HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Dallas Stars (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Chicago vs. Dallas 10/4 (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=16979)

Laperriere22* 10-04-2003 05:34 PM

Chicago vs. Dallas 10/4
 
I know the Stars lineup is essentially set outside of Daley/Erskine, but after watching the game tonight, the choice should clearly be Daley. Erskine's physical play isn't all that consistent nor is he all that reliable defensively. Daley is Zubov-lite. Very smooth and has great vision and sense. I don't recall a single poor play by Daley tonight and I tend to harp on the negatives of every player, but Daley gave me nothing to criticize. He is absolutely ready for NHL duty IMO and it would be a shame if Erskine gets selected over him. I've seen Erskine over the years and in two preseason games this season and he has done nothing to indicate he's ready to be a NHL player. All I know is that if Daley gets cut, then it had nothing to do with his play compared to Erskine. Tippett doesn't even have the confidence in Erskine to play him all that often or so it seems during the two games I've seen him in so far. Just wanted to vent on this a little; I know it's been talked about before, but tonight was the first time I'd seen Daley play and he was fabulous while Erskine was exceedingly mediocre (again).

Edit: Also, Morrow took a shot off the outside of his left ankle on the opening shift of the game and didn't return. I've got a sneaking suspicion he might have broken it, but I do hope it's just a bruise or something instead. Just thought I'd pass it on.

morrow1005 10-04-2003 06:50 PM

According to the Stars website he is day-to-day with a leg contussion(sp)

Dr GLU 10-04-2003 11:23 PM

You're dead on, Laperriere22. The comments from every game where Daley and Erskine have played side-by-side have been the same. Daley is playing way better than Erskine. The only thing that might save John's butt is that he has to pass through waivers. If he didn't, the discussion wouldn't be happening at all.

I think that Daley's definitely earned a spot but the workings of the NHL may make it forfeit. Of course, if Erskine stays up and plays average to poorly for 10 games, Daley may get a shot anyway.

Ajacied 10-04-2003 11:36 PM

If Daley makes the team, I feel he could make more noise for the Calder then Antti Miettinen.

Laperriere22* 10-05-2003 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morrow1005
According to the Stars website he is day-to-day with a leg contussion(sp)

That is very good news. Morrow is one of my favorite players and he got hit in a bad place by that shot. Glad it's just a bruise (contusion).

Laperriere22* 10-05-2003 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLUhipfan
The only thing that might save John's butt is that he has to pass through waivers. If he didn't, the discussion wouldn't be happening at all.

A couple of follow-up questions regarding this part. Would losing Erskine be a loss if he was taken on waivers? And after seeing him so much and coming away unimpressed, would any team really be inclined to take a chance on him? I tend to think he wouldn't really be a loss if some team claimed him anyway. He's still quite the project and I don't see the Stars missing his game much (IMO). There may be a couple of teams that would take a chance on him, but I can't say with any certainty that someone would grab him up for sure. He still looks to be either a late bloomer or a non-bloomer.

Dr GLU 10-05-2003 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laperriere22
A couple of follow-up questions regarding this part. Would losing Erskine be a loss if he was taken on waivers? And after seeing him so much and coming away unimpressed, would any team really be inclined to take a chance on him? I tend to think he wouldn't really be a loss if some team claimed him anyway. He's still quite the project and I don't see the Stars missing his game much (IMO). There may be a couple of teams that would take a chance on him, but I can't say with any certainty that someone would grab him up for sure. He still looks to be either a late bloomer or a non-bloomer.

Well, I don't think he'd be a huge loss anymore. I'd rather play MacMillan than him, truthfully. However, it's pretty clear that the organization wants to give Erskine every chance to succeed. They seem to think he'll still develop into something, so they might not be willing to take the risk. I would, but I don't have any say.

Laperriere22* 10-06-2003 12:59 PM

I see Daley was sent to Utah. It's too bad the Stars didn't leave him room to play his way onto the team.

Wyvern 10-06-2003 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laperriere22
I see Daley was sent to Utah. It's too bad the Stars didn't leave him room to play his way onto the team.

We might still see Daley up in Dallas. If Erskine is horrible we can always waive him and bring Daley in later. Its a very long season.

