Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
gocanes0506

In Season 2017-18 Talk

Recommended Posts

top and super_dave, I see both of your points and I think both of you are correct. From my vantage, I just have to wonder how Faulk appears to have convinced BP/RF that he was not only the heir apparent to Hainsey's leadership role, but that he deserved the C? Surely they have had to recognize the All Star designation was more "smoke and mirrors" than truly deserving, except when the bar is low I suppose , you've got to have at least one player off the team elected? 

 

I wonder if the miscalculation was 2 fold, overestimating Faulk's defensive growth, which obviously sagged if anything, and thinking Pesce/Slavin were further along than they've shown this year?

 

But I agree with both of you that a gritty grey beard could make all the difference,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is shocking how so many of the Canes players regressed this year.  Especially the defense.  

 

And  s what happened to Skinner.  He scored almost 10 goals in the first month.  Hasn’t done much since.  He was the only player that could score in October.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, iceman11 said:

it is shocking how so many of the Canes players regressed this year.  Especially the defense.  

 

And  s what happened to Skinner.  He scored almost 10 goals in the first month.  Hasn’t done much since.  He was the only player that could score in October.

 

Skinner is like a defective hologram. Blasts in for a time then fades and disappears , only to have short spurts ocassionally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, super_dave_1 said:

The GM didn't replace the Hainsey (gray beard) influence and the team ended up with a defensive unit with no captain and no tiller.

I agree with this, but I think where we disagree is more nuanced, and not a case of semantics.

 

The awarding of the C is proof that, for better or worse (and it unquestionably proved worse) RF and/or BP decided that it was time for Faulk to assume the role he had been groomed for over the past six years: Leading the D-corps. It was a boneheaded decision; Faulk has never shown leadership qualities (unless one counts scoring goals alone, which I do not). But if he had seized that role, I doubt there'd be any hand-wringing over Hainsey's departure.

 

The (only) good news that came of it is that now we know for sure: Faulk is not a leader. 

 

Edited by top-shelf-1
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defense does seem to have regressed based on the eye test.  But last I checked, the Canes led the NHL in fewest shots against, which is a very good thing. Who gets credit for that, the players or the system (coaches)?  Or is that potentially misleading, in that a high proportion of the shots we are giving up are of the "high risk" variety?  I'd love to see some stats on high risk shots (although,we've had more than our share of goals on shots that weren't high risk at all :P).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

So Slavin, Pesce, Hanifin, and Fleury are off the hook just because of Faulk? Weakest argument I’ve ever heard.

Hanifin sure isn't, because he's sucked too.

 

Slavin and Pesce on their worst nights are still far better than Faulk and Noah on their best ones. And based on both the eyeball test and the numbers, Fleury had a far better rookie season than the highly touted Noah.

 

Let me ask you this, PK: How long should we have waited for Faulk to be the leader he's been groomed to be? How many more (undeserved) All-Star appearances before he was asked to lead? How many more 24-minute nights, before some accountability accompanies all those minutes, let alone the minuses he has to show for them?

 

Faulk had the chance to be an on-ice leader this year. Instead he's putting up career-worst numbers. His 63 giveaways already exceed his previous high of 50 for an entire season, and this season isn't over yet. Hanifin's a turnover machine too: 49 so far, so he should have no problem exceeding last year's total of 53. That's 116 giveaways between two D.

 

Care to guess the total giveaways of the other four D combined? 101.

 

But keep defending Faulk. There is none so blind as he who will not see. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do those stats come from, top, just curious? These validate my "eye test", as I see at least 1/2 dozen by Faulk every game I go to, which is all home games. I guess we tend to minimize it as in away games, you cannot always focus on him like you can when you are at the arena? I mean, he seems to be holding his own, then some boneheaded play results in either a Grade A scoring chance, or a goal. Postgame, with his disarming smile, he then effectively shrugs it off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Hanifin sure isn't, because he's sucked too.

 

Slavin and Pesce on their worst nights are still far better than Faulk and Noah on their best ones. And based on both the eyeball test and the numbers, Fleury had a far better rookie season than the highly touted Noah.

 

Let me ask you this, PK: How long should we have waited for Faulk to be the leader he's been groomed to be? How many more (undeserved) All-Star appearances before he was asked to lead? How many more 24-minute nights, before some accountability accompanies all those minutes, let alone the minuses he has to show for them?

 

Faulk had the chance to be an on-ice leader this year. Instead he's putting up career-worst numbers. His 63 giveaways already exceed his previous high of 50 for an entire season, and this season isn't over yet. Hanifin's a turnover machine too: 49 so far, so he should have no problem exceeding last year's total of 53. That's 116 giveaways between two D.

 

Care to guess the total giveaways of the other four D combined? 101.

 

But keep defending Faulk. There is none so blind as he who will not see. 

 

Faulk is not a great defender, I’ve never disputed that.  But his blunders don’t excuse Slavin and Pesce’s poor play for the majority of the season.  And despite his faults, Faulk’s not the sole reason this team has missed the playoffs.  If that’s me being a Faulk apologist then so be it, but I call that just common sense.  

 

You aren’t holding anybody else accountable, which is complete bias. Faulk’s probably not going to be back next season, and I’ll be interested to see who else you zero in on all year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

You aren’t holding anybody else accountable, which is complete bias. 

Show me where I'm not. I've acknowledged plenty that Slavin and Pesce have regressed. But it's not bias to point out facts, the most salient of which in this conversation is that they are still lightyears ahead of Faulk and Hanifin. Bias is ignoring facts, and you're ignoring why Slavin and Pesce have regressed: they've been increasingly paired with - guess who - Hanifin and Faulk, in an effort to mitigate their combined haplessness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

Faulk’s not the sole reason this team has missed the playoffs.

