g20topdogg
-
Posts
1,942 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Media Demo
Gallery
Posts posted by g20topdogg
-
-
2 hours ago, saskduckfan said:
My expectations were low, very low. Klingberg was a signing that was made just to trade away. Kulikov was a trade made because it came with an extra pick. Neither guy really fit our lack of system. Team didnt know how to play defense and neither does Klingberg so he was going to be a liability unless he got the offense going. Kulikov was decent and would have been better for a 3rd pairing guy like he is on Pittsburgh, not the second guy on the top pair. Again, part of filling the roster out with guys playing above where they belong. Strome and Vatrano never had me excited. Both contracts made me cringe. Strome was the wrong one and is not worth $5mil for 5 years. Overpaid by $2mil per season. And Vatrano, those college UFAs are never that good. Yes he had 20 goals last year but playing with a team with more offensive talent. Again both guys belong on the third ljne but we were asking them to fill top 6 roles, spots that are well above where they should be. Had the guys been playing proper roles in the lineup then maybe there was more to get excited about, but seriously we were replacing Ryan Getzlaf with Ryan Strome and Rickard Rakell with Frank Vatrano. Which two of those 4 would you rather have on your team? Not the two we got. Yes one retired but there was a lot of leadership lost there and never replaced. And the other was a former 30 goal scorer replaced by a guy that will never hit 30. Coaching wont change that either unfortunately.
My take was based on how good this team was after last years trade deadline and they were awful, giving up 40 plus shots and getting blown out, much like this year. Then seeing the guys they brought in, I did not expect anything to change in terms of results.
I think the biggest issue was not the guys that they brought in but in retaining Eakins. I'm sure if there was a better coach we'd feel a lot better about those signings. That's the one area I'm looking forward to improving the most. I know we didn't replace the guys leaving with the same quality and I think it was voiced here many times ( especially about Lindholm). But hopefully we can turn the page on this season, hope for a really good pick and better coaching next year giving the guys a boost as well. Hopefully some good signings in ufa/or trade as well. I'm not too happy with some of the moves Verbeek has made but I'm willing to see what he can do to turn this team around.
-
4 hours ago, Gorbachav55 said:
On tankathon.com, it shows the odds of different teams getting the picks. Ottaway is in 12th right now - they have 2.9% odds of getting the #2 OA pick. I think the math goes like this:
- They have 2.5% lottery odds. They can only get the second pick if they win the lottery for the 2nd pick outright (2.5%) or if they win the lottery for the #1 overall AND a team behind them wins the #2 overall (which adds another .4%) = 2.9%
- They can get the third pick if they win the lottery for the #1 overall (2.5%) AND a team in front of them wins the lottery for the #2 overall, pushing them back one spot.
If tankathon has it correct, at team in the 12-16 range that wins the lottery for #1 overall CAN be pushed back by a team in front of them winning the lottery for the #2 overall. Otherwise their odds wouldn't make sense.
So if I'm understanding it correctly the team that wins the #1 overall can be bumped down even though they won the lottery? That doesn't make much sense to me. Unless they give more value to teams lower in the standings than teams higher up. I could see that. But it seems to me that if you win the lottery for the first pick you shouldn't be able to move down then. As long as we end up picking in the top 3 I don't really care lol.
-
1 hour ago, saskduckfan said:
Seriously dude, if you expected and hoped for a playoff spot or Stanley Cup run with this roster back in September then I want some of what you have. From the free agent signing to replace the guys lost last year this was a team destined for failure in September. We lost too much talent and replaced them with garbage AHL players or 3rd or 4th lines playing way above their heads. This season has gone just as expected for me. Sorry but I never got excited about Strome, Vatrano, Beaulieu, White, Gawdin, Klingberg, Harrington, Leason, or Megna when they were replacing Getzlaf, Rakell, Lindholm, Manson, etc.
And then the moves Verbeek made were highly questionable. Waive Mahira, who would have been better then half of our current defensemen, go waiver diving for Leason and Megna and pass up on Tulvainen. I'm scared that the Ducks are actually going to be in for some horendous seasons with Verbeek at the helm. Questionable waiver moves and free agent signings and trades were it seems he isnt getting maximum value for players.
For me Strome, Vatrano and Klingberg had good potential when we signed them. Kulikov was a pretty good pickup for nothing as well. But I agree, this season wasn't going to be great but the expectations were definitely higher than this.
-
10 minutes ago, Gorbachav55 said:
My question is this - if the 12th team wins the #1 lottery, what happens to the lottery for the #2 pick?
For example, let's say Buffalo finishes with the 12th worst record and they win the lottery for the #1 pick. They can't move up that far, so Chicago keeps the #1, Buffalo gets the #2, and everyone else moves down a spot.
However, now you have the lottery for #2. Let's say Columbus wins it. Does Columbus move up to the #2 spot, pushing Buffalo down to #3? Or does Columbus get the #3 pick while Buffalo stays put? Is it actually better for those bottom teams to win the lottery for the #2 pick?
The only way this affects the Ducks is if the #13 seed wins the lottery for #1 overall. That team would get the third pick in the draft and the Ducks would temporarily remain at #2 overall. However, if another team wins the lottery for #2, does that push the Ducks to #3? Or do they move down past the #13 seed and get the #4 pick?
I think that would push us down to 4th because both teams would be lottery winners and take precedent over a non winner. Any team that wins the lottery for the #1 overall would also take precedent to those winning the #2. So those would just bump down I would think in the order they won #s 1 and 2 respectively.
-
If we end up tied with Columbus for the 2nd spot we hold the tie breaker because they have more regulation wins! Oh this is going to be very close!
-
2 minutes ago, tommer-1 said:
They make the game look SO HARD.
They make puck possession look difficult.
They make passing look difficult.
They make skating look difficult.
I'm convinced that most of their defensive and shot against issues have waaaaay more to do with how they play offense more than how they play defense. They play way too much defense because they are always giving up the puck, and they are super passive when they give the puck up.
They struggle mightily to possess the puck, and they often are just getting rid of it and then it's either a turnover of possession or a FO back in their end after an icing.
Yeah every facet of the game is brutal. We're playing the game on a delay of a few seconds. I'm glad we are though because it basically should solidify the fact that Eakins shouldn't be coming back.
-
20 minutes ago, HockeyIzCool said:
Not that you could tell.
He was the only one who could hang with the oilers top players. Everyone else was getting out skilled very badly.
-
1 hour ago, HockeyIzCool said:
I've thrown this name out there before, and it never seems to generate much discussion. Is it because nobody thinks it's anywhere near a possibility? Is it because people think that he would never want nor accept the position? Is it because people feel he would not make a good head coach, or that it might tarnish his legacy?
The name is Scott Niedermayer. He's a Hall Of Famer, with multiple Stanley Cups. Known as an extremely intelligent defensive minded player, who during his illustrious career, could survey the ice like few others were capable of.
He's been with the Ducks organization since the day he retired. Supposedly he's worked with the players on the team in recent months. His credentials mean he would command the utmost respect in the locker room.
The moment he hung up his skates, I felt that the next chapter in his life, when he was ready, would be behind the bench. I can't help but believe that if he were announced as the new Head Coach, the support from Ducks fans, and in fact from around the league, would be overwhelming.
As he is about to turn 50 this year, I'd say that if it's ever going to happen, the time is now. I don't know if the question has ever been posed to him, and if he's said he has zero interest, but I'd hope that if the Ducks do have a list of candidates in mind, his name is on it.
His credentials aren't in question. The problem is has he coached at any real level of the game? Just because a player is good doesn't necessarily translate to being a good coach *cough* Gretzky *cough*.
But if he does decide to go that route I'd think he'd be an assistant coach for the ducks first. But seems more than likely that he's looking at some kind of management position with the way he's been hanging out with PV.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, tommer-1 said:
Dallas Eakins' ENTIRE NHL coaching career (Cliff's Notes version):
Win one, lose two
Just get somebody who can change that for the better, please.
Stanley cups? Or....
-
1
-
-
Our next game is against the oilers. We actually have two games against them with one being the oilers on a second night of a b2b. McDavid has 144 points already. I think he can come away with 5 goals against the ducks (he's at 61 right now). They also play the sharks twice. I'm thinking he could hit 70+ goals and could even hit 170 pts. That's insane!
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, HockeyIzCool said:
I looked over at the Game Day Thread for Columbus at HF Boards. Guess what they're talking about?
There's a poster with a picture of himself wearing a Columbus jersey, and a paper bag superimposed over his head. And yeah, actively rooting for the tank, and disappointed that they got a point. And he's not alone.
One of his last comments: f*** this team. I hate them all
Sounds a lot like fans of a certain Anaheim team that plays hockey....🤣
-
8 hours ago, perry_mvp said:
How can any of the players realize their roles with this coaching staff? They have had Lundy all over the place playing C, LW all lines, PK. Hopefully a new coaching staff can get him squared away with the right role that plays to his strengths.
Exactly. Players don't have defined roles, are all over the place and then stagnate because they can't find their role. We then kick them to the corner in ufa and other teams take advantage. Or we just end up with someone that no one wants because they developed poorly. Either way we lose.
