But he played 49 games last year and we need big bodies on the bottom 6... Why the hell would coaching staff not try and use his NHL experience with rakell and holland...
But he played 49 games last year and we need big bodies on the bottom 6... Why the hell would coaching staff not try and use his NHL experience with rakell and holland...
Because Beleskey is better. Hell, even Staubitz is probably better right now lol
Maybe you're just focusing on that aspect because of DSP. There is plenty of discussion about other areas... such as the penalty kill.
Discussion? More like 4 word sentences of people just spewing out the obvious of players that are struggling... But the meat and potatoes discussions are all about rakell and friends...
U guys leave me no choice but to constantly troll and create an actual debate...
Discussion? More like 4 word sentences of people just spewing out the obvious of players that are struggling... But the meat and potatoes discussions are all about rakell and friends...
U guys leave me no choice but to constantly troll and create an actual debate...
Ok sure but your going to tell me Maroon would have been your choice? I saw everyone's mock lineup including yours... Dsp was in 95 percent of them...
Mock line-ups generally make an assumption that a player is playing to his capabilities. If people felt like DSP was phoning it in, he probably is written off 95 percent of them.
Mock line-ups generally make an assumption that a player is playing to his capabilities. If people felt like DSP was phoning it in, he probably is written off 95 percent of them.
These mock lineups were made during and after the Norfolk games where ducks fans had the opportunity to study the below average numbers dsp was putting up but they still chose him to start on the lineup, therefore contradicting angel ducks theory of the majority of posters in here believing dsp shouldn't have been in titled to a starting role...
Not really. DSP's spot on the team, going back to last season, has been controversial among some of us. I'd say it's more that we saw DSP being on the team as inevitable, because Murray seemed to pencil him in last season and it seemed likely he would do it again.
These mock lineups were made during and after the Norfolk games where ducks fans had the opportunity to study the below average numbers dsp was putting up but they still chose him to start on the lineup, therefore contradicting angel ducks theory of the majority of posters in here believing dsp shouldn't have been in titled to a starting role...
I dare say people were expecting him to pick up his play when back in the NHL, this has been far from the case.
Not really. DSP's spot on the team, going back to last season, has been controversial among some of us. I'd say it's more that we saw DSP being on the team as inevitable, because Murray seemed to pencil him in last season and it seemed likely he would do it again.
I don't think it's fair to tag Murray with that. I haven't seen anything to show that our coaching staff wanted to send him back.
I don't think it's fair to tag Murray with that. I haven't seen anything to show that our coaching staff wanted to send him back.
Well, he did something similar with Sbisa. You're right, though. It may not be Murray, and the coaches continued to use DSP, when someone else might have been benched.
I dare say people were expecting him to pick up his play when back in the NHL, this has been far from the case.
That too. If I'm being honest, that bothered me right from the start. It gave me the impression DSP felt he was too good for the AHL, or felt entitled to a spot in the NHL. I don't like that from a 20 year old.
Not really. DSP's spot on the team, going back to last season, has been controversial among some of us. I'd say it's more that we saw DSP being on the team as inevitable, because Murray seemed to pencil him in last season and it seemed likely he would do it again.
I'm sure there was some controversy over dsp making the roster although I didn't hear much of it. likely so because it wouldn't have been a popular choice in convo with the 95 percent of other posters in here raving about the late season success he had.... No again it's just much easier to agree with everyone or remain silent if u have a taboo thought... Although I will credit DVM for being his biggest critic last year.... Too bad he can't read this though lol
The team does need some toughness. But it's just not going to happen with Murray in charge. Murray does believe in toughness, but compartmentalized toughness. Look at the past rosters. We have always had an enforcer. But the key was the enforcer was always on the roster but not in the lineup. Murray does not stock the roster with a guy who is good enough to play ever day.
Staubitz is not the answer. Putting him in probably makes the team worse. Staubitz is not a good hockey player. But this is exactly what management wanted. They didn't want to keep Parros because he wanted to play every day. Instead they went for a guy who was better at fighting, but worse at playing so they wouldn't have the same kind of tension.
IMO the only way to get more toughness is a) replace the GM and b) get some more toughness spread through the lineup. Like in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd lines.
The team does need some toughness. But it's just not going to happen with Murray in charge. Murray does believe in toughness, but compartmentalized toughness. Look at the past rosters. We have always had an enforcer. But the key was the enforcer was always on the roster but not in the lineup. Murray does not stock the roster with a guy who is good enough to play ever day.
Staubitz is not the answer. Putting him in probably makes the team worse. Staubitz is not a good hockey player. But this is exactly what management wanted. They didn't want to keep Parros because he wanted to play every day. Instead they went for a guy who was better at fighting, but worse at playing so they wouldn't have the same kind of tension.
IMO the only way to get more toughness is a) replace the GM and b) get some more toughness spread through the lineup. Like in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd lines.
They didn't want to keep Parros because he wanted to play every day and be a grinder, which he isn't good enough for, but more importantly because he stopped actually enforcing (for health reasons or whatever, he wasn't doing it). I was happy seeing him gone after the Edmonton game where he had ample opportunity to step in against Sutton after watching Perry get run repeatedly and did nothing.
They didn't want to keep Parros because he wanted to play every day and be a grinder, which he isn't good enough for, but more importantly because he stopped actually enforcing (for health reasons or whatever, he wasn't doing it). I was happy seeing him gone after the Edmonton game where he had ample opportunity to step in against Sutton after watching Perry get run repeatedly and did nothing.
Add to that the Calgary game where Aliu ran Fowler twice and the only thing George ran was his mouth.
They didn't want to keep Parros because he wanted to play every day and be a grinder, which he isn't good enough for, but more importantly because he stopped actually enforcing (for health reasons or whatever, he wasn't doing it). I was happy seeing him gone after the Edmonton game where he had ample opportunity to step in against Sutton after watching Perry get run repeatedly and did nothing.
Yeah I left that part out. Parros wasn't a good enforcer last year, and I wasn't too sad to see him go either. I said it at the time.
You're right. Parros probably isn't good enough to play every night either, but at least he is better than Staubitz at playing.
Either way, the team could use an enforcer-player.
