HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Kyle Turris

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-11-2012, 09:07 PM
  #326
Manny*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,200
vCash: 500
So how about that Turris...

Manny* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 09:17 PM
  #327
HavlatMach9
Registered User
 
HavlatMach9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elch View Post
So how about that Turris...
Do we want him to be a goal scorer, or an assist machine? Seems like a great fill in temporary #1C if Spezza goes down.

HavlatMach9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 09:20 PM
  #328
MAK19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 14,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
Nope, they definately are 5v5, Link
Cool, Smid is still his most common by far

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
Such is the mysteries of using +/-; too many variables can make you jump to conclusions. Perhaps other players were able to drag Potter and Gilbert up.
But Horcoff wasn't, and dragged them down instead.

What's your argument again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
Note much according to LeftWingLock
The only forwards he played with more than Hall and Eberle were Smyth, Jones and Hemsky. I wouldn't say Horcoff was a victim of horrible linemates considering he plays for the Oilers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
Only because RNH was injured. 30% of RNH's shifts were with Smid, he was RNH's 4th most common linemate.
Cool. Smid still did not spend much of his ice time with RNH. My +/- numbers aren't just for when Nuge was healthy, they are for the whole season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
Many more because he played the PP. Horcoff put up 22 ES points, Smid put up 14. Horcoff also had a higher Corsi QOC then Smid.
Horcoff had more ES points. Thank you for proving it.

They are are 1 and 2 on the Oilers in QoC. Negligible difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
He did?
PlayerCorsi QOT Corsi Rel QOT
Horcoff-5.832 0.271
Smid-5.0361.324
Could of fooled me
I used a different QoT stat. But fair enough let's use this one, to be consistent with QoC.

Horcoff is 12th on the Oilers, Smid 7th on the Oilers in Quality of Teammates.

So why is Smid 5th in +/- and Horcoff 21st?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
Well this I can agree with in that if he didn't play with Smid (the oilers best Defensive D) he would have to play with the other guys more
Yeah, and Smid's +/- would have been much higher had he not played with Horcoff so much.

MAK19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 09:29 PM
  #329
Swedish Mafia
Baby got Backstrom
 
Swedish Mafia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
I somehow ended up on the oiler's board?

Swedish Mafia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 09:32 PM
  #330
MAK19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 14,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swedish Mafia View Post
I somehow ended up on the oiler's board?
MAK: Turris is shutdown

Some dude: Turris is not shutdown. Horcoff,...,... also play against top players, but are not shutdown.

MAK: Horcoff does play against top players. You're right though, he's not shutdown cause he sucks. Turris is good, so he's shutdown

Everyone: Horcoff is awesome, victim of bad team

MAK: Horc is awful


Et voila

MAK19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 09:41 PM
  #331
OneManArmy65*
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swedish Mafia View Post
I somehow ended up on the oiler's board?
Just read through the last couple of pages.

OneManArmy65* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 09:58 PM
  #332
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Petawawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,240
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elch View Post
So how about that Turris...
Hear he's a solid player.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 10:06 PM
  #333
Manny*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,200
vCash: 500
I can't help but feel that he and Silfverberg would have amazing chemistry. They're both very smart players who could really share a brain on the ice in a similar way to Spezza and Karlsson.

Add Alfredsson to that, and you've got yourself a potentially fantastic second line. All three guys can skate well, shoot well, pass well, and hold it down in the defensive zone. Unfortunately, that would likely entail Latendresse on our top line and I'm not sure he belongs there.

