if a large part of the discrepancy between what fans dislike about what Grz doesn't do and the coaches' reliance on him is that ... they don't expect him to do those things. At this point in his career, I don't know why anyone expects Matt Grzelcyk to contribute meaningfully at the offensive end. He had a reasonable 26 points last year, but his game has never been "PMD" and as I've said several times, I've never found any record of the BRUINS saying that we would replace Torey Krug's offense. I found a lot of fan site articles and secondary media outlets saying that he would be a guy who is first in line to get the opportunity, and even then, when he was interviewed, his response was "I don't play that game - I see my role as getting the puck to our offensive guys." If the coaching staff think he's going to be an attacking defenseman, they haven't paid much attention. I would say a lot of what you describe is a player who plays a very low risk game and really always has. Is that a good thing? Well, if one of the two D on the ice is going to take an offensive risk, I would rather it be McAvoy than anyone else. I think Grz fits into a long-standing pattern of crutch guys. When Erik Karlsson won his first Norris, his defense partner was Filip Kuba. Kuba was late in his career, and Ottawa didn't re-sign him. Karlsson's play flopped. Kuba was a nothing burger of a player, really, having had a couple of good offensive seasons but nothing that made him reliable. His second Norris, Karlsson had Marc Methot. Methot was big, but not overly physical, and not known for being much of an offensive contributor, but Karlsson thrived with him. And Methot eventually parlayed that into a big deal with Dallas - where, like Kuba - he flamed out of the league quickly. If I think about it for a while, I can come up with a lot of examples of guys who have been good at just being where they needed to be, giving their D partner the puck where and when he needs it, being there to back him up when he pinches, to disrupt rushes when it's a two on two and a forward is the other guy back. Al MacInnis would play with guys like Neil Sheehy or Jamie McCoun. Sometimes the chemistry between a superstar and a turdburger player is such that he's the best available option to let the superstar do his thing. Sandog thinks this means I'm saying McAvoy is nothing without Grz, but it's not that at all. It's like Tiger Woods and Steve Williams. Tiger Woods didn't win all those majors because of Steve Williams, but the fact is, he wasn't as good after Williams left. Sure, lots of reasons like injury and addictions contribute to that, but they were there when Williams was there, too. There are obviously situations where Grz is over-matched, but I understand part of his game to be avoiding being in those situations as much as possible. Make him mark up on a man, he's going to get overpowered. But let him force a pass and get his stick in the lane, and the puck almost always seems to go astray off his stick. Let him read off of a back-checking forward, and he'll be first to a loose puck in the D zone. Little things that don't seem like much but they keep the attacking team to the outside, keep the shots long and low danger. I think that's part of what he does well. I think he's a smart player who is well aware of his limitations and has developed ways to do what is asked of him, which is fundamentally different than what is asked of Wotherspoon or McAvoy or Carlo. Play safe. Don't lose it for us. Let the guys who are paid to score go win it for us. I would have no issue with Montgomery benching Grz if he is telling him that he needs him to push the offense more and Grz continues to play safe, cautious, timid hockey. But if he's telling him to play it safe and get the rock to Chucky, well...that's what he's doing. How do you justify benching him if that's the situation? Accountable in comparison to other guys who if they have a rough game (this goes back to Cassidy), they can be in the balcony a game later (Shattenkirk, Reilly, Wotherspoon, Lohrei--yes 2 of those are essentially rookies). There is a double standard here, but like I said I can understand that in their opinion the coaches/GM just have a higher opinion than the fans. I don't agree with it, but it's not like going to change in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 29, 2024 2:54:41 GMT
I've been taking a closer look every game at 48...Trying to find things that are positives...I'm not kidding, I want to desperately think, root, and say "Gryz is helping the team win." And every time I watch the other 5 guys on D, I see positives, like Peeke playing super well with Lindholm as his partner after looking super bad with Lohrei as his partner (more 6 to me hurting him, team getting hemmed in). I see Wotherspoon make a lot of good plays, and sure he coughs a puck or two--which I expect-but you see him be physical and mostly making smart outlets and passes in general. But then I watched 48, I thought well he's still good at that once the puck is on his stick along the boards, he seems to quickly move it up or get it into transition, but I'm still looking for him on offense once it's past the blue line (almost nothing to report because he is incredibly absent when 73 is doing all the work--you would think that would open things up to allow 48 to be creative). Also he doesn't give stretch passes or seem to try to make that big offensive play in the neutral zone or past his blueline. Then I watch when the puck is high danger areas in front, and I see what sandog and others see, a guy who is not able to defend quickly enough or have the physicality to move a forward out of high scoring chance zones. Then I watched that fucking icing when he simply has to make a good pass to 13, sends it hard and long (almost a panic pass) and then it's icing which kills the B's right there as they wanted to pull Ullmark. Finally, I feel like he just is afraid to make a mistake, plays it safe (you can say that's a good thing I guess), but I think you have to take chances sometimes and he refuses or stopped doing it long ago. I just feel like he doesn't help, maybe that's the bottom line. I don't see him helping Bs, and I don't think he deserves top billing with 73 or even ice time over the guys who have been scratched for him. Carlo, Lindholm have earned their stripes as veterans (73 is of course I agree Mr. Norris for them), but I still think 48 hasn't deserved the same scrutiny or that all day pass in the clubroom. He needs to be held accountable. That's bottom line. When are the coaches ever going to make him accountable? Reminds me of the Sox, in the 80s, there love for fucking Bob Stanley. It comes down to someone upstairs loves to say, "He's staying and fuck everyone else". A short mans ego game. I have some power. Truly puzzling. I loved Stanley in 78, and he actually was my favorite pitcher for a while....and I wore #46 in college because of him...found it later ironic that my favorite hockey player of course also wore #46...:-)
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 29, 2024 4:14:08 GMT
Actually, the point with the talking heads is that I never hear them talk about Grz as a problem. Pre-game on SN or TSN against Canadian teams, they'll spend maybe 15 or even 20% of their time talking about the Bruins and how to beat them, and you'll hear about Marchand being in a goalscoring slump, or Ullmark having a blip in his record or their vulnerability because they have a number of inexperienced blue-liners if both Lohrei and Wotherspoon or Peake are in the lineup. They might talk about the Bruins not being as big and bad as they used to be, but mostly they talk about that from the perspective of it being less of a heavy night for the D on the other team. I never hear them say "for some reason, maybe a serious brain injury, Jim Montgomery continues to play systemic liability Matt Grzelcyk, so the Laffs/Lames/Spoilers/Nucksacks should be able to exploit him with a hard forecheck." Your comments here add nothing to the debate. You have no answer for what I showed in terms of how many more goals are scored against the Bruins when McAvoy plays with any other D vs. when he plays with Grz. None. Zero. You're floundering around making snarky comments because other than "that's what I think" you have no explanation for why not one but three coaches have liked Grz enough to play him and praise him, why his teammates don't seem at all bothered by him having the role he has. Other than suggesting that you sitting on your couch see more and know more about the game than the coaches and players. You haven't shown anything. And then you double down by saying Grzelcyk improves McAvoya game. Which is completely ridiculous. How many more goals are scored, when Grzelcyk is in the ice, is your core argument ? Holy fuck where are all the assists ? Grzelcyk is fucking terrible and when he's away from McAvoy it's worse. The only person who's been floundering is you and its become pathetic in your defense of Grzelcyk. Based on someone else putting the puck in the net. Drives zero play. But the cherry ontop is Grzelcyk makes McAvoy better. I have heard it all and enough. What a joke! I know you understand hockey better than this. Suddenly the criteria here is 'drives play'. This is your favourite playbook. Just keep shifting your criteria every time someone points to evidence that you're making shit up.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Mar 29, 2024 4:50:50 GMT
7 pages and Gryz still sucks.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on Mar 29, 2024 5:36:56 GMT
"A preconceived judgment on this player". That's bullshit in its purest form.
If you'd bother to read my post... I listed one example why I think Grzelcyk is incompetent. You want more? I'm sure I can find more in the next game, but in the meantime you could search and read posts by SanDog, DoubleOC, Isla, Danny, just to name a few. Provided you even bother before you go on another one of your, sorry to say this, but in this case I think it fits, condescending rants.
But why do I even bother?
