Lindblom was good in the preseason, outside of scoring. You could see the IQ and tenacious boardwork that make him so strong without the puck. He didn't score, but he hardly played and plenty of guys didn't score. Too small of a sample size to judge from.
Then only way to adjust to NHL timing is to be in the NHL.You could also see, and Vorobyev as well, that their timing was off, the game was too fast for them in the sense of windows closing too fast (not skating), much like watching a young QB hold the ball a second too long.
Which is why I expect Lindblom to be up in a month or two, it's obvious that adjusting to the smaller rink and the NA style of play is the only thing holding him back, and that's not going to take a full year.
Yeah this. Hagg/MacFart/Schultz aren't the issue, but as it become a habit with Hakstok their usage is. Still at the moment we have 4 top four guys and his wiggle room to ruin every single pairing is shrinking. Yeah the injuries sucked, but with the opportunity it presented Sanheim, he clearly showed his talents and how shortsighted it was to sit him at the start of the season.When I first saw that he was the one lock for the open D spot, my immediate first thought was that this most be some kind of reward for him coming over years ago instead of staying in Sweden. But then I thought of all the other "vanilla" guys they've had weird obsessions with and sadly realized they honestly believe he belongs in that spot.
It's kind of depressing because I had wanted to believe that Hextall would be realistic about the players/prospects and know who belonged and who didn't... but this suggests he might not. I really don't get how he could look at Haggs last 3 years of play and believe that he's ready to be a full time top 4 NHL defensemen... and he's proving with his current play that he isn't. If they added him to the roster and had him as the #6 then I would be perfectly fine with it. But being the only D prospect to be a lock and then getting this huge role so soon is a different story. It shows what they really think of him.
And yes, I realize there's a lot of injuries right now, but they immediately put him on the top pair as soon as MacDonald got hurt and nobody else was injured. There were two other options that didn't involve a rookie being tossed into the deep end, but they did it anyway.
I think he meant was adjusting to rink size and North America style of play. Easier to do in the Ahl. Also adjusting to new country/language off and on the ice Have heard numerous Europeans say it took them 30 to 40 games to feel comfortable here.Then only way to adjust to NHL timing is to be in the NHL.
Your team is going to be pretty limited if you willingly play two of MacDonald, Hagg, or Manning in your top four.
Then only way to adjust to NHL timing is to be in the NHL.
I don’t disagree, but that’s for different reasons.Players like Vorobyev have to adjust to the AHL first.
No argument here, my point was you can’t adjust to NHL speed in the AHL. Other factors are considered as well.I think he meant was adjusting to rink size and North America style of play. Easier to do in the Ahl. Also adjusting to new country/language off and on the ice Have heard numerous Europeans say it took them 30 to 40 games to feel comfortable here.
What's the rush.
We have the deadweight spread evenly, one per pair. That way none of the other guys, who actually have upside and ability, can reach their potential.
Look at how happy we all are to see the top line working out so well. Imagine if we applied the same logic to the defense, where none of the players were a hindrance to their partner. What they're doing to the others is the same as if we put Giroux with Lehtera... such a waste.
Between Myers and Patrick it's not looking good for high end prospects in Philly. The more they get hurt the more shy they will be. Always Philly luck LOL.Looks like Myers is still out.
Exactly, it's not perfect and having one pair with two bad guys is certainly risky.Interesting way of looking at it. I think if you paired our best d-men together, leaving our worst to be paired together as well, it would definitely enable those top d-men to perform at their peak. However, it would also lead to times when the defense would be composed entirely of "dead weight." You would be left hoping the opposition's top line didn't manage to get on the ice with the "dead weight" pairing.
Not saying this sarcastically: I really wonder which system would win more games. It would be interesting to see. Having a dominant defense out at some times, a not-so-dominant pairing out at others. Would the dominant pairs be able to make up for the inevitable breakdowns and mistakes of the dead weight the shift before? I sure don't know. I would assume the coaching staff wants to err on the side of what they see as less-risk less-reward.
Looks like Myers is still out.
Exactly, it's not perfect and having one pair with two bad guys is certainly risky.
But also consider that if you go with the good+bad pairing then the one bad can single-handedly cause a goal against that the good player can't do anything about (like if Manning pinches like an idiot). So there's still risk there too. It's not like the pair averages out skill so, instead of great+horrible, it balances to ok+ok... the horrible can still be really horrible.
Loading up the top four is worth a try at the very least. We've seen how the good+bad works, might as well see how the other way works too. This year is a perfect year to experiment.
And hopefully this isn't an issue soon anyway. Soon we'll be able to load up the top 4 and still have good guys on the bottom pair (like maybe Morin+Myers).