In case any of you want perspective from a Canucks fan.
Bartkowski only has one good aspect to his game. And when I say good, I mean ####ing elite. That's rushing the puck up the ice. If you only watch highlights of him when the puck is on his stick in the neutral zone you'd think he was the best defenseman in the league. He will deke out half the team going at Bure-esque speeds. Every. Time.
The rest of his game ... well I'll let you off easy now and have you watch for yourself.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Mathew Barzal For This Useful Post:
In case any of you want perspective from a Canucks fan.
Bartkowski only has one good aspect to his game. And when I say good, I mean ####ing elite. That's rushing the puck up the ice. If you only watch highlights of him when the puck is on his stick in the neutral zone you'd think he was the best defenseman in the league. He will deke out half the team going at Bure-esque speeds. Every. Time.
The rest of his game ... well I'll let you off easy now and have you watch for yourself.
Yeah it's actually hilarious. Nobody who is that good at puck carrying should be as bad as he is everywhere else. I'd certainly bet on him being the player with the most out-of-proportion skill in that area I've ever seen.
__________________
Oliver Kylington is the greatest and best player in the world
I like it. Having one skill which he excels at immediately makes him an upgrade on our bottom pairing, who are markedly below average on all skills across the board.
I like that he has positive history with Dougie Hamilton & GG.
Sounds like a faster, less defensive David Schlemko.
Wait.. I am not doing this right...
It sounds like a smaller, faster, more defensive Joe Colborne.
In all seriousness, I look forward to him getting a few games in. Who knows? Maybe they can turn his defensive game around in time and make him competent. Just another dart at trying to solidify our defence. Even if he is not a top 4 guy, maybe he is just better than a Kulak/Wotherspoon/Jokipakka for that 6th spot, or in time push Wideman out.
Sounds intriguing now at least. I didn't know he was that good at carrying the puck - a very important attribute.
Yeah, there have been a slew of Dmen that have been given the opportunity to take a spot, but each and every one has stumbled. Pretty clear with the investment the team has put towards drafting Dmen, that opportunity is passing them by.
Low risk - gave up nothing, meets expansion criteria
High risk - if he ever sees the ice, his play last year made the Canucks, who are not in the position to turn away adequate depth, say 'no thanks'
Or did the Canucks make him look worse than he is by playing him 4 minutes a game more than they should have? Certain players fall apart when asked to play a position that are not good enough for.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Alberta_Beef For This Useful Post:
It's beginning to look like it's a matter of time until he finds himself in the lineup. If it's at the expense of Wideman I'm open to seeing what he can do.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
Or did the Canucks make him look worse than he is by playing him 4 minutes a game more than they should have? Certain players fall apart when asked to play a position that are not good enough for.
Or did the Canucks make him look worse by making him play for the Canucks?