Manny* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 10:07 PM
  #334
West Coast Eagles
Classless
 
West Coast Eagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bne
Country: Australia
Posts: 1,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
Yeah, and Smid's +/- would have been much higher had he not played with Horcoff so much.
I don't post too much (generally lurk as it is my main source of news) but looking through this and other threads can we just all agree that there is a lot more to the game than stats? Clearly you're of the opinion that quantitative analysis provides key indicators of a players ability whether it be offensive or defensive, others place more weight in qualititative analysis. I personally don't have a preference. Constructively, if you are going to rely so heavily on statistics can you please use them with proper statistical consideration and consistently? I may be wrong here, and frankly I don't have the time to go back through the myriad of posts again, but I have yet to see any consideration of statistical outliers, standard deviations or anything of the like. Quite possibly some of the stats you are using may carry no statistical weight.

I have quoted an example above, when you state that Smid's +/- would of been better had he not played with Horcoff so much, you're asserting that or relying on a consistent trend that further relies on other variables. The stats provided don't statistically prove that Smid's +/- would of been better, they provide supporting information that backs your assertion (which is most likely correct). Statistical proof would come via some form of hypothesis testing. I am not saying that the hypothesis testing would prove you wrong but maybe just try and consider that other posters, talent evaluators etc. all utilise different methodology, of which none has been proven to be right or wrong. Otherwise, every GM in the league would rely solely on one methodology (except maybe Howson).

Back on topic, I like the Turris signing and am hoping he can nudge the 50 point barrier this year.

West Coast Eagles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 10:34 PM
  #335
TSA0402
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
MAK: Turris is shutdown

Some dude: Turris is not shutdown. Horcoff,...,... also play against top players, but are not shutdown.

MAK: Horcoff does play against top players. You're right though, he's not shutdown cause he sucks. Turris is good, so he's shutdown

Everyone: Horcoff is awesome, victim of bad team

MAK: Horc is awful


Et voila
I cant recall anyone saying Horcoff is awesome. He is useful on that young team. You might not like him, then again you think Turris is a shutdown forward so,

Just because you have the highest qualcomp on your team, doesnt make you a shutdown specialist. It means, you have the highest qualcomp.

Besides, dont you realize how overrated plus minus is? Problem with CORSI and many of these formulas is that it relies heavily on that overrated stat. The amount of variables included in plus minus make it next to impossible to accurately quantify.

TSA0402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 10:41 PM
  #336
MAK19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 14,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brisbane sens fan View Post
I don't post too much (generally lurk as it is my main source of news) but looking through this and other threads can we just all agree that there is a lot more to the game than stats? Clearly you're of the opinion that quantitative analysis provides key indicators of a players ability whether it be offensive or defensive, others place more weight in qualititative analysis. I personally don't have a preference. Constructively, if you are going to rely so heavily on statistics can you please use them with proper statistical consideration and consistently? I may be wrong here, and frankly I don't have the time to go back through the myriad of posts again, but I have yet to see any consideration of statistical outliers, standard deviations or anything of the like. Quite possibly some of the stats you are using may carry no statistical weight.
How would we use SD or things like that? How would they be useful? You tell me bro

Quote:
Originally Posted by brisbane sens fan View Post
I have quoted an example above, when you state that Smid's +/- would of been better had he not played with Horcoff so much, you're asserting that or relying on a consistent trend that further relies on other variables. The stats provided don't statistically prove that Smid's +/- would of been better, they provide supporting information that backs your assertion (which is most likely correct). Statistical proof would come via some form of hypothesis testing. I am not saying that the hypothesis testing would prove you wrong but maybe just try and consider that other posters, talent evaluators etc. all utilise different methodology, of which none has been proven to be right or wrong. Otherwise, every GM in the league would rely solely on one methodology (except maybe Howson).

Back on topic, I like the Turris signing and am hoping he can nudge the 50 point barrier this year.
Looking at both their +/-, I conclude Smid is better. Smid is better at +/- at the very least. Therefore, I concluded playing with Horcoff more would drag down Smid's +/-, especially because of the huge difference between the numbers.

Now is it true? Who knows, but I think it's a pretty darn good hypothesis. How would we go about using numbers to prove or disprove it? I don't really think you can. Only way is to play the games over again.

