Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

[RENCEB]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

While we're on these big-picture hockey discussions, FL and I had a good discussion with Parker about trying to keep up with schools like RIT or Merrimack...... .

Wow there's a comment I never expected to see in my lifetime! Yes, I know it is in regards to the age of incoming recruits, but I'm just sayin....

 

[yankeefn01]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

If I were Parker, before every season I'd hand out two photographs to the team. One of Peter McArthur and one of John McCarthy. One player had far, far more talent than the other but didn't max it out at BU, the other did. One has a national title and a pro stint in his first year, the other doesn't. If that doesn't motivate people, they don't belong on the team.

BS. MarArthur gave every ounce he had for BU hockey, they were very similar in their time here, and were similar as captains. That team didn't have the vocal captain that Gilroy was last year, that was the difference (other than ridiculous surrounding talent).

I mean, there are certainly multiple guys you could say that about. But I agree, Pete MacArthur is about the last person I'd put in that category.

can we substitute Kenny Roche in Petey's place? thanks.

another kiss of death, just for you TBA

 

[kennedy]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

The CSS released their final pre-draft rankings for North American skaters, along with a "comparison" for each player. Charlie Coyle's comparison is Bob Sweeney.

Incoming Eagle Kevin Hayes is two spots behind Coyle and is compared to Eric Staal.

 

[Federal League]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Add me to the group that strongly disagrees with Rover's assessment of MacArthur. I won't speak to his first three seasons because I didn't have season tickets and only got to watch him a few times a year, but his senior season in 07-08, I thought he was one of the hardest workers on the team. I never once got the impression that he wasn't giving it his all.

 

[Rover]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

BS. MarArthur gave every ounce he had for BU hockey, they were very similar in their time here, and were similar as captains. That team didn't have the vocal captain that Gilroy was last year, that was the difference (other than ridiculous surrounding talent).

You're missing the part about MacArthur's sophomore and junior year. He was a hard worker on the ends of his career, but for a guy with his talent there were far, far too many games where you didn't even know he was out there. Kenny Roche didn't have nearly his talent, so its not a good comparison.

I'll say again, with his talent, why isn't he in the pros?

 

[13renclan]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

You're missing the part about MacArthur's sophomore and junior year. He was a hard worker on the ends of his career, but for a guy with his talent there were far, far too many games where you didn't even know he was out there. Kenny Roche didn't have nearly his talent, so its not a good comparison.

I'll say again, with his talent, why isn't he in the pros?

Roche had more raw talent, he was even taken in the NHL draft (always a poor comparison for college potential, but scouts do a good job finding raw talent). MacArthur came in with much lower expectations and was the best forward BU had in quite a few years. I don't know what you're talking about, I always noticed he was out there. Plus, MacArthur topped out, and isn't in the pros because his ceiling just isn't that high. Roche showed flashes of what he could be if he worked for it, but after a good junior season had a terrible finish and never realized his potential. He's a much better fit for your pictures. 'Here's what you can do at BU. You come in with NHL interest and don't put in the effort, you'll end up nowhere. You work hard, no matter what happened before, you can pave your own future.'

P.S. PMac is in the AHL. He and McCarthy are having similar seasons stat-wise. McCarthy's physcial attributes allow him to play a different role than MacArthur. With his smaller stature, Pete needs to be a scorer to have any further aspirations. For McCarthy, effective defensive players are useful at every level of hockey, so he could possibly stick around without having to alter his game. No idea where Roche is, not in the AHL anymore.

 

[yankeefn01]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

No idea where Roche is, not in the AHL anymore.

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=72681

 

[buoldtimer]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

No idea where Roche is, not in the AHL anymore.

Check Southie.

 

[13renclan]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=72681

Oh grand, ECHL.

 

[candycanes99]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

You're missing the part about MacArthur's sophomore and junior year. He was a hard worker on the ends of his career, but for a guy with his talent there were far, far too many games where you didn't even know he was out there. Kenny Roche didn't have nearly his talent, so its not a good comparison.