The one with the preconceived judgment - who is it? The one who claims "the coaching staff definitely should know what they're doing, hence putting #48 in the lineup is correct", or the one who says "we've seen coaches make mistakes, for whatever reasons, or play favorites, etc., therefore I don't think they should not be criticized or doubted"?No, I am not going to believe what I believe about Grz, if he proves me wrong (which so far he hasn't). I am not interested in the "see, I told you so" position. I want the Bruins to win the cup. And I'm absolutely convinced they won't win with Grzelcyk on d.
But yes, I am not going to look at numbers, because they can be skewed for whatever reason. I believe my eyes, and they tell me that Graesslich is just that, graesslich. Now you have fun with that. I'm condescending? Oh, sorry, I forgot that I've been posting pictures of contemptable historical figures rather than acknowledge any points you've been making and photoshopping things to grossly exaggerate what you've said rather than have a discussion. My bad. I don't care if you want to have some fun with it. But don't ask me if I've read posts I've responded to, especially when I break down the one example you gave by watching the game film and explaining what I see when I watch that play in one of those responses. I've put literally dozens of data points out there not to argue that Grz is a good defenseman but to argue that Grz is the least of the Bruins problems. And whatever language you want to use to suggest he's somehow the worst defenseman ever to play the game, you've used silence to try to address those data points. Just a blanket, NOPE data can be manipulated. OK. Sure. One data point, or three. But when you can triangulate? When you can look at a question from multiple positions and come back with data that points to the same conclusions? Nah, you'd rather stick with "this is what I see". And like I said, I did you the courtesy of going back and watching the play you cited multiple times. I've done that with several plays where people have decided to lay the blame on Grz, but if you watch the play develop, and look at how the Bruins address the situation as a team, each time I've done it, it is at least a tenable argument that Grz did what he was supposed to do and someone else made the mistake. In the two most recent examples, Grz tried to trap the PP entry just inside the blueline when the Bruins had numbers back, and if DeBrusk stays with his man, there's no danger let alone a goal, but he comes off his man and tries to double the guy Grz had. But on the GDT, everyone was talking about Grz's mistake. It wasn't. Then the first goal against Florida. Grz is in position. McAvoy loses his man - Barkov - after the shot is deflected, and instead of switching, chases him to Grz's side when he has no chance of getting there in time to make a play. If you read danny's response to that one, you'll see he also agrees NOW that it was a six man breakdown by a team that wasn't ready to play, and that includes a miscommunication between McAvoy - again, the one who is chasing out of position - and his D partner. But on the GDT, it was all about Grz being garbage. I'm happy to talk about the hockey, but when I do, all I get from you is escalating use of techniques to avoid the conversation. Because yes, on this one, I think you would rather be right than see the Bruins win. Because you're also too smart to use the "if they don't with the Stanley Cup, I'm right about Grz" trick. If they don't win the Cup, 30 other teams will have managed the feat without the terrible taint of Grz.
"Photoshopping things"? I'm so inept at using photoshop, please show where/when I did that. Maybe I can reverse-engineer what I had to drink on that very night...
I don't care if Grzelcyk is "the least of the Bruins problems". He is a problem, and an absolutely unnecessary one to boot. What I care about is that the Bruins are wasting one superior talent at d (McAvoy) to play watchdog to one of the worst dmen in the league. Again, that's bullshit in its purest form. I really don't give a shit if I'm right or not. Example? For one, I was dead set against giving Andrew Ference a contract extension, let alone a raise, and I voiced this very loudly on this forum or its "predecessor". But I came around on Ference because he proved me wrong - and I also admitted it multiple times. Ference was instrumental in the 2011 Stanley Cup win. I wish Graesslich had about one tenth of his ability and heart. We wouldn't need this thread then.
Same thing with Ullmark before last year. I proclaimed that he would win a Wasa crispbread trophy before ever being considered for the Vezina. Then he won the Vezina, and again, I admitted on this forum that I was wrong. Yes, I was wrong - so what? (Doesn't mean that I think Ullmark is without flaws. And I have voiced my concerns about him and his selfish attitude in last year's playoffs too.)I am happy to talk about the hockey, but all I get from you is used car salesman pitches along the line of "2 plus 2 equals 5".
Again, I am willing to admit I was wrong if Grzelcyk can prove me wrong. But my guess is he won't. Because he's simply not good enough.
(And slowly I'm moving into "I really don't give a shit about what you think" territory, which I wouldn't have thought possible until about half a year ago.)
