|
|
Post by Krang7 on Sept 14, 2007 8:21:26 GMT -4
Analysing a combined PPG for players, on different teams, from a previous season, means basically nothing. Then you have to add in that Corsi played 3rd line (+ VD'or time), and Corsi+Hillier were 18 while Clendenning was 19 etc etc etc... plus team styles... You cant just use PPG stats to determine who belongs where. Hillier and Swan both scored more than 30 goals, and in Hilliers case moreso than Swan's, he had a bad year as he started the season awful. Clendenning had a good playoff which obviously helps his stats since you combine them. But last year Titan fans were growing pretty impatient with the lack of offense coming from him and his second line. It is OK for you to say that Hillier has na "off year" but yet decline to acknowledge about Celdenning having an "off year" and that he rebounded in the playoffs. Comparing Clendenning to Hillier or Swan makes more sense than saying that Jordan does not belong on a 2nd line while the Moose players are belonging there. Jordan has more grit, more character than the two combined. Definetly not the offensive flair though, which is of course the #1 thing a top-2 line player is supposed to provide. |
|
|
|
Post by chsb on Sept 14, 2007 8:21:39 GMT -4
So far so good for the Legault/Tardif tendem.... How many times did you see Legault play? As I said...so far so good.... What are you basing that on? After preseason Tardif's/Legault's combined record was 3-3 (0.500 which isn't the sign of Top Goaltending) As well among preseason goalies who played in more than one game Tardif's GAA ranked around 17th overall and Legault's around 29th overall. Obviously only preseason which is why I'm not knocking them, I'm must wondering where you have seen indications that the Titan's goaltending will be above average because so far the numbers certainly don't show it. Doesn't mean that the Titan aren't a good team but I can't understand what you are basing your "So far so good" statement on. Numbers don't tell everything and we have seen Tardif and Legault get much better in their last starts and what I saw at the final games entitles me to say so far so good....period. Obviously the season is another game. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Sept 14, 2007 8:22:24 GMT -4
Analysing a combined PPG for players, on different teams, from a previous season, means basically nothing. Then you have to add in that Corsi played 3rd line (+ VD'or time), and Corsi+Hillier were 18 while Clendenning was 19 etc etc etc... plus team styles... You cant just use PPG stats to determine who belongs where. Hillier and Swan both scored more than 30 goals, and in Hilliers case moreso than Swan's, he had a bad year as he started the season awful. Clendenning had a good playoff which obviously helps his stats since you combine them. But last year Titan fans were growing pretty impatient with the lack of offense coming from him and his second line. It is OK for you to say that Hillier has na "off year" but yet decline to acknowledge about Celdenning having an "off year" and that he rebounded in the playoffs. Comparing Clendenning to Hillier or Swan makes more sense than saying that Jordan does not belong on a 2nd line while the Moose players are belonging there. Jordan has more grit, more character than the two combined. Hillier and Swan don't have the qualities to play on a checking line ... Clendenning does ... thats a good thing ... don't take it as an insult. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Sept 14, 2007 8:23:13 GMT -4
What are you basing that on? After preseason Tardif's/Legault's combined record was 3-3 (0.500 which isn't the sign of Top Goaltending) As well among preseason goalies who played in more than one game Tardif's GAA ranked around 17th overall and Legault's around 29th overall. Obviously only preseason which is why I'm not knocking them, I'm must wondering where you have seen indications that the Titan's goaltending will be above average because so far the numbers certainly don't show it. Doesn't mean that the Titan aren't a good team but I can't understand what you are basing your "So far so good" statement on. Numbers don't tell everything and we have seen Tardif and Legault get much better in their last starts and what I saw at the final games entitles me to say so far so good....period. Obviously the season is another game. The season is 70 games.  |
|
|
|
Post by chsb on Sept 14, 2007 8:23:51 GMT -4
It is OK for you to say that Hillier has na "off year" but yet decline to acknowledge about Celdenning having an "off year" and that he rebounded in the playoffs. Comparing Clendenning to Hillier or Swan makes more sense than saying that Jordan does not belong on a 2nd line while the Moose players are belonging there. Jordan has more grit, more character than the two combined. Hillier and Swan don't have the qualities to play on a checking line ... Clendenning does ... thats a good thing ... don't take it as an insult. I agree that Jordan is more polyvalent. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 14, 2007 8:34:43 GMT -4
Halifax's 2 goalies are no worse than Legault. All are mediocre 19 year olds. The difference being that Legault was brought in as a backup......Kennedy is there as a starter. If Legault is the back up then Tardif is the starter...at 17, not a good situation for a contender. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Sept 14, 2007 8:40:09 GMT -4
Hillier and Swan don't have the qualities to play on a checking line ... Clendenning does ... thats a good thing ... don't take it as an insult. I agree that Jordan is more polyvalent. I am kind of with SteveUL on this one ... I would love to have a player like Clendenning on my team ... but ideally he would be on my third line ... he has the grit to play that 3rd line plus PK role, and also provide some bonus 3rd line offense (which championship teams often get). He is a servicable 2nd liner as well ... not saying he isn't ... but as a fan, I would be much more excited about the depth of my team knowing we have the luxury of a Clendenning to lead our third line, as opposed to needing him on our second line. |
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Sept 14, 2007 8:51:22 GMT -4
Analysing a combined PPG for players, on different teams, from a previous season, means basically nothing. Then you have to add in that Corsi played 3rd line (+ VD'or time), and Corsi+Hillier were 18 while Clendenning was 19 etc etc etc... plus team styles... You cant just use PPG stats to determine who belongs where. Hillier and Swan both scored more than 30 goals, and in Hilliers case moreso than Swan's, he had a bad year as he started the season awful. Clendenning had a good playoff which obviously helps his stats since you combine them. But last year Titan fans were growing pretty impatient with the lack of offense coming from him and his second line. It is OK for you to say that Hillier has na "off year" but yet decline to acknowledge about Celdenning having an "off year" and that he rebounded in the playoffs. Comparing Clendenning to Hillier or Swan makes more sense than saying that Jordan does not belong on a 2nd line while the Moose players are belonging there. Jordan has more grit, more character than the two combined. Hillier didnt have an "off" year, he just had a terrible start, but produced where he should have over the second half and ended up with 33 (?) goals. Clendenning was expected to have a good year based on his previous season, but fans spent all season waiting for that offensive flair to show itself. His name was in trade rumours constantly, and his stock seemed to fall. This IS what happened. Then there were all the off-season rumours that he didnt want to come back. To say he has more character and grit than Swan and Hillier combined is ridiculous. Swan is a vocal and physical leader on the Moose, along with a goal scorer and well liked by teammates. Hillier is very gritty in his play along the boards, I guess average character... guys like him, he doesnt back down from confrontations etc. Selfish with the puck at times, but also a bad passer to I dont mind that  . Clendenning has a much better "leader/character" reputation than Hillier though, I'll give you that, but Swan has to be considered his equal at the very least, he's a team leader who also plays a tough, physical role. Many want Swan to be captain this year. Anyway, silly argument... Clendenning will fill a line 2 scoring role fine, even if scoring goals isnt his natural talent. He will probably put up decent numbers, unless he repeats last years output. |
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Sept 14, 2007 8:56:50 GMT -4