But if you play with players with bad +/-, your +/- will lower. Right? Is that not at least logical?

MAK19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 10:47 PM
  #337
MAK19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 14,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA0402 View Post
I cant recall anyone saying Horcoff is awesome. He is useful on that young team. You might not like him, then again you think Turris is a shutdown forward so,

Just because you have the highest qualcomp on your team, doesnt make you a shutdown specialist. It means, you have the highest qualcomp.

Besides, dont you realize how overrated plus minus is? Problem with CORSI and many of these formulas is that it relies heavily on that overrated stat. The amount of variables included in plus minus make it next to impossible to accurately quantify.
If you have the highest QoC on your team, that means you are used as a shutdown forward (Turris and Horcoff).

If you perform well in that role, that means you are a good shutdown forward and I would have no problem branding you one (Turris). If you suck in that role, I would say we should try and find you another role (Horcoff). So if you suck, imo you're not a 'true' shutdown player, because you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

What variables are you talking about other than your team/linemates, ice time and competition you play against? Because I've taken them all into consideration.

MAK19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 11:35 PM
  #338
West Coast Eagles
Classless
 
West Coast Eagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bne
Country: Australia
Posts: 1,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
How would we use SD or things like that? How would they be useful? You tell me bro



Looking at both their +/-, I conclude Smid is better. Smid is better at +/- at the very least. Therefore, I concluded playing with Horcoff more would drag down Smid's +/-, especially because of the huge difference between the numbers.

Now is it true? Who knows, but I think it's a pretty darn good hypothesis. How would we go about using numbers to prove or disprove it? I don't really think you can. Only way is to play the games over again.

But if you play with players with bad +/-, your +/- will lower. Right? Is that not at least logical?
Para 1: It could be used to determine the statistical significance of the data.

Its a long time since I did any MTBFs or handed in my stats papers at uni (which funnily enough was on the effects of the rulle changes post/pre lockout) but I do recall that there are a number of methods to determine outliers but as a general rule i consider anything at 2 or more standard deviations to be an outlier (there are other methods that are more accurate by I am not going to go in to detail about Pierce's criterion or whatever other method you want to talk about). In general and especially since we are considering hockey, outliers, in my opinion would need to be retained (it isn't the best assumption that a players talent doesn't change year to year, day to day). Whilst discarding the outliers would remove both the best and worst games of said player to "normalise" the stats, I just am not sure you can do it and believe in the data set you have. You could use Cook's method to determine any outliers that have signiifcant impact on the data set however.

SD - this would help in charaterising the data set and stat significance i.e do we have a normal distribution or not?
****edit: ignore the comment about normal distribution above line, I forgot to delete it, not relevant

Both the above would also help in determining the robustness and characterising the data set.

Para 2, Plus/Minus: Like I said originally, looking at the numbers more than likely you would be proven correct through hypothesis testing, I am not debating that. I am debating the fact that you use statistics to prove points, I am asking you to prove statistically that your hypothesis is correct and to what degree of certainty. The methodology would be to conduct hypothesis testing, the most basic of stat analysis. This obviously assumes a normal distribution which I don't personally consider to be a bad assumption.

To re-iterate my previous post, I am just looking for some acknowledgement that you understand there are two ways to evaluate hockey talent, quantitative and qualititative. Someone may disagree with your assessment despite the stats they present based on their own qualitative analysis, does that make them wrong?

P.S. my idea of a shut down forward is someone like Steve Ruuchin, not Turris. Your stats may support that he was used as one, but in my mind that doesn't "make" him one. I don't want to really get into the Horcoff/Turris debate, just providing you with some background as to what I would consider a shutdown forward


Last edited by West Coast Eagles: 09-11-2012 at 11:54 PM.
West Coast Eagles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 11:56 PM
  #339
MAK19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 14,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brisbane sens fan View Post
Para 1: It could be used to determine the statistical significance of the data.