-
6 minutes ago, tommer-1 said:
2009 - Peter Holland, 15 OA / Kyle Palmieri, 26th OA
2010 - Cam Fowler, 12th OA / Emerson Etem, 29TH OA
2011 - Rickard Rakell, 30th OA
2012 - Hampus Lindholm, 6th OA
2013 - Shea Theodore, 26th OA
2014 - Nick Ritchie, 10th OA
2015 - Jacob Larsson, 27th OA
2016 - Max Jones, 24th OA / Sam Steel, 30th OA
2018 - Isac Lundestrom, 23rd OA
The Ducks sure don't have much to show for those 10 years of 1st round picks
2014-18 has really killed the ducks. Maybe we'd be in a different conversation of assets had those players really worked out.
-
2 hours ago, dtsdlaw said:
Steel is still not a very good NHL player. He got to play with Kaprizov and Zuccarello when Hartman was injured in the early part of the season (hence 6 of his 9 goals were scored by December 10th). But he’s still just a 4th liner on the Wild when that team is healthy. He’s basically the Wild’s version of Derek Grantzlaf.
IMO, Anaheim’s issue with Steel wasn’t about development, it was about recognition of his skill set. He’s a perimeter player with an average compete level and his skill set worked in juniors and a little in the AHL, but it just doesn’t work well against the best in the world. Bob didn’t evaluate forwards very well, so Steel was elevated to a top-6 role that he didn’t earn and couldn’t handle. It’s a big reason why the Ducks fell off a cliff after Kesler went down. Bob shaped the roster as though he was convinced that Steel and Lundestrom were going to be the Ducks’ next great 1-2 center combo, when he should have been out looking for real NHL centers (like when ROR was made available in Buffalo).
I still think under the right system Lundestrom has a place. But more and more it seems he needs a change of scenery. Steel isn't suited for a bottom 6 role. He should be playing in the top 6 but his skill set isn't enough to be there either. I think that in the right system he could be a decent middle 6 forward somewhere. He also just has to click on that location. For some players once they get to a certain team they just work for whatever reason. He's still only 25 though so teams might see that he's got some potential.
-
7 hours ago, Gorbachav55 said:
I think it's fair to wonder that. But that has nothing to do with Steel. He was drafted, developed, and played under the prior regime. I think Murray did a pretty terrible job of hiring the right player development personnel and statistical analysts to be able to get the most out of players. Players like Steel stagnated because of it.
It remains to be seen how Verbeek does with that.
That's exactly my point. Besides icing a team of players there are a lot of other factors. Even good nhl players utilized the wrong way won't be very effective. The main culprit has been the coaching but there's a lot of other people behind the scenes that also help players develop. I'm hoping PV, after not resigning Eakins after the one year mistake, finds someone able to get the most out of players. Also, he's started to change up the player development departments. These changes hopefully help us manage our assets better. Because even if we don't keep players, if their value can be heightened we ultimately will win because we can get higher value back. Bob lost our entire defensive depth in some poker game it seems when we had what seemed like one of the deepest d prospect pools in the mid 2010s. We've also let go of players that ended up to be pretty good nhl players later too.
-
Steel is now at 60gp 9-17-26 pts
This is statistically his best season to date. I'm wondering since he's finally broken through 6 goals for the season, could we see a breakout season from him soon? He's obviously doing a lot better with the wild than the ducks. I'm thinking he might be able to get to 40-50 pts per season and possibly become a decent depth player. He's 25 right now so is he a late bloomer? Does he still have room to grow? And finally, did the ducks give up on him too soon?
I think it was time for him to move on but I also can't help but think there's a development problem within the ducks organization. And I think a big part of that has also been the coaching for the past 4+ years. Sure we've had players develop under Eakins but I think that's just talent overriding the negatives of this current system. I'm not saying Steel is some golden boy here. It's just a curious case of player management I think. It's also the reason why we might let players leave this off season (or prior ones) only to go on to have good careers (maybe) all because of our current coaching mismanagement and utilization of players. It's been a problem under the former regime of BM to a pretty decent extent. Players are difficult to project and certain players just do better in other systems and locations so it happens to a lot of teams. But it sort of seems to be a big issue especially for a smaller market team where we don't always spend to the cap. So it kind of becomes a bigger deal to us when our asset management is weak.
Steel needed to go I think. But I'm just wondering about the effect our current management (or rather mismanagement) of player personnel is doing to this team.
-
1
-
-
Bring back Randy, third times the charm right?
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, dtsdlaw said:
Kulikov was a solid role player IMO. Heck, I would even consider bringing him back next season. Klingberg was certainly a disaster and Beaulieu turned out to be a waste of a roster spot. But White signed a 2-way deal and I don't think he was really expected to be a regular NHLer. Seems pretty clear that the original plan was Fowler-Klinger, Kulikov-Drysdale, Vaks-Shatty, with Beaulieu as the 7th. White and Benoit (also on a 2-way deal) would have been in San Diego for most of the season if not for the injuries to Drysdale and Vaakanainen, so I don't think its fair to point to either of those guys as a bad signing when they weren't really intended to be full-time NHLers in the first place.
