Apologies if I came off a little hostile, I thought you were more familiar with the app that he used. This is the scene he was reenacting:
It's cherry picking to use the last 40 games. Gallagher(who is considered our best forward) averaged half a minute more than Danault on the PP and has 5 points on the PP(1 more than Danault). If you convert that production to the same amount of games that Danault has played, he would have 6 points.(2 more than Danault with 30 seconds more time per game). The whole PP is not good because the coaching staff is clueless.
No it's your idea of PP that s""ks. Try to think different, nothing is written in concrete ciment, there is always something different that break the rules. Read the history of any sport and you'll see traditional ideas broken. There is revolution everywhere. This apply to culture and science too.
Lmao, a pp specialist isnt a new idea and its been proven to suck. Remember MA Bergeron? Heck even streit?
MA Bergeron and Gaston Gingras were good assets on the PP but suck at ES. Streit is not a good example if you read the poster before me. Keeping a player who is onl;y usefull at PP isn't a good idea, considering there can be no PP in a game. But the opposite can be good, when you say we need the top- 9 forwards for the PP, having only one player who will not play PP leaves 8 forwards. In the case of the Habs, Suzuki and Domi can perfectly fill the role. The main problem is the lack of a power forward in the team, whatever he is a center or a winger and the lack of creativity, trying all the time to feed Weber with his slapshot.
I support the Habs, not this owner, or this management. Its pretty easy to understand. I can both love something and admit it is not up to my standards, and its not even close to it. 30 years of mediocrity now, with about 4 or 5 years worth noting here in there, where an ex hab legend called the shots, otherwise, nada.
Bergeron is great defensively
Desharnais hate makes no sense to me. He's great with Pacioretty and puts up 60 points a year. Galchenyuk is not ready to be a 1C. People saying Desharnais is taking his place are insane. We need to keep him moving forward.
Both situation are really not the same. Desharnais was playing sheltered minutes with the team best wingers. Danault is playing hard minutes with the team besr wingers. This is useful, because it can give the rookies easier minutes.
The particulars are different but the situation is similar enough that I'm willing to compare it. In Danault and Desharnais you have a player who was able to seize a 1C role through excellent "greater than sum of their parts" chemistry with the teams' best wingers, and then held on to the role and grew into it despite a relatively low ceiling in terms of pure tools. And then you had a #3OA pick with a good rookie year and better tools but not being put further up the lineup at the expense of Desharnais/Danault. The players are different but the underlying issue of being unable to take a short term impact for a chance at the player with better tools taking over the key role is the same.
I don't think so, to me if you're projecting them as C's in a long term role you're looking at Kotkaniemi taking over the Danault/Plekanec role as the two way guy and Suzuki replacing Domi/Desharnais as the sheltered guy (not that I think Suzuki particularly needs to be sheltered either, I think he projects as a much better defensive C than Domi).
He is more than a depth player, come on!
No, he's not more than a depth player. He's not a core player, thus he's a depth player.
