Prospect Info: Cedar Park
- Thread starter piqued
- Start date
do u want to win games in playoffs? if the answer is yes then you probably want as many guys that put the puck in the net as possible
LT
Global Moderator
- Jul 23, 2010
- 42,475
- 14,152
Guentzel is elite
I doubt the cost will be right but if it is, absolutely pull the trigger
Also wtf does Guentzel have to do with the Baby Stars
I doubt the cost will be right but if it is, absolutely pull the trigger
Also wtf does Guentzel have to do with the Baby Stars
We need them fellas who can stop other teams from doing that to us otherwise this is Lindy Ruff hockey
Their proposal is 50% retention so that would drive the price up to a blue chip
Johno
Deserved it Tour - the sloppy seconds
- Oct 30, 2013
- 5,127
- 2,987
it's a lot easier to score in regular season than playoffs and this team has been ~10th in expected goals for all year. There is always room for improvement
Johno
Deserved it Tour - the sloppy seconds
- Oct 30, 2013
- 5,127
- 2,987
Always could be more and definitely more PO proven scorers, but with the limited cap space this season DAL should be looking to fix the 3.04 GA/G average
The team should therefore be looking to consult with voodoo practitioners to solve the well below average goaltending that we've seen this year
Johno
Deserved it Tour - the sloppy seconds
- Oct 30, 2013
- 5,127
- 2,987
Kcb12345
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2017
- 30,977
- 24,600
Kcb12345
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2017
- 30,977
- 24,600
Stankoven makes it 2-0 Texas halfway through the 1st. Great shot shortside
Kcb12345
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2017
- 30,977
- 24,600
Kcb12345
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2017
- 30,977
- 24,600
Texas with an incredible PP and somehow they can't extend their lead. Stankoven with 4 chances himself including one off the post. Incredible extended sequence and somehow Texas did not score
Kcb12345
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2017
- 30,977
- 24,600
Texas is going to OT again
Texas loses in OT, 3-2.
Texas loses in OT, 3-2.
account deactivated
Finns > Swedes
Ratbath
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2019
- 733
- 575
They’re different. Stank has a crazy motor and raw shooting/puck skills especially for a guy his size while MB seems to have better vision and facilitating skills than many nhl players but not quite as much raw elite athleticism. At least that’s how it looks to me.
EXTRAS
Registered User
- Jul 31, 2012
- 9,364
- 5,857
starsfan86
Registered User
- Sep 27, 2006
- 4,834
- 3,581
EXTRAS
Registered User
- Jul 31, 2012
- 9,364
- 5,857
M88K
irreverent
- May 24, 2014
- 9,827
- 7,990
Stankoven should be the better player. There's things Bourque does better, but Stankoven is ahead in most categories
idk, i think it depends on how you define 'nhler.' mav is physically much larger and plays a cerebral game, both tied to longevity. stank plays balls to the wall and while more athletic, is diminutive. i can easily see a world where stank has better ppg numbers but mav has higher career totals.
but yeah, he's talking about his fantasy team for the next couple seasons, right?
M88K
irreverent
- May 24, 2014
- 9,827
- 7,990
IDK about phsically being much larger, watching them play, it isn't some real noticeable size descrepency, he's(Bourque) got 9lbs and about 3 inch height difference.
5'7 vs 5'10 and 170 vs 179. (this is by the AHL info) if we go by what the NHL, the difference is even smaller.
3 inches and 9lbs is almost nothing. (assuming neither Stankoven/Bourque added/Lost any weight since the AHL info was added)
that's fair, although those numbers are often pipe dreams. i distinctly recall niko kapanen being listed as my height/weight back in the day and when i stood next to him at a practice i almost laughed out loud. ever since i've spot checked here and there and they just don't seem very accurate.
i have a real hard time thinking they're only 9 lbs difference., but who knows.
edit: to be fair i only watched them a lot in juniors, so not playing side by side. if you're watching them in the A, i'll defer to what you're seeing.
