MT tried just about everyone on his left except for Patch.
i was screaming for him in the PO's when he was in a drought thinking a different role might be beneficial for him (take his mind off strictly scoring) it never happened.
It's hard to know for sure what may happen this year but i think the Vanek factor will be felt early on.
The dude was one sick playmaker if anything but one lazy *^#+<<#%**}%^.
We may be back to having only one line working on any given night... sigh
The saving grace may actually come from the backend.
I for one will not miss JG ringing it around the boards...
On this topic, yet another DD this and that thread, so tired of this idiot fanbase.
About this post, dont forget the addition of PAP, whos playmaking ability will be very welcomed to Plekanec's side. Those two can potentially find chemistry and Montreal will be icing two very potent scoring lines.
On DD topic I agree with the OP, but this is just troll baiting to come here and try to prove the idiots wrong. All of them dont have any credibility whatsoever anyways. We can all agree that DD isnt a superstar no1 center but he isnt as sheltered as his haters are trying to portray him, and he isnt as bad defensively as they are trying to portray him. Sure, the coach uses his players to win, so obviously hes putting Plek in defensive situations, followed by Eller, and when an offensive oportunity arrises he puts DD, because like I said, hate the guy or not hes a very competent passer and has chemistry with out best goalscorer. For sure though, we need an upgrade at center to be a Stanley cup contender.
I think what could be tried ar camp
Pac - Plekanec - PAP - your go to all situations line
DD - Gally - Gallagher - heavy sheltered line
Sekac - Eller - Bourque - your second two way line
Im pretty sure this could work, PAP has proven in the past he can feed good shooters and is a much more complete and possession player than DD, that line could potentially be very dominant both sides of the ice. That said, shipping DD for nothing is out of question. Were better with him than without.