robbieboy3686
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2016
- 2,852
- 1,909
Terry . I would make the trade ( especially with Tracey and zegs coming up next season as well as Comtois and jones hopefully growing meanwhileI wonder what Zucker would cost.
Terry . I would make the trade ( especially with Tracey and zegs coming up next season as well as Comtois and jones hopefully growing meanwhileI wonder what Zucker would cost.
Is that the guy from Sportsnet that ranks Petry as better than Weber and a top Dman man in the league? You don’t actually believe that do you?
I dare you to go 1 day without mentioning MontourJust imagine Fowler-Montour in this system....
Just imagine Fowler-Montour in this system....
Idk what went on in the dressing room, I doubt anybody does, but Montour was dominant AF with the Gulls, under Eakins. Given our D depth, I still think it was not right to trade Monty, albeit the return was solid and I do think that there are good arguments why he had to be traded.
We also have Guhle often injured so I still don`t know what we have in him, but he`s not better than Montour now, and there is a good to great possibility - ever.
No way in hell im doing thatTerry . I would make the trade ( especially with Tracey and zegs coming up next season as well as Comtois and jones hopefully growing meanwhile
I doubt we see Montour back, if we pay any lesser price, the Buffalo GM will look dumb and he probably will not like that. McCabe and Scandella ar lefties, but might be an option for Bob to improve our depth.Buffalo needs to shed a D. I wonder if a Montour return is possible? But do they really want him back if there were maybe locker room issues? Like you said a new coach and system now. So things could be different with performance. The only other D I see them trading is McCabe or Scandella. The price for Risto is too much.
Just imagine Fowler-Montour in this system....
who would play defense?
Montour is trash. He skates the puck up and doesn't know what to do with it after.Just imagine Fowler-Montour in this system....
Because he played under the same system with Eakins and was the best dman in the AHL, also Eakins would put him in situations beneficial to his skills like he has done with FowlerYou and others like to say that, but what makes you think Montour would adapt to this system any better than he did before? If the rumors are correct, the ducks PLAYERS (particularly, defense partners) didn't like playing with Montour because he was not dependable. Certainly, his play was inconsistent.
Just because the ducks now have a better system that emphasizes speed doesn't mean that Montour would automatically be a better fit. The new system requires structure and teamwork - arguably more than Carlyle's - and it is no guarantee Montour would adapt or be better in it.
I am suspicious that Montour was a better AHL player because of the lower level of structure and organization in the AHL. It’s more freewheeling, and individual skills can overcome a lack of systems play.Because he played under the same system with Eakins and was the best dman in the AHL, also Eakins would put him in situations beneficial to his skills like he has done with Fowler
I am suspicious Montour was in a dinosaur system and is a new age defensemen that would have been perfect in the system we are currently playing with defensemen driving the center lane and joining the rushI am suspicious that Montour was a better AHL player because of the lower level of structure and organization in the AHL. It’s more freewheeling, and individual skills can overcome a lack of systems play.
Trading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talentI am suspicious that Montour was a better AHL player because of the lower level of structure and organization in the AHL. It’s more freewheeling, and individual skills can overcome a lack of systems play.
Just speculating here but the fact that BM traded him after he got down there for a number of games maybe suggests that the skills weren't the issue?Trading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent
He's notTrading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent
I won’t argue that. I’d assume that GMBM had conversations with Eakins about how Montour had played for him though.Trading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent
I don’t think the issues with him are about skills. What I’ve heard sounds more like his partners never knew what he was going to do.I am suspicious Montour was in a dinosaur system and is a new age defensemen that would have been perfect in the system we are currently playing with defensemen driving the center lane and joining the rush
I agree with your thesis, but the trade wasn't Montour for Guhle straight up. Tracey is a significant asset as you know. I wouldn't have done the trade, but it's not awfulTrading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent
Because he played under the same system with Eakins and was the best dman in the AHL, also Eakins would put him in situations beneficial to his skills like he has done with Fowler
Trading him before trying him in a modern system is questionable and nothing I've seen from Guhle shows he's as good of a talent