Team_Spirit
95% Elliotte
- Jul 3, 2002
- 39,372
- 21,195
Remember how brutal Dadonov was in Montreal? A top 6 player in DallasHe sucked here and this team sucks.
Kovacevic has like 6 points.
bro he had 20 points last season lmaoRemember how brutal Dadonov was in Montreal? A top 6 player in Dallas
He's garbage. If he is in the top 6 the coach is a moron.Remember how brutal Dadonov was in Montreal? A top 6 player in Dallas
Lol. A team needs a bit of everything. Sure, I agree, whatever works. My thinking is a power forward type able to put up 50 points will make a line produce better than a 60 point finesse guy, given what our top 6 looks like.I prefer a 65 point player with positive plus-minus. The NHL has decided that this year they will award points to the teams that score the greater number of goals in each contest, and not to the team that is taller or heavier, or finishes more checks
It's good to be fast, it's good to be strong, it's good to be physical, it's good to have a potent shot, or great vision or ability to break up plays, BUT...... all of these things are ultimately measured by the ability to score more goals than the other team. They are just means to the end of winning, and not ends in themselves.
Firstly, I didn't ask any questions.Is this a serious question?
Yes, playing with superior talent can allow a player to play a role that they otherwise wouldn't be able to handle effectively on a weaker team, without being carried.
Josh Anderson could go play a top line role next to MacKinnon & Rantanen and still be useless to us in the same role.
The inverse can also be true... A player could be stuck in a depth chart that depresses their role/usage on one team, and immediately step into a larger role once provided the opportunity.
In Kovacevic' case, he had ample opportunity to earn at top 4 role. We had/have the RD need. 2 year audition, 3rd most minutes on the team, Habs didn't see him as worth keeping... Best any team offered for him was a 4th.... That he's getting top 4 usage in NJ, while Pesce & Hughes are out with injuries, isn't a sign that he'd have been a top 4 opening night player for us.
Untestable hypothesis. Pure personal preference I think. Though you did originally say 45-50 points in which casze the ONLY was I want a 45 point guy on the second line is if he is prime Lehkonen or Danault-level defensively. A big guy not good defensively playing 2nd line minutes and putting up 45 points is n ot vberty helpful in my books.Lol. A team needs a bit of everything. Sure, I agree, whatever works. My thinking is a power forward type able to put up 50 points will make a line produce better than a 60 point finesse guy, given what our top 6 looks like.
Well, I am not surprised at all. Hutson is playing as I thought he would, pacing to 47 points and a -60. He would have been better off briefly in the AHL for anywhere from 30 to 60 games.I know most fans don't agree with my take on Hutson. Defensively, he needs to play in the A. And Offensively he has 4 points 2 of which were secondary assists and all 4 came in the first 2 games. Word has gone out and the league is adapting to Hutson's jitterbuging. And very, very soon they'll pick up on the fact his backward skating is terrible and he compensates by skating forward and turning his back to most of the ice.
In comparison to a 60 point finesse guy, I will take a 47.5 ( 45-50 ) bigger more physical player.Untestable hypothesis. Pure personal preference I think. Though you did originally say 45-50 points in which casze the ONLY was I want a 45 point guy on the second line is if he is prime Lehkonen or Danault-level defensively. A big guy not good defensively playing 2nd line minutes and putting up 45 points is n ot vberty helpful in my books.