ELynah Forum

General Category => Hockey => Topic started by: Dpperk29 on January 14, 2006, 10:43:23 PM

Title: 6th defenseman
Post by: Dpperk29 on January 14, 2006, 10:43:23 PM
Who should be the 6th defenseman for the big red? Salmela, or glover?

honestly, I feel it should be salmela. The Kid is a solid skater, has a good shot, and jumps in the rush whenever he can.

however, glover is a great stay at home defender who can shut another team down...

what do other people think?
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: redhair34 on January 14, 2006, 10:45:20 PM
[quote Dpperk29]Who should be the 6th defenseman for the big red? Salmela, or glover?

honestly, I feel it should be salmela. The Kid is a solid skater, has a good shot, and jumps in the rush whenever he can.

however, glover is a great stay at home defender who can shut another team down...

what do other people think?[/quote]

I think the answer is neither...Glover isn't our 6th defenseman.  He's just been banged up--he's out of the lineup due to injuries, not because of play.  I'm guessing Krantz is probably our 6th defenseman.  Between Krantz and Salmela...I'm indifferent, maybe slight edge to Krantz.  Both have trouble turning over the puck and both have offensive skills. Krantz is very fast, and consequently he is a key penalty killer especially in 5X3 situations.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: Dpperk29 on January 14, 2006, 11:07:37 PM
glover was out of the lineup in late november/early december because he was playing miserably
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: redhair34 on January 15, 2006, 12:37:20 AM
[quote Dpperk29]glover was out of the lineup in late november/early december because he was playing miserably[/quote]

He was injured.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: Josh '99 on January 15, 2006, 07:09:43 PM
Perhaps if, as Dpperk29 suggests, Glover was playing terribly at that point, it was because he was injured?
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: Will on January 15, 2006, 07:29:39 PM
[quote jmh30]Perhaps if, as Dpperk29 suggests, Glover was playing terribly at that point, it was because he was injured?[/quote]

They you go, using logic to make a point.  We'll have none of that here! :-P
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: Ben Rocky '04 on January 15, 2006, 09:29:45 PM
I've been really impressed by Salmela, and I'd keep him around instead of Pokulok personally.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: Dpperk29 on January 16, 2006, 12:12:47 PM
ditto, though the coaching staff seems to think pokulok is wonderful...  ::screwy::
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: KeithK on January 16, 2006, 12:35:55 PM
[quote Dpperk29]ditto, though the coaching staff seems to think pokulok is wonderful...  ::screwy::[/quote]So does the NHL...
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: CowbellGuy on January 16, 2006, 12:44:50 PM
So do I. Or at least capable of great things. Salmela and Krantz, on the other hand, wouldn't know defense if it kicked them in the nuts.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: calgARI '07 on January 16, 2006, 12:48:49 PM
Glover is ahead of Krantz on the depth chart.  He got hurt on Friday night and thus didn't play on Saturday.  I like Salmela a lot but the first Princeton goal and ultimately the difference in the game was his missed assignment.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: KeithK on January 16, 2006, 12:52:51 PM
Definitely.  Pokulok is a 19 year old sophomore who has a load of talent.  Even though he makes some mistaks (and mistakes by a defenseman are often very obvious) he's still a quality player.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: Dafatone on January 16, 2006, 01:07:49 PM
Pokulok did look pretty good against Princeton up until the 2nd goal.  I haven't been particularly impressed with Salmela.  He's not big, he doesn't strike me as especially fast, and he seems to be out of position more often than I'd like.  On the other hand, Glover at least has some size going for him.  As to Krantz, he's improved from where he was at the beginning of the year, but I'm not sure that's really saying much.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: calgARI '07 on January 16, 2006, 07:28:23 PM
[quote Ben Rocky 04]I've been really impressed by Salmela, and I'd keep him around instead of Pokulok personally.[/quote]

Well Pokuluk had the best weekend of his Cornell career this past weekend and was the most dominant player on the ice against Quinnipiac.  I like Salmela but he was awful defensively against Princeton and was the one who missed his assignment on the decisive Princeton first goal.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: DeltaOne81 on January 16, 2006, 10:00:38 PM
[quote calgARI '07]...was the one who missed his assignment on the decisive Princeton first goal.[/quote]

He was supposed to be covering Gleed??  ::laugh::
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: calgARI '07 on January 17, 2006, 01:21:09 PM
[quote DeltaOne81][quote calgARI '07]...was the one who missed his assignment on the decisive Princeton first goal.[/quote]

He was supposed to be covering Gleed??  ::laugh::[/quote]

No, he lost the race to the puck because he wasn't skating his hardest because he didn't think anyone was coming.  The guy should never have even touched the puck.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: duffs4 on January 17, 2006, 01:57:17 PM
I didn't see the Princton game, who's defensive lapse caused the second goal?
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: Avash on January 17, 2006, 02:51:27 PM
[quote duffs4]I didn't see the Princton game, who's defensive lapse caused the second goal?[/quote]

It was a defensive lapse by Pokulok (who then remained on the bench for the rest of the game).
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: nr53 on January 17, 2006, 02:54:38 PM
no, it was an offensive lapse. bobbled the puck at the blue line and got beat by the princeton guy down the ice.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: Josh '99 on January 17, 2006, 04:29:34 PM
[quote calgARI '07]No, he lost the race to the puck because he wasn't skating his hardest because he didn't think anyone was coming.  The guy should never have even touched the puck.[/quote]While that may be the case, it seems a bit unfair to squarely place blame for that goal on anyone.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: Ben Rocky '04 on January 18, 2006, 09:01:50 AM
Pokulok should have taken him down: he had his stick around him, they were in contact, he just couldn't finish dropping him.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: Dafatone on January 18, 2006, 12:15:51 PM
Had Pokulok taken him down, it would've been a penalty.

There were just over 4 minutes left, we were down one goal.  This would (barring a shorthanded goal) effectively cut in half the amount of time we had left to tie the game up.  I thought letting the man go was a better move, and hoping McKee could come up with a miracle save.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: calgARI '07 on January 19, 2006, 01:25:23 AM
McKee has really struggled with breakaways this year (hold the shootout in Estero) even since he has gotten his game back.
Title: Doug Krantz
Post by: LRT on January 19, 2006, 02:14:45 AM
Just wondering how Doug Krantz is doing
so far this season.....Can anyone share
their observations? Thanks

:-D
Title: Re: Doug Krantz
Post by: calgARI '07 on January 19, 2006, 07:50:43 AM
[quote LRT]Just wondering how Doug Krantz is doing
so far this season.....Can anyone share
their observations? Thanks

:-D[/quote]

He was Cornell's worst player for about a month earlier in the season when his ice time and responsibility were increased with the injuries of Gleed and Glover.  With Gleed coming back and Pokuluk's re-emergence, Krantz has seen a lot less ice time and responsibility so he's been better of late.  Unfortunately, he appears to be more of a career third pair defenseman at best rather than a second pair guy.  He just doesn't have the hockey sense or intensity to do any more, IMO.
Title: Re: 6th defenseman
Post by: ugarte on January 21, 2006, 04:37:40 PM
[quote Dafatone]Had Pokulok taken [G-Z] down, it would've been a penalty.[/quote]Maybe even a penalty shot. So why don't we just assume that Pokulok did take him down, and then Princeton scored on the penalty shot.