Laperriere22* 10-06-2003 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyvern
We might still see Daley up in Dallas. If Erskine is horrible we can always waive him and bring Daley in later. Its a very long season.

That is true. I just don't like it when teams play a crappier guy ahead of someone that has just got done outplaying them when it's supposed to matter. I'm more annoyed that Daley can outplay Erskine pretty easily and it doesn't make any difference in the end (speaking in the short-term) than anything else.

Wyvern 10-07-2003 03:39 AM

In the end it all comes down to what you need.

Say you need to haul some hay. You have a Porshe or a old Truck. Your going to take the truck right?

The Stars are faced with needing a physical presence on the blueline. Best case scenario is Erskine can step up and even be put into the second pairing. Thats unrealistic though.

As Frugal has pointed out in the past, Erskine is not going to do much intimidating playing in the 3rd pairing against the other teams 4th line.

But starting Daley now would mean we would be likely lose the option to use Erskine. Don't you think its smart to give Erskine a chance? You can always replace him later, and Daley *is* going to greatly benefit from the time he is going to have in Utah.

Laperriere22* 10-07-2003 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyvern
In the end it all comes down to what you need.

Say you need to haul some hay. You have a Porshe or a old Truck. Your going to take the truck right?

The Stars are faced with needing a physical presence on the blueline. Best case scenario is Erskine can step up and even be put into the second pairing. Thats unrealistic though.

As Frugal has pointed out in the past, Erskine is not going to do much intimidating playing in the 3rd pairing against the other teams 4th line.

But starting Daley now would mean we would be likely lose the option to use Erskine. Don't you think its smart to give Erskine a chance? You can always replace him later, and Daley *is* going to greatly benefit from the time he is going to have in Utah.

So what are Boucher and Matvichuk for? They provide a physical presence as well and take fewer penalties than Erskine. Both are better with the puck (although just barely with Matvichuk sometimes) and both can and have intimidated top players before (intimidation is of course highly subjective as to its effectiveness). How intimidating is Erskine when he highsticks Calder in the face and sits in the box for four minutes? Or when he drives Bell into his own goaltender? I would normally be all for a more physical presence like Erskine in the league, but the guy has had two glorious chances to make the team on his own accord (last season and this season). How smart is it to keep giving a guy a chance when that guy does nothing but fail when given those chances? There comes a time when a team, that has basically bent over backwards to let Erskine prove his game, has to let a project player move on. I classify Erskine as a project player whose upside is quite limited. In today's league, it's questionable how intimidating Erskine could even become because he'll just be the guy that has the goon rep in the eyes of the refs and get thrown in the box for every minor infraction. Just my opinion.

Wyvern 10-07-2003 06:53 AM

Its questionable how well Matty will perform. Boucher is great, but might not be physical enough.

The way I am looking at it is having Daley in Utah does not hurt the team. If Erskine does not get any better, we can always ditch him and then bring Daley up.

Daley is going to be a better player for spending time in Utah as the #1 defenseman. Thats good for the team. In the long run and later in the season when we will more than likely need him due to injuries.

We can either have a good young guy up here now, playing 8-12 minutes a game, or let him get even better by playing 20 minutes a game. With Sweeney and Robidas we don't really need Daley. Both Sweeney and Robidas are solid enough to play for a whopping total of a little over half a period.

Daley could get a minute or two of extra time on the powerplay per game, but we have Boucher and Young and a host of other forwards that can play the point for the second PP unit.

Erskine could turn it around. He just needs to play a little smart and choose when to do the dirty stuff. Ludwig can help him out with that up here. I doubt that Erskine will turn it around, but its at least worth a shot.

The Frugal Gourmet 10-07-2003 09:42 AM

Good thread. Excellent points.

Unfortuantely, at the point I started reading it the decision has already been made. Erskine will get this shot (possibly as the 7th, if Sweeney is the 6th).

Maybe it's too bad for Daley, but again... playing in the minors 20 minutes/night is probably only going to help. I predict will see him in the NHL soon....

Dr GLU 10-07-2003 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyvern
Daley is going to be a better player for spending time in Utah as the #1 defenseman. Thats good for the team. In the long run and later in the season when we will more than likely need him due to injuries.

That's assuming Hay is going precisely by what the Stars want him to...which has been questionable in the past. I understand the point of playing competitive hockey is to win, but really, most of Utah's scoring last year came from veterans. They were the ones leaned upon more.

Luckily, Hawgood is gone, so Daley will be the PP QB, but there's no guarantee that he'd play more than Berenzwig, MacMillan, or Wotton in Utah.

The Frugal Gourmet 10-07-2003 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLUhipfan

Luckily, Hawgood is gone, so Daley will be the PP QB, but there's no guarantee that he'd play more than Berenzwig, MacMillan, or Wotton in Utah.

Well, if he proves himself the better player, he will.

But point taken. :)

Dr GLU 10-07-2003 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Frugal Gourmet
But point taken. :)

Did you get that point as 'I think Don Hay is a bad coach?'

Because that's what I was going for.

Laperriere22* 10-07-2003 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyvern
Its questionable how well Matty will perform. Boucher is great, but might not be physical enough.

I agree on Matvichuk; I very much doubt how much he will rebound. I think Boucher is plenty physical enough for the job, but he doesn't have Hatcher's sideshow routine (or braincrampiritis as it's become known); so, he doesn't bring the same element of intimidation as Hatcher. But, I don't see much intimidation in Erskine either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyvern
The way I am looking at it is having Daley in Utah does not hurt the team. If Erskine does not get any better, we can always ditch him and then bring Daley up.

Do you think that's realistic though? Every move Dallas makes with Erskine has been generally in spite of his actual play. I don't know that the Stars (ie Armstrong) would be inclined to dump Erskine for much of any reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyvern
Daley is going to be a better player for spending time in Utah as the #1 defenseman. Thats good for the team. In the long run and later in the season when we will more than likely need him due to injuries.

I understand the importance of developing in the minors, but I think Daley would be just as well-served being around Zubov and Numminen on a daily basis. Let him learn from two fine players on and off the ice. I also tend to believe that a Daley-Robidas pairing would be much better than a Erskine-Robidas pairing. Meaning they would see a few more minutes and would lighten the load on the top 4. We obviously disagree on all this, but I wanted to expand on my side of it a bit. I understand your side of it no problem. The two key questions IMO are: How well Erskine plays and if he doesn't improve, how do the Stars handle the situation?

Basically, what it all comes down to is you believe Erskine can improve (that's the impression I'm getting anyway; sorry if it's incorrect) and I don't think he will.

We shall soon see.

Laperriere22* 10-07-2003 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLUhipfan
Did you get that point as 'I think Don Hay is a bad coach?'

Because that's what I was going for.

I've always been wary of the former IHL franchises because they seem to run themselves as if they weren't an NHL farm club, but as if they were an independent club like they were in the IHL. Chicago does it as does Utah. I do believe Houston and Grand Rapids operate by similar ideals as well. Milwaukee seems to do the best job of incorporating the younger players into their lineup out of the old IHL clubs. It's a question I always wondered about, but never bothered asking anywhere. Hay may be a bad coach as you say; I don't rightly know one way or the other. But, I've always assumed the old IHL teams operate differently than the regular AHL teams anyway.

Dr GLU 10-07-2003 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laperriere22
Hay may be a bad coach as you say; I don't rightly know one way or the other.

Well, Hay certainly doesn't fit the Tippett philosophy. Hay was hand-picked by Ken Hitchcock for the Utah job. They are friends, and Hay is Hitch's protoge. He coached Kamloops after Hitch left. He's had two head coaching jobs in the NHL, and both times he was fired without completing more than a season.

I never understood why he was allowed to stay after Hitch was given the boot.

The Frugal Gourmet 10-08-2003 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLUhipfan
Did you get that point as 'I think Don Hay is a bad coach?'

Because that's what I was going for.

Well, I got the idea that you thought Don Hay was not good for talent development.

DiMo 10-08-2003 10:38 AM

Why give away a player when he really hasn't had a chance? Erskine just turned 23. He knows that he's getting pushed by Daley and others. Let see what he does now. Even with the camp that Daley had, he's not going to get the ice time he needs to develope his complete game. Let him play in Utah and play in all situations and find out how to deal with the grind of the pro game. It certainly won't hurt him any and won't hurt the Stars. It may even be better in the long run. I'm excited about Daley too, but I'd hate to see him get thrown into the lake before he learns to swim.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:37 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.