View Single Post
Old
12-05-2012, 08:49 AM
  #23
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'll try to answer both of your posts together.
  • I can see where at this level, you have to make a choice between picking either a tough guy whose offense will hurt a scoring line, or a semi-tough guy with passable offense. Seems you went with the better offensive guys, which isn't necessarily the wrong thing to do.
  • Sykora was not known as a "battler" in New Jersey. He was a good offensive player with speed, a canon of a shot, great at cycling, willing to backcheck (but nothing outstanding), and a tendency to score big goals. But he wasn't much of a battler. And he was weak and tended to get pushed around when he didn't have a big linemate to make room for him.
  • Seems like Khristich was good at battling for the puck... when he felt like it. Which tended not to be when the checking got tighter. I mean, you guys remember his reputation too as the ultimate stereotypical soft Euro, right? Nothing to take away from his offense at this level though. His two-way play seems to be very good too. I probably underrated Prospal's compete level somewhat
  • My impression of Bullard's toughness pretty much from his PIM totals. Guess he just took lots of lazy penalties like Jokinen?
  • I won't argue Bob Kelly. If he's a heavyweight, more power to your bottom 6.
I'll concur with this for Sykora's time in Pittsburgh. Defintiely not a battler, he was a pure trigger man for guys that fling the puck out from the corners or as a trailer on a breakout. There's a reason his best year there was the year he was paired with Malone and Malkin (one of my favorite and one of the most underrated Pittsburgh lines in my opinion): they were both big and could dig in corners for him and let him take advantage of what he's best at, that laser shot.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote