Should Army make a trade?
View Single Post
02-25-2012, 07:25 PM
Join Date: Nov 2003
Eh, I voted for yes because that would be the prudent thing to do if they're truly pushing for the division title/#1 seed.
Having an entire top 9 line out for an extended period is going leave our top forwards overplayed, and our defense exposed. If everyone's healthy by the playoffs, it's not that big of a deal (again, unless you're serious about pushing for the #1 overall)...but that's not a given either. This team is based on holding top talent in check and exploiting depth/system advantages. That advantage dissipates with each additional injury.
I would also like to see a smidge of remodeling done on defense. I've always leaned towards a combination of mobility/puck-moving ability/poise/intelligence/positioning over brute physicality at the expense of those attributes in my preference for defensemen, but physicality definitely has its place in the game.
I would like to see someone a bit more well-rounded brought in on defense than what Colaiacovo or Huskins brings to the table. Physicality would be a nice attribute, but only if the defender is mobile enough and has good enough puck skills to key the transition play
if the puck is consistently funnelled in his direction (as opposed to, say, Pietrangelo's) by other teams. We're playing right into their hands if every reverse from Pietrangelo to his partner leads to an icing, a turnover, or a bank out of the zone/missed breakout pass to the other team's defense. The Blues want to play in the offensive zone...they can't do that if they can't get there with the puck.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by EastonBlues22