Quote from: jgrangers2 on Today at 10:31:22 AMThe series has been chippy since game 1. Rempe won't change that and the idea of a deterrent is an old school hockey trope that needs to die. He also can't skate with this team and would be a liability when on the ice. There's a reason he played just 4 minutes of a game that went over 80.
I'd argue that yesterday might have been their best game at evens in this series. If not for some bad early turnovers and a bad penalty late, this series might be over. Also, the Trouba discussion has to happen sooner rather than later. He's been on the ice for something like the last 7 goals against. We could legitimately see a guy get handed the cup by Bettman and bought out a month later.
Quote from: jgrangers2 on Today at 11:50:37 AMI appreciate the energy aspect but, beyond that, I'm not sure what else he brings. He's not a highly skilled offensive or defensive player and not a great skater. He's a liability against a team like Carolina that can skate circles around him. There's also that the refs clearly have an eagle eye on him and he's a penalty waiting to happen, which is probably part of why Laviolette hasn't had him out there late. I think the fact that he played just 4 minutes of an 80+ minute game on Tuesday speaks volumes. I just don't know that the positives with him outweight the negatives.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on Today at 10:43:02 AMI don't think Rempe is just a deterrent and nothing more than that. His being in the lineup fires up the fans and the rest of the team. I don't know if you've been to a home game since his arrival, but when he is on the ice fans start immediately chanting his name and the energy level both in the stands and on the ice percolates visibly.
I'm not suggesting he is more than what he is, which is a fringe player on the outside looking in (hence his not having been active recently). I would disagree that he brings nothing additive to the table though, if that is what you are saying.
Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 11:11:35 AMI am not sure what the point of that extreme binary question is. Are you suggesting the offense wouldn't have looked significantly better with their two most important players healthy?
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on Today at 11:07:18 AMSo your argument is that if both of those players had been 100% healthy in all four quarters, we would have instead looked good in that game instead of losing 40-0?
Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 11:05:34 AMThomas was injured very early in the game and Waller had been injured prior to the game and was not playing like he had in camp.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on Today at 11:04:16 AMHow did any of those impact the week one game, which is what I was referencing?
Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 11:02:15 AMDo you think key injuries to Thomas (arguably the offense's best player), Waller, and Jones might have impacted what was expected versus what was produced?
Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 10:21:57 AMDid I misread the title? Was this an article about quarterbacks?