View Single Post
Old
06-05-2013, 09:49 PM
  #161
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 30,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
ES wise they were doing alright IMO, with some caveats.

Markov-Emelin was more or less fine. They played a big role and handled it with reasonably competence, although the declined as the season went on (played like a solid 1st through 20 games or so, declined to a decent 2nd). But I think you can flip Gorges and Emelin and get more or less the same thing.

They goofed on Subban to start, but the next 4 guys on the depth chart were good enough to make a decent top 4 (so long as Markov was playing like a reasonable #1).

They did have big problems when down two bodies though. Markov can't carry a plug like he used to in the days of O'Byrne/MAB. He can lead a 2nd pair but he isn't a 2nd pair on his own. So no Diaz and Emelin meant problems, particularly as this was when Price was going through a rough stretch that Markov bared the brunt off.

The big thing I think was on special teams. They should have realized that Markov has too many miles on his frame to waste his minutes as a PKer, where he is undistinguished. They also should have realized that Boullion has no business playing special teams minutes. The upshot on that is Subban should have been a regular PKer and wasn't.

For next year, I doubt they sign anyone new, if additions happen they are either going to be at the deadline. So they go with the Playoff pairings to start.

Markov-Subban
Gorges-Diaz
Tinordi-Boullion

Which works out to arguable the best 1st pair in the East, a mediocre 2nd that is probably going to lose their matchup and a decent low minutes 3rd pair. You can't play Diaz and Subban together and those are the best 4 bodies you've got so you have to ride them.
I thought our D was pretty good overall, but I think if we had shaped up our pairings differently, it would have been even better.
I'm not sure we start the year with the same group. Actually, I'd be pretty surprised. It's clear that we need it to change. I also want a PMD on every pairing, and I think Markov would be very dominant on the 2nd pairing.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote