WildCard Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) I'm exaggerating, but not by that much. And my conclusion on Moulson is based on all of last year, plus the start of this year. He's supposed to be a finisher. He's supposed to convert loose pucks "in the dirty areas" into goals. If he's not doing that, he's pretty much JAG. Why? Well, your description of Moulson is exactly what he's done, he just hasn't gotten many looks. He misses one opportunity and now he can't finish? Here's a good example where Wild's post about today's lines could be a new thread instead of getting tacked on to a thread that started in March. The thread title is generic and many, many people won't open this thread to see this interesting chat. Just my two cents... So start one. Does the government have to do everything?I would have started one, but nobody really seems to want to talk about the lines nearly as much as I like to. I post these combinations the first practice after every game, as I think it gives real insight to how DD thinks the players are meshing/playing. TBH I don't really want a thread of just 7 posts, though I understand that's where the mods would like it to go. Maybe I'll try it now, if others want to. Id I do nfreeman, can you take everything we've had on these lines to the new thread? I don't think I can do that, thanks Edited November 9, 2015 by WildCard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I disagree that the lineup (hey, wait... That's what this thread is called) deserves its own thread. We'd have a new thread every single day if that were the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I disagree that the lineup (hey, wait... That's what this thread is called) deserves its own thread. We'd have a new thread every single day if that were the case.Exactly, and they'd all be about 10 posts long, tops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I'm not going to get into the new thread worthiness of things but I do appreciate you posting the practice lines as they do give some good insight. Please keep doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) A few more games with Jack Jack? How about one game with Jack Jack to start with? Moulson has 4 goals. Tied with O'Reilly for 2nd on the team. He's not JAG, he's an offensive specialist who hasn't been put in his logical position. Another way to look at it is: Moulson and Eichel nearly connecting for a goal despite only playing with one another for 30 seconds supports the idea that they should play together. Imagine if they had time to get used to one another. It happened before about five games ago where Moulson passed it to Eichel, who tipped in on net (the goalie saved it). Edited November 9, 2015 by qwksndmonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Flip Gionta and Foligno and I like those lines. I love it when Girgensons and Larsson play together, and I think Reinhart is a perfect fit for the RW of that line. Minus the whole Foligno on the top line thing, sure. I want Reinhart there. I suppose I should give Moulson more time before mentally writing him off, but I'm getting impatient with him. At this point I'm ready to drop him to the 4th line and bring Foligno up with ROR and Gionta. If you're getting impatient with Moulson, how the heck are you okay with Gionta on the top line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 If you're getting impatient with Moulson, how the heck are you okay with Gionta on the top line? Well, as I said, I slightly prefer dropping Moulson to dropping Gionta -- so I wouldn't say I'm "OK" with Gionta on the top line. My preference is mostly due to Gionta's greater effectiveness down the stretch last season than Moulson's, as well as his having a more complete game than Moulson, and showing more life in the last 5-6 games than he did in the first 7-8 games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) Gionta showed life in the last 2 games (against the Canucks he was about as effective as a less physical Larsson, and that was far and away his best game of the year). I didn't feel a pulse at all before that. Moulson is a complimentary player and there was no talent for him to compliment last year. Minus the whole Foligno on the top line thing, sure. I want Reinhart there. If we're rolling with O'Reilly-Moulson as a pairing, I think they need somebody to dog it out on the boards and go to the front of the net. O'Reilly is tough but his physicality doesn't exactly create space in the offensive zone. Last game I thought Moulson - O'Reilly - Gionta was in desperate need of some beef. I have liked Reinhart with O'Reilly in the past, though, so I see where you're coming from. Edited November 9, 2015 by qwksndmonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Moulson is a complimentary player and there was no talent for him to compliment last year. I was going to give you credit for using a $5 word and then I realized you used the wrong one. The word you're using should be "complemement." #GrammarNazi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) ComplEment. Huh. I never realized the difference in spelling. Complemement is... something else entirely. "Good shot Jack! Nice skating Kiddo!" Edited November 9, 2015 by qwksndmonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 "Good shot Jack! Nice skating Kiddo!" Well, if that's the way you meant it, then compliment was correct after all. :flirt: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Gionta showed life in the last 2 games (against the Canucks he was about as effective as a less physical Larsson, and that was far and away his best game of the year). I didn't feel a pulse at all before that. Moulson is a complimentary player and there was no talent for him to compliment last year. If we're rolling with O'Reilly-Moulson as a pairing, I think they need somebody to dog it out on the boards and go to the front of the net. O'Reilly is tough but his physicality doesn't exactly create space in the offensive zone. Last game I thought Moulson - O'Reilly - Gionta was in desperate need of some beef. I have liked Reinhart with O'Reilly in the past, though, so I see where you're coming from. I was going to give you credit for using a $5 word and then I realized you used the wrong one. The word you're using should be "complemement." #GrammarNazi ComplEment. Huh. I never realized the difference in spelling. Complemement is... something else entirely. "Good shot Jack! Nice skating Kiddo!" Well, if that's the way you meant it, then compliment was correct after all. :flirt: AND he was pretty much correct that there was no one on the team worthy of compliment either. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 Well played, sir. :flirt: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 So start one. Does the government have to do everything? I wouldn't steal Wild's thunder. I am nothing if not a team player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 Just throwing this out there for no good reason: +/- in order from best to worst.22 L Johan Larsson 123 C Sam Reinhart 13 D Mark Pysyk 028 C Zemgus Girgensons 059 C Tim Schaller 026 L Matt Moulson -125 D Carlo Colaiacovo -26 D Mike Weber -282 L Marcus Foligno -229 D Jake McCabe -217 C David Legwand -490 C Ryan O'Reilly -446 D Cody Franson -59 L Evander Kane -544 L Nicolas Deslauriers -512 R Brian Gionta -64 D Josh Gorges -688 L Jamie McGinn -663 C Tyler Ennis -615 C Jack Eichel -655 D Rasmus Ristolainen -8 Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 Well, it's proof +\- is a terrible stat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 Well, it's proof +\- is a terrible stat I thought it was proof that people b!tc# way too much about Weber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 I thought it was proof that people b!tc# way too much about Weber.GDTs are enough proof of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 I thought it was proof that people b!tc# way too much about Weber. Or it's proof he plays sheltered minutes away from the opposing team's top players. And that he's missed more games than players below him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 Or it's proof he plays sheltered minutes away from the opposing team's top players. And that he's missed more games than players below him.No it isn't. It's plus minus. It means less than my 2nd grade montessori report card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 Or it's proof he plays sheltered minutes away from the opposing team's top players. And that he's missed more games than players below him. I think the latter is the largest part. Even with the recent moderate success, the Sabres still aren't a good team. The more time a play is on the ice, generally speaking, the worse his +/- is going to be. Weber's number is surprisingly good, but fewer games helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) I thought it was proof that people b!tc# way too much about Weber. Every other stat and the eyeballs say Weber blows a never-ending amount of.... The dude cannot play hockey Or it's proof he plays sheltered minutes away from the opposing team's top players. And that he's missed more games than players below him. No it isn't. It's plus minus. It means less than my 2nd grade montessori report card. Well, as useless as it is I agree with Hoss, that's the one thing it is proof of Edited November 10, 2015 by WildCard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 No it isn't. It's plus minus. It means less than my 2nd grade montessori report card. Yes. But if you're going to make any judgements off it it's not that Weber isn't as bad as we think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 Fancy Stats says Weber has the best Corsi and Fenwick on the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 Fancy Stats says Weber has the best Corsi and Fenwick on the team. Is there a ranking for taking dumb, inopportune penalties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.