Injury Report: 2014-2015 Injury Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hans Landaskog

Registered User
Feb 27, 2012
6,970
79
Denver
Who sits then? You just said it won't be McLeod, so...

I agree Everberg's roster spot is probably safe because of McGinn but I can see him scratched when we actually have enough healthy forwards.

I'm really not sure who it would be. Briere has been better, but he has been benched in favor of Cliche, then you look at if/when Mitchell or Winchester get back and it gets complicated. Here is what I would prefer

Everberg - Mitchell - Briere
McLeod - Winchester - Bordeleau

If McGinn comes back, out of that group it should be McLeod getting scratched, but it would probably be Everberg, unfortunately. Even if one of Mitchell or Winchester were hurt it'd be Everberg, since he doesn't play center.
 

dahrougem2

Registered User
Dec 9, 2011
39,423
43,875
Edmonton, Alberta
You're missing Talbot in that lineup, which would most likely indicate Everberg sitting since Roy has unrelenting loyalty to McLeod for an unknown reason. When healthy, the bottom 6 for me would be

Everberg-Mitchell-Briere
Bordeleau-Winchester-Talbot

Bordeleau just adds that fear factor to players, we saw it last season especially vs the Blues where he can drive a team nuts with a single hit. McLeod, as much as I respect the job that he does, simply isn't useful out there anymore and, at times, can be a complete liability
 

tigervixxxen

Optimism=Delusional
Jul 7, 2013
53,192
6,341
Denver
burgundy-review.com
At this point I would strongly bet against seeing McGinn again. I doubt we see Winchester but that one is more up in the air. So for my purposes I'm assuming neither of them will be available.

Talbot-Mitchell-Briere
McLeod-Cliche-Bordy

is the bottom 6 with Everberg slotting in there somewhere on occasion.
 

Hans Landaskog

Registered User
Feb 27, 2012
6,970
79
Denver
At this point I would strongly bet against seeing McGinn again. I doubt we see Winchester but that one is more up in the air. So for my purposes I'm assuming neither of them will be available.

Talbot-Mitchell-Briere
McLeod-Cliche-Bordy

is the bottom 6 with Everberg slotting in there somewhere on occasion.

This makes me sad.
 

TheStranger

Registered User
Jan 21, 2010
18,400
0
Ottawa, Ontario
You're missing Talbot in that lineup, which would most likely indicate Everberg sitting since Roy has unrelenting loyalty to McLeod for an unknown reason. When healthy, the bottom 6 for me would be

Everberg-Mitchell-Briere
Bordeleau-Winchester-Talbot

Bordeleau just adds that fear factor to players, we saw it last season especially vs the Blues where he can drive a team nuts with a single hit. McLeod, as much as I respect the job that he does, simply isn't useful out there anymore and, at times, can be a complete liability

Who do you have on the PK though? I think that's the only real reason McLeod is still around.

Only Winchester and Talbot and maybe Mitchell should be anywhere near a PK out of that group.
 

AvsRobin

Size doesn't matter!
Aug 10, 2010
9,896
603
Stockholm
Nick Groke ‏@nickgroke 9m9 minutes ago
Semyon Varlamov (groin) in full pads on the ice at #Avs skate today. But he's off to the side by himself. Looks a little slight still.
 

forsbergavs32

Global Moderator
Jan 21, 2011
28,981
28,171
Fresno,CA
Nick Groke ‏@nickgroke 9m9 minutes ago
Semyon Varlamov (groin) in full pads on the ice at #Avs skate today. But he's off to the side by himself. Looks a little slight still.

Looking at the schedule and that tweet, barring any setbacks of course, I'm betting we see Varly Tuesday against St. Louis or next Saturday against Chicago.
 

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Feb 24, 2012
67,095
53,585
I'd be very surprised if we see Varly before the end of the calendar year. They were cautious last time, this time they will be even more so.

I wouldn't say they were real cautious last time... that is if you mean the collective organizational they. Really it was Roy who wasn't. They (meaning the whole organization) better be this time around. :rant:
 

StayAtHomeAv

Registered User
May 20, 2014
6,681
127
I wouldn't say they were real cautious last time... that is if you mean the collective organizational they. Really it was Roy who wasn't. They (meaning the whole organization) better be this time around. :rant:

They waited for him to be "110%". What's Roy suppose to do when he is being told Varly is 110%? You don't sit your best players when they are 110%.
 

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Feb 24, 2012
67,095
53,585
They waited for him to be "110%". What's Roy suppose to do when he is being told Varly is 110%? You don't sit your best players when they are 110%.

Umm... don't play a goalie coming off a groin injury, that has had numerous groin issues in the past, on back to back nights. It was a mistake. I haven't been one to rip on Roy very often, but that was clearly a dumb move. He should have been eased in, and Roy didn't do that.
 

The Kingslayer

Registered User
Aug 26, 2004
77,527
58,537
Siem Reap, Cambodia
I'd be very surprised if we see Varly before the end of the calendar year. They were cautious last time, this time they will be even more so.

I would shut Varly down for the season no need risking him carrying this injury into next season. Draft top 3, trim the fat (Holden and Guenin) add some D help in the offseason but thats me
 

RockLobster

King in the North
Jul 5, 2003
27,544
8,100
Kansas
Umm... don't play a goalie coming off a groin injury, that has had numerous groin issues in the past, on back to back nights. It was a mistake. I haven't been one to rip on Roy very often, but that was clearly a dumb move. He should have been eased in, and Roy didn't do that.

If you're told a player is "100% ready to go" and that player has shown it in practices then there should be no "easing in". It's unfortunate that he re-aggravated the injury but if you're a coach and your Team Doctor says "Player X is fully cleared to return" then I don't see the issue.
 

Foppa2118

Registered User
Oct 3, 2003
52,661
32,031
If you're told a player is "100% ready to go" and that player has shown it in practices then there should be no "easing in". It's unfortunate that he re-aggravated the injury but if you're a coach and your Team Doctor says "Player X is fully cleared to return" then I don't see the issue.

As we've seen with Varly, and Mitchell, and countless times over the years, declaring someone "fully healed" or "100%" is not an exact science. This should be taken into consideration when deciding on playing a goalie coming off a groin injury on back to back nights.
 

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Feb 24, 2012
67,095
53,585
If you're told a player is "100% ready to go" and that player has shown it in practices then there should be no "easing in". It's unfortunate that he re-aggravated the injury but if you're a coach and your Team Doctor says "Player X is fully cleared to return" then I don't see the issue.

Roy has been told players are ready to go before and kept them out of back to backs or delayed their return a game. He should have done the same with Varly. A player that has had chronic issues should be treated a bit more carefully to not re-aggravate an issue, especially when that player is your franchise goalie that is signed for 4 more years. A game or two at the beginning isn't nearly as important as the long-term.

If a wide receiver has hamstring issues, you wait a bit longer to put them in the line up or don't have then run all go routes to protect it. Wait a game or two and see how they feel at each point to make sure everything is okay before going crazy.

Former players should know as much as anybody that being 110% in practice is way different than in a game. You can be fully healthy in one aspect, but not be ready to bear a load. Varly should have played one game and then been given a day or two to see how he feels. Instead he was thrown right back out there. It was the wrong decision by Roy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad