Flowah
Registered User
- Nov 30, 2009
- 10,249
- 547
I suppose 34 points in 82 games isn't great. That said, 20 goal scorers don't grow on trees. That's at least top9.What about this year? Or are we only allowed to bag on Nyquist..?
I suppose 34 points in 82 games isn't great. That said, 20 goal scorers don't grow on trees. That's at least top9.What about this year? Or are we only allowed to bag on Nyquist..?
"That being said they're definitely disappointed he's scratched. I think he should play over Carpenter and I can't blame them for not putting him in the fourth line."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His point production since he arrived in Vegas is not very good. Play off hockey is big boys hockey. TT can't offer the Knights something they don't already have. The Knights thinking is a little different than the wings thought process. Who would have thought you play to win the game....now there's a thought.....
I suppose 34 points in 82 games isn't great. That said, 20 goal scorers don't grow on trees. That's at least top9.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Is that what 5 plus million gets you these days. News flash if Tatar plays top 9 with no pp time.... he does not touch 10 goals a year.
Is that what 5 plus million gets you these days. News flash if Tatar plays top 9 with no pp time.... he does not touch 10 goals a year.
Why do people even still read what this hack has to write?
She gave Jimmy Howard an A- grade for the season!
Let that sink in for a second.
Not really, Kukla's had it on his pageI didnt know that, given that you do is it fair to assume you in fact read what she writes.
And if Tatar is not that good a player and we need to give credit to Holland for trading him, then we need to also blame him for drafting him.
Why do people even still read what this hack has to write?
She gave Jimmy Howard an A- grade for the season!
Let that sink in for a second.
Bingo.
And lots of people agree with that assessment. Even while they cried about Mrazek.
Yet....
Mrazek - 8 wins in 18 starts. .910 sv pct 2.89GAA
Howard - 22 wins in 60 starts. .910 sv pct. 2.85GAA
Those stats are the same. Mrazek's better actually, when you factor in wins/points. And that's despite the fact that Mrazek was rarely given a chance to get in a rhythm. And despite Howard's great start and Mrazek's poor start.
And yet some people, like Chris Osgood, suggest that Howard was one of Detroit's MVPs.
The greatest irony with Blashill, is that this guy constantly said he wanted the lineup that would give him the best lineup to win.
Yet he constantly MOD (harmed himself...) with his own dumb decisions.
If AA played all year in the top 6 and Mrazek started 50 games, my guess is we'd be drafting 12th instead of 6th.
All of which has nothing to do with Tomas Tatar.
Isn't there already a "Mrazek trade" thread you can go to and post those very same numbers for like the 12th time?
"latest Detroit castoff to disappoint" is right in the thread title.
Mrazek is one of those castoffs.
They actually got 3 picks (a first, second and third) for him and I would say that the odds are slightly in favour of one of them becoming as good or better player than Tatar (of course he may be a d-man or a goalie and never score twenty but still be as good or better player than Tats).It's entirely too early to declare a "winner" for this trade. Detroit will be lucky if the player they draft with the pick ends up becoming a consistent 20 goal scorer in the NHL.
Any time you draft a player out of the first round that becomes a regukar in the NHL, it's a good pick.I mean, Tatar's production has never been anything short of a bonafide top6 guy.
And if Tatar is not that good a player and we need to give credit to Holland for trading him, then we need to also blame him for drafting him.