Post-Game Talk: Habs 4, Pens 3 (SO) - Well That Sucked

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,292
25,206
I'll get back to you on that question in a few months. I like Hornqvist here, but at the same point, you're paying $12 million for 2 top-6 RWers that don't fit well with either of your top-6 centers.

Well you know what my solution to that is :laugh:

I think Horny fits with both Sid and Geno, even if Sid doesn't like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pixiesfanyo

Randy Butternubs

Registered User
Mar 15, 2008
29,777
21,310
Morningside



Yeah, Schultz is going to be out for a while. I wouldn't plan on him playing again this year.


The twitter doesn't load on HF -- for some.

David J. Chao, MD is saying that it's an ankle fracture dislocation for Schultz.

No clue if he's credible, but: "Former NFL head team doc 17+years Practicing orthopedic surgeon Real time injury info http://ProFootballDoc.com @sdut@ClaytonFootball @SiriusXM Sports Medical Analyst"
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,407
78,003
Redmond, WA
Well you know what my solution to that is :laugh:

I think Horny fits with both Sid and Geno, even if Sid doesn't like it.

Malkin with Hornqvist is an interesting question. If you would have asked HF about Malkin with Hornqvist in October of 2017, everyone would say it was garbage. It took a hot streak with that line, where Malkin was playing on absolute fire, and now everyone thinks the combination works. The stats with Malkin and Hornqvist together have been very similar over the years:

2015-2016: 200:55 TOI, 59.28% CF%, 22.22% GF%, 65.15% HDCF%
2016-2017: 302:07 TOI, 57.09% CF%, 56.67% GF%, 63.04% HDCF%
2017-2018: 421:22 TOI, 54.1% CF%, 53.49% GF%, 53.47% HDCF%

They've been good together for years, but people only started saying they were a good combination once the line last year went on a tear.

The twitter doesn't load on HF -- for some.

David J. Chao, MD is saying that it's an ankle fracture dislocation for Schultz.

No clue if he's credible, but: "Former NFL head team doc 17+years Practicing orthopedic surgeon Real time injury info http://ProFootballDoc.com @sdut@ClaytonFootball @SiriusXM Sports Medical Analyst"

Here is his website:

Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. David J. Chao, M.D.

He's legit, it doesn't make him 100% right here, but he's definitely credible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
Honestly, this has been my feeling with a certain segment of the fanbase for a while now. They're not really defending these lineup decisions because they're sensible lineup decisions, they're defending them because Sullivan is making them.

I remember the whole "you can't move Rust to LW just to promote Sprong. That wouldn't be fair to Rust" thing when it was suggested on here to move him to LW. Yet, crickets when Sullivan decides that moving Rust to LW isn't such a bad idea after all.
Nobody is actually saying these things that you're arguing against. Nobody has said we should keep him on the 4th Line because he's scoring there. Nobody has said that we can't move him above our other wings. Nobody has said that we can't move rust to left wing.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,292
25,206
Legit or not, I don't need an expert to tell me that when a guy's ankle bends like that, he's not going to be okay for a while. Anything else would be a miracle. Thinking about it makes me feel a bit nauseous tbh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Empoleon8771

Randy Butternubs

Registered User
Mar 15, 2008
29,777
21,310
Morningside
So did his foot pretty much break off at the ankle?

source.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: KIRK and Ogrezilla

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,519
46,242
Nobody is actually saying these things that you're arguing against. Nobody has said we should keep him on the 4th Line because he's scoring there. Nobody has said that we can't move him above our other wings. Nobody has said that we can't move rust to left wing.

Yet you and pixie seem to rag on me anytime I've suggested the above by defending Sullivan's decision? I mean, we literally had a long discussion about this sort of thing the other day (specifically Sprong's ice time/linemates -- the Rust on LW thing was Warm Cookies and either pixie or someone else). Remember the whole "ITS ONLY BEEN 3 GAMES" thing whenever I'd dare mention it?
 

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
Yet you and pixie seem to rag on me anytime I've suggested the above by defending Sullivan's decision? I mean, we literally had a long discussion about this sort of thing the other day (specifically Sprong's ice time/linemates -- the Rust on LW thing was Warm Cookies and either pixie or someone else). Remember the whole "ITS ONLY BEEN 3 GAMES" thing whenever I'd dare mention it?
We are saying it's not unreasonable to treat Sprong how he's been treated. You are arguing against a made up ridiculous extreme that thinks he needs to be glued to the 4th line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,519
46,242
We are saying it's not unreasonable to treat Sprong how he's been treated. You are arguing against a made up ridiculous extreme that thinks he needs to be glued to the 4th line.

