#43 for #22

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: #43 for #22

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    Count how many times there have been 7 defensemen in the lineup this season. Putting someone in to play a position he hasn't played all year long .................in the cup finals ?

    Bad idea because of the unfamilarity of what the responsibilities of the position are.............ain't happening.



    I am not suggesting playing Bartkowski at forward.  I would use him as a defenseman to provide spot rest and utilize him on the PP.  Plus with the likelihood of overtimes in this series, it doesn't hurt to have young, fresh legs that you can trust to throw over the boards. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: #43 for #22

    In response to MeanE's comment:

     


    I am not suggesting playing Bartkowski at forward.  I would use him as a defenseman to provide spot rest and utilize him on the PP.  Plus with the likelihood of overtimes in this series, it doesn't hurt to have young, fresh legs that you can trust to throw over the boards. 

     

     

     



    Spot resting on defense when their top 4 are averaging around 25 minutes and over......... equals glued to the bench.

    Krug and McQuaid are currently providing the fresh legs, trusting scenario. 

    And would Julien give him PP time in the cup finals ahead of Chara, Krug or Seidenberg ?






     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from watchtower. Show watchtower's posts

    Re: #43 for #22

    In response to MeanE's comment:

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    well the thing about getting a guy strictly for defensive zone draws is you have patrice freaking bergeron on your team. in terms of bart in for thornton, i honestly think it's worth thinking about. 

     



    I understand that the B's have Bergeron, but can it hurt to have another centerman that is a good face off guy to go along with him?  Obviously if Bergeron is available to be the 2nd centerman on the d zone draw he is the one to choose.  However, what about when he is gased from a shift, or his line is out there?  IMO, you can never have too many centers. I would rather have another one in the lineup instead of the Daug man right now, especially since Claude is not rolling 4 lines.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Any change in personnel right now  plants a seed of doubt to the system. Wait and see, there's a big goal on the Dogman's stick.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: #43 for #22

    Agree with the no change in principal, but Daugavins and Thornton have both been less than useful. The only D-man that could probbaly play forward is Krug, based on his speed and shot capabilities; plus, Bartkowski could fill his defensive role with speed  and good passing, plus more size. Perhaps Pandolfo, based on his experience, could play better than either Daug or Thorny, and for 6/7 minutes might be a better choice

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: #43 for #22

    Daugavins has been visible for not being able to finish chances that he's creating.  He had the open net in OT because he made a good move to step around Crawford.  He finishes that play if his stick isn't rapped just before he pots it.  He's pushed the play a lot, I find, and unfortunately, he hasn't played enough with this team to have developed any chemistry.  And, to be honest, he's got a bit of Linus Omark in him - does a lot of one on one stuff or slick stick work in large part because he's not very good at using his teammates.

    But to MeanE's point, that's neither here not there.  MeanE, reading the thread through, I think the conversation slips into whether Thornton and Daugavins are liabilities because no one has any idea if the others could contribute more than these two have, and I think we all acknowledge the possibility that the others could be liabilities.  The only advantage I see is, if you had Hamilton or Barkowski in there (and I'd go with Hamilton in this scenario), you'd have a spare defenseman in case of injury and maybe you give Hamilton PP time if you're down and really need a goal, so you take the risk.  But in the meantime, you're playing three and a half forward lines, and you get into complications in terms of how you incorporate 49 and 16 - who plays with them when etc..  Small inconvenience for a small advantage - probably a wash, so don't overthink it.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: #43 for #22

    Obviously not set in stone, but Sodeberg skating on 4th line.  Another Center for insurance is never a bad thing! 

    Street hockey is great for kids. It’s energetic, competitive, and skillful. And best of all it keeps them off the street.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share