I hate it when people say that. He's not soft. If you're big and not overly physical, you're soft? That's f***ing lazy.
Prospect Info: Nils Lundkvist: Part II
- Thread starter aufheben
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
- Oct 23, 2014
- 30,327
- 43,005
What I thought of too. His head and eyes are pointing directly at that strong side forward down the boards. That's some elite peripheral vision and passing ability to sling it on that other guy's tape like that.
The unproven NHL commodity is more likely to reel in a big fish than the proven one...?
No the unproven NHL commodity is more likely to be available and packaged to reel in a big fish.
In terms of value, yeah DeAngelo has more. I can see how I wasn't clear there.
I dunno who this is in response to but I'm assuming you're talking about Miller?
He should be available for the right player as well
Juniors is a long time ago. His natural side is RD. Given his defensive issues, why are we in a hurry to push him to his off side?
For that matter, that goes for both Fox & DeAngelo. They are right D. It is incredibly difficult to switch sides, no matter what your level of IQ is. Why not just keep them where they are and develop or bring in LD??
Lol. I don’t understand how a harmless post can get you so worked up.
My point wasn’t that he’s a soft player. My point was that just because Lundkvist, Fox and DeAngelo are small doesn’t mean they get bullied. Conversely, just because K’Andre is huge it doesn’t mean he’s slamming opposing players on a shift-by-shift basis.
I never called him a p***y, or said he’s going to have trouble clearing the crease. The point wasn’t to analyze K’Andre. It was to point out that Fox, Lundkvist and DeAngelo aren’t just redundant because they’re small and can score. DeAngelo is scrappier than pretty much every defenseman in the league, him being small has nothing to do it.
If anything I was agreeing with you. A classic case of a poster misreading a post and proceeding to lose it.
Last edited:
I don't think they're trading Trouba. And if they aren't moving someone to the left side, who's the odd guy out? Such a tough call.
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
And that defenseman is a 6'4", 210 lb. rock in his own end who plays in all situations and eats 25 minutes per night (interestingly, profiling quite similar to Jacob Trouba, BTW), as opposed to a guy who is a hothead that has severe issues in his own end below the circles.
(Also, who would've seen Johansen plateauing the way he did after the start to his career?)
None of which is to say that you go out and dump ADA in a firesale. Or that a move need necessarily be imminent. Or ever happen.
Just refuting what I see to be an incorrect parallel.
I'm not worked up at all. I tell you your description is f***ing lazy and that means I'm worked up? Nah.
You said he was soft. He's not soft. Nothing about him is soft. I didn't misread your post. Seems like a classic case of backtracking, but that's just me.
Maybe say, "He's less physical than..." or "Has less of an edge than..." rather than soft. Or whatever. Don't get me all worked up.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,045
- 40,870
Inferno
Registered User
It's still a weakness. They addressed it poorly. I remember when it happened... I couldn't believe they only got ryjo for Jones.
Did it? Ryan Johansen is a good 50-60 point player. Seth Jones is a 30-40 point defenseman. Seems like a pretty fair trade actually. I mean I probably would want Jones in a vacuum but in no way would I look at this trade as lopsided. Both teams addressed needs.
I'm not worked up at all. I tell you your description is ****ing lazy and that means I'm worked up? Nah.
You said he was soft. He's not soft. Nothing about him is soft. I didn't misread your post. Seems like a classic case of backtracking, but that's just me.
Maybe say, "He's less physical than..." Rather than soft. Or whatever. Don't get me all worked up.
For gods sake. I have watched Miller tons of times, and have given detailed analysis of his play regularly in his thread. It’s not lazy - I’m probably one of 10 posters on this sub forum that have actually watched him play more than once, and don’t just look at this stats.
I never said he was a soft player. I said he was probably softer than the three small defenseman we have (almost certainly true, doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing), as a way of explaining to not judge a player purely on how big they are. Again, I wasn’t describing K’Andre, I was comparing a trait of his to other players, because this trait is often misconstrued. Zdeno Chara is probably softer than Tony DeAngelo. He ain’t soft though.
And then you come in dropping F bombs because you misunderstood my post. Maybe I didn’t make my point as clear as it should have been, but I’m not backtracking. I have no reason to. The toxicity in here can really be something.
Last edited:
how is seth jones a 30-40 point dman when the last 3 years he had 42, 57, 46 and is on pace for 45 this year?
I meant between Trouba, Fox, ADA and Lundqvist. Don't they all play the right side?
Then it is easily Lundqvist. Solid prospect or not, then Rangers have two other smallish puck movers on the right who are currently performing. What Lundqvist may nor may not do is up for debate, but he is more than a few years away.
The fact of the matter is that he may become one of the pieces that Edge refers to when he says that eventually, a Nash 3 for 1 deal will be had when the team is ready to take that step forward.
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
Probably not, but they need not worry about that for a while. They can worry about that when Fox is done with his ELC and shows a good amount in his first or second RFA year. That is not for a while.
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
And the response is: Define competitive.
Next year, I believe, the rise begins Where does that get them? Probably much closer to being a cusp playoff team. Maybe they get in, maybe they don't but I expect them to battle for it all year. The following year is when I believe that they will be a playoff contender. Then, in another year or two, they should contend for Cup. Or so I believe.
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
Well the definition in context of this conversation would be good enough to be trading one or more of your best prospects to make a bigger run.
And with that definition and your timeline the pieces of everything just don’t fit well enough for me to think it’s a good idea to trade him
Don't get all worked up, man.
I just think "soft" is a poor choice of words. If you say that player X is softer than player Y, the actual implication there is that player Y is soft to some degree, and that player X is also soft, and more soft than the other guy. And I think that's just wrong. I can count on one hand the amount of players in the NHL that are soft at all. Soft is the antithesis of an NHL player. Some guys aren't physical at all, avoid contact, don't like physical confrontation, etc. But I wouldn't say they're actually soft.
That's all I'm speaking to. There's nothing soft about Miller. I've seen him probably 25 times. You've seen him maybe more. You don't need to see him but once to know he's not a soft player. Not softer, more soft, less soft, etc. He's not particularly physical and only rarely is he chippy. But neither Fox nor DeAngelo are soft in any way, either, so I don't think it's appropriate to describe him as "more soft."
Maybe I'm being nitpicky. But no harm meant.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I don't think that would be that concerning. Fox's contract isn't up for another two years. That's two more years of cap growth. And I think you can get away with paying only one guy big on the left side. They'll continue using DeAngelo and Fox as a pairing 4-on-4, on offensive zone draws after penalty kills, when trailing late, and hopefully expand on it. No need for any LD to take any PP minutes.
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
Maybe I should’ve used a percentage as a proxy then, because cap growth is going to increase contract size too
- Status
