Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion: Mark S Discussion

Duke749 said:
You honestly think they win a Cup, let alone two without guys like Kucherov, Point, or Stamkos? :laugh: You have to be an elite and deep team period.
Click to expand...

Agree - but you do also need some ability to grind. You need to be talented, deep and well rounded.
 
No you don't, you just need to run and gun and out score everybody 10 - 8 like the Oilers did in the 80's and Fuhr is high all season. Kinda sounds like the Jets.
 
Mortimer Snerd said:
Agree - but you do also need some ability to grind. You need to be talented, deep and well rounded.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I think some people think building something that better fits the personnel automatically means go to run and gun pond hockey. I don't believe anyone here has argued for such a system. Most argue for more modern defensive tactics like the box plus 1 formation and incorporating modern offensive schemes into their play like more aggressive switches and more high low cycling. Or just more motion in general to break other teams down.

None of this precludes the team from taking care of their own end or being able to lock things down when needed. Our org should be studying all the recent cup teams for ques on this. Only one grinding type team has one in the last decade in St. Louis, all other cup winners played a more skilled style of game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mortimer Snerd
Florida and Colorado are exactly the types of teams that you want to model after so let's see how they do this year. Colorado already fell flat on their face last year, they haven't gone deeper than the Jets did.
 
Orrrules said:
That's what I thought you'd say. Go look it up, offense had nothing to do with them winning their cups, goaltending and defense carried that team basically at an historical level last season. They learned from their previous failures what it took to win in the playoffs. Bunch of 1 - 0 games including the Cup final game. Montreal just played the same way but Vasy out goalied Price.
Click to expand...
Tampa scored 3.26 goals per game when they won last season. Over the past 5 playoffs, 4 cup winners rank in the top 15 in goals per game. The lowly Blues didn't.

In the last 10 playoffs, 7 cup winners scored more than 3 goals per game. Saying that offense has nothing to do with winning the cup is nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack7222, FonRiesen, Mortimer Snerd and 1 other person
Romang67 said:
Tampa scored 3.26 goals per game when they won last season. Over the past 5 playoffs, 4 cup winners rank in the top 15 in goals per game. The lowly Blues didn't.

In the last 10 playoffs, 7 cup winners scored more than 3 goals per game. Saying that offense has nothing to do with winning the cup is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Saying that defense, structure and goaltending doesn't is even bigger nonsense.
 
Orrrules said:
Saying that defense, structure and goaltending doesn't is even bigger nonsense.
Click to expand...
Who said that defense and goaltending are irrelevant for cup winners? Sure, the Penguins won the cup with a D core without a single top pairing D-man, and the Blackhawks won with Niemi, but usually you do need a good team.

Tampa was the highest scoring team in the league in the 2019-20 season. They were the 8th highest scoring team in the league without Kucherov when they won it the second time. I have no idea how one can look at that and say their offense was irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack7222, surixon and Mortimer Snerd
Mortimer Snerd said:
Sure. Everybody would like that. But what are the odds? He's 29. He is what he is.
Click to expand...
It very well could be with Mark that “what u see now is what u get” but a point per game 2 way centerman is hard to find. I would want to make 100 percent certain that this is the case before trading 55. I would give him a shot with a new coach and things don’t change than trade him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guffman and JetsFan815
Duke749 said:
Completely agree with the talent, deepness, and being well rounded. Also doesn’t hurt to have a top 5 goalie or in their case, arguably the best goalie of this short era.
Click to expand...

And I forgot to mention luck. :laugh:
There always needs to be an element of that. Players getting hot at the right time. The roster being mostly healthy, etc. That's what makes dynasties so rare. Everything needs to fall into place and then repeat. It helps if you are so deep that you can overcome a certain amount of bad luck too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duke749
Romang67 said:
Who said that defense and goaltending are irrelevant for cup winners? Sure, the Penguins won the cup with a D core without a single top pairing D-man, and the Blackhawks won with Niemi, but usually you do need a good team.

Tampa was the highest scoring team in the league in the 2019-20 season. They were the 8th highest scoring team in the league without Kucherov when they won it the second time. I have no idea how one can look at that and say their offense was irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Go back and read the post that started this by surixon, he wants pond hockey for the skill players.
 
