this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)

Montréal Canadiens

146 readers
1 users here now

Community of the Montréal Canadiens hockey club / Communauté du Canadien de Montréal.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I was quite impressed with the Dach/Slafkoský/Newhook line, and I think they deserve a fair shot together. Sure their defensive play needs to be tightened, but I think this could be something interesting.

What do you guys think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

They were doing really well. It's good to see slaf progressing, he's come a long way from his first couple games last year.

Now to just get the team to play a whole game more consistently. Our second period is always a struggle for some reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, the second period has been kryptonite for some time.

A quick change of subject: what did you think of pairing Guhle with Kovacevic, and Matheson with Savard?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I thought Matheson and Kovacevic had good games, but I didn't really see much from Savard and Guhle. Which is surprising because Guhle normally puts on a pretty good show. Or maybe wifi just stole all the spotlight that I didn't notice the rest of the defense.

It seemed a bit odd to have the pairings like that. You'd think they would pair older and younger d together to combine experience and energy. Having Matheson and Savard seems like the old man line.

What about you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I thought it was strange to pair Matheson and Savard together; not sure they should stay together for too long, but I can’t say they worked poorly together. But then again, it’s the first game of the season, so I might get proven wrong.

I think Guhle benefits from a mobile partner in general, but I am not convinced Kovacevic is the right person for him. We’ll have to wait and see.

load more comments (1 replies)