The All Purpose Thread | Relevant Rivalries

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
Nothing particularly consistent that I could glean from looking at game logs. Cole was a primary PK'r, and I don't think that numbers like that would hold up over a larger sample, but I do think we're a worse PK team without an adequate Cole replacement. I believe our earlier PK swoon was also timed with Cole's extended benching, if memory serves, and it improved when he came back.
The correct answer is Matt murray. He got hurt the game before the deadlines. edit: practice, but same difference.

edit edit: I'm also not fully blaming it on that. The whole team is playing worse hockey.
 
Last edited:

AjaxTelamon

Registered User
Jul 8, 2011
6,068
1,821
The correct answer is Matt murray. He got hurt the game before the deadlines. edit: practice, but same difference.

edit edit: I'm also not fully blaming it on that. The whole team is playing worse hockey.

It isn't just MM. Cole still has the 3rd most TOI on the PK for us on D. He was one of primary PK guys when playing, and MM played some of those games, and Jarry/DeSmith played fine in some of those games. A lot of guys standing around in front of our net not putting a body or a stick on anybody. Cole did that.
 

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
It isn't just MM. Cole still has the 3rd most TOI on the PK for us on D. He was one of primary PK guys when playing, and MM played some of those games, and Jarry/DeSmith played fine in some of those games. A lot of guys standing around in front of our net not putting a body or a stick on anybody. Cole did that.
but when Cole was scratched earlier in the year, the PK was just fine.
 

AjaxTelamon

Registered User
Jul 8, 2011
6,068
1,821
but when Cole was scratched earlier in the year, the PK was just fine.

The numbers don't necessarily agree.

Are you trying to argue the PK is better without Cole? I never loved Cole as a D man. He wasn't a true top 4 guy, and we weren't going to be able to re-sign him. But he was a very good bottom pairing guy and PK guys, definitely better than Hunwick or Ruh, and right now, we could use him.
 

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
The numbers don't necessarily agree.

Are you trying to argue the PK is better without Cole? I never loved Cole as a D man. He wasn't a true top 4 guy, and we weren't going to be able to re-sign him. But he was a very good bottom pairing guy and PK guys, definitely better than Hunwick or Ruh, and right now, we could use him.
no it wasn't better without him, but it also wasn't worse without him.


I'm not saying we couldn't use him. I'd love to still have him. My point is that our struggles are caused by way more than the loss of Cole. He's one small part of what's going on with this team.
 

AjaxTelamon

Registered User
Jul 8, 2011
6,068
1,821
no it wasn't better without him, but it also wasn't worse without him.


I'm not saying we couldn't use him. I'd love to still have him. My point is that our struggles are caused by way more than the loss of Cole. He's one small part of what's going on with this team.


We've all seen Cole PK for a couple years here. He's been good. We're struggling on the PK. He's been great for CBJ, who won 10 in a row before yesterday. We screwed up trading him, plain and simple. At least we could have made sure he went west. JR has mostly gotten it right, but sending him out was a mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ryder71

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
We've all seen Cole PK for a couple years here. He's been good. We're struggling on the PK. He's been great for CBJ, who won 10 in a row before yesterday. We screwed up trading him, plain and simple. At least we could have made sure he went west. JR has mostly gotten it right, but sending him out was a mistake.
but Brassard is clearly a better player than Ian Cole.

Do you think the main reason our PK and defense in general are struggling are because of the lack of Cole? And if so, why were we fine without Cole earlier in the season.
 

NMK11

Registered User
Apr 6, 2013
3,997
1,985
no it wasn't better without him, but it also wasn't worse without him.


I'm not saying we couldn't use him. I'd love to still have him. My point is that our struggles are caused by way more than the loss of Cole. He's one small part of what's going on with this team.

Stop with your logic. The numbers kind of tell it right there. Would have loved to kept Cole, but people need to stop acting like hes the make or break player on this team. I swear Cole is going to end up with Hainsey on the Mt Rushmore of depth defensemen who get thought of as first pairing guys.
 

AjaxTelamon

Registered User
Jul 8, 2011
6,068
1,821
but Brassard is clearly a better player than Ian Cole.

Do you think the main reason our PK and defense in general are struggling are because of the lack of Cole? And if so, why were we fine without Cole earlier in the season.

What I see is a lot of guys not boxing out, not putting a body on a body, and not tying up sticks in front of our net on the PK. Cole did those things. Of course I'd rather have Brassard than Cole, but they needed to bring somebody else in in that mold for the playoff run, especially considering how we seem to be all in this year.

Bottom pairing guys are important, and special teams are important against good teams. How many teams have we beat because we abused bottom pairings over the past two runs?
 

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
What I see is a lot of guys not boxing out, not putting a body on a body, and not tying up sticks in front of our net on the PK. Cole did those things. Of course I'd rather have Brassard than Cole, but they needed to bring somebody else in in that mold for the playoff run, especially considering how we seem to be all in this year.

