Thread: Subway Series
View Single Post
11-13-2012, 09:13 AM
Stomacheache AllStar
Grind's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,606
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
I thought Scheifele was the best player on the ice last night. Call me a homer, but he was defensively responsible, great out of the zone, made saucer passes and reads, generated scoring chances, and dished out some hits. Not only do I think he could be one of Canada's best players in the WJHC, but I think he should get a letter. With last nights game and the summer games against the Russians, he looks like a great leader out there.

Even though he got 2 points, I wasn't really impressed with Strome. If it wasn't for his points, I don't think Strome really did much. Not nearly all the little things like Scheifele.

I'll just say it here, after 4 games I haven't been impressed with Yakupov. Am I saying he's not good? No. He's being doing well in the KHL. But for a kid who was drafted 1st overall, and put up great numbers in junior, he looks below average in this series. 2 goals in 4 games and the 1st was a giveaway right to him in the slot, and the 2nd last night was basically a tap in from the slot as well. I also don't give any leeway to the argument that he's "not interested" or any crap like that. If he's on the team and on the ice, he had better be giving it 100%. Otherwise, what does that say about him? Again, not saying he's a bust, or that he's not going to be great, but he's been very underwhelming for a 1st overall, next Stamkos type guy.
This is sort of how i felt initially, even though I know i just called him a player.

Looking back at Strome he didn't seem "ineffective" in his own zone or anything like that, even though he didn't quite standout with defensive reads like some players did.

I tried to think about name and commentator bias and how that might be influencing my opinion (i did not hear his name frequently until later in the game) and realized he seemed to play very well positionally, sort of that "unnoticeably good" style, where not noticing him is a good sign. That said, I did not think his line controlled the play nearly as well as Scheifeles and it almost seemed like he got 'luck' with his points.

The problem is i don't know how you call that? is it lucky that 1 of his 3 shots got in and unlucky that 0 of scheifeles 5 went in(numbers are to illustrate the point, don't know actual stats) or is it because he made better shots/is a better shooter?

At the end of the day I don't think Strome is as good of a two way and "control" player as Scheifele, but 2 points is 2 points and he did not look like a liability in anyway and definitly stood out. Points aside, i think i liked Scheifeles game more, and maybe i'm giving Strome too much credit by trying to overcompensate for my homerism.

Grind is offline   Reply With Quote