View Single Post
11-13-2012, 10:34 AM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Originally Posted by
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.
My thoughts are similar to yours. I don't think Strome was bad, just that I thought that Scheifele played a better game overall.
Maybe I shouldn't have said I wasn't impressed with Strome, but I think his 2 points isn't a true indicator of overall game impact.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Huffer