Emile Poirier

[jjgallow]

Word is that Poirier started off terribly, playing like an offense-first skill player and being pretty selfish with the puck. His 4-point game may be one of the worst 4-point games you'll see out of the Q this year. But he's apparently turning it around and returning back to where he should be, a pesky player that adds offense, hits hard and skates harder.

 

We don't need him to be an offensive dynamo. We need him to be the kind of player that drives play up ice and commits to being solid and physical in all 3 zones. Maybe he got a slightly big head for a few games, I dunno, but he needs to be the player from last year's playoffs Emile Poirier, and not the 22nd overall pick Emile Poirier.

 

Are we sure we don't want him to be an offensive dynamo?  We have a LOT of bottom-6 forwards.

 

I obviously didn't see the game, but judging from the stats (sorry), you surely wouldn't know he was selfish:

http://theqmjhl.ca/schedule/show/game/64699

 

He was a +2, he only took 2 shots on net (scoring both times), and had 2 assists (maybe selfish assists?)

 

His 2nd goal was scored shorthanded, killing a penalty.  So if I understand correctly, it didn't even count towards his plus/minus.

 

To top it all off, he got in a fight.

 

I know stats are just stats, but....

[Lucid_Flame91]

Emile Poirier carried the momentum of being named the QMJHL First Star last week into this week, posting five points in three games. The winger leads the Olympiques in scoring, points-per-game (1.70) and shots (41). The Flames selected the winger 22nd overall in the 2013 NHL Draft.

 

9 Goals 8 Assists 17 Points in 10 GP +5

[Crzydrvr]

A

re we sure we don't want him to be an offensive dynamo?  We have a LOT of bottom-6 forwards.

 

I obviously didn't see the game, but judging from the stats (sorry), you surely wouldn't know he was selfish:

http://theqmjhl.ca/schedule/show/game/64699

 

He was a +2, he only took 2 shots on net (scoring both times), and had 2 assists (maybe selfish assists?)

 

His 2nd goal was scored shorthanded, killing a penalty.  So if I understand correctly, it didn't even count towards his plus/minus.

 

To top it all off, he got in a fight.

 

I know stats are just stats, but....I never said he was being an offensive dynamo (although I guess you could say that if you look at his stats....), I simply said he was being an offense-first player.

 

Don't get me wrong, we need more top line skill, but not in the Phil Kessel circa 2009 mold. If he can provide offense, great. But not if it means he's going to ignore every other facet of the game.

 

What we need more than top-end skill is an identity and players who will buy into that team game. Not selfish players who look for breakouts and skate up the ice before the puck is even fully under control. He needs to be the kind of player that can play within our current system and mantra while still contributing on the scoresheet.

 

I'm glad Poirier has turned it around, I'm just casting my $0.02 on his earlier play.

[jjgallow]

Oh for sure, we don't need selfish players.

 

I gotta be honest...if he turns into a Phil Kessel, I would be plenty happy with that

 

After we traded him, that is.

 

On the dangers of getting a Phil Kessel with a late first-round pick:

 

Boston drafts Kessel.  Boston trades Kessel for a boatload of high-end first-round picks, including Seguin.

 

Boston wins cup, and is more competitive than ever, with a ton of elite prospects.

 

IMHO, we need him to be both.    And if we had to choose one, it would be offense, but only for trade value.

[Crzydrvr]

Oh for sure, we don't need selfish players.

 

I gotta be honest...if he turns into a Phil Kessel, I would be plenty happy with that

 

After we traded him, that is.

 

On the dangers of getting a Phil Kessel with a late first-round pick:

 

Boston drafts Kessel.  Boston trades Kessel for a boatload of high-end first-round picks, including Seguin.

 

Boston wins cup, and is more competitive than ever, with a ton of elite prospects.

 

IMHO, we need him to be both.    And if we had to choose one, it would be offense, but only for trade value.

 

Problem is he won't be Phil Kessel. Those early Kessel years were marked by him getting by on natural talent alone, which still got him 30 goals a year.

 

Poirier doesn't have that same knack for scoring goals. If he plays selfishly, we're looking at a one-dimensional 20 goal scorer. I don't think that kind of play will get any value whatsoever on the market (hell, there were two available for free in the Kostitsyn brothers and no one thought they were worth the money).

 

I'd rather have him playing in a Glencross role if that's the case. Those type of players win games when it counts. And they have more value in a trade if required. Every contending team is looking for a capable depth winger who can play physical.

