Armstrong isnt anything special, but gets the job done...He's scored some this season, and the last two seasons, we saw him scored more than 2/3 of the rest of the FW's on the team...I'm not sure if he's a good team guy..in fact, i've had my doubts about that....
in general, he just seems like a typical hockey player who does what he feels is needed, whether it be cycle the puck, throw a hit, or even drop the gloves (that 1 time...with all the pump fakes)...an example was tonight against DAL where it looked like he took a puck off the face, but continued the shift b/c it was a PP
Those are supporting evidence of how lots of lines aren't working this season...but the ones Army plays on ARE working pretty well most of the time.
Your post is confusing because, being that the discussion is of a Kings player, I was referring to Kings lines. If Armstrong saved the Naslund/Bertuzzi line at some point this season, then I missed it
Your post is confusing because, being that the discussion is of a Kings player, I was referring to Kings lines. If Armstrong saved the Naslund/Bertuzzi line at some point this season, then I missed it
I'm still confused. First you posted this:
Quote:
Really, though, how many lines haven't been successful this season? Any line that isn't successful gets broken up before it can be remembered. Whereas young players are often streaky, as a veteran, Armstrong is consistent. That's why he's in the NHL and why he's an asset for the team, not because he's a magic player for any line he's on or even special as an NHLer. There's really nothing special about him other than that the coach knows that he'll always get a consistent performance out of him. The best way I can put it is even if it's a B- performance, you know you'll get it every night, unlike some other players (such as Frolov and Brown) who can serve up anything from A to C performances on any given night. For a team with a lot of youngsters, that's useful.
And you crapped on Army because, although he's been successful this year...who the heck hasn't been successful.
So I named some players on some lines that have NOT been successful and you say that unless Army scores a point a game then he's not successful (i.e. a B+ player). Even though he's got 10 goals in 31 games, putting him on pace for 25+ goals which IMO is pretty damn good...even in the "new" NHL when you see guys like Mogilny, Sundin, Murray, Satan, O'Neill, Langkow and Hejduk barely better than Army.
Anyway, so I name some players who aren't anywhere NEAR a point a game and you come back with something like unless he's the saviour in Vancouver, he's...what? I just don't know where you're going with this and why you can't evaluate Army for the role he has: VERY solid role player who fits in as a supporting 4th line scorer or a 2nd line center/wing. In THAT role, he's better than a B- IMO. But apparently, the way you evaluate players, unless they score a point a game, they're pretty much average run-of-the-mill hockey players. And IMO, that would be news to guys like, say, Shane Doan who I certainly don't think is an average hockey player...despite his stats. And that's not mentioning the dozens of 4th liners you apparently think aren't better than B- players because they don't score a ton.
I'm not sure if he's a good team guy..in fact, i've had my doubts about that....
I'd love to hear where that opinion comes from. I've NEVER heard ONE thing about him not being a GREAT team guy. Not ONE. In fact, I've heard the exact opposite...that's he's a GREAT team guy.
Believe me, with the depth at forward, Armstrong will be expendable more sooner than later. That he can provide games like this only enhances his value and makes it difficult to cut bait, but in the long run... he'll be an afterthought if the youngsters continue to progress.
I agree with this.
I am a bog Army guy. But the problem with Army is that we can't rely on him to consistently score points.
He is a success story, he is easily the most down to earth and nicest guy in the NHL, but he can' be counted on to regularly offensively produce.
I'd love to hear where that opinion comes from. I've NEVER heard ONE thing about him not being a GREAT team guy. Not ONE. In fact, I've heard the exact opposite...that's he's a GREAT team guy.
Management LOVES Derek Armstrong... and why not? They plug him in as needed and he fulfills that role. That being said, don't think for a minute that they wouldn't find him expendable if the right situation were to come along. He's not that precious a commodity in the NHL, but he's unique to this situation. He's smart enough to know that his NHL career was more than revived by coming to LA after failed stops on the Island, Ottawa and Broadway...
Management LOVES Derek Armstrong... and why not? They plug him in as needed and he fulfills that role. That being said, don't think for a minute that they wouldn't find him expendable if the right situation were to come along. He's not that precious a commodity in the NHL, but he's unique to this situation. He's smart enough to know that his NHL career was more than revived by coming to LA after failed stops on the Island, Ottawa and Broadway...
I agree. He's not "unique" in the sense that it would be extremely hard to replace him. How he IS unique, though, is that he is EXACTLY the kind of player you want and need on winning teams. It's hard to win without them and when you get one, you need to make sure you keep him...or replace him if you move him. It's the kind of thing the Avs seem to be missing more often than not and why IMO they haven't won more Cups (yes, I know I sound like Army is the missing piece the Avs need to win a Cup but that's not quite what I'm saying).
But if I were DT, of course I would trade Army in the right deal. But I sure wouldn't trade him for some 3rd round pick...or some 2nd rate prospect. But if a Smoke-for-Gleason type deal came along, sure I'd do that.
