NHL News/Notes Part XV
- Thread starter rangerssharks414
- Start date
- Status
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,427
- 12,650
The Carlyle hire did it for me. He legitimately got worse every year he was with Toronto and his words just say more of the same
LadyStanley
Registered User
Really should have missed a RS game at least (losing pay) if you want to get it out of the game.
I think they have enough talent to overcome Carlyle's coaching issues to make the playoffs. I think he's bad enough to make sure they aren't much of a threat but they should have enough talent to win games almost regardless of coaching styles. They did it before but the only thing that gives me pause is the statuses of Rakell and Lindholm.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Quid Pro Clowe
Registered User
For the points of fines, no (his homophobic slur was only a few months ago but doesn't count for repeat offenders) but his previous history is supposed to be in play for the purpose of length.
Given the fact that shaw likely wasn't even going to play in 2 of 3 games he was suspended for, this is a nothing suspension.
I think people are forgetting that, up until the Vermette signing, their three major additions were Mason Raymond, Jared Boll, and Nate Guenin
Their bottom six is really, really bad.
If they lose both Lindholm (for as overrated as he is) and Rakell, reaching the playoffs becomes nearly impossible.
Their bottom six is really, really bad.
If they lose both Lindholm (for as overrated as he is) and Rakell, reaching the playoffs becomes nearly impossible.
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,427
- 12,650
With Rakell or Kesler centering one and Vermette centering their 4th line, I wouldn't be too concerned about their bottom six winning games during the season on a consistent basis. The issue is getting Lindholm and Rakell signed and then whatever trade they do to make room. If they can't sign those two, they're probably toast. I think they can get by w/o Lindholm with the depth they have on the blue line but Rakell is a critical piece of their forward puzzle right now.
Quid Pro Clowe
Registered User
So essentially if he does something else he'll be a repeat offender?
Still remember this pos boarding Pavelski at the end of a game then running like a ***** from Clowe.
Sideshow Raheem
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2015
- 3,063
- 7
I think they're screwed without either. Lindholm is way better than all their other guys on defense. Fowler in particular is overrated and just not very good - certainly not 1st pairing caliber. Bieksa has been done for three years.
With those issues plus Carlyle behind the bench, the Ducks are simply not a threat to win the Cup this year even if they make the playoffs.
Quid Pro Clowe
Registered User
I think they can handle losing Lindholm honestly. Fowler-Bieksa as a second pairing is fine. Vatanen is very good. They have guys like Manson, Theodore, and Montour coming up. Their D won't be as good but it'll still be good enough to win games on a regular basis in the regular season. I agree they won't be a threat in the playoffs but they would probably still make it w/o Lindholm. I don't think they can w/o Rakell with what they have up front w/o him.
I wouldn't mind it at all either but you look at what the Ducks have on D beyond Lindholm and it's still pretty good. Vatanen, Fowler, a healthy Despres, yeah Bieksa and Stoner don't really help them, but behind them is Manson, Theodore, and Montour is knocking at the door (he's going to be really good).
The Ducks are going to lose a good player no matter how it plays out. People may think Fowler is overrated but he's still at the very least a good 2nd pairing d-man and replacing that with someone more inexperienced will help the competition in the short term until they settle in. The Ducks won't miss a beat if it's Despres that they trade...may even improve.
Repeat offender status (only for money) lasts only 18 months.
Any and all previous suspensions are supposed to be taken in to account when deciding length.
Sideshow Raheem
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2015
- 3,063
- 7
Even if Fowler-Bieksa is a fine 2nd pairing, who's on their 1st pairing without Lindholm? Stoner and Vatanen? That would be the worst first pairing in the league, including teams like New Jersey and Toronto
They can move Despres over if he is healthy. Despres-Vatanen isn't great as a top pairing but good enough given the team around him. You don't need a great pair on the top to win during the season.
Sideshow Raheem
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2015
- 3,063
- 7
You need a better top pair than Simon Despres and Sami Vatanen...
Lindholm is their only defenseman who can play against top comp. Honestly the more I think about it if they can't sign Lindholm, Calgary could very well finish ahead of the Ducks if Gulutzan is even slightly more competent than Bob Hartley.
Lindholm is their only defenseman who can play against top comp. Honestly the more I think about it if they can't sign Lindholm, Calgary could very well finish ahead of the Ducks if Gulutzan is even slightly more competent than Bob Hartley.
Not to win during the season. To go anywhere in the playoffs, sure but you don't need that great of a top pairing to go somewhere during the season. Goligoski and Klingberg weren't exactly a great top pair. Wings are finding a way with the likes of Kronwall and DeKeyser up top and they're not exactly a great pair. Hell, the Flyers made it last year with guys like Del Zotto, Streit, and MacDonald being their top three in ice time on D. Top end blue liners certainly help when you can have them and they're obviously a better team with Lindholm than w/o but regular season success to the point of making the playoffs isn't really dependent on top end blue line talent. You can make it if you have a solid group which Anaheim would have even w/o Lindholm. They have a lot of good young talent ready to step in. Manson is going to be good and so will Montour when they get their opportunities.
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,427
- 12,650
The Ducks do have a lot of talent and depth on defense that I can see why PF thinks they'll do fine without Lindholm but they only have four top 6 forwards in Perry, Getzlaf, Kesler, and Silfverberg if they don't sign Rakell. So I can definitely see where PF is coming from here. Cogliano's also good but they really don't have much in the way of scoring.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
The Ducks are absolute toast without Lindholm. It would be hilarious if he held out or went to Sweden. Fowler blows, Bieksa blows, Stoner blows, basically they'd have Vatanen, a rookie Theodore, and a hopefully-recovered-from-concussion Despres.
Josh Manson showing himself as a top 2 defenseman is Anaheim's main hope if Lindholm leaves.
Then again, none of this talk about their defense matters when you take a look at their bottom 6/new system.
Then again, none of this talk about their defense matters when you take a look at their bottom 6/new system.
LadyStanley
Registered User
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
GAME 3 - Baie-Comeau Drakkar @ Drummondville Voltigeurs - Drummondville Voltigeurs leads series 2-0Wagers: 4Staked: $259.00Event closes- Updated:
-
GAME 3 - London Knights @ Oshawa Generals - London Knights leads series 2-0Wagers: 2Staked: $125.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 5 Carolina Hurricanes @ New York Rangers - NYR leads series 3-1Wagers: 6Staked: $2,018.00Event closes- Updated: