We got younger, faster, more consistent in the goal scoring department, and I think gritter, albeit smaller.
I would still like to bring Kovalev back-somehow, or a Beauchemin. Both are probably unlikely.
So what is TSN going to say now? Yesterday before Gionta it was,"they better have chemistry." Well, we know Gionta and Gomez can have chemistry. Now it's going to be that we're too small. I don't think these players play small, which makes a difference. Just tell the third and fourth line to go out and hit everything they see. And let our first line go around the pylons in Toronto and Boston.
Plus I like this because now Akosty can develop even more without the pressure of needing to be a 30 goal man..maybe now he will slide into that easier with the first line being the target of other teams.
I'm excited! One more of -Kovalev, D man or bottom 6 grit would be great.
I choose the new line. As for size, I do not buy that argument. I do not want a team filled with lumbering idiots who cannot skate and will have players such as Gionta and Gomez fly buy them on a consistent basis. The Pens and Red Wings were not filled with big players. They had skill and speed to burn and made it to the finals because of it. They were tough as a team and durable and that is what we are going for.
As for the argument that size equals toughness, that is far from the truth. We had players like Popovic and Malakov, both over 6' 3", in the past but they played like they were 5 feet tall with no willingness to get their hands dirty. I do not see that in any of the players we got this year.
I choose the new line. As for size, I do not buy that argument. I do not want a team filled with lumbering idiots who cannot skate and will have players such as Gionta and Gomez fly buy them on a consistent basis. The Pens and Red Wings were not filled with big players. They had skill and speed to burn and made it to the finals because of it. They were tough as a team and durable and that is what we are going for.
As for the argument that size equals toughness, that is far from the truth. We had players like Popovic and Malakov, both over 6' 3", in the past but they played like they were 5 feet tall with no willingness to get their hands dirty. I do not see that in any of the players we got this year.
Not going against your point, but rather adding to it, I think the importance of size shows in the second half of the season and playoffs. Small players get hit more often, endure more punishment and a group lacking in size will end up being bruised and battered early, while a group rich in size can take more punishment before they slow down. It's not necessarily about how they play, which is absolutely relevant but not what I am pointing out, but rather how many bodychecks and slashes they can endure before tiring down.
Right now, which duo would you rather have playing for your team?
Trios, not duos, but I would rather have Koivu, Tanguay, Kovalev, Higgins, and McDonagh on my team than the New Schtroumpfs. Not meaning any disrespect to the new players with that, really, they're all pretty decent. But 5 assets vs. 3 and more cap flexibility would appeal to me more.
Trios, not duos, but I would rather have Koivu, Tanguay, Kovalev, Higgins, and McDonagh on my team than the New Schtroumpfs. Not meaning any disrespect to the new players with that, really, they're all pretty decent. But 5 assets vs. 3 and more cap flexibility would appeal to me more.
I disagree completely. People have to stop crying about McDonagh, right now he's shown NOTHING to prove that he was deserving of the 12th overall pick. Everyone who has seen him play say that he was terrible last season and seemed to regress. Higgins, well he needed to go. He was a party boy and not a good influence on any of our younger players. You could tell that from season 1 to season 3, his effort drastically changed. Koivu, Tanguay... 2 soft players, 1 very injury prone, the other just isn't all that consistent. Kovalev, they call him le magician because he can disappear in games.
We've got 3 legit stars that are under 30 years old... How anyone can even think that the bums we had last year are better is beyond me. I love Koivu to death, but it's time to move on.
Same pts/games, but you're right. Younger, then more durable, and especially more upside.
Right. And the best part about Cammy, Gionta, Gomez is the don't float. Ever. Skill aside, success is hockey = skill * intensity. Kovalev and Tanguay are obviously highly skilled, but very inconsistent intensity. Koivu is intense but diminishing skill.
Same pts/games, but you're right. Younger, then more durable, and especially more upside.
um, u dont get it..who gives a **** about Points per games when it comes to that comparison?? the new trio played MORE games meaning more DURABLE, and they scored more points.... meaning... u take a 3-2 montreal loss, and maybe it turns into a 5-3 WIN, because they put up more POINTS, we leads to GOALS, which leads to WINS
um, u dont get it..who gives a **** about Points per games when it comes to that comparison?? the new trio played MORE games meaning more DURABLE, and they scored more points.... meaning... u take a 3-2 montreal loss, and maybe it turns into a 5-3 WIN, because they put up more POINTS, we leads to GOALS, which leads to WINS
points per game.... gimmie a break
Very true. I made this point in another thread.
The last three seasons (doesn't include Gionta's 48 goal season), Havlat has 161 points, Gaborik has 158 points, Gionta has 158 points. Obviously Gaborik and Havlat have higher points per game.
I doubt Gainey would even touch Havlat or Gaborik for that reason. These guys will all be playing 75-80 games. We'll have strong consistency and chemistry. That's what makes your team successful.
The last three seasons (doesn't include Gionta's 48 goal season), Havlat has 161 points, Gaborik has 158 points, Gionta has 158 points. Obviously Gaborik and Havlat have higher points per game.
I doubt Gainey would even touch Havlat or Gaborik for that reason. These guys will all be playing 75-80 games. We'll have strong consistency and chemistry. That's what makes your team successful.
totaly agreed, TOTALY
i give a **** gaborik is a point per game player when he played 17 games..........
i give a **** gaborik is a point per game player when he played 17 games..........
ill take giontas 60 pts
And obviously when you're playing all the games you're doing other things like killing penalties and playing defensive hockey which don't show up in your point total.
And obviously when you're playing all the games you're doing other things like killing penalties and playing defensive hockey which don't show up in your point total.
um, u dont get it..who gives a **** about Points per games when it comes to that comparison?? the new trio played MORE games meaning more DURABLE, and they scored more points.... meaning... u take a 3-2 montreal loss, and maybe it turns into a 5-3 WIN, because they put up more POINTS, we leads to GOALS, which leads to WINS
points per game.... gimmie a break
Thats right!!!
I'd rather 3 guys that play 80 games and score 70-80 points than 3 guys who play 60 games and score 50-60 points.