People are still justifying him staying on the 4th line. I'm not the only person that saw that. Warm Cookies and Empoleon even commented on it.

That's the point. Even if I'm being hyperbolic, it's in relation to people still coming up with justifications for Sullivan's lineup decisions.
 

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
People are still justifying him staying on the 4th line. I'm not the only person that saw that. Warm Cookies and Empoleon even commented on it.

That's the point. Even if I'm being hyperbolic, it's in relation to people still coming up with justifications for Sullivan's lineup decisions.

There's nothing to justify. Sprong on the 4th line is a perfectly reasonable option. It's not where I'd have him, but it's not some crazy sleight either.

--We say he's doing well on the 4th line, so it's not killing him. You act like we say he should stay on the 4th line because it's working.
--We say we have really good right wings, so it's reasonable that he's 4th on the depth chart. You act like we say he has to be on the 4th line forever.
--We say Rust is generally a RW so it's reasonable to play him there, especially since we have Simon at LW. You act like we say Rust can never play LW.

It's impossible to talk to you if you don't respond to what we actually say.

And the 3 games things is because we are trying completely reasonable options. Sprong needs a chance eventually. But it's been 4 games now. It's a long season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pixiesfanyo

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,519
46,242
There's nothing to justify. Sprong on the 4th line is a perfectly reasonable option. It's not where I'd have him, but it's not some crazy sleight either.

We say he's doing well on the 4th line, so it's not killing him. You act like we say he should stay on the 4th line because it's working.

We say we have really good right wings, so it's reasonable that he's 4th on the depth chart. You act like we say he has to be on the 4th line forever.

We say Rust is generally a RW so it's reasonable to play him there, especially since we have Simon at LW. You act like we say Rust can never play LW.

It's impossible to talk to you if you don't respond to what we actually say.

And the 3 games things is because we are trying completely reasonable options. Sprong needs a chance eventually. But it's been 4 games now. It's a long season.

So in your mind, when should Sprong be promoted? What does he have to do to be promoted?

Because it seems to me you just defend Sullivan's decisions. So do you have your own threshold where you'll disagree with Sullivan, or is basically your answer "when Sullivan thinks it's the right time?"
 

ColePens

RIP Fugu Buffaloed & parabola
Mar 27, 2008
107,022
67,647
Pittsburgh
Never want to see any player injured. Obviously that opens up some money for our d troubles anyway. And if it works out where Schultz gets back by teh end of the year, that's a player that could come in at playoffs.

I don't know.. this is why i hated that Schultz deal. 3 years for Schultz was too low for him personally coming off the years he did. He didn't give himself a longer contract for more security in cases like this. And that could have helped the Pens with a lower overall cap hit for more years.

Nonetheless - I just hope he gets a full recovery and goes on a f***ing tear to make a crazy amount of money in UFA when he's done. Happy + healthy is all I care about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ogrezilla

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,292
25,206
Ogre has pretty much said it all already but -

I'm not saying what's happening with Sprong is necessarily right. But its reasonable. Its understandable. It is not a sign of definite insurmountable bias, its not idiotic, and it is not a situation that will crush his career. Its not necessarily wrong.

And, in an 82 game season, being only 4 games in matters because it means a lot of things that will happen haven't happened yet.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,407
78,003
Redmond, WA
Never want to see any player injured. Obviously that opens up some money for our d troubles anyway. And if it works out where Schultz gets back by teh end of the year, that's a player that could come in at playoffs.

I don't know.. this is why i hated that Schultz deal. 3 years for Schultz was too low for him personally coming off the years he did. He didn't give himself a longer contract for more security in cases like this. And that could have helped the Pens with a lower overall cap hit for more years.

Nonetheless - I just hope he gets a full recovery and goes on a ****ing tear to make a crazy amount of money in UFA when he's done. Happy + healthy is all I care about.

Based on how Schultz has played since he got his contract, I'm glad they didn't give him more years.
 

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
So in your mind, when should Sprong be promoted? What does he have to do to be promoted?

Because it seems to me you just defend Sullivan's decisions. So do you have your own threshold where you'll disagree with Sullivan, or is basically your answer "when Sullivan thinks it's the right time?"
I disagree with Sullivan already. Actually I would have started with Rust at LW and Sprong in the top 9 for game 1. But I completely understand why Sullivan went with the line-up he did. We have really good RW's and they like Simon. I've said from the start that I think we can take our time with Sprong. If things go well, he could be on the 4th line for a while. Sprong on the 4th line until we have an injury or a slump is not a problem imo. Not what I'd do, but also completely reasonable. Especially since he's playing well on the 4th line, so it's not like he's completely wasting away and losing confidence.