Orrrules said:
Go back and read the post that started this by surixon, he wants pond hockey for the skill players.
Click to expand...
Wanting pond hockey and not thinking all players are at their best when grinding in the corners is not the same thing. In the last decade or so, the list of top end players who are at their best playing a grinding style starts and ends with Crosby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: surixon, FonRiesen and Duke749
surixon said:
Agreed, but I think some people think building something that better fits the personnel automatically means go to run and gun pond hockey. I don't believe anyone here has argued for such a system. Most argue for more modern defensive tactics like the box plus 1 formation and incorporating modern offensive schemes into their play like more aggressive switches and more high low cycling. Or just more motion in general to break other teams down.

None of this precludes the team from taking care of their own end or being able to lock things down when needed. Our org should be studying all the recent cup teams for ques on this. Only one grinding type team has one in the last decade in St. Louis, all other cup winners played a more skilled style of game.
Click to expand...

I am a firm believer in the best defence being a good offence. That doesn't mean scoring so many goals that you don't need to defend much. It means keeping the puck in the O zone. Keep possession there. When you lose possession fore check until you get it back.

At the same time, I believe good defence makes for good offence. Good play in the D zone doesn't mean slamming opponents into the corners and clearing the net front. It means getting possession of the puck back and exiting the D zone. If slamming opponents into the corners and clearing the net front area contribute to recovering the puck, great. But that kind of play by itself does not = good defence. Getting possession of the puck before it ends up in your net does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huffer, None, Duke749 and 1 other person
Mortimer Snerd said:
I am a firm believer in the best defence being a good offence. That doesn't mean scoring so many goals that you don't need to defend much. It means keeping the puck in the O zone. Keep possession there. When you lose possession fore check until you get it back.

At the same time, I believe good defence makes for good offence. Good play in the D zone doesn't mean slamming opponents into the corners and clearing the net front. It means getting possession of the puck back and exiting the D zone. If slamming opponents into the corners and clearing the net front area contribute to recovering the puck, great. But that kind of play by itself does not = good defence. Getting possession of the puck before it ends up in your net does.
Click to expand...

Well said. There is a reason why many of the best offensive teams also rate well defensively.
 
Highway1 said:
It very well could be with Mark that “what u see now is what u get” but a point per game 2 way centerman is hard to find. I would want to make 100 percent certain that this is the case before trading 55. I would give him a shot with a new coach and things don’t change than trade him.
Click to expand...

As always, it comes down to the price. I'm not in favour of giving him away. I just don't want to waste another year hoping he will get better. If he gets worse, the trade return dries up.

Right now, he is a ppg 1C but we can't call him a 2 way centreman. Let some other team hope their coach can get better out of him - after they pay full price to get him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack7222 and surixon
TheRC said:
Accountability on this team left the building the day that Buff hung 'em up. Sheif is the prime example of how that event changed the trajectory of this franchise for the worse.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Buff was the voice of accountability instead of the coach?
Could be. He held Kane accountable. :laugh:
 
Mortimer Snerd said:
As always, it comes down to the price. I'm not in favour of giving him away. I just don't want to waste another year hoping he will get better. If he gets worse, the trade return dries up.

Right now, he is a ppg 1C but we can't call him a 2 way centreman. Let some other team hope their coach can get better out of him - after they pay full price to get him.
Click to expand...
Fair enough .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mortimer Snerd
Mortimer Snerd said:
I am a firm believer in the best defence being a good offence. That doesn't mean scoring so many goals that you don't need to defend much. It means keeping the puck in the O zone. Keep possession there. When you lose possession fore check until you get it back.

At the same time, I believe good defence makes for good offence. Good play in the D zone doesn't mean slamming opponents into the corners and clearing the net front. It means getting possession of the puck back and exiting the D zone. If slamming opponents into the corners and clearing the net front area contribute to recovering the puck, great. But that kind of play by itself does not = good defence. Getting possession of the puck before it ends up in your net does.
Click to expand...

I am so glad you dove into this and explained your reasoning because you couldn’t have hit the nail on the head any more perfect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: surixon and Mortimer Snerd
Mortimer Snerd said:
I am a firm believer in the best defence being a good offence. That doesn't mean scoring so many goals that you don't need to defend much. It means keeping the puck in the O zone. Keep possession there. When you lose possession fore check until you get it back.

At the same time, I believe good defence makes for good offence. Good play in the D zone doesn't mean slamming opponents into the corners and clearing the net front. It means getting possession of the puck back and exiting the D zone. If slamming opponents into the corners and clearing the net front area contribute to recovering the puck, great. But that kind of play by itself does not = good defence. Getting possession of the puck before it ends up in your net does.
Click to expand...
This goes without saying - literally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom