General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

SpezDispenser wrote:I will guarantee Gonchar misses 30 games on his own. Maybe more like half the season. Beware!!

He will miss probably 10-15 I would think... Phillips has some tough miles on him... and someone will get injured, it's gonna happen as it always does. Just the way it is with defense in the NHL.

If you're a lefty and young, I would suggest trying to learn both sides of the ice as a defense man.

NEELY wrote:I would love to know the # of games a defensive group misses on average each year. You can pretty much bet it's 40 or more just on injuries let alone other factors that come into play.

Well I can tell you exactly how many games the Sens defence corps played/missed last year:

Cowen - 82 games played
Karlsson - 81 games played (1 game missed)
Phillips - 80 games played (2 game missed)
Gonchar - 74 games played (8 game missed)
Kuba - 73 games played (9 game missed)
Lee - 35 games played
Carkner - 29 games played
Rundblad - 24 games played
Gilroy - 14 games played
Borowiecki - 2 games played

So the Sens didn't really have a true #6 - they interchanged more for what the player brought instead of necessity. But none of the guys outside the top 5 played cose to 50 let alone 60. As you can see, the team used 10 defenceman at least twice.

Only players in the top 6 that really missed any time due to injury/personal were Karlsson (1), Phillips (2), Gonchar (8) and Kuba (9).

SpezDispenser wrote:I will guarantee Gonchar misses 30 games on his own. Maybe more like half the season. Beware!!

He missed 9 games this past season, so you figure he will miss >3X that number?

How did we make the playoffs with that defense....

SpezDispenser wrote:

Riprock wrote:

spader wrote:

Riprock wrote:

spader wrote:

Riprock wrote:If the #7 guy gets 50-60 games, isn't he then a top 6 and the other guy is a #7?

The other guy may well play more than 50-60 games. The #7 would be covering everyone's injuries, not just the #6.

Wouldn't that mean then the "#7" would fill in for an average of 10 games per defenceman? (6 regular d-men @ 10 games each assuming a #7 plays 60 games).

So we are assuming that each defenceman will miss 10 games each, or that 1 will miss 50-60, or two will miss a combined 50-60 (or 25-30 each), or three will miss ~20 each, or 4 will miss 15 each? That's an unhealthy defence.

I'm not assuming anything, I was just clarifying N4L's point. You seemed to assume that #7 was replacing #6 for those games, I was just saying that, in that scenario, the #7 would fill in throughout the ranks.

Small error on my part, but it still implies that a #7 defenceman who plays 50-60 games means, as a collective, the other 6 defenceman will miss 50-60 games.

The issue with that is the thought process that.The 7th guy can play both sides. Otherwise, I'd say it's in the ballpark.

I think for only a couple of games, they aren't going to fill a void with what side they are more comfortabel with as much as they are going to be concerned with replacing an offensive with offensive, or defensive with defensive.

Riprock wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I will guarantee Gonchar misses 30 games on his own. Maybe more like half the season. Beware!!

He missed 9 games this past season, so you figure he will miss >3X that number?

I'm nervous, yes. He's really old...

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:LOL it's like saying that your back-up goalie will play 50-60 games, which is what the average #1 plays.

Which raises the question: if your #2 plays more than your #1, is your #2 really your #1?

Do you listen to what you say sometimes or....? One goaltender starts, 2 on the team. 6 players are on defense every single night (in 99% of games) and they are hurt a lot more often or at least dinged up more than any other position in the game. There's a reason almost every team carries 7 guys, because 7 guys are needed.

Once again your logic is totally flawed in a big way.

Do you even know what logic is?

Also, you don't always have to be a Richard, this is the internet, we don't care what you are like in real life.

But you know what is an odd thing to assume? Is that your 7th defencman will play 50-60 games. I think I proved you wrong with the stats from last year. So maybe take your own advice and listen wo what you say before making absolute statements and dealing in hyperbole.

Riprock wrote:

NEELY wrote:I would love to know the # of games a defensive group misses on average each year. You can pretty much bet it's 40 or more just on injuries let alone other factors that come into play.