Bottom pairing guys are important, and special teams are important against good teams. How many teams have we beat because we abused bottom pairings over the past two runs?
then why didn't we have this issue when Cole was benched earlier in the year?
 

Pancakes

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Mar 4, 2011
25,929
17,610
If we can get to within two points of the Caps by the time we play them for the last time that would be big. Division isn't totally out of reach. Only 3 back, albeit they do have a game in hand.
 

Shrimper

Trick or ruddy treat
Feb 20, 2010
104,167
5,248
Essex
If we can get to within two points of the Caps by the time we play them for the last time that would be big. Division isn't totally out of reach. Only 3 back, albeit they do have a game in hand.

Big ask but we have to beat them. Their schedule is Rangers, Rangers, Hurricanes, Penguins, Blues, Predators.

Last three are tough, first three not-so.

Our schedule is Red Wings, Devils, Canadiens, Capitals, Columbus, Ottawa

Fairly similar. Three easy, three tough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pancakes

Ryder71

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
22,829
11,033
Maybe they got lucky over a short span Ogre, who knows. But we made our top 6 D worse, and overall D depth worse at the deadline this year.
It's so obvious the disparity now, it boggles my mind how some don't see the loss of Cole was a pretty big mistake. And to not get anyone at the deadline for that matter.
 

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
OK, Ogre. If it's basically the same group of guys, then why does the PK suck now?
I'm not sure. Goaltending is certainly part of it. Why is the whole team playing worse than they had been?

Maybe they got lucky over a short span Ogre, who knows. But we made our top 6 D worse, and overall D depth worse at the deadline this year.
or maybe we're getting unlucky over a short span now.

I'm not saying it's not a downgrade losing Cole. I'm saying it's not THIS MUCH of a downgrade because we lost Cole. He simply didn't play enough to be this important. It's top to bottom the entire team playing worse. There's just no way you can blame that all on the loss of Cole. If our 3rd pairing was getting abused, or just the 2nd PK unit, then you'd have a point. But it's everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NMK11 and Tom Hanks

Ogrezilla

Nerf Herder
Jul 5, 2009
75,534
22,049
Pittsburgh
If this becomes a big argument I’m in this camp.
7ECxJxn.gif
 

NMK11

Registered User
Apr 6, 2013
3,997
1,985
OK, Ogre. If it's basically the same group of guys, then why does the PK suck now?
Because Murray has been out and recovering from a concussion and not playing his best? Because hockey has natural ebbs and flows throughout the season? I mean, Rowney has missed 7 of the last 12 while our PK has sucked too, so why are we not saying his absence has played a role? Theyre going through a bad stretch, as happens during a long season. And honestly, during the playoffs I care less about special teams anyway and more about 5v5, where the addition of Brassard is way more important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ogrezilla

Ryder71

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
22,829
11,033
I'm not sure. Goaltending is certainly part of it. Why is the whole team playing worse than they had been?


or maybe we're getting unlucky over a short span now.

I'm not saying it's not a downgrade losing Cole. I'm saying it's not THIS MUCH of a downgrade because we lost Cole. He simply didn't play enough to be this important. It's top to bottom the entire team playing worse. There's just no way you can blame that all on the loss of Cole. If our 3rd pairing was getting abused, or just the 2nd PK unit, then you'd have a point. But it's everyone.
In general terms, how important is chemistry to a team? That's a variable you're not really discussing. So beyond the practical use of Cole, the disruption to the cohesiveness and chemistry is also a contributing factor. We had to re shuffle our D pairs, still doing it actually. And the assignments and responsibilities for certain defensemen has changed. And that's all caused because we removed a player at didn't see fit to find an adequate replacement.
 

Ryder71

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
22,829
11,033
Because Murray has been out and recovering from a concussion and not playing his best? Because hockey has natural ebbs and flows throughout the season? I mean, Rowney has missed 7 of the last 12 while our PK has sucked too, so why are we not saying his absence has played a role? Theyre going through a bad stretch, as happens during a long season. And honestly, during the playoffs I care less about special teams anyway and more about 5v5, where the addition of Brassard is way more important.
You could care less about special teams huh? lol

Special teams are very integral in determining games. To trivialize it is really naive. It's a vital and important component to a game. I can't believe you said that. lol
 

Speaking Moistly

What a terrible image.
Feb 19, 2013
39,728
7,402
Injured Reserve
In general terms, how important is chemistry to a team? That's a variable you're not really discussing. So beyond the practical use of Cole, the disruption to the cohesiveness and chemistry is also a contributing factor. We had to re shuffle our D pairs, still doing it actually. And the assignments and responsibilities for certain defensemen has changed. And that's all caused because we removed a player at didn't see fit to find an adequate replacement.

Well, in general terms how important was Cole to the team chemistry? Both are unknown and pure speculation here. Cole was also not played for quite a few games this season as far as assignments and responsibilities go. They also had ugly crap with him in the lineup.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->