You make no sense. ROR is also more complete than Barkov and Mack but nowhere near as good.So Barkov is the better player, but Couturier "does much more and far more complete." If that was the case, Couts would be the top centre in the league.
You make no sense. ROR is also more complete than Barkov and Mack but nowhere near as good.
He's saying that Couts brings more to the table outside of offense but that Barkov's offense is too good that it makes him a better player.I make no sense? You are calling player A far more complete, and does much more than player B, yet player B is the better player. What does player B have that player A doesn’t, more heart?
He's saying that Couts brings more to the table outside of offense but that Barkov's offense is too good that it makes him a better player.
He's using ROR as an example. He's saying being more complete =/= being better.So more complete and does much more because Couturier is better on defense? Barkov is the more complete player, and I wouldn’t cal him much better than Couts. That’s a bit much.
You do know being a more complete player doesn't mean better right? If that was the case you'd take a guy like Mikko Koivu over Laine every time. Coots is better everywhere slightly but offensively where Barkov has a sizable advantage. Offense is the most important part of a center's job, hence Barkov is a better player than Couturier.I make no sense? You are calling player A far more complete, and does much more than player B, yet player B is the better player. What does player B have that player A doesn’t, more heart?
Huberdeau > CouturierYou do know being a more complete player doesn't mean better right? If that was the case you'd take a guy like Mikko Koivu over Laine every time. Coots is better everywhere slightly but offensively where Barkov has a sizable advantage. Offense is the most important part of a center's job, hence Barkov is a better player than Couturier.
Huberdeau > Couturier
Make a Barkov vs Couturier poll instead of derailing this thread.
You literally just made that up. Just because Couts is on the ice for a goal against doesn't mean Barkov "owned" him.Someone did in March 2018 but it was who's better defensively.
Defensively: Couturier vs Barkov
Now the gap of votes may be closer now than the last year and a half because even I as a Panther fan noticed Barkovs defense is not as noticeable as years past but maybe because Panther fans are more wowed with his offensive numbers now.
I do remember Barkov owning Coots on a couple plays when FLA beat them 5-2, just over a week ago. Especially the play on Huberdeaus goal. Not saying Coots hasnt shut down Barkov but Barkov is still the better all around player imo.
You literally just made that up. Just because Couts is on the ice for a goal against doesn't mean Barkov "owned" him.
I just watched the play and saw nobody being owned. Nobody on the Flyers even touched the puck for at least 15 second prior to that goal. I also checked and Barkov had 1 takeaway but apparently he stripped Couts twice in one shift. Weird revisionist history.Go watch the play then. Barkov strips the puck from Couts twice iirc and then skates it into PHIs end and sets up Huberdeau for the goal. He owned him on that play for sure
Couturier > HuberdeauHuberdeau > Couturier
Make a Barkov vs Couturier poll instead of derailing this thread.
I just watched the play and saw nobody being owned. Nobody on the Flyers even touched the puck for at least 15 second prior to that goal. I also checked and Barkov had 1 takeaway but apparently he stripped Couts twice in one shift. Weird revisionist history.
I should post a clip that you brought up? It's kind of your job to back up a claim, not mine. First Barkov stripped Couts twice and then set up a goal and now you've backtracked to Barkov strips Couts once and it wasn't even in the offensive zone or within 20 seconds of the goal being scored? You're really reaching.Post the clip then, when the puck was still in PHIs end. I remember commenting on it in the GDT.
Barkov strips the puck off Couts and then takes it down the ice and sets up the Huberdeau goal.
It's one play, get over it. Couts is a great player and so is Barkov. Will not derail this thread any further.
I should post a clip that you brought up? It's kind of your job to back up a claim, not mine. First Barkov stripped Couts twice and then set up a goal and now you've backtracked to Barkov strips Couts once and it wasn't even in the offensive zone or within 20 seconds of the goal being scored? You're really reaching.
The official box score shows that there were two assists on the goal, one before Barkov touched the puck which means Barkov couldn't have stripped Couts of the puck, taken it down the ice and set up the goal. The official box score also has Barkov listed with 1 takeaway in the game which means he obviously didn't strip him twice in the same play.
I'm sure you'll change your story yet again but the fact remains, your original post was either a lie or just extreme hyperbole.
Oh Allllright. Hold my beer then..
Go to 4:32 of the highlights.
Listen to our announcer here..
Barkov with the steal...
It was Couts skating close to Barkov after the steal comment
I said once or twice iirc but you're very hung up on this.
Barkov then skates the puck through NZ and into PHIs end and has a shot. Then goes behind net, Couts is not covering his man and Barkov sets up Huberdeau for the goal.
So ya he strips him ONCE, out skates his man, has a shot, sets up behind the net and finds an open man that scores while Couts is lost out front.
Case closed.
Nice clip showing absolutely zero takeaways. Sorry but your announcer saying "Barkov the steal" while never showing a steal or even Couts with the puck isn't proof of anything. It's certainly not Couts getting owned twice on the same play as you said. He wasn't even credited with a takeaway on the play considering the only takeaway he had was in the first period. Just admit, you made the whole thing up based on your flawed memory.
Yikes is right. Who did Barkov strip? Well, according to the official game scorers, NOBODY. How hard is this for you to understand? You literally posted a clip showing zero takeaways and he wasn't credited with a takeaway yet you're still trying to say he had two steals on the play. This is classic.Yikes...
You're denying the proof right in front of your own eyes?
If it wasnt Couts who Barkov stripped in our DZ then who was it? Count and locate the PHI players.
He also steals the puck away from Couts in NZ with the stick lift.
He man handled Couts on that entire play. Barkov > Couts.
Huberdeau AINEC.Couturier > Huberdeau
Read entire thread before claiming a poster that responds to a Barkov comment is derailing a thread.
Thanks
Oh Allllright. Hold my beer then..
Go to 4:32 of the highlights.
Listen to our announcer here..
Barkov with the steal...
It was Couts skating close to Barkov after the steal comment
I said once or twice iirc but you're very hung up on this.
Barkov then skates the puck through NZ and into PHIs end and has a shot. Then goes behind net, Couts is not covering his man and Barkov sets up Huberdeau for the goal.
So ya he strips him ONCE, out skates his man, has a shot, sets up behind the net and finds an open man that scores while Couts is lost out front.
EDIT - Barkov does strip him twice if you count the play in the NZ, although Couts didnt have full possession but Barkovs stick lift took control of the play on both FLA possessions
Case closed.
Couturier winning this pollHuberdeau AINEC.
I read it. He kept bringing it back up. Read it one more time. Thanks.