I look at PPG more than # of (insert cutoff) point seasons. No one played full years over the two affected covid years, so Huberdeau specifically can't be docked for that. That's nonsense.
He was around 1.2 for those seasons. That's the production you want and would put him top 20 for league scoring even with the uptick in production league wide.
I look at PPG more than # of (insert cutoff) point seasons. No one played full years over the two affected covid years, so Huberdeau specifically can't be docked for that. That's nonsense.
He was around 1.2 for those seasons. That's the production you want and would put him top 20 for league scoring even with the uptick in production league wide.
The debate was about how many points he would score, not point per game. So to suggest that stating his point totals from prior seasons is misleading is kind of over the top IMO but I agree that PPG is relevant to a discussion about production for sure.
But you are inflating things with 1.2 PPG. He has only produced at that pace in his one career season.
Gaudreau is a good comparable since their age is similar. If you cherry pick their production over last 4 seasons, it is nearly identical. If you go much shorter, or any longer, Gaudreau has out produced him.
Do we really consider 80 points a success for a 10.5 million player in the first year of an 8 year contract?
I guess it depends on how defensively tight they're playing.
If they're playing river hockey I don't think 80 points does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by memphusk
I understand that but he should be 90 plus at that salary. Anything else is a disappointment.
Please read the previous posts again... I was literally asked what would be a big improvement. From 55 points to 80 points is a big improvement. Please also note I said "as a minimum".
If you're asking me what a true success would be, that's a different question entirely. For that I'd put the marker at 90 as a minimum.
Loved the bit in part 1 about how Mike Keenan was the worst coach he's ever had. Pretty much mirrored what we all thought at the time; useless practices that were simply routines and never adapting or changing things up and having no idea what's going on. Frankly it's a miracle that the team played like it did off the back of Iggy's Hart-worthy performances, Kipper's reliabililty and Regher on the backend.
Great interview so far.
Reggie and Warrener are big time Darryl guys. Makes sense… he made them rich and got Reggie a Cup. As such, both of them get a little defensive whenever anyone has a negative take on Darryl.
I find that interesting cause both of them have been vocal about how bad Mike Keenan was as a coach yet I can guarantee there’s more than a few 94 Rangers polishing their rings and thinking … these two whiny Flames guys sound like big babies.
The Following User Says Thank You to mikeecho For This Useful Post:
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
I know why people liked Matt, but I really never did. He scored one memorable goal, was a nice guy. I don't know why they kept him around for so long.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
He was a good responsible player. I don't see what wasn't to like.
Maybe expectations were too high, but as a middle 6 player that could contribute a little offense and kill penalties, he was decent. He was humble enough to take up a role on the 4th line when things were winding down as well.
He used to get just cranked sometimes though. It seemed like we was always taking big hits.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
He was a good responsible player. I don't see what wasn't to like.
Maybe expectations were too high, but as a middle 6 player that could contribute a little offense and kill penalties, he was decent. He was humble enough to take up a role on the 4th line when things were winding down as well.
He used to get just cranked sometimes though. It seemed like we was always taking big hits.
Ya, I suppose so. But Dion was significantly better in most cases. We lost a top tier player for a top tier human.
Ya, I suppose so. But Dion was significantly better in most cases. We lost a top tier player for a top tier human.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
The trade was bad but I think it actually looked better in hindsight then the day it was made. Phaneuf wasn't really all that great after the trade. Sutter should have got more though.
He was a good responsible player. I don't see what wasn't to like.
Maybe expectations were too high, but as a middle 6 player that could contribute a little offense and kill penalties, he was decent. He was humble enough to take up a role on the 4th line when things were winding down as well.
He used to get just cranked sometimes though. It seemed like we was always taking big hits.
It wasn't Stajan's fault he was in that trade. But yes, he was incredibly accpeting of his role and was great with the kids who were brought in. Plus he was a good faceoff/PK guy and wasn't unskilled at all.
and he scored at least two memorable goals: OT versus Vancouver and his penalty shot against (I think) the Oilers after his son died.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