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 29, 2024 12:18:38 GMT
I feel like this thread sort of has a punchline like Jack Lemmon in GlenGary Glen Ross...*he really is a fuck you know*
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 29, 2024 15:10:30 GMT
I'm condescending? Oh, sorry, I forgot that I've been posting pictures of contemptable historical figures rather than acknowledge any points you've been making and photoshopping things to grossly exaggerate what you've said rather than have a discussion. My bad. I don't care if you want to have some fun with it. But don't ask me if I've read posts I've responded to, especially when I break down the one example you gave by watching the game film and explaining what I see when I watch that play in one of those responses. I've put literally dozens of data points out there not to argue that Grz is a good defenseman but to argue that Grz is the least of the Bruins problems. And whatever language you want to use to suggest he's somehow the worst defenseman ever to play the game, you've used silence to try to address those data points. Just a blanket, NOPE data can be manipulated. OK. Sure. One data point, or three. But when you can triangulate? When you can look at a question from multiple positions and come back with data that points to the same conclusions? Nah, you'd rather stick with "this is what I see". And like I said, I did you the courtesy of going back and watching the play you cited multiple times. I've done that with several plays where people have decided to lay the blame on Grz, but if you watch the play develop, and look at how the Bruins address the situation as a team, each time I've done it, it is at least a tenable argument that Grz did what he was supposed to do and someone else made the mistake. In the two most recent examples, Grz tried to trap the PP entry just inside the blueline when the Bruins had numbers back, and if DeBrusk stays with his man, there's no danger let alone a goal, but he comes off his man and tries to double the guy Grz had. But on the GDT, everyone was talking about Grz's mistake. It wasn't. Then the first goal against Florida. Grz is in position. McAvoy loses his man - Barkov - after the shot is deflected, and instead of switching, chases him to Grz's side when he has no chance of getting there in time to make a play. If you read danny's response to that one, you'll see he also agrees NOW that it was a six man breakdown by a team that wasn't ready to play, and that includes a miscommunication between McAvoy - again, the one who is chasing out of position - and his D partner. But on the GDT, it was all about Grz being garbage. I'm happy to talk about the hockey, but when I do, all I get from you is escalating use of techniques to avoid the conversation. Because yes, on this one, I think you would rather be right than see the Bruins win. Because you're also too smart to use the "if they don't with the Stanley Cup, I'm right about Grz" trick. If they don't win the Cup, 30 other teams will have managed the feat without the terrible taint of Grz.
"Photoshopping things"? I'm so inept at using photoshop, please show where/when I did that. Maybe I can reverse-engineer what I had to drink on that very night...
I don't care if Grzelcyk is "the least of the Bruins problems". He is a problem, and an absolutely unnecessary one to boot. What I care about is that the Bruins are wasting one superior talent at d (McAvoy) to play watchdog to one of the worst dmen in the league. Again, that's bullshit in its purest form. I really don't give a shit if I'm right or not. Example? For one, I was dead set against giving Andrew Ference a contract extension, let alone a raise, and I voiced this very loudly on this forum or its "predecessor". But I came around on Ference because he proved me wrong - and I also admitted it multiple times. Ference was instrumental in the 2011 Stanley Cup win. I wish Graesslich had about one tenth of his ability and heart. We wouldn't need this thread then.
Same thing with Ullmark before last year. I proclaimed that he would win a Wasa crispbread trophy before ever being considered for the Vezina. Then he won the Vezina, and again, I admitted on this forum that I was wrong. Yes, I was wrong - so what? (Doesn't mean that I think Ullmark is without flaws. And I have voiced my concerns about him and his selfish attitude in last year's playoffs too.)I am happy to talk about the hockey, but all I get from you is used car salesman pitches along the line of "2 plus 2 equals 5".
Again, I am willing to admit I was wrong if Grzelcyk can prove me wrong. But my guess is he won't. Because he's simply not good enough.
