Pelech plays a pretty similar role, but he's only played 33 games and 568 minutes this year, so he missed your cut off. He's one of the very few blue dots in the upper left section, but part of that could just be because the rest of our D suck, so his relative numbers are better. But ultimately, Parayko is still very good defensively.
His zone start rates and quality of competition are very similar, but he's getting about 2:45 a night less time at 5 on 5 than Parayko is. Still a very hard job, but Parayko is doing it for 3 extra shifts every night.
Yeah, this is why I had the point of either not liking how the Blues use him or how coaches/Army are seemingly upset/surprised/disappointed with the results. I think Parayko has had better years, but his numbers are in his normal range, his possession numbers are actually better than the previous 2 seasons, despite more difficult deployment, and his offensive production is in his typical range, the low-end, but still normal.
I think Berube (or whoever is in charge of D deployment) needs to give up on the current deployment. Parayko isn't good enough to effectively shutdown the opposition in his current deployment (or at least he isn't without another stud shutdown partner) and Krug/Faulk haven't been turning their extremely offensive usage into meaningful even strength production.
Yep. Now I suppose the argument against that is that we'd be absolutely destroyed with Faulk/Krug in a more balanced deployment, but we shouldn't keep doing the same thing and hoping it works. And it's similar to how we use Binnington too. Even if it's just to get confidence back in Parayko, we can't keep running him into the ground because others can't carry their weight.
I think Parayko gets viewed worse than he is because of his usage
So be it. We're getting run into the ground with the current deployment too. And frankly, losing games is a good outcome for the last 30 games of the season.
I know you're speaking a bit tongue and cheek, but I want to see a couple weeks of a Krug-Parayko pairing that faces quality competition in all situations. See how each of them responds to roles that they aren't really getting at the moment and whether they can build any chemistry.
Yeah, run Leddy/Faulk and Krug/Parayko with pretty balanced deployments and see what happens. I don't think it happens, but use this time to try something else out to get a head start on next season. Or throw Krug on the 3rd and try another guy with Parayko or Faulk with balanced deployments.
I wouldn't mind seeing them rotate a bit more and find out where Tucker might fit in as well. There is no harm in trying a Tucker-Parayko Leddy-Faulk Krug-Rosen deployment for a couple of games to see if we can get some better outcomes. And if we do get better outcomes, shut it down and bring it back next year.
I don't see the value in spending valuable assets to move his contract at the front end of a retool/rebuild. I'd rather experiment with deployment (or cutting down his minutes) over the next couple years to see if he can look like a more useful player when losing doesn't matter. See if you can make him look more (or as) appealing on-ice as he does right now and then try to trade him when there is less cap crunch and fewer years left on his deal.
Yeah, I want Krug gone too, but no point in using assets to dump him, if we are still planning on being in transition for multiple seasons after this. Only point in paying assets to dump someone is to quickly use that cap space on an upgrade and improve your chances at contending. Since that isn't happening, just hope he improves, shelter him on the 3rd and see if you can eventually move him later.
I don't think we'll have to add much, if anything, to trade Krug. I honestly think we undervalue him because he's so different than what we have been use to seeing on the team. Now I'm not saying we are going to get value back either.
It's not disinformation just because you don't like the guy.
To me it is propaganda to describe this player as having "stepped up" this year. He has been awful to watch, just awful. I concede his weaknesses are the ones that to me are unacceptable. Goals and points is a(n important) way to measure a player, but far from the only way a player can be measured against his peers, and thus to use only that measure while ignoring everything else to me is propaganda.
I very much disagree about Neighbours' ceiling as a low end 3rd liner, but I also very much don't like that lineup.
He's absolutely stepped up this year and you finding him awful to watch doesn't change that. He's taken on increased minutes, improved his goal scoring and his line with Thomas is the only reliable line the team has had.
We are not going to agree on Kyrou, he is a very polarizing player. Throughout the time he's been apart from ROR he's been a minus player. You are framing this like ROR was the problem, dragging Kyrou down. It is EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY unfair for anyone to argue that Kyrou's horrible start can be laid to ROR, that absolutely flies in the face of what we all saw out of Kyrou. Also, arbitrarily cutting off his worst parts (and he's still a minus player after that) is deliberately misshaping the info to make a case, that's why I called it what I did.
Well you'd be wrong about Neighbours. Don't feel too bad though. Your track record is better than anyone else here.
