Sabretooth
Registered User
I think Carrier can be for us what Bryan Rust is for the penguins, except I think Carrier will end up the better player of the 2.
So, in other words, a career 4th liner.
No, that's in your words.
Shawn Thornton is a career 4th liner. There is no utlity, no reason, no benefit to playing him anywhere else in the lineup.
There's a difference between Shawn Thornton and Trevor Lewis
This is probably a tough concept to grasp if your view of what a player is, is entirely driven by points or offensive skills that are visible to the laymen. But there's simply more to hockey than that.
James, this crap is completely unnecessary.
When I watch Carrier play, I see a guy that fits in the Gaustad/Mair type of mold. A guy that can kill some penalties, and has minimal usefulness outside of the top 9. If we are rolling Carrier out there on the third line on a consistent basis, then our farm system has failed us.
Sorry I don't waste time with the subtlety ("so in other words..."
I don't think you see so good...
What makes Carrier a better/different player than either of those 2?
Speed, puck skill, forechecking, offensive zone awareness, transition and possession hockey, etc
we generate a much better corsi with him on the ice, on any line, for a reason...
I'll give you speed.
Fore-checking, offensive zone awareness, transition are very debatable. I fail to see how he is superior to Mair or Gaustad in any of those areas.
Corsi stats don't really do much for me considering how this team is a corsi disaster.
What makes Carrier a better/different player than either of those 2?
Dude draws penalties better than anyone else on the team outside of Jack, in my opinion. Plus he's fast and forechecks HARD. He has tremendous value. He also has the ability to get under the other team's skin without being too dirty. Even if he is bottom six that has a LOT of value. There are a few teams with great top six but nothing below them. Teams that go far in the playoffs can roll four lines. Carrier's built for that game.
Speed, puck skill, forechecking, offensive zone awareness, transition and possession hockey, etc
we generate a much better corsi with him on the ice, on any line, for a reason...
On a properly constructed team, Carrier is a bottom 6 guy who can play up the lineup when needed (injuries, need to spark the lineup, etc.). Every contending team needs guys like that in the lineup. It's called quality depth.
If you can fill your bottom 6 with guys like that and thus not have to resort to the Deslauriers of the world, you'll be in good shape. Just because Carrier won't be a world-beater does not mean he can't be an important piece of the puzzle.
He reminds me of a slightly less defensively aware Mike Grier but with more offensive tools. I appreciate that he is a Swiss knife kind of player that can slide next to almost anyone and compliment their game in that he likes to do the yeoman's work on his line.
Fore-checking, offensive zone awareness, transition are very debatable. I fail to see how he is superior to Mair or Gaustad.
James, this crap is completely unnecessary.
When I watch Carrier play, I see a guy that fits in the Gaustad/Mair type of mold. A guy that can kill some penalties, and has minimal usefulness inside of the top 9. If we are rolling Carrier out there on the third line on a consistent basis, then our farm system has failed us.