Last edited by a moderator:
Miller started taking faceoffs but Stamkos was still the center.Hi guys, Habs fan here. I just had a quick question on Stamkos.
Was he your number one center after trading Namesnikov? Was it basically Miller, Killorn... etc that rotated on LW with Stamkos and Kucherov? Or did Miller play some center as well?
Thanks!
... What would Namestnikov have to do with Stamkos being our #1C? And as far as usage, yes he was (although there is a cognizable argument that Point was our better Center).Hi guys, Habs fan here. I just had a quick question on Stamkos.
Was he your number one center after trading Namesnikov? Was it basically Miller, Killorn... etc that rotated on LW with Stamkos and Kucherov? Or did Miller play some center as well?
Thanks!
... What would Namestnikov have to do with Stamkos being our #1C? And as far as usage, yes he was (although there is a cognizable argument that Point was our better Center).
Names had good chemistry with Kuch. He wouldn't have normally been there otherwise.Did Namestnikov not line up between Kucherov and Stamkos prior to being traded?
Names had good chemistry with Kuch. He wouldn't have normally been there otherwise.
Vlad was on the wing.Did Namestnikov not line up between Kucherov and Stamkos prior to being traded?
Names was LW on that line.Did Namestnikov not line up between Kucherov and Stamkos prior to being traded?
I'd rather have that center depth.Stammer should play LW IMO. After the injury his skating hasn't been the same. Also I prefer centers being playmakers. Just put Stamkos - Point - Kucherov on the ice and watch what happens.
You have Point and Johnson as your top-6 C's, how much more depth do you need.I'd rather have that center depth.
Point-Johnson would be pretty underwhelming compared to Stamkos-Point. Also Johnson wasn't that great of a 2C until Point came along.You have Point and Johnson as your top-6 C's, how much more depth do you need.
Johnson has a 70-point upside, I think he'd be just fine playing those 2nd line minutes as a center.Point-Johnson would be pretty underwhelming compared to Stamkos-Point. Also Johnson wasn't that great of a 2C until Point came along.
Johnson has scored 38, 45 and 50 points in his last three seasons. He's not going to be a 70 point player again. He missed a handful of games in those 38 and 45 point seasons but 50 point player is what he is. He can be a 2C but I'd much rather have depth down the middle and not put our top three forwards on one line.Johnson has a 70-point upside, I think he'd be just fine playing those 2nd line minutes as a center.
Agreed, tho I believe he's still in his prime an could bounce back. Stamkos - Point - Johnson is an excellent depth in the middle and hey, if it's not broken, don't fix it! I'm just flirting with the idea of Stamkos playing LW.Johnson has scored 38, 45 and 50 points in his last three seasons. He's not going to be a 70 point player again. He missed a handful of games in those 38 and 45 point seasons but 50 point player is what he is. He can be a 2C but I'd much rather have depth down the middle and not put our top three forwards on one line.
Johnson has scored 38, 45 and 50 points in his last three seasons. He's not going to be a 70 point player again. He missed a handful of games in those 38 and 45 point seasons but 50 point player is what he is. He can be a 2C but I'd much rather have depth down the middle and not put our top three forwards on one line.
Namestnikov was the Left Wing. Stamkos was the Center.Did Namestnikov not line up between Kucherov and Stamkos prior to being traded?
I really hope he comes back in a shoot first mentality this year.