In article <[log in to unmask]>, Tony Biscardi
<[log in to unmask]> says:
>
>Maine
> Negative:  This team lacks any true offensive stars.  This team's best
>offensive player would be struggling to make the 3rd line of the '92-'93 Maine
>team.  Some feel this could hurt them come tourney-time.
 
I believe that a lack of "true offensive stars" is good for a team. Why?
Because if you lose your star player, you're in big trouble. Of course,
it would be nice to have Maine's 1992-93 lineup of Montgomery, Kariya,
the Ferraros, and Ingraham.
 
Many times teams that have one or two star players develop a playing
style that caters to their abilities. And if the game plan has to be
changed if one of the star players is injured, then things aren't
going to run smoothly.
 
By having a bunch of no-names, a team can really play like a team.
The same game plan can be used virtually all the time, no matter
who is injured or otherwise out of the lineup.
 
This is not to say a team made up of no-names is going to do better
than a team that has one or two stars.
_____________________________________________________________________
Ryan Robbins               "Nothing in fine print is ever good news."
University of Maine                                  -- Andy Rooney
_____________________________________________________________________
[log in to unmask] ____________________________________________