Remember Randy Quaid's character in Major League 2? No, of course you don't, nobody actually saw Major League 2... this guy starts out a huge Indians fan, but sours on the team quickly as they fail to meet expectations. However, instead of just going home, he keeps coming to games just to gripe about them and generally annoy everybody in his section, until they actually win the pennant and all of a sudden, he's a huge fan again. That's Dater.
Dater throws in some of his standard, no-insight analysis on the loss to the Kings: "No passion, no spirit, no toughness, no nothin’" It's pablum, yet another in a long line of blog entries that leave the reader not one iota more informed than before it was read. If I ever get my wish and Dater's blog was a personal Avalanche blog and it/he were totally unaffiliated with the Denver Post, would anybody read it? What exactly does it offer?
I will admit that every once in a while he will do something useful such as post practice video or Q&A in the locker room, stuff that we can't really get elsewhere... but beyond that, his blog is the biggest collection of nothing I could imagine for an Avs fan. I was watching the NHL Network last night and they talked about the game, and the guy behind the desk broke down three or four plays and explained exactly what the Avs were doing right, at exactly the point where one (or more) Avs made the wrong decision, and how the Kings took advantage of it. It was pretty darn good for a 90-second breakdown... but not once did I see this guy pause the video and say, "Right here, the Avs could have used a bit more passion, a bit more spirit." If the guy who's job is to give a cursory glance to every game in the league every night and find something to talk about can offer some insight and analysis, why can't the guy who's job it is to cover one team at least match that, if not exceed it?
Dater then says something that kind of baffles me:
The Kings got two 5-on-3s and the Avs killed them both – and still lost. That almost never happens
I'm pretty sure that happens a lot, actually. My guess is that teams that get multiple 5-on-3s against them during a game usually DO end up losing most of those games, whether they kill the 5-on-3s or not. A team that gets more than one 5-on-3 against them in a single game is probably playing frantic, undisciplined, stupid hockey, which is not a description that is usually applied to the winning team. Odd statement there by Dater.
Dater moves on to a question he asked of Sacco about the players tuning out to his (Sacco's, that is) message. He doesn't seem to think that's likely, and I agree, but he asked the question anyway, and apparently Sacco either didn't understand the question or refused to answer it. He uses this to lead into one of his Glenn Beck moments about whether Sacco and Sherman will return next season.
Dater closes by pointing out yet again that Craig Anderson is playing well for the Sens. He and I seem to be coming at this from entirely different angles... to him, Anderson's good play in Ottawa is proof that the Avs should never have traded him in the first place, while to me it's proof that the little signs I thought I picked up on during games that told me he wasn't giving his best effort were probably accurate. The man had clearly mailed it in for the better part of the year in Denver; his light-switch resurgence in Ottawa supports that belief, and the Avs are better off without a guy like that.
D+ Not terrible, but the relentless negativity that Dater believes gives him credibility is, in reality, simply annoying. Another display of non-analytical game analysis leaves the reader wondering why they clicked on his blog in the first place.