Yeah I think we were in 5th place at the deadline last year, which is why we didn't sell any pieces (I think we tried to get rid of Kobasew).
Either way, we're still learning Yeo's system, we have gotten 13/22 points. That's not too bad. That gets us about 97 points if we keep getting points at this clip which should be enough to make the playoffs, but I'm not sure if this shows the team's resolve or if it's more about getting lucky. We tied the game with 1.2 seconds left against Edmonton and won in the shootout, and we tied the game with 1 minute left against the Wings and win it in overtime. We are this close to being 9/22 points and sitting in 14th place. How crazy is that?
We need to be better, but I hope we can just find some sort of consistency with our line combos. Also, PMB has been kind of a problem in not getting a lot of scoring done.
Yeah I think we were in 5th place at the deadline last year, which is why we didn't sell any pieces (I think we tried to get rid of Kobasew).
Either way, we're still learning Yeo's system, we have gotten 13/22 points. That's not too bad. That gets us about 97 points if we keep getting points at this clip which should be enough to make the playoffs, but I'm not sure if this shows the team's resolve or if it's more about getting lucky. We tied the game with 1.2 seconds left against Edmonton and won in the shootout, and we tied the game with 1 minute left against the Wings and win it in overtime. We are this close to being 9/22 points and sitting in 14th place. How crazy is that?
We need to be better, but I hope we can just find some sort of consistency with our line combos. Also, PMB has been kind of a problem in not getting a lot of scoring done.
I will say that the team has looked way better late in games when they're down. The effort level has been just so much better. They looked so lazy (or maybe tired?) in these same situations under Richards. And the 6-on-5 looks SO much better. I mean, apart from Richards pulling the goalie when the team didn't have possession, the team also seems to have learned how to actually maintain pressure. This year, the 6-on-5 unit doesn't get one weak shot on the dump in and then watch listlessly as it sails into their empty goal! It no longer seems like pulling the goalie is conceding a bonus goal; it seems like an actual attempt to get back into the game.
I will say that the team has looked way better late in games when they're down. The effort level has been just so much better. They looked so lazy (or maybe tired?) in these same situations under Richards. And the 6-on-5 looks SO much better. I mean, apart from Richards pulling the goalie when the team didn't have possession, the team also seems to have learned how to actually maintain pressure. This year, the 6-on-5 unit doesn't get one weak shot on the dump in and then watch listlessly as it sails into their empty goal! It no longer seems like pulling the goalie is conceding a bonus goal; it seems like an actual attempt to get back into the game.
I've been impressed that we haven't allowed an empty net goal (and we had an empty net for like 2 minutes straight against Anaheim) and we've scored twice with the goalie pulled.
I've been impressed that we haven't allowed an empty net goal (and we had an empty net for like 2 minutes straight against Anaheim) and we've scored twice with the goalie pulled.
We should just play the whole game 6 v 5. It's bound to be successful with statistics like that!
Since we're talking about goal scoring and defense, I think I know what happened.
We played the trap for our entire existence, and when Lemaire retired, Wild fans called for a "more exciting" brand of hockey. Enter Todd Richards... Wow, he sucked. Exit Todd Richards. Now we've finally gotten to a point where we realize winning is exciting no matter how you do it.
Since we're talking about goal scoring and defense, I think I know what happened.
We played the trap for our entire existence, and when Lemaire retired, Wild fans called for a "more exciting" brand of hockey. Enter Todd Richards... Wow, he sucked. Exit Todd Richards. Now we've finally gotten to a point where we realize winning is exciting no matter how you do it.
I'd go a little further. To hockey "purists" a hard fought defensive game is fun and exciting. The more casual fan wants to see goals and flashy plays. With penny pinching around the country, those more casual fans aren't paying out for tickets, so it makes sense to go back to the hard nosed, defensive style. Everybody loves a winner, so the fact that we have somewhat better odds of winning with that style means more of a turn that way too.
So our defense has actually gotten better. Where are all of those haters now?
Our defensemen can all play defense, but only two of them can play offense. Also, we've got a very good group of two-way forwards. They're very defensively responsible. Oh, and Harding has played like a boss.
Our defensemen can all play defense, but only two of them can play offense. Also, we've got a very good group of two-way forwards. They're very defensively responsible. Oh, and Harding has played like a boss.
Our defensemen can all play defense, but only two of them can play offense. Also, we've got a very good group of two-way forwards. They're very defensively responsible. Oh, and Harding has played like a boss.
I assume you're talking about Zids and Spurgeon, but I wouldn't be too quick to omit Scandella and Falk, who have both shown flashes.
I assume you're talking about Zids and Spurgeon, but I wouldn't be too quick to omit Scandella and Falk, who have both shown flashes.
Scandella has shown flashes of offense, but it's in the manner that Schultz has. He clearly thinks the game defense first. When he sees a play, he's thinking "how do I need to stop this opponent from scoring" before "how can I move this puck on net?" Spurgeon very clearly has that reversed. That's why last night Spurgeon would pounce on loose pucks in the neutral zone, risking an odd man rush if he misplayed the puck, while Scandella would back off to ensure defensive positioning when the opponent grabbed it.
Scandella has shown flashes of offense, but it's in the manner that Schultz has. He clearly thinks the game defense first. When he sees a play, he's thinking "how do I need to stop this opponent from scoring" before "how can I move this puck on net?" Spurgeon very clearly has that reversed. That's why last night Spurgeon would pounce on loose pucks in the neutral zone, risking an odd man rush if he misplayed the puck, while Scandella would back off to ensure defensive positioning when the opponent grabbed it.
Again, I feel like you don't like Scandella for some reason and I'm not sure why. Everything you've described in this paragraph is definitely not a bad thing, especially with our lack of scoring.
Scandella is a lot more likely to prevent a goal than create one, so for now, let's focus on that.
Again, I feel like you don't like Scandella for some reason and I'm not sure why. Everything you've described in this paragraph is definitely not a bad thing, especially with our lack of scoring.
Scandella is a lot more likely to prevent a goal than create one, so for now, let's focus on that.
You're the only one who has said it is a bad thing. The question was "who creates offense from the blue line?" Scandella is a defense first defenseman, and therefore isn't creating a whole lot of offense from the blue line. That's a simple statement of fact, not a judgment or any such thing. I haven't said a single negative thing about Scandella, at least not since the season actually got under way.
You're the only one who has said it is a bad thing. The question was "who creates offense from the blue line?" Scandella is a defense first defenseman, and therefore isn't creating a whole lot of offense from the blue line. That's a simple statement of fact, not a judgment or any such thing. I haven't said a single negative thing about Scandella, at least not since the season actually got under way.
I don't necessarily agree with this. I think he is very selective and picks his spots carefully; right now I'd lean closer to 2-way, as opposed to defensive. He also seems much more inclined to shoot than any of the other D, which I would consider offensive in nature.
I don't necessarily agree with this. I think he is very selective and picks his spots carefully; right now I'd lean closer to 2-way, as opposed to defensive. He also seems much more inclined to shoot than any of the other D, which I would consider offensive in nature.
I can see that, but I would argue he's 2-way in the sense that he's not useless in the offensive zone. It seems his first instinct is to protect the puck or the zone, and only when he's certain that's cleared away does he make an offensive move. He's more of a defensive guy who's capable of putting the puck in the net, which I guess could be some people's definition of a two way defenseman.
I can see that, but I would argue he's 2-way in the sense that he's not useless in the offensive zone. It seems his first instinct is to protect the puck or the zone, and only when he's certain that's cleared away does he make an offensive move. He's more of a defensive guy who's capable of putting the puck in the net, which I guess could be some people's definition of a two way defenseman.
He is still a rookie though. The offense will come, right now he does need to avoid mistakes.
But even as a conservative rookie, the wild have a better defensive corps with him in the line up than with him out of it. Not only that, he is at the point where the NHL ice time will help him grow far more effectively than AHL ice time, esp if he is getting the minutes that he is.
Its still a long shot for the wild to end up in the top 8 this year. Lets let him work through some of his growing pains this year. If we make the playoffs its pretty much guaranteed that he will have helped the wild get there in a big way.