If I was to want someone back I'd probably go with Kulikov. He seemed to work in some instances and could be useful in an actual system.
-
5 minutes ago, perry_mvp said:
If Columbus is bad next year then there is something wrong with them, something very wrong. They have a good roster, they might be getting Bedard or Fantilli and Jiricek could be joining the defense. I would be surprised if they weren't a playoff team.
Next season, if we're using Tommer's ranking the ducks and jackets should move up. Chi and SJ are likely going to be hurting for a while still.
-
Just now, dtsdlaw said:
Fowler, Drysdale, OZ, Mintyukov, LaCombe - what's your top-PK pair from that group? And who do you put on the ice when the Ducks are up by a goal at the end of a game and the opponent is storming the crease 6-on-5?
Every team needs role players to play hard minutes. Verbeek SHOULD be able to find a few of those role players outside of the organization this summer, and there are a lot of possibilities too. Maybe not the really sexy names that make you swoon, but there are a lot of NHL veterans who can fill roles and make the team better over all. There's also nothing wrong with plugging holes on a short term basis until more permanent solutions are developed internally, acquired via trade, or coaxed to come here via free agency.
If we do finally decide to move on from some of our current group of defensemen I can't see how we wouldn't pick up some veterans on the blue line in ufa. We need stability back there. I don't care if they don't score a lot or are not offensive minded we need structure and guys who can play defense. I wouldn't commit long term but something in the 3-4 year deals would be fine but preferably we find someone for a 2 year to help stabilize the position until the young ones are ready. But I'm asking, please please Verbeek give us some competent defensemen!
-
3
-
-
44 minutes ago, perry_mvp said:
It can't be any softer than it is now. You can't get any softer than it is now. At least with OZ and Minty there is the offensive threat and at least OZ can skate like the wind and get back defensively. Benoit thinks he's Makar. Always rushes up ice, fumbles the puck, shoots 10 feet to either side of the goalie then coasts back and screens Gibson. The guy is useless. White is slow and soft, can't pass the puck. Sorry, I'll take my chances with 3 rookies and maybe even Luneau or even Hinds. Maybe it's just the frustration talking but I can't handle this defense anymore. If anyone besides Fowler and JD are back (Vaks will be injured) then I don't know what to say about Verbeek.
I know this defense is the worst. I'm ready to take the chance on the kids if it means we move on from these borderline nhl players. Even if we're soft at least the kids can grow, what do we accomplish keeping these guys together? Nothing.
-
4 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:
If Verbeek re-signs Shattenkirk for 3 x $3M, I'm going to have to put in my trade request to be traded to another fan base, because it will be clear at that point that Verbeek has no idea what he's doing.
100% thinking the same thing. That's a hard no from me as well. MAYBE, just maybe I would consider a one year deal for like 2 mil max.
I also don't think Dostal will be that much. I'm thinking something more like a 2x 1.8 is probably what's going to happen but I guess I could see a 3x2.5.
-
1
-
-
Gibson didn't have a great game imo. But it's also hard to put the blame solely on him. Besides Fowler (who also has had his share of bad games) the defense is terrible. I don't really care if we bring any of those other guys back honestly. Having our goaltenders face 40+ shots on a regular basis also wears them out faster so their overall play suffers. With better D we also defend better and help bring the sv% up. Each position is dependant on one another to be successful. Our goaltending is set, our overall forwards are much more set than we are at defense. We need a pretty big overhaul on defense. Also considering that two of our top 4 D got traded and one of them was absolutely bad were just that much worse. Klingberg wasn't working but now that he's gone we're just playing bottom pairing/7th D in his place (borderline nhl players). So somehow we've gone from bad to worse...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jasoaks said:
took me 7 tries to get #1 lol and most times we fell to 5th or 6th....sigh...
we do seem pretty solidified in the bottom 4...hopefully we can somehow make it to the bottom 2.... i mean, if Chicago wins tonight they do pass us in the standings.... 🤞🤞🤞
I hope we can drop to 3rd. I don't think we can go lower than that. But that'll greatly improve our odds of staying in the top 4. Either way we're not going to end up outside the top 4. We'd have to go on a bit of a run and Montreal loses out so I don't see that happening. What's going to be disappointing is if we end up 3rd and the 4th team actually wins the lottery lol.
-
1
-
Goal Differential
in Anaheim Ducks
Posted
He better be! Otherwise Verbeek is numbering his days here pretty fast.