|
|
Post by Hfx2012 on Jul 21, 2010 23:18:43 GMT -4
These players will not, we hope, lead the team in scoring as per an earlier post by someone, however one of them will lead the D core in points. Who will that be?
|
|
|
|
Post by hfxfan09 on Jul 22, 2010 12:17:40 GMT -4
I think Hannay is the material to lead our D core this season, Really looking forward to this season!
|
|
|
|
Post by Y Ddraig Goch on Jul 22, 2010 12:21:04 GMT -4
I think Hannay is the material to lead our D core this season, Really looking forward to this season! What have you seen from Hannay that makes you think he will get more points than Clarke, amyot or Abeltshauser as the poll suggested? |
|
|
|
Post by gary82 on Jul 22, 2010 14:55:50 GMT -4
I think Hannay is the material to lead our D core this season, Really looking forward to this season! Hannay is a at home defenceman, he won't get more points then Clarke, Hannay will have a good leadership role though |
|
|
|
Post by howitzer on Jul 22, 2010 15:13:29 GMT -4
Clarke for sure, followed by Abeltshauser. I can see Clarke putting up 50pts this season. We still might struggle to score 5 on 5 this season, but I can see us having a pretty good PP. It had some decent stretches last year, so I can see that being a bright spot this year. If Clarke stays in the line-up he should be the QB, so IMO 50pts is a realistic goal for him.
Clarke has the potential to be a point producing D-man on just his physical tools alone. I don't find he has great hockey sense or particularily strong puck skills, so in the sense he's not that "true" QB type people might invision. But his skating and shot are good enough that he should put up some good numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hfx2012 on Jul 23, 2010 21:25:57 GMT -4
Clarke for sure, followed by Abeltshauser. I can see Clarke putting up 50pts this season. We still might struggle to score 5 on 5 this season, but I can see us having a pretty good PP. It had some decent stretches last year, so I can see that being a bright spot this year. If Clarke stays in the line-up he should be the QB, so IMO 50pts is a realistic goal for him. Clarke has the potential to be a point producing D-man on just his physical tools alone. I don't find he has great hockey sense or particularily strong puck skills, so in the sense he's not that "true" QB type people might invision. But his skating and shot are good enough that he should put up some good numbers. I don't disagree with the point potential, if he has his head screwed on straight, however the interesting thing is 3 of his goals last year, correct me if I'm wrong, were playing as a forward and up until 4 or 5 years ago he was a forward. He's been playing upfront and back on the blueline for much of the past 6 or 7 years and many believe he has the hockey sense along with the hands to be a forward.  |
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on Jul 23, 2010 21:53:39 GMT -4
Clarke for sure, followed by Abeltshauser. I can see Clarke putting up 50pts this season. We still might struggle to score 5 on 5 this season, but I can see us having a pretty good PP. It had some decent stretches last year, so I can see that being a bright spot this year. If Clarke stays in the line-up he should be the QB, so IMO 50pts is a realistic goal for him. Clarke has the potential to be a point producing D-man on just his physical tools alone. I don't find he has great hockey sense or particularily strong puck skills, so in the sense he's not that "true" QB type people might invision. But his skating and shot are good enough that he should put up some good numbers. I don't disagree with the point potential, if he has his head screwed on straight, however the interesting thing is 3 of his goals last year, correct me if I'm wrong, were playing as a forward and up until 4 or 5 years ago he was a forward. He's been playing upfront and back on the blueline for much of the past 6 or 7 years and many believe he has the hockey sense along with the hands to be a forward. I dont remember Clarke ever playing forward last year...could be wrong though. When you convert a defensmen like Clarke to a forward he loses all of the value he brings. The reason he is so good is because hes a rare kind of dman you dont find in the Q. If he played forward, he would be another ok forward... Its like Bodnarchuk. He played Forward all the way until he was 15. He was always an OK forward, but once he starting playing D his value to a team increased ten fold because of his skating ability, and the ability to play heads up defense and chip in on offense. |
|
|
|
Post by Hfx2012 on Jul 24, 2010 1:24:39 GMT -4
I don't disagree with the point potential, if he has his head screwed on straight, however the interesting thing is 3 of his goals last year, correct me if I'm wrong, were playing as a forward and up until 4 or 5 years ago he was a forward. He's been playing upfront and back on the blueline for much of the past 6 or 7 years and many believe he has the hockey sense along with the hands to be a forward. I dont remember Clarke ever playing forward last year...could be wrong though. When you convert a defensmen like Clarke to a forward he loses all of the value he brings. The reason he is so good is because hes a rare kind of dman you dont find in the Q. If he played forward, he would be another ok forward... Its like Bodnarchuk. He played Forward all the way until he was 15. He was always an OK forward, but once he starting playing D his value to a team increased ten fold because of his skating ability, and the ability to play heads up defense and chip in on offense. Lala, I should have said, I think he scored some goals coming out of the sin bin and jumped into the play as a forward. I agree, players who have that skill and move to D can be much more effective and bring more to their teams. Bodnarchuk is a good example of that type of player. Clarke may prove to be similar. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jul 24, 2010 9:13:10 GMT -4
I don't disagree with the point potential, if he has his head screwed on straight, however the interesting thing is 3 of his goals last year, correct me if I'm wrong, were playing as a forward and up until 4 or 5 years ago he was a forward. He's been playing upfront and back on the blueline for much of the past 6 or 7 years and many believe he has the hockey sense along with the hands to be a forward. I dont remember Clarke ever playing forward last year...could be wrong though. When you convert a defensmen like Clarke to a forward he loses all of the value he brings. The reason he is so good is because hes a rare kind of dman you dont find in the Q. If he played forward, he would be another ok forward... Its like Bodnarchuk. He played Forward all the way until he was 15. He was always an OK forward, but once he starting playing D his value to a team increased ten fold because of his skating ability, and the ability to play heads up defense and chip in on offense. I find it funny to read posts each year on skilled d-men and somnebody always comes up with the idea of moving them to forward because they skate well and have good puck skills. It may just be the old mentality that the big awkward kids should be put back on defense and the speedy skilled ones up front. In the post lockout NHL(and CHL indirectly due to common rules), mobile puck moving d-men are now even more valuable than ever, gone are the days of 1 PP QB and 4-5 "off the glass" d-men. Teams that don't have skilled puck movers end up struggling to find offense for the most part and struggle to get out of their own end without the obstruction on forecheckers that we saw 5-10 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by danglez on Jul 25, 2010 21:16:39 GMT -4
it will not be hannay, thats all i know
|
|