[jjgallow]

Problem is he won't be Phil Kessel. Those early Kessel years were marked by him getting by on natural talent alone, which still got him 30 goals a year.

 

 

 

Problem is he won't be Phil Kessel. Those early Kessel years were marked by him getting by on natural talent alone, which still got him 30 goals a year.

 

Poirier doesn't have that same knack for scoring goals.

 

I agree, and that's why I felt it was a poor draft selection right from the start.  Not nearly a high-enough ceiling for  a player of Jay Bouwmeester's caliber, when we're assuming all the risk.

 

But if he should shoot the lights out this year in junior, then...quite by accident, I may disagree with this a little less.   All of Feaster's best moves were accidental blunders.  Acquiring Baertschi because Feaster didn't get who he wanted.   Acquiring Monahan because Feaster couldn't get the guy he wanted (and he was gonna throw in Poirier to get him too).   

 

If poirier were to accidentally have a higher ceiling than we think....that's okay with me.

 

 

If he plays selfishly, we're looking at a one-dimensional 20 goal scorer. I don't think that kind of play will get any value whatsoever on the market (hell, there were two available for free in the Kostitsyn brothers and no one thought they were worth the money).

 

I agree.  That is a reasonable projection.  However, every projection has a range.  And if Poirer keeps scoring like this (I don't think he will).....his ceiling goes way up.   His ceiling becomes a 1st or 2nd line winger.  The 10% chance of that happening, would justify the Bouwmeester trade, imho.   And, the fact that trading Bouwmeester likely landed us in the position where we got Monahan.  And possibly someone this year as well.

 

I'd rather have him playing in a Glencross role if that's the case. Those type of players win games when it counts. And they have more value in a trade if required. Every contending team is looking for a capable depth winger who can play physical.

 

Glencross would be great.  But at this stage in a first-round pick's career, their ceiling should be higher than Glencross.  Maybe not their projection (the outcome if their current development pace continues)...but their ceiling, imho, should be higher.

 

Glencross did not take a normal development path, but make no mistake, he was a deadlly offensive threat at the same age.   When he was in the AHL, he was well over a point per game before he graduated to the NHL.  And on pace to be a 50-goal scorer.

 

Glencross, too, at this time, had a higher ceiling than what he developed into.   Glencross also went through a selfish period.

 

Honestly, if Poirer is to become a Glencross-type player, he needs to be both at the junior level:  An offensive dynamo, and defensively responsible.  Of the two, the offense is harder to teach.  No two ways about it.

 

Poirier doesn't have that same knack for scoring goals. If he plays selfishly, we're looking at a one-dimensional 20 goal scorer. I don't think that kind of play will get any value whatsoever on the market (hell, there were two available for free in the Kostitsyn brothers and no one thought they were worth the money).

 

He needs to have the same nack for scoring goals, at least in junior, or it was a wasted pick, imho.

 

there are too many bottom - 6 two-ways available for little or nothing, on the open market.

 

Even Glencross went undrafted, and there are always many like him on the free agent market.  Even when he did make the NHL, he was later traded for a 7th round pick.

 

We, in fact, acquired Glencross on the free agent market, and continued to develop him into the core player he is now.

 

For Bouwmeester, I expect more upside than what can be acquired at any point in time on the free agent market, on waivers, or through minor-league trades.   The next Glencross is out there, in the AHL, in College, or toiling for some team on their 4th line right now.    Poirier's shaping up to be more than that, early on.  Good.  I hope he keeps it up.

 

I'd rather have him playing in a Glencross role if that's the case. Those type of players win games when it counts. And they have more value in a trade if required. Every contending team is looking for a capable depth winger who can play physical.

 

I would be happy with this.  But at this stage in his development, he should be shooting higher.  And it seems that he is.  So, I'm pleasantly surprised.

[Redslinger]

^ I think you are over-estimating the calibre of players available at the middle and end of the first round.  Some turn out to be high octane offensive players but most end up on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th line or even not making it.

 

Some of the forwards taken in the last 3rd of the first round (20-30 overall) since the 2005 lockout:

2006- Giroux, Berglund, Foligno

2007- Esposito, Riley Nash, Pacioretty, Backlund, White, Perron, O'Brien

2008- Tedenby, Nemisz, Ennis, Tikhonov, Leveille, Eberle, Gustafsson

2009- Josefson, Schroder, Johanson, Caron, Palmieri, Paradis, Ashton

 

Besides a couple of outliers like Giroux and Eberle, most of these guys are not front end players.  The ones that have stuck in the NHL haven't been Kessel-like.  If Pourier can end up being as good as Berglund, Perron or White I'd be satisfied.  If he somehow develops into a Giroux or Eberle we should consider ourselves lucky, rather than expecting it to happen.