Well I can tell you exactly how many games the Sens defence corps played/missed last year:

Cowen - 82 games played
Karlsson - 81 games played (1 game missed)
Phillips - 80 games played (2 game missed)
Gonchar - 74 games played (8 game missed)
Kuba - 73 games played (9 game missed)
Lee - 35 games played
Carkner - 29 games played
Rundblad - 24 games played
Gilroy - 14 games played
Borowiecki - 2 games played

So the Sens didn't really have a true #6 - they interchanged more for what the player brought instead of necessity. But none of the guys outside the top 5 played cose to 50 let alone 60. As you can see, the team used 10 defenceman at least twice.

Only players in the top 6 that really missed any time due to injury/personal were Karlsson (1), Phillips (2), Gonchar (8) and Kuba (9).

So that's 20 games right there on injuries alone for 4 players. So we'll say 30 games in injuries missed on average just for the sake of argument. That's 30 games for your "#7" D man in the NHL. What if someones wife has a kid, healthy scratch, trade, death, etc.... Can pretty much bet there is another 20-30 games in there for that for some misc reasons.

Point being is being a #7 in the NHL is better than being a #2 in the AHL when you have outgrown the AHL like Borowiecki and maybe Gryba in this case as well.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Riprock wrote:If Sens don't get Nash, I would try hard to sign both Parenteau and Penner.

Not both IMO. One or the other, then let Silf or Z-Bad or Stone take the other spot. You have to let the kids have a chance.

Not if they aren't ready.

Riprock wrote:

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:LOL it's like saying that your back-up goalie will play 50-60 games, which is what the average #1 plays.

Which raises the question: if your #2 plays more than your #1, is your #2 really your #1?

Do you listen to what you say sometimes or....? One goaltender starts, 2 on the team. 6 players are on defense every single night (in 99% of games) and they are hurt a lot more often or at least dinged up more than any other position in the game. There's a reason almost every team carries 7 guys, because 7 guys are needed.

Once again your logic is totally flawed in a big way.

Do you even know what logic is?

Also, you don't always have to be a Richard, this is the internet, we don't care what you are like in real life.

But you know what is an odd thing to assume? Is that your 7th defencman will play 50-60 games. I think I proved you wrong with the stats from last year. So maybe take your own advice and listen wo what you say before making absolute statements and dealing in hyperbole.

LOL, WHAT? Are you kidding. You basically made my point for me. They had their top 4 guys play all but 20 games, the rest were spread out among other D men because of depth. This year they don't have it and will be a 7 man unit rotating in and out. Seriously, are you well?

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:

NEELY wrote:I would love to know the # of games a defensive group misses on average each year. You can pretty much bet it's 40 or more just on injuries let alone other factors that come into play.

Well I can tell you exactly how many games the Sens defence corps played/missed last year:

Cowen - 82 games played
Karlsson - 81 games played (1 game missed)
Phillips - 80 games played (2 game missed)
Gonchar - 74 games played (8 game missed)
Kuba - 73 games played (9 game missed)
Lee - 35 games played
Carkner - 29 games played
Rundblad - 24 games played
Gilroy - 14 games played
Borowiecki - 2 games played

So the Sens didn't really have a true #6 - they interchanged more for what the player brought instead of necessity. But none of the guys outside the top 5 played cose to 50 let alone 60. As you can see, the team used 10 defenceman at least twice.

Only players in the top 6 that really missed any time due to injury/personal were Karlsson (1), Phillips (2), Gonchar (8) and Kuba (9).

So that's 20 games right there on injuries alone for 4 players. So we'll say 30 games in injuries missed on average just for the sake of argument. That's 30 games for your "#7" D man in the NHL. What if someones wife has a kid, healthy scratch, trade, death, etc.... Can pretty much bet there is another 20-30 games in there for that for some misc reasons.

Point being is being a #7 in the NHL is better than being a #2 in the AHL when you have outgrown the AHL like Borowiecki and maybe Gryba in this case as well.

Except that the Sens used more than 7 defenceman, meaning that the guy scratched is not guaranteed to replace the injured player if he is a) not the same side, b) not the same type of player.

So anyways you said one guy would play 50-60, that was wrong. As you saw, not one player outside the top 5 played more than 35. 35<50. So Borowiecki might play 10-15 games. Is that still better than 82 in the AHL as a top 4?

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:LOL it's like saying that your back-up goalie will play 50-60 games, which is what the average #1 plays.

Which raises the question: if your #2 plays more than your #1, is your #2 really your #1?

Do you listen to what you say sometimes or....? One goaltender starts, 2 on the team. 6 players are on defense every single night (in 99% of games) and they are hurt a lot more often or at least dinged up more than any other position in the game. There's a reason almost every team carries 7 guys, because 7 guys are needed.