(And slowly I'm moving into "I really don't give a shit about what you think" territory, which I wouldn't have thought possible until about half a year ago.)Fundamentally, you choose to ignore any of the things I've put forward and reassert over and over the same basic idea that you think Grz us a problem because you don't like his game. Not inky do you dismiss anything I put forward as the typical statist al measures that show when a player sucks, you can't or don't try to offer anything orher than opinion to corroborate what you think orher than other fans on a chatboard think it too. And double down on the ad hominem attacks. Good call. I guess i got the software wrong for your newspaper gag. My bad. There are parts if this that are always going to be opinion. My opinion is that teams have for decades made good use of players who aren't very good on their own, but who can be more than useful paired with a top D partner. Hal Gill had a pretty successful career but never gets out of the A if he doesn't learn to be the low risk partner to Bourque. It happened before the cap era and it's even more important now. When i look and see that McAvoy is actually performing worse when not with Grz or Lindholm than with, it makes me think there's value in that chemistry that you'd have to oay even more than they pay Grz to replicate. I have never disputed that Grz sucks. Just that the drama over him is ridiculous compared to their other problems when they have problems. Again, first place team despite losing their top 2 C and having a bunch of players you've decided you don't like - Grz, two disinterested, listless or goofy Czechs, etc. But I think Grz sucks because he can be physically overmatched and because he knows he can be physically overmatched, he can be intimidated into mistakes. But what he doesn't do, and I think this explains why the coaches like him, is make mental mistakes including selfish plays. He's smart. He knows the game and he knows Boston's system. He's sheltered from situations where he is more likely to get physically overmatched. So? That's strategy. That's getting the most out of what you have. Danny says it's not fair that he doesn't get sat but I think the reason is simple. You aren't helping anything by sitting him. Sit Peake or Wotherspoon and it's likely because they made mental errors. Same with Shatzy. You can't make Grz taller by making him eat popcorn. So it doesn't serve the same purpose. Hey, listen, you want to put me on ignore and decide you don't care what I think...Fine. I remain willing to look at anything you want to show me that is something other than just restating your opinion or referring generically to his playoff failures. I think the story the stats show is pretty compelling as a reason to think he sucks, but it also tells a story that a lot of teams would love - that a player who has major limitations is being managed effectively enough that he's giving you a lot of positive minutes.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 29, 2024 15:27:07 GMT
"Photoshopping things"? I'm so inept at using photoshop, please show where/when I did that. Maybe I can reverse-engineer what I had to drink on that very night...
I don't care if Grzelcyk is "the least of the Bruins problems". He is a problem, and an absolutely unnecessary one to boot. What I care about is that the Bruins are wasting one superior talent at d (McAvoy) to play watchdog to one of the worst dmen in the league. Again, that's bullshit in its purest form. I really don't give a shit if I'm right or not. Example? For one, I was dead set against giving Andrew Ference a contract extension, let alone a raise, and I voiced this very loudly on this forum or its "predecessor". But I came around on Ference because he proved me wrong - and I also admitted it multiple times. Ference was instrumental in the 2011 Stanley Cup win. I wish Graesslich had about one tenth of his ability and heart. We wouldn't need this thread then.
Same thing with Ullmark before last year. I proclaimed that he would win a Wasa crispbread trophy before ever being considered for the Vezina. Then he won the Vezina, and again, I admitted on this forum that I was wrong. Yes, I was wrong - so what? (Doesn't mean that I think Ullmark is without flaws. And I have voiced my concerns about him and his selfish attitude in last year's playoffs too.)I am happy to talk about the hockey, but all I get from you is used car salesman pitches along the line of "2 plus 2 equals 5".
Again, I am willing to admit I was wrong if Grzelcyk can prove me wrong. But my guess is he won't. Because he's simply not good enough.
