View Single Post
Old
08-16-2011, 10:47 AM
  #26
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReenMachine View Post
This is the laughable part , Jokinen and Vail comparable? Both Jokinen and Vail were good players on bad teams , but putting a center like Jokinen at left wing which is the hardest wing to play and pretend he's going be as good as a legit first line left wingers is laughable considering the fact Jokinen isn't that great of a ''hockey-sense'' player.His hockey IQ is adequate at best and he's the worst kind of center you could put at wing.Vail was a good powerforward while Jokinen was basically close to being a cancer on a team.I would take Vail ahead of Jokinen 100 times out of 100 to play on a first line LW.All you do is basically confront 1 player vs another but I think my chemistry is better.It's possible I put Vail-Spezza-Sykora and Liscombe-Zhamnov-Brunteau which gives me another edge of real chemistry with Liscombe and Bruneteau playign otgether.Vail will be the glue guy with some decent offensive touch with Spezza as a playmaking center + sykora scoring some goals and my 2nd line will just work like a charm.
You've got it backwards. Jokinen is exactly the type of center that would excell on the wing. You are right that he doesn't havw great hockey sense, but that is needed more at centre anyway. Moving to the wing would actually reduce the impact of that deficiency.

Vail is no better a glue guy than Jokinen. He's big, but he only uses it every once in a while... Just like Jokinen does. He's not good defensively... Just like Jokinen.
The difference is that Jokinen is much better offensively.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote