Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
Bioshock wrote:What i think Shero is gonna do is go after Parise and Suter and if he gets both, you will see Paul Martin moved after the fact.
mikey287 wrote:If a 30-year old fringe NHLer can have "sky is the limit" potential...I can't imagine what you think of Eric Tangradi, hell even...anyone. everyone.
no name wrote:Engelland is a perfect 7th defenceman, espicially when you need a physical presence on the ice. You no longer need a Godard type. Just a guy you can plug in the lineup if you think things might get chippy. He can hold his own. But if he didn;t have that fighting ability he would be in the minors on a team with more depth at defence.
steelhammer wrote:no name wrote:Engelland is a perfect 7th defenceman, espicially when you need a physical presence on the ice. You no longer need a Godard type. Just a guy you can plug in the lineup if you think things might get chippy. He can hold his own. But if he didn;t have that fighting ability he would be in the minors on a team with more depth at defence.
Yeah, I was just thinking how terrible Engelland was when he was called upon to shut down Ovechkin on several occasions last season. Strange how more teams weren't able to exploit his weakness on this team?
bhaw wrote:Hugo Stiglitz wrote:skullman80 wrote:Brandon Sutter after his rookie year.. was what 19?
Engelland didn't start showing any signs of life at the NHL level till he was almost 30.
Pretty big difference I think there.
Again, my analogy is that age is irrelevant here.
Come again? There is no difference between a 19 year old with 2 years experience and a 30 year old with 2 years experience? I don't know why you're upset that people are disagreeing with you because I would say 99%+ of analysts, fans, coaches, GMs, and players would say otherwise. I'd be willing to put money on the fact that even Engelland would disagree with you here.
So is your notion that Pesonen never got a fair shot and if we just gave him 2 years to develop, he easily had a shot at being a top 10 NHL player?
steelhammer wrote:no name wrote:Engelland is a perfect 7th defenceman, espicially when you need a physical presence on the ice. You no longer need a Godard type. Just a guy you can plug in the lineup if you think things might get chippy. He can hold his own. But if he didn;t have that fighting ability he would be in the minors on a team with more depth at defence.
Yeah, I was just thinking how terrible Engelland was when he was called upon to shut down Ovechkin on several occasions last season. Strange how more teams weren't able to exploit his weakness on this team?
FallenHero96 wrote:For what it's worth, article in the MN paper today - Russo mentions that if the Wild can't get Suter, he mentions Paul Martin as a plan B for them.
FallenHero96 wrote:For what it's worth, article in the MN paper today - Russo mentions that if the Wild can't get Suter, he mentions Paul Martin as a plan B for them.
Pavel Bure wrote:Minn. has nothing that looks appealing trade wise for the Pens.
Pavel Bure wrote:Minn. has nothing that looks appealing trade wise for the Pens.
Pavel Bure wrote:Minn. has nothing that looks appealing trade wise for the Pens.
Grunthy wrote:Pavel Bure wrote:Minn. has nothing that looks appealing trade wise for the Pens.
clutterbuck...
Pavel Bure wrote:Grunthy wrote:Pavel Bure wrote:Minn. has nothing that looks appealing trade wise for the Pens.
clutterbuck...
Ehhhhhhh, that'd leave the Pens D looking like
Letang - Orpik
Suter - Nisky
Engelland - Lovejoy/Strait/Bortuzzo
I'd rather keep Martin in that case.
Pavel Bure wrote:Grunthy wrote:Pavel Bure wrote:Minn. has nothing that looks appealing trade wise for the Pens.
clutterbuck...
Ehhhhhhh, that'd leave the Pens D looking like
Letang - Orpik
Suter - Nisky
Engelland - Lovejoy/Strait/Bortuzzo
I'd rather keep Martin in that case.
Users browsing this forum: Humperdink, pens_CT, Penspal and 33 guests