I'll say again, with his talent, why isn't he in the pros?

He scored almost 150 career points, he was consistent year in and year out. He was the only guy who had a decent offensive season in 06-07. He'd be one of the last people I'd use to make an example of slacking. You could just tell his heart was in it.

 

[J.D.]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

could anyone criticizing Parker have done a better job, even for a couple seasons?

Always loved this argument. Parker isn't being compared to fans. He's being compared to his coaching peers.

 

[candycanes99]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Always loved this argument. Parker isn't being compared to fans. He's being compared to his coaching peers.

Or at least he should be (and often is). However, some replies on that topic have been, "Well, why didn't he do this or this or this," as if those persons would have been able to correct the problems that plagued this team.

 

[J.D.]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Or at least he should be (and often is). However, some replies on that topic have been, "Well, why didn't he do this or this or this," as if those persons would have been able to correct the problems that plagued this team.

Well, I mean, that's what this message board is for. Just because you might disagree with a coach on something doesn't mean you'd be a better coach than them in the big picture.

 

[Rover]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

He scored almost 150 career points, he was consistent year in and year out. He was the only guy who had a decent offensive season in 06-07. He'd be one of the last people I'd use to make an example of slacking. You could just tell his heart was in it.

Sorry, I'm just not on board. To me the guy underachieved for his talent level. There's no way him and McCarthy can be considered peers in terms of ability. That has no basis in any reality. I'll also throw out that I don't recall him scoring in the two biggest games of his career ('06 HE championship, '06 NCAA's vs BC. He may have also been shut out his freshman year when the team got run off the ice vs UNH in the HE semi's). Your top player needs to get you on the board in those situations.

Not saying he was a bad player. What I'm saying is it seems he didn't play as well as he could have, and to me its no coincidence he hasn't made the Big Show yet. Now if you want to blame that on coaching, sucky teammates, etc be my guest. However, he wouldn't be the first guy to make the NHL even though he played with a bunch of stiffs during his college career.

 

[Federal League]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Sorry, I'm just not on board. To me the guy underachieved for his talent level. There's no way him and McCarthy can be considered peers in terms of ability. That has no basis in any reality. I'll also throw out that I don't recall him scoring in the two biggest games of his career ('06 HE championship, '06 NCAA's vs BC. He may have also been shut out his freshman year when the team got run off the ice vs UNH in the HE semi's). Your top player needs to get you on the board in those situations.

Not saying he was a bad player. What I'm saying is it seems he didn't play as well as he could have, and to me its no coincidence he hasn't made the Big Show yet. Now if you want to blame that on coaching, sucky teammates, etc be my guest. However, he wouldn't be the first guy to make the NHL even though he played with a bunch of stiffs during his college career.

Guys who are scorers and only scorers (for the most part) like MacArthur aren't gonna get to the NHL if their scoring doesn't carry over. It often has nothing to do with effort. In MacArthur's case, I don't think it has anything to do with effort. What it has to do with is the fact that he's never gonna be a good fourth-liner. John McCarthy is, hence the reason he got a shot first.

There are loads of examples of this. It took Ryan Potulny 5 years to stick in the NHL. Chris Collins still hasn't gotten to the NHL. TJ Hensick hasn't really stuck yet. Neither has Kevin Porter or Nathan Gerbe. And they were all better college players than MacArthur. Are you telling me they all have effort problems?

 

[kennedy]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Sorry, I'm just not on board. To me the guy underachieved for his talent level. There's no way him and McCarthy can be considered peers in terms of ability.

I did some research, and I'm not sure I agree with you. These numbers are pretty similar:

John McCarthy:14g, 31a, 45pts
Peter MacArthur: 21g, 24a, 45pts.

Oh, hold up. I made a mistake. That's just MacArthur's senior season.

John McCarthy: 145 games, 14g, 31a, 45
Peter MacArthur: 159 games, 64g, 83a, 147pts

You're right, nobody is considering Peter MacArthur and John McCarthy peers.

The disparity between MacArthur and McCarthy, and their relative NHL time (and we're talking about FOUR game for the latter), is the same reason that Adam Burish in playing a regular shift while Jack Skille is in the AHL (as FL outlined below).

 

[Rover]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Guys who are scorers and only scorers (for the most part) like MacArthur aren't gonna get to the NHL if their scoring doesn't carry over. It often has nothing to do with effort. In MacArthur's case, I don't think it has anything to do with effort. What it has to do with is the fact that he's never gonna be a good fourth-liner. John McCarthy is, hence the reason he got a shot first.

There are loads of examples of this. It took Ryan Potulny 5 years to stick in the NHL. Chris Collins still hasn't gotten to the NHL. TJ Hensick hasn't really stuck yet. Neither has Kevin Porter or Nathan Gerbe. And they were all better college players than MacArthur. Are you telling me they all have effort problems?

No offense, but this is a stretch. Mike Grier and Jay Pandolfo both directly go against your 1st sentence.

Furthermore, Collins isn't in the NHL because he wasn't a great player, the system his coach used benefited him greatly. He wasn't as talented as MacArthur. That's his issue, not effort. Gerbe's problem is he's small for the pros, again a completely different problem than effort. These connections you've tried to make have nothing to do with MacArthur's problems.

 

[Rover]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

I did some research, and I'm not sure I agree with you. These numbers are pretty similar:

John McCarthy:14g, 31a, 45pts
Peter MacArthur: 21g, 24a, 45pts.

Oh, hold up. I made a mistake. That's just MacArthur's senior season.

John McCarthy: 145 games, 14g, 31a, 45
Peter MacArthur: 159 games, 64g, 83a, 147pts

You're right, nobody is considering Peter MacArthur and John McCarthy peers.

The disparity between MacArthur and McCarthy, and their relative NHL time (and we're talking about FOUR game for the latter), is the same reason that Adam Burish in playing a regular shift while Jack Skille is in the AHL (as FL outlined below).

Kennedy, the later has been out of school for a year. The former a bit longer than that.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

While I wait forever to get nachos because bob nutting is the biggest cokcsucking money grubbing ashole on earth....

One man does not make a hockey team. Pmac couldn't do it himself.

Employee #6 was talented. He was a 2nd rd draft choice. Albeit he really, really sucked. Be he did less with more than **** near any BU hockey player ever.

Scotty bowman is a hof coach because he coached guy lafluer, Steve schutt, Ken Dryden, Mario lemieux, hasek, yzerman. Ask shrader what bowman won in buffalo.

I don't think anyone is tougher on "the old guy" than I ('cept for jofa) . I coined "JackPa" a decade ago. I come home from games and rant over his dumb mistakes-because I face the bench and sit and watch him. To suggest I am covering for him somehow is amusing.

and bob nutting needs to remove himself as the pirates owner immediately. An *** is running this facility

 

[yuber]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

No offense, but this is a stretch. Mike Grier and Jay Pandolfo both directly go against your 1st sentence.

Furthermore, Collins isn't in the NHL because he wasn't a great player, the system his coach used benefited him greatly. He wasn't as talented as MacArthur. That's his issue, not effort. Gerbe's problem is he's small for the pros, again a completely different problem than effort. These connections you've tried to make have nothing to do with MacArthur's problems.

"Gerbe's problem is he's small for the pros"

If memory serves, before Gerbe there was Brian Gionta. Last time I looked, Gionta was playing for the Montreal Canadiens. Wasn't he supposed to be too small for pros?

I'll be the first to admit I know very little about what makes one player an NHLer, but not another. But I watched Peter Mac while he was a Terrier. He seemed to have a good attititude and on the whole, he had a pretty good college career. So did McCarthy, in his own way. (a national title never hurts)

So let me just say I think its hard to pigeon hole players based on size, reach or any other single measure. Gionta has been in the NHL a while now (beginning, I think with the Devils). Gerbe may never get there. MacArthur may never get there. So it goes. I won't speculate too long as to why one is in and another is not.