(And slowly I'm moving into "I really don't give a shit about what you think" territory, which I wouldn't have thought possible until about half a year ago.) Fundamentally, you choose to ignore any of the things I've put forward and reassert over and over the same basic idea that you think Grz us a problem because you don't like his game. Not inky do you dismiss anything I put forward as the typical statist al measures that show when a player sucks, you can't or don't try to offer anything orher than opinion to corroborate what you think orher than other fans on a chatboard think it too. And double down on the ad hominem attacks. Good call. I guess i got the software wrong for your newspaper gag. My bad. There are parts if this that are always going to be opinion. My opinion is that teams have for decades made good use of players who aren't very good on their own, but who can be more than useful paired with a top D partner. Hal Gill had a pretty successful career but never gets out of the A if he doesn't learn to be the low risk partner to Bourque. It happened before the cap era and it's even more important now. When i look and see that McAvoy is actually performing worse when not with Grz or Lindholm than with, it makes me think there's value in that chemistry that you'd have to oay even more than they pay Grz to replicate. I have never disputed that Grz sucks. Just that the drama over him is ridiculous compared to their other problems when they have problems. Again, first place team despite losing their top 2 C and having a bunch of players you've decided you don't like - Grz, two disinterested, listless or goofy Czechs, etc. But I think Grz sucks because he can be physically overmatched and because he knows he can be physically overmatched, he can be intimidated into mistakes. But what he doesn't do, and I think this explains why the coaches like him, is make mental mistakes including selfish plays. He's smart. He knows the game and he knows Boston's system. He's sheltered from situations where he is more likely to get physically overmatched. So? That's strategy. That's getting the most out of what you have. Danny says it's not fair that he doesn't get sat but I think the reason is simple. You aren't helping anything by sitting him. Sit Peake or Wotherspoon and it's likely because they made mental errors. Same with Shatzy. You can't make Grz taller by making him eat popcorn. So it doesn't serve the same purpose. Hey, listen, you want to put me on ignore and decide you don't care what I think...Fine. I remain willing to look at anything you want to show me that is something other than just restating your opinion or referring generically to his playoff failures. I think the story the stats show is pretty compelling as a reason to think he sucks, but it also tells a story that a lot of teams would love - that a player who has major limitations is being managed effectively enough that he's giving you a lot of positive minutes. I'll say this. You write: "you aren't helping anything by sitting him." And I say no, you are actually helping the team by sitting him if it allows for more offense from a Lohrie/Shat or better defense with both Wotherspoon/Peeke in lineup. I'm not questioning Gryz knowledge of the system, or his IQ overall, or even some of the few things he does well (maybe transition play and trying to avoid the bad pass, covering for 73)...I just don't believe he is what's best for the B's in the playoffs. They now have 7 other options. I'm reading your stuff, book, I'm not being bombastic or over the top on this. His weaknesses are exposed anytime they play a heavy forechecking team, and while it may affect the other 17 skaters too, he has proven in the playoffs he is flat out not doing his job.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 29, 2024 15:54:45 GMT
Reminds me of the Sox, in the 80s, there love for fucking Bob Stanley. It comes down to someone upstairs loves to say, "He's staying and fuck everyone else". A short mans ego game. I have some power. Truly puzzling. I loved Stanley in 78, and he actually was my favorite pitcher for a while....and I wore #46 in college because of him...found it later ironic that my favorite hockey player of course also wore #46...:-) Puke!!!
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 29, 2024 15:59:12 GMT
I loved Stanley in 78, and he actually was my favorite pitcher for a while....and I wore #46 in college because of him...found it later ironic that my favorite hockey player of course also wore #46...:-) Puke!!! I do like the analogy on Stanley being a binky like Gryz...it's not far off.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 29, 2024 16:08:58 GMT
Fundamentally, you choose to ignore any of the things I've put forward and reassert over and over the same basic idea that you think Grz us a problem because you don't like his game. Not inky do you dismiss anything I put forward as the typical statist al measures that show when a player sucks, you can't or don't try to offer anything orher than opinion to corroborate what you think orher than other fans on a chatboard think it too. And double down on the ad hominem attacks. Good call. I guess i got the software wrong for your newspaper gag. My bad. There are parts if this that are always going to be opinion. My opinion is that teams have for decades made good use of players who aren't very good on their own, but who can be more than useful paired with a top D partner. Hal Gill had a pretty successful career but never gets out of the A if he doesn't learn to be the low risk partner to Bourque. It happened before the cap era and it's even more important now. When i look and see that McAvoy is actually performing worse when not with Grz or Lindholm than with, it makes me think there's value in that chemistry that you'd have to oay even more than they pay Grz to replicate. I have never disputed that Grz sucks. Just that the drama over him is ridiculous compared to their other problems when they have problems. Again, first place team despite losing their top 2 C and having a bunch of players you've decided you don't like - Grz, two disinterested, listless or goofy Czechs, etc. But I think Grz sucks because he can be physically overmatched and because he knows he can be physically overmatched, he can be intimidated into mistakes. But what he doesn't do, and I think this explains why the coaches like him, is make mental mistakes including selfish plays. He's smart. He knows the game and he knows Boston's system. He's sheltered from situations where he is more likely to get physically overmatched. So? That's strategy. That's getting the most out of what you have. Danny says it's not fair that he doesn't get sat but I think the reason is simple. You aren't helping anything by sitting him. Sit Peake or Wotherspoon and it's likely because they made mental errors. Same with Shatzy. You can't make Grz taller by making him eat popcorn. So it doesn't serve the same purpose. Hey, listen, you want to put me on ignore and decide you don't care what I think...Fine. I remain willing to look at anything you want to show me that is something other than just restating your opinion or referring generically to his playoff failures. I think the story the stats show is pretty compelling as a reason to think he sucks, but it also tells a story that a lot of teams would love - that a player who has major limitations is being managed effectively enough that he's giving you a lot of positive minutes. I'll say this. You write: "you aren't helping anything by sitting him." And I say no, you are actually helping the team by sitting him if it allows for more offense from a Lohrie/Shat or better defense with both Wotherspoon/Peeke in lineup. I'm not questioning Gryz knowledge of the system, or his IQ overall, or even some of the few things he does well (maybe transition play and trying to avoid the bad pass, covering for 73)...I just don't believe he is what's best for the B's in the playoffs. They now have 7 other options. I'm reading your stuff, book, I'm not being bombastic or over the top on this. His weaknesses are exposed anytime they play a heavy forechecking team, and while it may affect the other 17 skaters too, he has proven in the playoffs he is flat out not doing his job. First, danny, I do recognize that you're engaging in this reasonably and I appreciate it, especially from the king of CAPSLOCK! And i hope it's clear I'm trying to do the same in return. In a previous reply, I said I don't have any issue with them sitting Grz. I still don't and I agree that if they don't have a better plan for the olayoffs if they face Florida or Tampa or any heavy forecheck, it's a mistake. I just don't think it's worth losing a lot of sleep over in the regular season. Even in the playoffs, his record of failure is largely based in his play in series where I am hard pressed to name one Bruin who handled the physical pressure they faced. No one was good against the Bolts or the Isles or the Canes or the Panthers. Or the Blues. This team as a while struggles in that matchup and you could swap out Grz for Chara and I am not aure it changes things enough. Grz is the scapegoat for the un-Bruin-like nature of the current roster. I hear your point about Shatnerkirk but go back to what I said before. To me, it's not just more offense; it's more offense without giving up more goals against. I don't like the equation with Shattenkirk and never have but I recognize that sometimes you take a risk when you need what he can give you. He has a role but i think I need a spwcific catalyst to want him to play more. Grz has actually missed a number of games this year. 17 by my count. I think that's part if what i woukd want to look at before saying the team is better defensively with Peake and Wotherspoon and Shatt or Lohrei. But I think Monty is in that Belichick school that you can live with guys losing physical battles but not mental ones, and since most of Grz's failures are physical, I'll be surprised if he sees a reason to sit Grz.
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Apr 1, 2024 20:11:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 2, 2024 1:28:36 GMT
Wow. When did the hockey news become a joke?
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Apr 2, 2024 2:07:01 GMT
Wow. When did the hockey news become a joke? Since they had Alexander Daigle on their cover calling him the next great one.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 2, 2024 2:42:34 GMT
Wow. When did the hockey news become a joke? Same time as The Athletic
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Apr 2, 2024 2:49:17 GMT
Wow. When did the hockey news become a joke? Since they had Alexander Daigle on their cover calling him the next great one. There's a documentary on him called "Chosen One." It details his hockey life, that of which he has the tag of a massive draft flop. This is him at 18 with the Sens posing in a nurse's uniform for a promotional shoot, a choice he says put a bulls - eye on his back.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 2, 2024 3:02:44 GMT
Wow. When did the hockey news become a joke? Same time as The Athletic I guess. That's the second story by that guy I've read and they both said nothing. The Bruins might sign Grz but they also might not and there's nothing ti report at this time. Feck eff.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 2, 2024 3:08:41 GMT
Since they had Alexander Daigle on their cover calling him the next great one. There's a documentary on him called "Chosen One." It details his hockey life, that of which he has the tag of a massive draft flop. This is him at 18 with the Sens posing in a nurse's uniform for a promotional shoot, a choice he says put a bulls - eye on his back. 20-31-51 on a terrible team. He was their second leading acorer behind Yashin. But he wasn't Mario so he got gutted. Stupid. But he also wasn't the kind if guy who was going to be that franchise player.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Apr 2, 2024 3:37:53 GMT
There's a documentary on him called "Chosen One." It details his hockey life, that of which he has the tag of a massive draft flop. This is him at 18 with the Sens posing in a nurse's uniform for a promotional shoot, a choice he says put a bulls - eye on his back. 20-31-51 on a terrible team. He was their second leading acorer behind Yashin. But he wasn't Mario so he got gutted. Stupid. But he also wasn't the kind if guy who was going to be that franchise player. Tons of pressure on an 18 year old. I remember him being hailed as a mythical talent but yeah, the Sens were shit at 10-70-4. Compared to some other first rounders drafted by Ottawa, Daigle wasn't even close to being the worst.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 2, 2024 12:25:03 GMT
20-31-51 on a terrible team. He was their second leading acorer behind Yashin. But he wasn't Mario so he got gutted. Stupid. But he also wasn't the kind if guy who was going to be that franchise player. Tons of pressure on an 18 year old. I remember him being hailed as a mythical talent but yeah, the Sens were shit at 10-70-4. Compared to some other first rounders drafted by Ottawa, Daigle wasn't even close to being the worst. And there was no chance they or any team would have taken someone else with that pick. In hindsight, you see Pronger and Kariya, plus Arnott, Bertuzzi, Koivu....but Daigle was getting compared to Mario during peak Mario because he was challenging his Q scoring pace through his first two years. No way he would have had the 253 or whatever Mario had in his draft year. But 137 in 53 games is well over 2 points a game. Hard to leave that on the table and taje the lanky D who wouldn't become a suoerstar for about four or five years and after a big trade.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 2, 2024 12:43:03 GMT
Tons of pressure on an 18 year old. I remember him being hailed as a mythical talent but yeah, the Sens were shit at 10-70-4. Compared to some other first rounders drafted by Ottawa, Daigle wasn't even close to being the worst. And there was no chance they or any team would have taken someone else with that pick. In hindsight, you see Pronger and Kariya, plus Arnott, Bertuzzi, Koivu....but Daigle was getting compared to Mario during peak Mario because he was challenging his Q scoring pace through his first two years. No way he would have had the 253 or whatever Mario had in his draft year. But 137 in 53 games is well over 2 points a game. Hard to leave that on the table and taje the lanky D who wouldn't become a suoerstar for about four or five years and after a big trade. Studs McKenzie, ZnotChara, and Senynotsationalshyn were other guys that were pretty hard to leave on the table...or leave on the ice in a NHL shift for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by drewski6 on Apr 2, 2024 12:46:38 GMT
Same time as The Athletic I guess. That's the second story by that guy I've read and they both said nothing. The Bruins might sign Grz but they also might not and there's nothing ti report at this time. Feck eff. Chappy and I were talking about this in the prospect thread. He pointed to a "light" article on Lysell which was like 3 paragraphs. Paragraph 1....When he was drafted....Paragraph 2....his AHL stats.....Paragraph 3....When will he get called up? We make no bold prediction or even give an opinion on if/when he should be here.....All we'll say in this paragraph 3 related to a call up is....."good play helps one called up!" Way to stick your neck out there guys. Then I showed an article about Merk that followed the same basic formula. Its like these articles are template driven using automation to sub in names, stats. They may be.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Apr 2, 2024 12:50:22 GMT
I guess. That's the second story by that guy I've read and they both said nothing. The Bruins might sign Grz but they also might not and there's nothing ti report at this time. Feck eff. Chappy and I were talking about this in the prospect thread. He pointed to a "light" article on Lysell which was like 3 paragraphs. Paragraph 1....When he was drafted....Paragraph 2....his AHL stats.....Paragraph 3....When will he get called up? We make no bold prediction or even give an opinion on if/when he should be here.....All we'll say in this paragraph 3 related to a call up is....."good play helps one called up!" Way to stick your neck out there guys. Then I showed an article about Merk that followed the same basic formula. Its like these articles are template driven using automation to sub in names, stats. They may be. AI sadly wrote better than the Hockey News clown.
|
|