[PokernHockey]

I agree, and that's why I felt it was a poor draft selection right from the start.  Not nearly a high-enough ceiling for  a player of Jay Bouwmeester's caliber, when we're assuming all the risk.

 

But if he should shoot the lights out this year in junior, then...quite by accident, I may disagree with this a little less.   All of Feaster's best moves were accidental blunders.  Acquiring Baertschi because Feaster didn't get who he wanted.   Acquiring Monahan because Feaster couldn't get the guy he wanted (and he was gonna throw in Poirier to get him too).   

 

If poirier were to accidentally have a higher ceiling than we think....that's okay with me.

 

I agree.  That is a reasonable projection.  However, every projection has a range.  And if Poirer keeps scoring like this (I don't think he will).....his ceiling goes way up.   His ceiling becomes a 1st or 2nd line winger.  The 10% chance of that happening, would justify the Bouwmeester trade, imho.   And, the fact that trading Bouwmeester likely landed us in the position where we got Monahan.  And possibly someone this year as well.

 

In 2005 I am sure that The Ducks wanted Crosby, but they "accidentally" got Bobby Ryan instead. The fact that the Flames wanted Mackinnon does not mean that they just picked Monahan at random. Infact, 28 other teams wanted makinnon, did Nashville "accidentally" get Jones as well since he was available at 4th? The same goes with getting Baer. Yeah, sure he wasn't the first choice. But when your halfway through the first round if you do get your first choice of guys who you think could still be there your either incredibly lucky, or not setting your sights high enough since every year their are guys who fall. I can't possibly assume you are stupid enough to believe that Feaster wanted 1 guy, and when he couldn't get him he threw darts and managed to get 2 OK prospects in Monahan and Baer.

 

When we traded Bouwmester to the Blues everyone though that the Blues would be fighting for a low playoff position. Even the blues wanted a caveat in the trade that if they miss the playoffs it became a first round pick next year! Are you seriously going to fault the flames for the pick ending up 4-5+ spots later then everyone expected? Or do your omnipotent scouting skills also extend to team draft rankings?

 

Even Glencross went undrafted, and there are always many like him on the free agent market.  Even when he did make the NHL, he was later traded for a 7th round pick.

 

We, in fact, acquired Glencross on the free agent market, and continued to develop him into the core player he is now.

 

For Bouwmeester, I expect more upside than what can be acquired at any point in time on the free agent market, on waivers, or through minor-league trades.   The next Glencross is out there, in the AHL, in College, or toiling for some team on their 4th line right now.    Poirier's shaping up to be more than that, early on.  Good.  I hope he keeps it up.

 

Yeah sure, we got him in FA, just like we let Martin St. Louis go. It happens that prospects are late bloomers/released by their teams and then a fresh start allows them to get to a new level. But if it is as easy as you say to get a Glencross on the FA Market or minor league trades, why is it that most people think he is one of if not the most in demand player from the flames roster? It seems to me that teams do not clamour to give up assets for those that they can get very easily without giving anything up.

 

Its just like the guys who say @#$!!! why didn't the flames get all of the good free agents. Some team signed them for $X! There are outside factors including 29 other teams that are also trying to find these players. it isn't as simple as being the first team to offer X dollars or whatever.

 

Can you name 5 guys who you feel your statement applies to (aka the same type of player as glenncross, who was undrafted / traded for a 7th round pick, that fills the same position on the roster) that you would be comfortable trading him straight up for or with minor sweeteners (5th round or later/career minor leaguer/ 13th forward type of sweetener)? Because unless you can name 30, its not as easy as your flippant statement is meant to imply.

[jjgallow]

Can you name 5 guys who you feel your statement applies to (aka the same type of player as glenncross, who was undrafted / traded for a 7th round pick, that fills the same position on the roster) that you would be comfortable trading him straight up for or with minor sweeteners (5th round or later/career minor leaguer/ 13th forward type of sweetener)? Because unless you can name 30, its not as easy as your flippant statement is meant to imply.

