GM Hockey

You are not connected. Please login or register

GM Hockey » The other NHL teams » General Hockey talk » General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 18 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 50 ... 67  Next

Go down  Message [Page 34 of 67]

PTFlea


Co-Founder
Co-Founder
Hoags wrote:He was -7 in the playoffs, on the ice for all even strength goals against the Caps at one point.

He's only been positive in plus/minus twice in his career.

Yeah, defensively he has his issues. I guess Calgary really wanted to fix their PP.

Riprock


All-Star
All-Star
spader wrote:
Riprock wrote:If the #7 guy gets 50-60 games, isn't he then a top 6 and the other guy is a #7?

The other guy may well play more than 50-60 games. The #7 would be covering everyone's injuries, not just the #6.

Wouldn't that mean then the "#7" would fill in for an average of 10 games per defenceman? (6 regular d-men @ 10 games each assuming a #7 plays 60 games).

So we are assuming that each defenceman will miss 10 games each, or that 1 will miss 50-60, or two will miss a combined 50-60 (or 25-30 each), or three will miss ~20 each, or 4 will miss 15 each? That's an unhealthy defence.

Riprock


All-Star
All-Star
LOL it's like saying that your back-up goalie will play 50-60 games, which is what the average #1 plays.

Which raises the question: if your #2 plays more than your #1, is your #2 really your #1?

NEELY


Mod
Mod
spader wrote:
NEELY wrote:And this is why building from within at this point is the best move for the Sens... or a trade for a known asset.

A second-tier FA signing would be fine, too. Nod

Yup, someone to plug a hole, not sink a ship... even if it's going off a waterfall in Calgary's case.

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
I agree with that. Garrison will cost a TON now.

Riprock

Riprock
All-Star
All-Star
If Sens don't get Nash, I would try hard to sign both Parenteau and Penner.

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
Riprock wrote:If Sens don't get Nash, I would try hard to sign both Parenteau and Penner.

Not both IMO. One or the other, then let Silf or Z-Bad or Stone take the other spot. You have to let the kids have a chance.

NEELY


Mod
Mod
Riprock wrote:LOL it's like saying that your back-up goalie will play 50-60 games, which is what the average #1 plays.

Which raises the question: if your #2 plays more than your #1, is your #2 really your #1?

Do you listen to what you say sometimes or....? One goaltender starts, 2 on the team. 6 players are on defense every single night (in 99% of games) and they are hurt a lot more often or at least dinged up more than any other position in the game. There's a reason almost every team carries 7 guys, because 7 guys are needed.

Once again your logic is totally flawed in a big way.

spader

spader
All-Star
All-Star
Riprock wrote:
spader wrote:
Riprock wrote:If the #7 guy gets 50-60 games, isn't he then a top 6 and the other guy is a #7?

The other guy may well play more than 50-60 games. The #7 would be covering everyone's injuries, not just the #6.

Wouldn't that mean then the "#7" would fill in for an average of 10 games per defenceman? (6 regular d-men @ 10 games each assuming a #7 plays 60 games).

So we are assuming that each defenceman will miss 10 games each, or that 1 will miss 50-60, or two will miss a combined 50-60 (or 25-30 each), or three will miss ~20 each, or 4 will miss 15 each? That's an unhealthy defence.

I'm not assuming anything, I was just clarifying N4L's point. You seemed to assume that #7 was replacing #6 for those games, I was just saying that, in that scenario, the #7 would fill in throughout the ranks.

NEELY


Mod
Mod
I would love to know the # of games a defensive group misses on average each year. You can pretty much bet it's 40 or more just on injuries let alone other factors that come into play.

Riprock

Riprock
All-Star
All-Star
NEELY wrote:And this is why building from within at this point is the best move for the Sens... or a trade for a known asset.

Wait,... what?

What else is there? Building from within implies prospects. Ok. And trading for a known asset means acquiring any player that has played at least an NHL game, since you know what you are getting.

The only thing left is signing an unknown player, i.e. an NCAA payer, who was neither drafted (building from within) nor a known NHL player.

Riprock

Riprock
All-Star
All-Star
spader wrote:
Riprock wrote:
spader wrote:
Riprock wrote:If the #7 guy gets 50-60 games, isn't he then a top 6 and the other guy is a #7?

The other guy may well play more than 50-60 games. The #7 would be covering everyone's injuries, not just the #6.