Once again your logic is totally flawed in a big way.

Do you even know what logic is?

Also, you don't always have to be a Richard, this is the internet, we don't care what you are like in real life.

But you know what is an odd thing to assume? Is that your 7th defencman will play 50-60 games. I think I proved you wrong with the stats from last year. So maybe take your own advice and listen wo what you say before making absolute statements and dealing in hyperbole.

LOL, WHAT? Are you kidding. You basically made my point for me. They had their top 4 guys play all but 20 games, the rest were spread out among other D men because of depth. This year they don't have it and will be a 7 man unit rotating in and out. Seriously, are you well?

What point did I make for you? You said the #7 will play 5-60 games. Show me where one #7 defenceman played at least 50 games with the Sens last year. Your point was Borowiecki would play 50-60 games as a #7. That is factually incorrect.

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:LOL it's like saying that your back-up goalie will play 50-60 games, which is what the average #1 plays.

Which raises the question: if your #2 plays more than your #1, is your #2 really your #1?

Do you listen to what you say sometimes or....? One goaltender starts, 2 on the team. 6 players are on defense every single night (in 99% of games) and they are hurt a lot more often or at least dinged up more than any other position in the game. There's a reason almost every team carries 7 guys, because 7 guys are needed.

Once again your logic is totally flawed in a big way.

Do you even know what logic is?

Also, you don't always have to be a Richard, this is the internet, we don't care what you are like in real life.

But you know what is an odd thing to assume? Is that your 7th defencman will play 50-60 games. I think I proved you wrong with the stats from last year. So maybe take your own advice and listen wo what you say before making absolute statements and dealing in hyperbole.

LOL, WHAT? Are you kidding. You basically made my point for me. They had their top 4 guys play all but 20 games, the rest were spread out among other D men because of depth. This year they don't have it and will be a 7 man unit rotating in and out. Seriously, are you well?

Oh and, you know for a fact they will only use 7 players? First of all, Sens don't have a full defence lineup under contarct. Second, you assume only one player plays 50-60 games and not 2 or 3 guys sharing the load.

I am fine thanks for asking, how are you?

shabbs wrote:Sens aren't meeting with Justin Schultz today... not sure if they plan to at all...

Well Senchirp said they were meeting with Schultz.. both Murrays. There was a business lunch with the Sens today and neither Murray was there. Dorion said they were huddled in a meeting on something big.... So Schultz or Nash.

As far as an extra D.. forget Nash.. throw everything at Yandle.

sandysensfan wrote:
Well Senchirp said they were meeting with Schultz.. both Murrays. There was a business lunch with the Sens today and neither Murray was there. Dorion said they were huddled in a meeting on something big.... So Schultz or Nash.

As far as an extra D.. forget Nash.. throw everything at Yandle.

Apparently the Murrays were seen at the dev camp at the Sensplex.

Ugh and no to Yandle, he'd come at way too high of a price, Maloney wants a #1C apparently.

Hoags wrote:

sandysensfan wrote:
Well Senchirp said they were meeting with Schultz.. both Murrays. There was a business lunch with the Sens today and neither Murray was there. Dorion said they were huddled in a meeting on something big.... So Schultz or Nash.

As far as an extra D.. forget Nash.. throw everything at Yandle.

Apparently the Murrays were seen at the dev camp at the Sensplex.

Ugh and no to Yandle, he'd come at way too high of a price, Maloney wants a #1C apparently.

Yes I realize that.. but they were not at a Sens luncheon when they were supposed to be. They could have met this morning or later today. After all the on-ice sessions start @ 1:30 or something like that, right?

Who said the Sens were not meeting with Schultz?

A #1 centre for Yandle... well forget that idea...

How about the year before with Brian Lee? Scratched 25 straight games or something and still managed to get into 50... pretty sure he was #7. Vancouver used an 8 man unit most of the year and Ballard and Rome got into over 40 each. Colin White was #7 last year, got into over 50.... I could go on and on but fact of the matter is almost every team in the NHL used a group of 7 on the blueline and the #7 guy always sees signifigant playing time.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about and you are trying to quanitify based on the injuries of 4 players on one single NHL team without taking into account anything else.

The "#7" guy will see a lot of playing time like every single team in every single year.