And while you're at it, show me where I said this, too.

 

Meanwhile, you're all over accountability when it's about Rask, Skinner, and others--but not Justin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Show me where I'm not. I've acknowledged plenty that Slavin and Pesce have regressed. But it's not bias to point out facts, the most salient of which in this conversation is that they are still lightyears ahead of Faulk and Hanifin. Bias is ignoring facts, and you're ignoring why Slavin and Pesce have regressed: they've been increasingly paired with - guess who - Hanifin and Faulk, in an effort to mitigate their combined haplessness.

 

So who’s fault was it when they were struggling earlier this year when they were paired together?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, top-shelf-1 said:

And while you're at it, show me where I said this, too.

 

Meanwhile, you're all over accountability when it's about Rask, Skinner, and others--but not Justin.

 

I hold everybody accountable, but every post of yours revolves around Faulk.  Don’t you ever get tired of talking about him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PenaltyKiller17 said:

So who’s fault was it when they were struggling earlier this year when they were paired together?

They're in their third year. And their occasional struggles still come nowhere close to those of the seven-year four-time All-Star. What's Faulk's excuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

 

I hold everybody accountable, but every post of yours revolves around Faulk.  Don’t you ever get tired of talking about him?

Another out-and-out falsehood. You're getting really good at it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, top-shelf-1 said:

They're in their third year. And their occasional struggles still come nowhere close to those of the seven-year four-time All-Star. What's Faulk's excuse?

 

So when they’re paired with Faulk is on Faulk, but when they’re paired together it’s because of youth and inexperience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

 

So when they’re paired with Faulk is on Faulk, but when they’re paired together it’s because of youth and inexperience?

No, IMO they're having the sophomore slump that most here were amazed they did not have last year. Yet you still ignore how incredibly good they still are, waaaay more often than not. What's your point in trying to knock down the players who have bought in? Whose play, even when lacking, is still not even close to the dumpster fire that is Justin Faulk's??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

No, IMO they're having the sophomore slump that most here were amazed they did not have last year. Yet you still ignore how incredibly good they still are, waaaay more often than not. What's your point in trying to knock down the players who have bought in? Whose play, even when lacking, is still not even close to the dumpster fire that is Justin Faulk's??

 

I don’t ignore how incredible they are.  In fact, I generally agree with you about the sophomore slump.  I’d even go so far as to call Pesce my favorite player, even though I don’t like claiming favorites.  You might be ignoring how Faulk is still in the top ten goal scorers in dmen since his tenure here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

IMO, this year's D suck has everything to do Faulk not showing up as the leader which (I believe) he has long been groomed to become, and not one thing to do with Hainsey's absence. 

 

For what it’s worth, this statement is where I got the sense that you blame Faulk for the D being bad.  Maybe you didn’t mean for it to, but you see how I can draw that conclusion?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PenaltyKiller17 said:

 

For what it’s worth, this statement is where I got the sense that you blame Faulk for the D being bad.  Maybe you didn’t mean for it to, but you see how I can draw that conclusion?

But that's not what you claimed I said, PK. You said I blamed Faulk for this team missing the playoffs, which I never have, nor do I believe. You can check my posts; I've repeatedly said hockey is a team game. I've lately come around to trading Rask, who has been a major disappointment. I'm also seeing more value in moving Skinner than keeping him at this point, just so we can shed those who have been here for the duration of the losing culture.

 

And I've also said that Faulk can play great D, because I've seen him do it. What's bewildering to me is that he chooses not to. He is another mainstay of the losing culture and as such, should be moved out too. 

 

As for the D sucking, yes--I do believe both units, D and O, need leadership to succeed, and that Justin's failure to step up is the larger part of its regression this year. This whole conversation was prompted by pining for the fjords er, Ron Hainsey's leadership. His departure created a hole, and the org called on Justin to fill it. If he'd seized the opportunity, nobody'd be missing Ron. Faulk knew what it took, having watched Hainsey do it for four years. Instead he's been awful, forcing BP put him with Slavin to try to lessen the impact.

 

So yeah, I think that this year's D suck is entirely about Justin not showing up--as a leader, a D-man, or an offensive force.    

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2018 at 7:11 PM, top-shelf-1 said:

But that's not what you claimed I said, PK. You said I blamed Faulk for this team missing the playoffs, which I never have, nor do I believe. You can check my posts; I've repeatedly said hockey is a team game. I've lately come around to trading Rask, who has been a major disappointment. I'm also seeing more value in moving Skinner than keeping him at this point, just so we can shed those who have been here for the duration of the losing culture.

 

And I've also said that Faulk can play great D, because I've seen him do it. What's bewildering to me is that he chooses not to. He is another mainstay of the losing culture and as such, should be moved out too. 

 

As for the D sucking, yes--I do believe both units, D and O, need leadership to succeed, and that Justin's failure to step up is the larger part of its regression this year. This whole conversation was prompted by pining for the fjords er, Ron Hainsey's leadership. His departure created a hole, and the org called on Justin to fill it. If he'd seized the opportunity, nobody'd be missing Ron. Faulk knew what it took, having watched Hainsey do it for four years. Instead he's been awful, forcing BP put him with Slavin to try to lessen the impact.

 

So yeah, I think that this year's D suck is entirely about Justin not showing up--as a leader, a D-man, or an offensive force.    

 

I did mean to clarify about the Faulk being the reason we’ve missed the playoffs, that was just a general statement, not particularly aimed at anything you said.  As I’ve stated before, I’ve never been anti-trading of Faulk, it would have to address a need.  Some people here would trade him for anything.  But we have multiple needs, and I don’t think trading Faulk would get us out of our playoff-less streak, unless it’s for either a 1C or All Star goalie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...