Wouldn't that mean then the "#7" would fill in for an average of 10 games per defenceman? (6 regular d-men @ 10 games each assuming a #7 plays 60 games).

So we are assuming that each defenceman will miss 10 games each, or that 1 will miss 50-60, or two will miss a combined 50-60 (or 25-30 each), or three will miss ~20 each, or 4 will miss 15 each? That's an unhealthy defence.

I'm not assuming anything, I was just clarifying N4L's point. You seemed to assume that #7 was replacing #6 for those games, I was just saying that, in that scenario, the #7 would fill in throughout the ranks.

Small error on my part, but it still implies that a #7 defenceman who plays 50-60 games means, as a collective, the other 6 defenceman will miss 50-60 games.

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
I will guarantee Gonchar misses 30 games on his own. Maybe more like half the season. Beware!!

NEELY


Mod
Mod
Riprock wrote:
spader wrote:
Riprock wrote:
spader wrote:
Riprock wrote:If the #7 guy gets 50-60 games, isn't he then a top 6 and the other guy is a #7?

The other guy may well play more than 50-60 games. The #7 would be covering everyone's injuries, not just the #6.

Wouldn't that mean then the "#7" would fill in for an average of 10 games per defenceman? (6 regular d-men @ 10 games each assuming a #7 plays 60 games).

So we are assuming that each defenceman will miss 10 games each, or that 1 will miss 50-60, or two will miss a combined 50-60 (or 25-30 each), or three will miss ~20 each, or 4 will miss 15 each? That's an unhealthy defence.

I'm not assuming anything, I was just clarifying N4L's point. You seemed to assume that #7 was replacing #6 for those games, I was just saying that, in that scenario, the #7 would fill in throughout the ranks.

Small error on my part, but it still implies that a #7 defenceman who plays 50-60 games means, as a collective, the other 6 defenceman will miss 50-60 games.

Yup. In that range for sure.

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
Riprock wrote:
spader wrote:
Riprock wrote:
spader wrote:
Riprock wrote:If the #7 guy gets 50-60 games, isn't he then a top 6 and the other guy is a #7?

The other guy may well play more than 50-60 games. The #7 would be covering everyone's injuries, not just the #6.

Wouldn't that mean then the "#7" would fill in for an average of 10 games per defenceman? (6 regular d-men @ 10 games each assuming a #7 plays 60 games).

So we are assuming that each defenceman will miss 10 games each, or that 1 will miss 50-60, or two will miss a combined 50-60 (or 25-30 each), or three will miss ~20 each, or 4 will miss 15 each? That's an unhealthy defence.

I'm not assuming anything, I was just clarifying N4L's point. You seemed to assume that #7 was replacing #6 for those games, I was just saying that, in that scenario, the #7 would fill in throughout the ranks.

Small error on my part, but it still implies that a #7 defenceman who plays 50-60 games means, as a collective, the other 6 defenceman will miss 50-60 games.

The issue with that is the thought process that.The 7th guy can play both sides. Otherwise, I'd say it's in the ballpark.

NEELY


Mod
Mod
SpezDispenser wrote:I will guarantee Gonchar misses 30 games on his own. Maybe more like half the season. Beware!!

He will miss probably 10-15 I would think... Phillips has some tough miles on him... and someone will get injured, it's gonna happen as it always does. Just the way it is with defense in the NHL.

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
If you're a lefty and young, I would suggest trying to learn both sides of the ice as a defense man.

Riprock

Riprock
All-Star
All-Star
NEELY wrote:I would love to know the # of games a defensive group misses on average each year. You can pretty much bet it's 40 or more just on injuries let alone other factors that come into play.

Well I can tell you exactly how many games the Sens defence corps played/missed last year:

Cowen - 82 games played
Karlsson - 81 games played (1 game missed)
Phillips - 80 games played (2 game missed)
Gonchar - 74 games played (8 game missed)
Kuba - 73 games played (9 game missed)
Lee - 35 games played
Carkner - 29 games played
Rundblad - 24 games played
Gilroy - 14 games played
Borowiecki - 2 games played

So the Sens didn't really have a true #6 - they interchanged more for what the player brought instead of necessity. But none of the guys outside the top 5 played cose to 50 let alone 60. As you can see, the team used 10 defenceman at least twice.

Only players in the top 6 that really missed any time due to injury/personal were Karlsson (1), Phillips (2), Gonchar (8) and Kuba (9).

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 34 of 67]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 18 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 50 ... 67  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum