thekenneth
Registered User
- Jan 25, 2013
- 584
- 47
6 or maybe even 7. 10 out of 10 would be how he's playing now plus producing at like a 35 goal pace and maybe a bit more physicality. He's playing well but not producing at all. Only Foligno is playing clearly better in the physicality+forecheck game. Ott hits more but I'd say he and Stafford are pretty close when you consider all aspects of a physical game and effective forecheck.
Rob says it all. You guys are looking at bottom line stats like G and A and +/- and while they are indeed important they are not everything.
The game I've seen from 21 this year, for the first time, is a mature game, a 200-foot game. He's finally doing the right things and not cheating and being a leader. I won't punish that.
You say all these nice pretty things. But at the end of the day he's not producing and being a -7 in eight games is pretty damn impressively bad.
That's what happens when you watch the stats and not the hockey.
Right Jame?
He's supposed to create offense and not be a liability in his own end. He is doing neither right now. He's been shuffled onto just about every line imaginable and hasn't done a damn thing offensively. For as much as people are complementing his "200 foot game" the puck sure does seem to be hitting the back of the net a lot when he's on the ice.
If he gets to the end of the season with a -24 and 15 points are we still going to talk about how good he was? I've watched "the hockey", and while he isn't playing horribly, he's also not doing anything. Stafford has just "been there" this year, and that's nowhere near good enough.
Hes just there, not even worth mentioning