I agree that Jordan is more polyvalent. I am kind of with SteveUL on this one ... I would love to have a player like Clendenning on my team ... but ideally he would be on my third line ... he has the grit to play that 3rd line plus PK role, and also provide some bonus 3rd line offense (which championship teams often get). He is a servicable 2nd liner as well ... not saying he isn't ... but as a fan, I would be much more excited about the depth of my team knowing we have the luxury of a Clendenning to lead our third line, as opposed to needing him on our second line. Nobody is saying Clendenning isnt a nice player. Most agree with you that he is more suited as a great 3rd liner, or a solid 2nd liner, except for chsb But in the last minute of play, Wildcats trying to tie the game, who would you want on the ice for your team to try and tie the game up, Clendenning... or Swan or Hillier? Swan and Hillier and bigger "scoring threats", regardless of the combined ppg stats chsb is using. Bathurst were based on offense last year, all it takes is a 4 pt game from Clendenning in a 8-1 win to throw the whole ppg stat out of whack etc... its not a great indicator of who is more suited for a scoring line. |
|
|
|
Post by bois on Sept 14, 2007 8:57:52 GMT -4
Analysing a combined PPG for players, on different teams, from a previous season, means basically nothing. Then you have to add in that Corsi played 3rd line (+ VD'or time), and Corsi+Hillier were 18 while Clendenning was 19 etc etc etc... plus team styles... You cant just use PPG stats to determine who belongs where. Hillier and Swan both scored more than 30 goals, and in Hilliers case moreso than Swan's, he had a bad year as he started the season awful. Clendenning had a good playoff which obviously helps his stats since you combine them. But last year Titan fans were growing pretty impatient with the lack of offense coming from him and his second line. It is OK for you to say that Hillier has na "off year" but yet decline to acknowledge about Celdenning having an "off year" and that he rebounded in the playoffs. Comparing Clendenning to Hillier or Swan makes more sense than saying that Jordan does not belong on a 2nd line while the Moose players are belonging there. Jordan has more grit, more character than the two combined. In fairness tho Swan did break his grit |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Sept 14, 2007 9:09:12 GMT -4
I am kind of with SteveUL on this one ... I would love to have a player like Clendenning on my team ... but ideally he would be on my third line ... he has the grit to play that 3rd line plus PK role, and also provide some bonus 3rd line offense (which championship teams often get). He is a servicable 2nd liner as well ... not saying he isn't ... but as a fan, I would be much more excited about the depth of my team knowing we have the luxury of a Clendenning to lead our third line, as opposed to needing him on our second line. Nobody is saying Clendenning isnt a nice player. Most agree with you that he is more suited as a great 3rd liner, or a solid 2nd liner, except for chsb But in the last minute of play, Wildcats trying to tie the game, who would you want on the ice for your team to try and tie the game up, Clendenning... or Swan or Hillier? Swan and Hillier and bigger "scoring threats", regardless of the combined ppg stats chsb is using. Bathurst were based on offense last year, all it takes is a 4 pt game from Clendenning in a 8-1 win to throw the whole ppg stat out of whack etc... its not a great indicator of who is more suited for a scoring line. I am inclined to agree with you if I am down a goal ... up a goal, I would want Clendenning ... tied ... probably choose Clendenning also ... hence my rationale that he would be the ultimate luxury on the third line, a gritty, defensively responsible player with offensive upside. |
|
|
|
Post by chsb on Sept 14, 2007 10:03:48 GMT -4
I agree that Jordan is more polyvalent. I am kind of with SteveUL on this one ... I would love to have a player like Clendenning on my team ... but ideally he would be on my third line ... he has the grit to play that 3rd line plus PK role, and also provide some bonus 3rd line offense (which championship teams often get). He is a servicable 2nd liner as well ... not saying he isn't ... but as a fan, I would be much more excited about the depth of my team knowing we have the luxury of a Clendenning to lead our third line, as opposed to needing him on our second line. The Titan got also the luxury of having gritty players in Grenache/Joly/Mailloux as well to fill that 3rd line and Jezegou is also very polyvalent....... Obviously the coach will play Clendenning where his need is greater on the 2nd line. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeb on Sept 14, 2007 10:05:28 GMT -4
