PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Member
  • Content count

    2,058
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

PavelValerievichDatsyuk last won the day on September 10 2016

PavelValerievichDatsyuk had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About PavelValerievichDatsyuk

  • Rank
    Hall-of-Famer
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Montreal, Qc
  1. Okay. I must have missed Ott at center this season.
  2. That is true, I should take that comment back. I didn't say it the way I meant to - I just meant that Glendening is also a good faceoff guy. Our best are Ott followed by Nielsen then Glendening. The point I was trying to make is that Ott is a winger and won't take that many draws. Say there's 20 draws, Glendening might take 4 or 5 as one of the 4 centermen. So you have his 54.4% abilities for just under quarter of the draws. Ott's quota is maybe 1 of 20 draws. Probably less, but I don't want to figure out the math for that. So for a team, it may be nice to have Ott for faceoffs, but if it's at the expense of one of your good faceoff men that takes a significant number of draws, then I think it would actually hurt the team. Sheahan would have to take draws to replace Glendening and he's at 51.2% or maybe Larkin with his 44%. Hypothetically, then you have 51.2% for 4-5 draws and Ott's 58.2 for his 1 draw. The team would be better off for faceoffs with 54.4% for 5 draws. If Ott were still able to handle center than it wouldn't be an issue and he could be 4th line center and I would agree with you both that face-offs are a big advantage for him over Glen. Anyway, I didn't mean to get into this discussion. I like Ott a lot and was pleasantly surprised at what he brings despite not liking the signing when it was made. Edit: Okay now with age switch, that takes away the consideration I was talking about. With younger Ott there's no discussion. Ott has scored as much as 22 and as many points as 46. Don't think Glendening will ever be able to contribute like that.
  3. I'm more thinking about utility to the team. Ott's a winger. He really can't handle being center anymore, so his advantage doesn't mean as much because it won't be put use that often. It's great to have him as an extra faceoff guy, but he won't be taking a large number of draws. Other than Nielsen, Glendening our best center at faceoffs. If you're arguing for Ott on the basis of faceoffs, then I assume you want him to take Glen's share of the faceoffs, but then we're stuck with Ott at center for the rest of the shift or at least until we clear. As a fix, I guess you could have Larkin as center and then have Ott take all his draws for him, but then you have Ott on a scoring line.
  4. In my post, I did say he was better at face-offs. I wasn't exactly downplaying it - just qualifying it. Glen's at 53.7 and Ott's at 57.9. It is an advantage, but only 4.2% and I think you do have to take into account that Glendening has taken almost 3 times as many.
  5. Glendening's taken 469 faceoffs this year compared to Ott's 171 (hockey-reference.com) so I think their FO percentages mean a very different thing. Ott hasn't been used as a main faceoff taker in about 4 years. I think maybe his higher-than carreer-average success is due to the fact that he's a replacement faceoff taken doesn't repeatedly go up against guys so they don't start to figure him out as would usually happen. Ott's career average is still higher than Glendening's., though. Side note: In checking out stats, I just saw that Glendening finished 40th in the voting for the Selke trophy last year. That's higher than Zetterberg! Tied with Jagr and Parise! That's hilarious! http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-2016.html#selke Anyway, Ott wouldn't be on my playoff team. He takes too many bad penalties and only has 6 pts. Hell, he had a third of his total points in today's game.
  6. Not quite tanking, but I think some of Blashill's make more sense if he was told that he should be most concerned with long-term development of players. For instance, you only put Sheahan on the powerplay if you're trying to get a struggling young player going. For immediate team success that can only hurt us. Also, keeping Larkin on the 3rd line for so long make sense if you're trying to develop a player who can run a line himself, but he would have had more success and helped the team more with Z or Nielson, i think. Also, Vanek's limited use could make sense if the team doesn't view him as part of our future. And AA's limited use could make sense if they consider him rounding out his game more important in the long run to the amount he helps the team currently. There is problems with that theory, though, since players like Miller and Ott were used despite the fact that they won't be part of the future. I think they've been trying to balance preparing for the future with some success right now (which obviously hasn't come this year).
  7. McCartney's not retired. He still puts out albums and tours. But his reputation is not based on his recent work which isn't groundbreaking. Hence why I used the parallel. Hakan's recent picks haven't been steals, but they're probably what you expect from late picks. He's lost his advantage now that europe is thoroughly scouted.
  8. And why is Paul McCartney still considered a great musician? 'laurels' matter. And he does have some impressive laurels. Responsible for finding Lidstrom Holmstrom, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall, Franzen. He deserves all the respect he gets. But his success was partly based on being ahead of the curve, though. He went deeper into the european talent and had a great eye. Now the playing field is more even. Since Franzen, players I've read he's been responsible for drafting are: Nyquist, Filppula, Hudler, Ericsson, Andersson, Axel Holmstrom, Malmstrom. I'm not sure how that compares to other individual scouts so it's hard to judge his resent pull. No great diamonds in the rough, but maybe regular for a scout with the picks that the Red Wings have had.
  9. I agree that we've had trouble developing Dmen and that's a big problem - I was just questioning whether the number of Dmen was a lot. It does seem like we've drafted a lot of D men recently. The only top 4 guy we've trained since Kronwall is arguebly Quincey. He's been in the top 4 everywhere he's played I think (though I don't know how or where he's playing with the Devils). Not a great #4 guy, but I think he makes the cut.
  10. Hronek, Hicketts, Russo, Saajarvi, Renouf, De Haas, Cholowski, Holway, Malmstrom, Sambrook, (10 - anyone else?) Is that really few D-men in the system? (honest question - I don't really know what the usual is)
  11. That's hilarious, man. I don't think Blashill has done a good job and happily see him gone. I was just mentioning that they praised him. It's crazy how much people hate Blash around here that they jump on you just for mentioning someone else's praise.
  12. Okay whatever man. Anyway it's interesting for me to get outside opinion's on how he's doing. You can discount their praise if you want.
  13. That's fine, but they've specifically praised him and some of his line management. I don't think they've said a thing about the Wild's coach or any decisions he's made.
  14. Lots of praise for Blashill from these NBC guys. It's good to get some outside perspective.
  15. AA!!!