BrooksBurner

Yup. Gallant never got this Lafreniere. If he did, he wouldn't have been moving him around. Every time these debates come up, people only look at the players who took a step forward this year to discredit Gallant, and brush aside the ones who weren't as good as they were under Gallant. It's an agenda.

Is this because I didn't return your call? I'm not interested

That's low. He has 16 goals in his last 27 playoff games.

In case you bunch of unthankful ingrates forgot how clutch Kreider is in big games:

Panarin 6 points in 10 games

i was looking for one. Why is it in the off the ice bar room delete this thread

https://bracketchallenge.nhl.com/en/leagues/53032 pw: bsbh2024

The Rangers should be a popular team to pick/bet against, but not against the Capitals. They are trying too hard to be edgy

@The Dude right now:

Chytil should be a great fit for that line. He has an excellent shot, and he also has no issues carrying the puck or dumping and going in deep after it, cycling. Underrated playmaker too.

If Rempe is in the opening lineup and can do enough to get Wilson suckered into fighting, that would be a great exchange. For one, Wilson is one of the guys who can establish the tone of a game and be disruptive for the Caps. For two, any 4 on 4 situation is extremely favorable for the Rangers.

He's gotta be ready to play. There's no reason for him to be taking those kinds of reps from others who are going to be playing...unless he's going to be playing.

Despite the subjectivity, the track record of correlation between expected goals and playoff participants and Cup winners is very strong (as far as expected goals from transparent data sources). There’s other factors, but nothing as strongly as that of which I am aware. Special teams dominance on both ends of the ice for example might show favoritism towards winning teams, but it hasn’t correlated with being a necessity. 5v5 play pretty much has until it shows out otherwise. If there’s one source that deviates heavily from the others, I’d be leery of that source and how they are getting what they are getting. Might be bias or questionable methodology. It could also be they are innovative and ahead of the curve, but there’s nothing that suggests the other sources have been errant.