It is OK for you to say that Hillier has na "off year" but yet decline to acknowledge about Celdenning having an "off year" and that he rebounded in the playoffs. Comparing Clendenning to Hillier or Swan makes more sense than saying that Jordan does not belong on a 2nd line while the Moose players are belonging there. Jordan has more grit, more character than the two combined. Hillier didnt have an "off" year, he just had a terrible start, but produced where he should have over the second half and ended up with 33 (?) goals. Clendenning was expected to have a good year based on his previous season, but fans spent all season waiting for that offensive flair to show itself. His name was in trade rumours constantly, and his stock seemed to fall. This IS what happened. Then there were all the off-season rumours that he didnt want to come back. To say he has more character and grit than Swan and Hillier combined is ridiculous. Swan is a vocal and physical leader on the Moose, along with a goal scorer and well liked by teammates. Hillier is very gritty in his play along the boards, I guess average character... guys like him, he doesnt back down from confrontations etc. Selfish with the puck at times, but also a bad passer to I dont mind that . Clendenning has a much better "leader/character" reputation than Hillier though, I'll give you that, but Swan has to be considered his equal at the very least, he's a team leader who also plays a tough, physical role. Many want Swan to be captain this year. Anyway, silly argument... Clendenning will fill a line 2 scoring role fine, even if scoring goals isnt his natural talent. He will probably put up decent numbers, unless he repeats last years output. I thought your post was well thought out until I hit the 'rumours' part. Clendenning was not going to Yarmouth. It was bs rumours so please don't make that part of your point. Otherwise you can throw the tooth fairy and the troll under the bridge in your argument as valid as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 14, 2007 10:06:58 GMT -4
I am kind of with SteveUL on this one ... I would love to have a player like Clendenning on my team ... but ideally he would be on my third line ... he has the grit to play that 3rd line plus PK role, and also provide some bonus 3rd line offense (which championship teams often get). He is a servicable 2nd liner as well ... not saying he isn't ... but as a fan, I would be much more excited about the depth of my team knowing we have the luxury of a Clendenning to lead our third line, as opposed to needing him on our second line. The Titan got also the luxury of having gritty players in Grenache/Joly/Mailloux as well to fill that 3rd line and Jezegou is also very polyvalent....... Obviously the coach will play Clendenning where his need is greater on the 2nd line. Mailloux won't be too gritty at 245lbs, he needs to lose the extra saddle bags or he won't be able to follow the play. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 14, 2007 10:07:59 GMT -4
Hillier didnt have an "off" year, he just had a terrible start, but produced where he should have over the second half and ended up with 33 (?) goals. Clendenning was expected to have a good year based on his previous season, but fans spent all season waiting for that offensive flair to show itself. His name was in trade rumours constantly, and his stock seemed to fall. This IS what happened. Then there were all the off-season rumours that he didnt want to come back. To say he has more character and grit than Swan and Hillier combined is ridiculous. Swan is a vocal and physical leader on the Moose, along with a goal scorer and well liked by teammates. Hillier is very gritty in his play along the boards, I guess average character... guys like him, he doesnt back down from confrontations etc. Selfish with the puck at times, but also a bad passer to I dont mind that . Clendenning has a much better "leader/character" reputation than Hillier though, I'll give you that, but Swan has to be considered his equal at the very least, he's a team leader who also plays a tough, physical role. Many want Swan to be captain this year. Anyway, silly argument... Clendenning will fill a line 2 scoring role fine, even if scoring goals isnt his natural talent. He will probably put up decent numbers, unless he repeats last years output. I thought your post was well thought out until I hit the 'rumours' part. Clendenning was not going to Yarmouth. It was bs rumours so please don't make that part of your point. Otherwise you can throw the tooth fairy and the troll under the bridge in your argument as valid as well. The Yarmouth rumor was true, they did make him a ridiculous offer but he decided to play in the Q. |
|
. Clendenning has a much better "leader/character" reputation than Hillier though, I'll give you that, but Swan has to be considered his equal at the very least, he's a team leader who also plays a tough, physical role. Many want Swan to be captain this year.