Its a long time since I did any MTBFs or handed in my stats papers at uni (which funnily enough was on the effects of the rulle changes post/pre lockout) but I do recall that there are a number of methods to determine outliers but as a general rule i consider anything at 2 or more standard deviations to be an outlier (there are other methods that are more accurate by I am not going to go in to detail about Pierce's criterion or whatever other method you want to talk about). In general and especially since we are considering hockey, outliers, in my opinion would need to be retained (it isn't the best assumption that a players talent doesn't change year to year, day to day). Whilst discarding the outliers would remove both the best and worst games of said player to "normalise" the stats, I just am not sure you can do it and believe in the data set you have. You could use Cook's method to determine any outliers that have signiifcant impact on the data set however.

SD - this would help in charaterising the data set and stat significance i.e do we have a normal distribution or not?

Both the above would also help in determining the robustness and characterising the data set.

Para 2, Plus/Minus: Like I said originally, looking at the numbers more than likely you would be proven correct through hypothesis testing, I am not debating that. I am debating the fact that you use statistics to prove points, I am asking you to prove statistically that your hypothesis is correct and to what degree of certainty. The methodology would be to conduct hypothesis testing, the most basic of stat analysis. This obviously assumes a normal distribution which I don't personally consider to be a bad assumption.

To re-iterate my previous post, I am just looking for some acknowledgement that you understand there are two ways to evaluate hockey talent, quantitative and qualititative. Someone may disagree with your assessment despite the stats they present based on their own qualitative analysis, does that make them wrong?

P.S. my idea of a shut down forward is someone like Steve Ruuchin, not Turris. Your stats may support that he was used as one, but in my mind that doesn't "make" him one. I don't want to really get into the Horcoff/Turris debate, just providing you with some background as to what I would consider a shutdown forward
My point is I don't really know how to test my hypothesis by statistical analysis. If anyone has clue, I would fully support it.

All I have are the numbers, I don't know whether the differences I see are significant or not.

MAK19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 12:02 AM
  #340
MAK19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 14,360
vCash: 500
I mean take Horc's and Smid's +/- numbers.

That's 2 numbers. The difference would need to be ENORMOUS for it to be statistically significant with a 95% confidence interval, right?

I don't even know what I'm talking about. Someone chime in

MAK19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 12:26 AM
  #341
West Coast Eagles
Classless
 
West Coast Eagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bne
Country: Australia
Posts: 1,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
My point is I don't really know how to test my hypothesis by statistical analysis. If anyone has clue, I would fully support it.

All I have are the numbers, I don't know whether the differences I see are significant or not.
I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt to behindthenet as I am sure they are much better statiticians than me and in the calculation of their stats things like this (ie. significance) would be considered. So you are covered when using their stats but extrapolating theories and hypothesis from there can be difficult (statistically). That's why you get heat IMO, you use the stats to tell people some people they are wrong but really all the data does is support your opinion. Take Bonktastic for example, I know from his posts that he prefers qualitative analysis, the truth probably lies somehwere in between.

Wrt to proving your hypothesis, I don't think you would have the data sets available to test some of the things you want to be honest, but just google statistical hypothesis testing and there will be plenty of pages to explain it. Of course, the stats might not be a normal distribution (my gut feeling says unlikely) which would blow all these methods out of water and you have to talk about other distributions ie.continuous distributions

******edit: saw your second post, I think you would need to have a dataset that highlight +/- for when Smid is either with or 100% without Horcoff. Don't bust your nut on it because you don't need to prove statistically that your hypothesis was right, I agree with your assertion that it would of gone up. Now I can't talk much further without really stepping outside my own knowledge so I am going to stop. I'd be much more comfortable talking about fourier transforms and the like.

By all means use your stats because you obviously put a lot of emphasis on them, there is nothing wrong with that. I never really read much about corsi etc. until you showed up (wanted to actually understand what the hell you were on about )and I think they do hold some merit.