 

 

wow, a lot of responses lol....I love how we spent most of the summer talking about Keegan Kanzing, and we're just now debating our first draft picks

 

That is, of course, when we're not debating Joe Colbourne...

 

There is too much written for me to reply to everything, so I'll just quickly take you up on your challenge.   And I could name 30, but let's start with 5.    I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this...do you want established examples, or players that I think we should acquire right now?   I'll go with established:

 

Wayne Gretzky    - undrafted

 

okay I won't count him in the 5:

 

Martin St. Louis

Chris Kunitz

Andy McDonald

Tyler Bozak

Dan Boyle

 

 

or....do you want more recent ones?   Or you want who I think we should acquire now?

 

Because I do a lot of all of that on this forum.

 

The last guy I really, really pushed for was Cory Conacher.  Who is having a slow start to his year, but is developing into a great NHLer.  And no, we can't have him for free anymore.  But there was a time.

 

Mark Arcobello is shaping up to be another one.  He's not free either anymore, though.

 

Or do you want to know who I would acquire now?  Because typically these signings are made in March/April.

 

Most of the guys I've suggested on other threads have since become of some value, so you're kind of putting a shotgun to my head if you want a guy this instant who's worthless, yet has potential.   I'll give you some anyway:

 

Alexander Gogolyov,

 

Rhyse Dieno,

 

Alessio Bertagia,

 

Brady Brassart,

 

Alexander Kadeykin

 

All of them worth looking at, all undrafted.   If you're willing to give up a 5th rounder, or take on a free agent NHLer, the caliber goes up considerably.  Probably half of the Flames roster were, at one time, acquired this way or some similar way.

 

Most notably our captain.

[PokernHockey]

So your saying that Martin St Louis, Chris Kunitz, Andy Macdonald, Tyler Bozak,and Dan Boyle all play the same type of game as Glencross who you would be comfortable slotting into the roster spot Glencross currently occupies?  You and I clearly have a different opinion of what Martin St. Louis brings to the table, and Andy MacDonalds Scoring (and wing playing) abilities.

 

Because that is what I asked. Sure, you can definitely name 30 players who were un-drafted, but that is not what I asked, since that is not relevant. You said/implied that these guys are easy to get undrafted. If that is the case, you should be able to name 30 "glencross's" Who also were Undrafted or traded for a 7th round pick and play the same game/same position/etc, at the very least you should be able to name 5 players who CURRENTLY slot in that role. Not players who at one point might have, or who might in the future.

 

Sure the NHL is littered with players playing all positions, throughout depth charts around the league who that story applies to, but most 2nd/3rd line wingers most definitely do not come about that way. Heck, in almost every year there are a handful or more of first round draftees who are never expected to amount to anything more then a 3rd line player.

 

Gretzky, I agree with. I think both side make that trade every time its offered.

 

Of course by extension, since your stating in other threads that Monohan could become a first line center, and through this argument...

 

Even Glencross went undrafted, and there are always many like him on the free agent market.  Even when he did make the NHL, he was later traded for a 7th round pick.

 

We, in fact, acquired Glencross on the free agent market, and continued to develop him into the core player he is now.

 

For Bouwmeester, I expect more upside than what can be acquired at any point in time on the free agent market, on waivers, or through minor-league trades.   The next Glencross is out there, in the AHL, in College, or toiling for some team on their 4th line right now.    Poirier's shaping up to be more than that, early on.  Good.  I hope he keeps it up.

 

...you have just made the argument that we should not have drafted Monohan with the 6th overall pick because we could have easily gotten a gretzky without drafting him to the NHL to play first line center. I wonder how McDavid feels about indentured servitude contracts?

[jjgallow]

...you have just made the argument that we should not have drafted Monohan with the 6th overall pick because we could have easily gotten a gretzky without drafting him to the NHL to play first line center. I wonder how McDavid feels about indentured servitude contracts?

 

yes, Pokern, you've nailed it.

 

That is precisely what I was trying to say....

[JDH11]

Hate to say it, but I would be happy to see Poirier develop into another Alex Burrows. Perhaps minus the biting.

 

 

And just a note on a comment from a previous page, the plus-minus stat counts for goals scored during even-strength and shorthanded situations. So it's only powerplay goals that don't count.

[travel_dude]

I agree, and that's why I felt it was a poor draft selection right from the start.  Not nearly a high-enough ceiling for  a player of Jay Bouwmeester's caliber, when we're assuming all the risk.

