Listen man we can have differing opinions....I am not going to argue with someone who is never wrong. Move onGood I've watched all of them and he's clearly the teams best defender and a top ~30 in the NHL. Let alone "a decent top 4".
Listen man we can have differing opinions....I am not going to argue with someone who is never wrong. Move onGood I've watched all of them and he's clearly the teams best defender and a top ~30 in the NHL. Let alone "a decent top 4".
I'm wrong plenty and we can have different opinions.Listen man we can have differing opinions....I am not going to argue with someone who is never wrong. Move on
I said he isn't a top pairing guy currently and may end up a top 4 guy. That's my opinion. I don't give a f*** if you call me out. I don't feel the need to ignore you because you are entertaining and not much else.I'm wrong plenty and we can have different opinions.
Having the opinion that Kaiden Guhle isn't a top 4 defender is just straight lunacy. Expect to get called out when you have ridiculous opinions.
"May end up a top 4 guy" directly means he is not one right now, which means you called him a bottom pair D.I said he isn't a top pairing guy currently and may end up a top 4 guy. That's my opinion. I don't give a f*** if you call me out. I don't feel the need to ignore you because you are entertaining and not much else.
You misunderstood then because most think he is a top pairing guy and I said he may end up being a top 4 guy. I never said he was a bottom pairing Dman. He is playing top pairing minutes but imo isn't a top pairing guy. He may become one.."May end up a top 4 guy" directly means he is not one right now, which means you called him a bottom pair D.
That's what you said.
You misunderstood then because most think he is a top pairing guy and I said he may end up being a top 4 guy. I never said he was a bottom pairing Dman. He is playing top pairing minutes but imo isn't a top pairing guy. He may become one..
I see a young Dman with good potential who could become a top pairing guy on a playoff team. I don't see a top pairing guy based on his play this season. He has the upside but he isn't there yet. This is an opinion that shouldn't be this controversial.What's your criteria or standard for "top pairing"?
I'd argue that Guhle would play top pairing minutes on at least 1/3 of NHL teams right now, so I'd agree with @Mrb1p , there's little case to be made that he isn't "top pairing" caliber right now, even if not yet (or not ever) a legit #1 dman or in the "elite" or "all-star" caliber of top pair dmen.
I see a young Dman with good potential who could become a top pairing guy on a playoff team. I don't see a top pairing guy based on his play this season. He has the upside but he isn't there yet. This is an opinion that shouldn't be this controversial.
Criteria? I just watch the games, have been for over 50 years and I have my criteria of whether a player is top pairing material. A top pairing guy should be able to play 22+ minutes against top players, kill penalties, play on the PP and used in the last minute of games effectively. Just because he is playing on the top pair in Montreal currently doesn't make him a top pairing guy. Kaiden Guhle based on the many years of watching hockey looks to me to be a solid 2nd pairing guy. He also needs to learn how to take a hit and better protect himself.Meh, he's playing better than several dmen that played top pairing minutes in last year's playoffs.
But that wasn't my question... Do you have an actual criteria or basis for what you consider a "top pairing dman"?
& Yes, certainly It's fine to have an opinion based solely on emotion/without any actual criteria, just doesn't make for a particularly good argument.
Shouldn't be "controversial" to have that pointed out
Criteria?
I just watch the games, have been for over 50 years and I have my criteria of whether a player is top pairing material. A top pairing guy should be able to play 22+ minutes against top players,
kill penalties, play on the PP and used in the last minute of games effectively.
Just because he is playing on the top pair in Montreal currently doesn't make him a top pairing guy.
Kaiden Guhle based on the many years of watching hockey looks to me to be a solid 2nd pairing guy. He also needs to learn how to take a hit and better protect himself.
"I put it at about 1/3 that he'd be an upgrade on their current #2." I don't rate him as high.Sure... Matheson played 25+ last year vs top players...
I'd offer that usage and effectiveness are two distinct criteria.
Agree with the last part... Though I'm legit curious how many teams you think Guhle would not get top pairing roles/minutes?
I put it at about 1/3 that he'd be an upgrade on their current #2.
Sure, but I think it important to consider these things relative to the rest of the league.
If Guhle's play tonight is any indicator, this player is no number 1 defenceman. He iced the puck multiple times, he made numerous turnovers, he fumbled the puck at the offensive blueline that led to a 2 on 1 against that Matheson had to bail him out off, he wasn't particularly physical and he provided very little offensive push. Even Struble was more active than Guhle. Maybe it was just a bad game, but from what I saw, he's got to do a lot of growing to be even considered as a potential number 1.
I am happy with a mid 1st round pick becoming a #2/3 Dman.The general projection for guhle has been as a #2/3
Because the owner of the team said this years goal is to be “in da mix”, to which HuGo then followed up by repeating the same catch phrase.Why are we not practicing
A S S E T M A N A G E M E N T
During a tank rebuild?
Head scratching to not sell this guy at his highest value imo.
Some will say it's not EA sports but this is a management that received 2 first for monahan in some shrewd asset management so it's not like this is an unknown concept to hughes and co
Is it personal favoritism? Hometown guy ? Good vet in the locker room? Probably a bit of it all.
That's fine, but we do not have enough elite d-men to say that Matheson is expendable. A winning team needs 4 top-3 D-men.I am happy with a mid 1st round pick becoming a #2/3 Dman.
No way is Matheson expendable...that would be a bad idea to trade him.That's fine, but we do not have enough elite d-men to say that Matheson is expendable. A winning team needs 4 top-3 D-men.
He is playing great hockey right now.No way is Matheson expendable...that would be a bad idea to trade him.
Matheson is a double threat. Hutson has no shot. But I'd be ok having them both and removing Dach from PP1.It’s obvious that MSL is scared to put his big boy pants and to give the #1PP job to Hutson. I assume it’s about Matheson’s feelings. I don’t know why else.
I do not dislike Matheson, but I would prefer we develop Ghule on the left side ... just my 2 cents.
My preference would be to remove Dach and put Hutson and Slaf. Dach is superfluous.Matheson is a double threat. Hutson has no shot. But I'd be ok having them both and removing Dach from PP1.
Petry played an average of 22.70 minutes per game during his 7+ seasons here.Matheson? He’s playing between 24-26TOI per game … that’s the entire issue, he’s being expected to play 1D TOI because there’s no Weber type legit 1D on the team able to absorb such TOI
Matheson should be playing 19-20 TOI per game on the 2nd pair as Petry did during his most effective days as a Hab