Last edited by West Coast Eagles: 09-12-2012 at 12:32 AM.
West Coast Eagles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 03:11 AM
  #342
BonkTastic
+/- =Worst Stat EVER
 
BonkTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jakarta, IDN
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
I don't even know what I'm talking about. Someone chime in
I always said the day I unequivocally agreed with something MAK said, I'd have to leave the Sens HF boards.

Looks like I'm going to need a new hockey board to hang around on...


BonkTastic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 06:25 AM
  #343
TSA0402
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post

What variables are you talking about other than your team/linemates, ice time and competition you play against? Because I've taken them all into consideration.
Comparing two teammates on the ice at the same time, you are not allowing the variable affect of 3 different teammates on the ice at different times. That number is rather large if you take all into effect.

The reason why plus minus arguments are asinine is because they affect everyone on the ice, even when you are not responsible. When you compare two players who have the most ice time together, you are forgetting there are three(four including goalie) other teammates that are likely are a revolving door of icetime surrounding these two players, making it impossible to get an accurate gauge. Thats not taking to account, assuming all things equal, that each player plays with the same four skaters all the time, that plus minus affects these players whether or not they are highly involved in the play costing or scoring a goal. That obviously will never happen.

I feel like I'm being baited onto page 5(I imagine 4 pages of this crap would be bad enough). Thankfully I missed that.

TSA0402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 11:40 AM
  #344
Micklebot
Registered User
 
Micklebot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyAlwaysKnows View Post
Cool, Smid is still his most common by far
Yes, but ďNotĒ Smid was even more common at 60% of the time. And ďNotĒ Smid combined for a hurt him more than Smid helped him.
Quote:
But Horcoff wasn't, and dragged them down instead.

What's your argument again?
The point is that using +/- can lead to all sorts of erroneous conclusions. There are simply too many variable to be considered that can not be properly controlled for.
Quote:

The only forwards he played with more than Hall and Eberle were Smyth, Jones and Hemsky. I wouldn't say Horcoff was a victim of horrible linemates considering he plays for the Oilers.
You do realize that he spent less then 15.7% of his ES TOI with either Eberle or Hall. I can only get the top 10 with BTN, and #10 had 15.7. So about 85% (min) of the time, he had guys not named Eberle or Hall.
Quote:
Cool. Smid still did not spend much of his ice time with RNH. My +/- numbers aren't just for when Nuge was healthy, they are for the whole season.
Actually, he spent almost 20% of his ES ice time with RNH. 903 (RNH ES TOI) * .301 (percent he played with Smid)/ 1363 (Smidís ES TOI) = 19.94

That seems to me to be enough worth considering.
Quote:
Horcoff had more ES points. Thank you for proving it.
You do realize Smid is a defensman right?
Quote:
They are are 1 and 2 on the Oilers in QoC. Negligible difference.
While the ranking is 1 and 2, there is a decent gap in the actual figures. Not earth shattering but still significant. Rank order lists leave lots to be desired.
Quote:

I used a different QoT stat. But fair enough let's use this one, to be consistent with QoC.

Horcoff is 12th on the Oilers, Smid 7th on the Oilers in Quality of Teammates.

So why is Smid 5th in +/- and Horcoff 21st?
First, let me say that if you insist on using +/-, I might suggest you use +/- per 60 at ES, as it will remove some potential issues such as goals for on PK, goals against on the PP, TOI differences. There are other issues with using a per min stat (you canít really expect performance to have a linear relationship with TOI), but I feel itís still better than raw +/-, and when you bring in other 5v5 only stats, you at least are comparing stats that describe the same situation.

