View Single Post
10-21-2011, 12:46 PM
PK for Norris
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Poutine island
Originally Posted by
Is there any concept out there of Engqvist's faceoff percentage in Hamilton? I'm sure I've read about it before. But the idea that he was brought in "as a faceoff specialist" seems a little alien to me. He does seem to project as a defensive/checking line player. Along the lines of the latter day Bonk, the center ice version of Dackell/Sundstrom. And he has tallness and shoots R. But I'd have suggested he was brought in more "for lack of having anything better" than "as a faceoff specialist".
Maybe there is a hope that one day he can indeed develop into that latter day Bonk and be decent on faceoffs. But there surely was no hope/expectation that he could provide that element right off the hop?
I wonder what the odds are on players "developing into" Bonk/Sundstrom defensive types as a "fulfillment of their upside" as contrasted to the odds of players who start off with a higher perceived upside (and indeed higher performance) "settling into" Bonk/Sundstrom defensive types once they've been around long enough and become veterans in the league?
Sick and tired of useless plugs and bandaids that can't deke / fight their way out of a wet paper bag. That dude is useless on a fourth line, not strong enough, not enough grit, not good at FO, caughs up the puck and / or lose his footing every. single. shifts.
But oh yeah right, he plays JM's game plan perfectly, dump, don't chase, pull back to center ice, type of lame strategy.
Yeah I know, fans are overreacting, but we literally bleed bleu blanc rouge and they crap the bed in the first few weeks of the season, and the whole preseason. At least, we got to SEE in preseason that our depth is atrocious and that we have NO ONE that can come up from Hamilton and get the job done. Well, maybe Dumont is better than Enqvist, but that's what you get for accepting mediocrity.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by PKtrollban