You are so wrong here. Dion should not be on the power play or on the ice when we need a goal late in the game. He is no longer one of our best options in those situations. Gardiner had been playing huge minutes on the pp and the pk so how is he one demensional? He can also skate and pass so much better then Dion....is he at the same level Dion is defensively currently nope but he will get there. Gardiner is not physical like Dion is but his other attrubutes make him a valuable player. Kadri now is he not a mean player who goes to the dirty areas of the ice? He is also a gifted offensive player who is getting better playing under Carlyles system of d zone coverage. He is no where one demensional.
Do you not understand the logic of your argument? Gardiner, a forward, who cannot even make use of his
sheltered minutes to produce should be granted PP minutes over a defenceman who is productive when given the toughest minutes. To give Gardiner PP minutes over Phaneuf would not be rewarding work ethic at all.
Lately Dion has **** the bed, he simply is not as good as he and you thinks he is. I done with the political stupidity on here and will call a spade a spade.
Never mind that we're dealing with a team sport here. If we look at individuals, poor play has been consistent amongst our mid and low pairings. Our forwards as a whole have been putrid (outside of Holland, I suppose) in terms of defence.
We lack leadership and players who care. JVR shows up half the time. Kessel is on the same schedule. Dion is a me first type player and these are our core players. I say they start to show pride in wearing the Jersey or get rid of them as you can not win with players who simply do not care. Kulemin and jay McC are players that care. Raymond is so soft that it hurts to watch at times. Ranger and Fraser are currently not capable of playing at the Nhl level.
We could use this ridiculous argument and suggest that Shea Weber lacks leadership as well. That team is more built for a hard trap system. Carlyle, interestingly, seems to be throwing us towards that kind of system since we regularly collapse into the defensive zone and only take high percentage shots. In other words, we're not seeing the CORSI fallacy committed here.
What I find hilarious is that, we're blaming Phaneuf for leadership even though he's successful in what he's assigned to do. That is, containing top scoring lines and forcing low percentage scoring shots. On the other hand, our other pairings usually represent the holes that make it possible for our opposition to produce. Yes, Phaneuf makes errors, but he is playing very difficult minutes. I expect our most sheltered pairings to do more of the offensive work especially when their defensive game is atrocious.
Lupul is our best example of leadership dropping to block shots and forechecking like a mad man. That is leadership. Not like our Captain who likes to be second into the corner so that he can avoid hit. Leadership is seen on the ice.
What in the world are you talking about? Lupul is widely inconsistent. He is not very versatile and cannot play Carlyle's dump and chase hockey. That is, once we collapse into the defensive zone, retrieve the puck, and transition into the neutral zone, expect a perimeter game. We are poor along the boards, can't maintain possession time in critical scoring areas, and Lupul is one of the main reasons why we're so poor in that regard.
It's pretty ridiculous when McClement - Kulemin are cycling the puck the best and helping us enable presence in critical scoring areas. In other words, our checking line is more productive than our top six in driving effective possession. This is sheer madness.