Now to answer your question, Horcoff had the unique situation amoung Oilers of having a High QOC paired with a low QOT. Teemu Hartikainen was the only one close to his situation, but still had better team mates, and worse QOC. This is part of the reason his +/- really isnít comparable to anyone else on the team.
Quote:
Yeah, and Smid's +/- would have been much higher had he not played with Horcoff so much.
While this may be true, the real question is why? Is it because Horcoff sucks as you suggest, or because he played the toughest mins on the team (by whitch I mean the combination of his QOC and QOT) and was unique in that regard on the team? Certainly there are better shut down centers than Horcoff, but he really did not have an enviable situation.

Micklebot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 01:56 PM
  #345
Dionysus
Registered User
 
Dionysus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Around the bend
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Why are the merits of Shawn Horcoff being debated? It is terribly boring and irrelevant. Kyle Turris is decent though, I think he will put up huge numbers this year playing pickup hockey at local rinks.

Dionysus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 03:19 PM
  #346
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 24,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny* View Post
I can't help but feel that he and Silfverberg would have amazing chemistry. They're both very smart players who could really share a brain on the ice in a similar way to Spezza and Karlsson.

Add Alfredsson to that, and you've got yourself a potentially fantastic second line. All three guys can skate well, shoot well, pass well, and hold it down in the defensive zone. Unfortunately, that would likely entail Latendresse on our top line and I'm not sure he belongs there.
I agree with this. Could be a great combo.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 05:56 PM
  #347
HavlatMach9
Registered User
 
HavlatMach9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence View Post
I agree with this. Could be a great combo.
Silfverberg and Turris together means a lot of inexperience on the line, though Alfie would help, wouldn't it be better to put Silfverberg on the 1st line? I assume he'll be tried on the 1st line, but if it doesn't work, I think he'll be tried on the 2nd or 3rd line.

HavlatMach9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2012, 06:31 PM
  #348
DJB
Registered User
 
DJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,948
vCash: 964
Isn't Silf more of a RW though? Not sure that's going to work. Silf I think much like Alfie cna play with anyone, be it Spez or Turris.

DJB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 05:40 AM
  #349
Beville
#ForTheBoys
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Engerlanddd!
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
Hear he's a solid player.
I heard he was an overpaid plug

Beville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:10 AM
  #350
Xspyrit
Registered User
 
Xspyrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
Country: Monaco
Posts: 14,449
vCash: 1000
Why have a NHL season when you can have eternal debates with MAK?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HavlatMach9 View Post
Silfverberg and Turris together means a lot of inexperience on the line, though Alfie would help, wouldn't it be better to put Silfverberg on the 1st line? I assume he'll be tried on the 1st line, but if it doesn't work, I think he'll be tried on the 2nd or 3rd line.
I want :

Latendresse-Spezza-Michalek
Silfverberg-Turris-Alfredsson
Greening-Regin-Zibanejad
Condra-Smith-Neil


I believe Latendresse can be a 30 goals scorer playing with Spezza. He has great hands around the net. Spezza creates a lot of offense around net, Latendresse will be around to bank the rebounds and convert Spezza's feeds. Michalek has proven he can do that already. This line could produce 80-90 goals easily if healthy (which is top-tier in the league)

2nd line is all about hockey IQ and defensive awareness, with a nice touch of offense. All those guys have great shots. They can play against anyone and own the puck. Yes Silfverberg is green in the NHL but I think he could adapt quickly. He doesn't depend on rink's size like Rundblad was. Let them learn even more playing with Alfie

3rd line is about size and speed with a nice skill touch. Regin if healthy can be a great 2-way center and the other guys can go recover the puck for him. Zib and Regin have great shots if they can use it, Greening goes to the net. Defense is adequate too, just a bit of inexperience

4th line is perfect too. Condra provides the stamina and high hockey IQ. The 2 others provide toughness and "in-your-face" hockey. Tough line to play against and can chip in offensively

If Silfverberg needs an adjustement period, switch him with Regin and make a few moves for the bottom-6 center positions

I'm excited to see that line-up in action


Last edited by Xspyrit: 09-13-2012 at 07:33 AM.
Xspyrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.