The problem with the Caps, according to CBC's Kelly Hrudey, is that they have too much talent. The result of this surplus of skill is that, "this year, with mostly the same players [as last year], the Washington Capitals are a bad team."They're in the top half of the League in points percentage, but are a bad team - not a slumping team, but a bad one. Got it. Good stuff, as always, Kelly.
18 comments:
Speaking of bad, maybe Kelly needs a little reflection.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hrudeke01.html
271-265-88/3.43/.893
Just because they chanted RU-DY RU-DY doesn't mean they were being nice jackass.
A good team playing badly might buy. But what can you expect from a guy who used to wear a headband that would have made Pat Benatar cringe.
Lost in what is a poorly argued essay is a point. The Caps are very much one-dimensional in terms of talent. It tends a little too heavily to the "elegant" sort of talent, the kind that makes one think of tuxedoes and red carpets. They don't have the flannel shirt and work boot sort of talent that gets into the muck and grinds out goals.
Not every team can have a Tomas Holmstrom, who probably hasn't scored a goal outside of ten feet since he was an amateur, but count up the ugly goals the Caps have this year. You won't need a second hand.
I think "bad" is a little to harsh. A bad team has no talent. This team certainly has issues, but I think it can be much better.
Point well taken, Peerless, but a guy like Brooks Laich should be a garbage goal machine. Chris Clark, too, in theory. Eric Fehr could be a front-of-the-net guy, too, if he could ever put it together.
But yeah, this team gets way too cute at times - no secret there. It still doesn't make them a "bad team."
Since bad is so generic, I have to disagree. HOWEVER, I have also felt we have too much talent, and not enough grit. Can this team dig deep enough to put it's talent aside, and just play with character? That is the main story-line for this team IMHO.
Having "too much talent" is a bad thing?
So it was bad in the 80s when the Oilers had a bajillion HOFers?
The Canadiens in the 70s were bad because they also had a bajillion HOFers?
So Detroit is bad even though they are lauded for their obscene amount of said talent? And were pretty much being written as the de facto Stanley Cup winners before the season began?
The argument that any team is "bad" because they have "too much talent" could be one of the most retarded things i've ever heard, and this is coming from a guy who works for the United States Government.
@jp...Atlanta is bad, the Kings are bad. Washington might be "unbalanced" with respect to roles. As for Laich, Clark, and Fehr, in their own ways they're collectively more disappointing than Ovechkin. You expect that Ovechkin will snap out of it. That isn't as much of a certainty with the other three. For Clark, I watch him, and just don't think he's healthy. He's toughing it out, but he just doesn't seem to have rev in his engine right now.
Agreed on all points, though I am, for the most part, fine with how Laich has played so far.
Just goes to show you, any idiot can write stuff and put it on the internet, (present company included).
Awesome, Boodgiesdad.
What I don't get is that Hrudey seems to be saying that none of the Caps problems are Boudreau's fault/responsibility. Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of things that I would attribute, at least in part, to coaching (and if a coach isn't getting his message through... that's coaching, too!).
Who's this bozo, again?
"Too much talent" isn't a bad thing. "Too many fancy passes" is more like it. "Talent" can be any number of things, not just Alex-Semin style "fake you out of your jock" dipsy doos. Brashear is talented. He is, without a doubt, one of the best enforcers around. That isn't to say he's anywhere near either Alex, but he's certainly talented at what he does. (though he's been known to show a flash or two of puck handling)
To say a team has "too much talent" is basically the same as saying this guy's ill-informed opinion matters.
second rate goalie, second rate analyst...who knew??
Nice application of tan-in-a-bottle though.
"They don't have the flannel shirt and work boot sort of talent that gets into the muck and grinds out goals. " I believe might take issue with this, Peerless. Granted, yes, none of the usual suspects (Clarkie, Laich, Gordo, Brads, Laich, Fehr . . . ) have much to show for their grit. But when it comes to the grittiest of the gritty sandpaper kinda guy, I believe that Ovie is all alone. From where I sit I believe he'd do just about anything to win. (This is the main reason I was so against him on the PK. He'd drop and block a shot if he could. No, Ovie. Noooo!!)
He is Mr. Lunchpail in a tuxedo in my book. If we need a grit paragon, he is it.
Hrudey's article is a poor as the analysis that led to it. What a stupid premise "Coaches need to show who is in charge." IMO that hasn't been a problem here in DC since the day after last Thanksgiving.
Bring on those Rangers - NEXT!
LETS GO CAPS!!!
What a bunch of knee-jerk reactions to a fairly good assessment of the Caps as they are currently playing. Being a fan is not a reason to shut your mind to what is really happening on the ice. With a little time this will probably be changed, but for now----it is what it is.
Sidehillman: What a stupid reaction to our reactions. We're saying that his wording is terrible. The caps aren't a bad team nor do they have "too much talent." They're playing poorly, that doesn't make them poor players. They're underachieving, that doesn't make them unable to achieve.
Please try to actually read the responses before calling them "kneejerk" reactions.
Aren't we 7-4-2? I don't know how that makes us a bad team, when we've been playing like shit and we're STILL doing well in the record books. Good game, Hrudey. Kelly needs to get run over by Lou a few more times.
Post a Comment