The thing I read in to it. Is. There any validity to his comments?
I tend to believe he's right, perhaps brash and crude... But there were flaws to both their games.
Vanek played as if he wore cement skates as a hab. His hands were very good, but his game emulated Jason Allison in the 2014 playoffs.
Sure, he did have a moment or two. But fizzled during the Rangers series.
This leads so many to the idea... Do we want him back?
9 yr vet, 277 goals, 556 points. Total in 663 GP
30 pts in 53 GP. Playoffs 20 goals.
He didn't have spectacular numbers here, but the question essentially is to me, does a 30 yr old , 9 year veteran.
27 g, 68 pt 13-14 season.
Recover to being as dynamic as he was previously in his career?
He looked like a player who kind of lost a st, but had the skills to contribute. I believe over an entire season, we'd see a better Vanek. I recall that he had some minor injuries nagging him throughout the year (knee?)
However, it would be a terribly expensive mistake of he remained the same guy we saw in the p/o.
Guy's point was Vanek's absolutely uninspired play. Was there more to it? Only Vanek knows that one.
But even a guy who can be relied on to Pop 25-35 goals would be good for us, esp. If it's free.
Realistically speaking, Hamilton is NOT brewing with any answers for this one unfortunately.
As far as Pacioretty goes,his effort Was there.... He was badly snake bitten. The puck just wasn't working with him.
He has been not strong when it mattered, but he's young enough to believe he CAN change that trend.
It does extend before the 2014 playoffs though.
That is probably why Lafleur says what he does.
Because he's definitely cable of more... Bt something switches OFF during the playoffs. I personally believe it will change. I could be wrong, but I hope not