But with how things have gone, I think he should be promoted now or at least soon. He's playing well, and both Rust and Horny are struggling to produce. The other way Sprong was going to get a chance was by forcing Sully's hand. With his play in comparison to Rust and Horny, I think it's moving in that direction. He hasn't come in and done what Jake did, but he's still playing well enough that if we shuffle lines right now, he has to be in consideration for a top 9 spot over Rust, Horny, or Simon.

Note: consideration. If he's on the 4th line next game, I will still get it. Especially if they have him working on something that they want him to improve at. Like I said before, his big play yesterday was him doing exactly what Sully has said he wants him to work on. Would he have made that play if he wasn't specifically coached to work on it? I have no idea. But if they are actually developing his game in that role, I don't have a problem with that. On the other hand, I would love to see him rewarded with a promotion for that exact same reason of making a big play exactly how Sully has wanted him to.

Basically, I can both disagree with Sully's decisions and defend Sully's decisions. The absolute worst thing someone can do in a debate is go in with the attitude that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I understand that there are always multiple options that make sense. I know that my opinions aren't always the best ones. Most of what Sully has done this year fits in to that category for me. Moving Guentzel to RW was the first move Sully has made this season that I disagree with enough to say I think it was just a dumb move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,519
46,242
I disagree with Sullivan already. Actually I would have started with Rust at LW and Sprong in the top 9 for game 1. But I completely understand why Sullivan went with the line-up he did. We have really good RW's and they like Simon. I've said from the start that I think we can take our time with Sprong. If things go well, he could be on the 4th line for a while. Sprong on the 4th line until we have an injury or a slump is not a problem imo. Not what I'd do, but also completely reasonable. Especially since he's playing well on the 4th line, so it's not like he's completely wasting away and losing confidence.

But with how things have gone, I think he should be promoted now or at least soon. He's playing well, and both Rust and Horny are struggling to produce. The other way Sprong was going to get a chance was by forcing Sully's hand. With his play in comparison to Rust and Horny, I think it's moving in that direction. He hasn't come in and done what Jake did, but he's still playing well enough that if we shuffle lines right now, he has to be in consideration for a top 9 spot over Rust, Horny, or Simon.

Note: consideration. If he's on the 4th line next game, I will still get it. Especially if they have him working on something that they want him to improve at. Like I said before, his big play yesterday was him doing exactly what Sully has said he wants him to work on. Would he have made that play if he wasn't specifically coached to work on it? I have no idea. But if they are actually developing his game in that role, I don't have a problem with that. On the other hand, I would love to see him rewarded with a promotion for that exact same reason of making a big play exactly how Sully has wanted him to.

Basically, I can both disagree with Sully's decisions and defend Sully's decisions. The absolute worst thing someone can do in a debate is go in with the attitude that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I understand that there are always multiple options that make sense. I know that my opinions aren't always the best ones. Most of what Sully has done this year fits in to that category for me. Moving Guentzel to RW was the first move Sully has made this season that I disagree with enough to say I think it was just a dumb move.

So essentially you agree with my overall point on Sprong, but call me out anyways because I actually question Sullivan's decisions while you're content to "understand why he does what he does because it's early"?

It just seems like you'd rather focus on justifying Sullivan's decisions than discussing whether they're the correct ones or the ones you agree with or not. Literally until you posted the above, I've never seen you say in our discussions that you disagree with any of Sullivan's lineup decisions.
 

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
So essentially you agree with my overall point on Sprong, but call me out anyways because I actually question Sullivan's decisions while you're content to "understand why he does what he does because it's early"?

It just seems like you'd rather focus on justifying Sullivan's decisions than discussing whether they're the correct ones or the ones you agree with or not. Literally until you posted the above, I've never seen you say in our discussions that you disagree with any of Sullivan's lineup decisions.
I call you out for acting like Sully's an idiot for disagreeing with you. It's just such a pet peeve of mine. General overreacting just bothers me.

And you'd see me say I disagree with Sully if you read my discussions with WC. He actually responds to what I say, so he probably gets better responses from me.
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,519
46,242
I call you out for acting like Sully's an idiot for disagreeing with you. It's just such a pet peeve of mine. General overreacting just bothers me.

And you'd see me say I disagree with Sully if you read my discussions with WC. He actually responds to what I say, so he probably gets better responses from me.

I mean, speaking of arguing something that wasn't said. Did I call Sullivan an idiot? I'm not one of those calling for his head because of a slow start. I just simply don't agree with his usage of Sprong.

Note: if the word idiot or idiotic has been said by me, it would be latter. And there's a difference between calling a decision idiotic and calling the coach an idiot. One can make a specific idiotic decision without actually being an idiot, period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->