You can read the story here.
It shouldn't be hard.
Ah Alan....u never change your attitude......go SCHROCK and welcome back.....I am still and will ALWAYS be your supporter.
Who, how ya' doing today? Here are parts of a couple of quotes I'd like for you to consider.
"I know how to get more out of Schrocky, Graham said. "We're going to work on getting him to the net more. He'll be crashing and banging."
"Kaleigh Schrock, it's his time to shine with the Komets", (David ) Franke said. "...and I expect a much better season from Kaleigh than we got last year."
Now look everyone, I'm not naive enough to think that the Komets weren't going to sign Schrock. If the rest of the roster is talented, then Schrock would fill that 10th forward spot nicely. But to announce this signing now is a little curious to me. If he were in my "hip pocket", I would hold off until I could include him in a bundle of a more exciting and optimistic group.
Oh yes. That remark about never changing my attitude - well, I must not be alone in that. The two quotes above are not from yesterday...but from July 9, 2013!
How'd that work out?
Alan , pretty tough to score many goals when you get about 2 shifts a period. Time to let him play a reagular shift and see what happens. Tired of the haters on July 1.
Shrock got a regular shift at the beginning of the season and didn't do anything with it.... They put a pig in a dress last season and now they're gonna add makeup...
"Haters" the most oft and inaccurately used word on the local blogs... The blanket word used by those who are incapable of processing a differing opinion.....
Hi Stick. I hope you're correct.
If Schrock is going to be here I want him to score 15-20 goals. I'm not "picking" on him. I don't "hate" him. On the contrary, I want the Komets to win. I want to see my money go for wins, Komet success, and fun.
I don't care who the player is, where he's from, or how much 'history' he has. The IHL allowed 7 veterans. The CHL allowed 6 (goaltenders did not count). The ECHL only allows 4. Veterans are a valuable commodity in the ECHL. There must be some accountability, expectation, and responsibility from both the player and the front office.
Your analogy is fair. Hard to be the star when you get about two shifts a period. No doubt about that fact. Still you must ask yourself why his play became limited. When you answer that question honestly, there is only one conclusion. His talent was deemed below the level as others on the team. Gary Graham must've believed his team had a better chance to win without Schrock getting a regular shift. Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand how everyone can't see that. It isn't hate, it's logic.
It isn't that I "hate" Schrock, it's more like I "love" the Komets. I want whatever gives them the best chance for wins. Could we at least agree with the fact that his production has consistently fallen, and many of the same things said the other day, are exactly the same things said the past couple of years? Facts don't lie, statistics give us measuring stick to use.
Like the line from the Godfather movies. It isn't personal, it's strictly business.
Yes, but captains are even more valuable than veterans. And everyone screams because the team doesn't hit or fight, but he does both. It takes all types to build a team.
"It takes all types to build a team."
I wouldn't argue with that at all. And if the word "production" (in the title of the thread) meant agitation and not necessarily scoring, then he needs to get on the ice more often. Here's the crux of the matter to me. If the team doesn't do well (by winning) and scoring is a problem, he probably won't see much ice time or (as last year) reduced ice time. For years the Komets have valued their veteran spots. Rarely have they used one as a 10th forward. I will totally agree that there are intangibles in play here. Sometimes important things don't show up on the statistic sheet.
I'm not unreasonable about this. Many times I have written that if the K's are rolling along, Schrock as the tenth forward scoring 10-15 goals a year, would be just fine. It just depends.
But getting back to the point, having an opinion on the value of the signing does not equal hate (as so many believe). For me, it's just a logical reasoning based on observation with the experience of watching him play 99% of his home games since his career began.
Surely I agree that the Captain of any team is important. That didn't stop the K's from trading their captain last season. Nor did it make them pause when they stripped the captaincy from Guy Dupuis to Colin Chaulk a few years ago. (You can still act like a "captain" without the "C" as far as setting a good example, communication in the room, communication between the Coach and player).
Personally I would have liked to have seen Aaron Clarke be named Captain. Heck, I don't even know if he will sign but I would submit he'd be a good one. One thing I do know and can guarantee , at least for me, hate has nothing to do with my opinions.
Aaron Clarke is retiring. It's in yesterday's story.
Depending who is looking at what comments, JR1 please read my comment to you about your post under the Hodgman article.
As to Alan.....wow, you keep digging yourself a deeper whole the more you try and explain your way out.....why not call it a day and move on to another subject.
I understand that who/suz does not care for Alan's opinions and longer posts...but I'm just curious..why do you say he is digging himself deeper? He didn't say anything over the top..he is making valid points, I am pro Schrocky but i can't deny anything Alan just said. Again, just out of curiousity, wondering why you consider his explanation so outlandish that he should stop posting? I love Schrock and am glad he's back, but I'm worried about what role they are expecting him to play.
Thank you, Anonymous. Your post is appreciated.
My message to Who/Suz is just ... people don't have to agree upon everything. You and I certainly prove that fact. (And I'm glad we don't).
Your post contained this, "digging a deeper whole (I'm sure you meant hole, by the way) the more you try to explain your way out." Really? Well then, while I'm in that "hole", why don't you bury me with facts??
To the other posters: I can fully understand your loyalty to Schrock. I know it is on many levels. I, and others, just don't view it the same way.
Emotional arguments carry little weight with me. Rational arguments will make me think twice.
I would love to change my mind on this "Schrock" discussion. But I can't because no one has convinced me his contributions on the ice will help the Komets win the ECHL Kelly Cup.
OK. This post is reaching the dreaded "long" level. So someday I will tell you about my discussion with David Franke ( a few years ago while in the office) and about his asking me of what I thought about Tyler Willis (to whom they were talking to at the time). In many ways Kaleigh Schrock reminds me a lot of Tyler Willis. (That should be a clue). I've often thought about the similarities since then, and how my opinion has remained unchanged.
Again, thanks anonymous.
Dear anon...I never said he should stop posting..just move on
Dear Alan..no I meant whole....dual meaning......Schrock issues & all others u r discussing
Have a great weekend folks..hope your outlooks change as tme goes by
For me I just enjoy the game..whomever is playing
Yeah, right. Good try though.