 

I have to back up a moment to this.  The trade included other pieces that you are not mentioning, bringing the total value to be a potential 2-3rd line winger, a 2-3rd pairing defense, and a possible starting goalie.  Not bad for a player that would have been solid during the rebuild, but will be past shelf life when we are competetive again.  Or at least was not in the long term plan of the team.

 

The interesting thing about the trade was, had St.Lou not made the playoffs (had they not won the last 3 games) we would have had a 1st round pick in 2014 and a 4th rounder in 2013.  Hmmmmmmm.

 

Getting back to Poirier for a minute.  He played well when he was here.  This year he will score lots of goals, because in the Q, that what you do.  He will probably play 9+ games here next year and develop his defensive game to match the Calgary system.  It won't hurt for us to have a sniper on the team, though. 

[jjgallow]

I have to back up a moment to this.  The trade included other pieces ....

 

Ugh....I have heard this defense so many times to so many of Feaster's trades.  

 

Trade high quality for lots, and lots, and lots of low quality.   

 

 

Moving on, though....Poirier continues to dissapoint with 14 points in October over 7 games:

http://theqmjhl.ca/roster/show/id/8455

 

Averaging 2 points per game in both September and October.

 

How, on earth, is he supposed to fulfill his destiny as a bottom 6 defensive forward, if he keeps playing as if he were a first round draft pick?

 

Sure, he may be a +6 with 2 shorthanded goals, but I have it on good advice that both these shorthanded goals were of the extremely selfish variety.

 

disgusting....

 

http://theqmjhl.ca/stats/show/type/top_scorers/ls_season/175

[travel_dude]

Ugh....I have heard this defense so many times to so many of Feaster's trades.  

 

Trade high quality for lots, and lots, and lots of low quality.   

 

 

Moving on, though....Poirier continues to dissapoint with 14 points in October over 7 games:

http://theqmjhl.ca/roster/show/id/8455

 

Averaging 2 points per game in both September and October.

 

How, on earth, is he supposed to fulfill his destiny as a bottom 6 defensive forward, if he keeps playing as if he were a first round draft pick?

 

Sure, he may be a +6 with 2 shorthanded goals, but I have it on good advice that both these shorthanded goals were of the extremely selfish variety.

 

disgusting....

 

http://theqmjhl.ca/stats/show/type/top_scorers/ls_season/175

I know, eh.  What a bum. 

[Crzydrvr]

Ugh....I have heard this defense so many times to so many of Feaster's trades.  

 

Trade high quality for lots, and lots, and lots of low quality.   

 

 

Moving on, though....Poirier continues to dissapoint with 14 points in October over 7 games:

http://theqmjhl.ca/roster/show/id/8455

 

Averaging 2 points per game in both September and October.

 

How, on earth, is he supposed to fulfill his destiny as a bottom 6 defensive forward, if he keeps playing as if he were a first round draft pick?

 

Sure, he may be a +6 with 2 shorthanded goals, but I have it on good advice that both these shorthanded goals were of the extremely selfish variety.

 

disgusting....

http://theqmjhl.ca/stats/show/type/top_scorers/ls_season/175

 

I'm hurt jj, was that a dig at me? Because that was pretty mean of you. TT^TT If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all....

 

 

What I said earlier still stands. For the first 3 or 4 games, he didn't look very good beyond putting up points. He's been much better since then, on both sides of the puck. And I am pretty happy with that progress; he looks like the kind of player that'll transition well into being a ~50 point, two-way forward.

 

I am neither being overly optimistic nor raining on his parade, I am simply being realistic with his projection. 50 points with two-way skeelz is VERY good value for the spot he was chosen. We could be getting 60 points and nothing beyond that too (a la Eberle) but I'd rather have the all-around ability rather than simply offense first, especially when we have a couple of offensive dynamos at the wing already.

[jjgallow]

It wasn't a dig at you.

 

Others picked up where you left off when you said (a while ago) that his overall play had improved.

 

I already agreed with you that 50 points and 2-way skills would be very good value....

 

I just don't agree that this is a good ceiling for his draft position.   Nor do I agree that it is his ceiling.

 

Nor do I agree that if he acheives more offense than your projection, he has to be a one-way player to do it.

 

I do agree with you that the Flames drafted him with your 50-point projection in mind. 

 

I do believe management thinks they look smart when they find someone under-rated, even if it means over-looking much better talent to draft them into a position that turns heads.

 

I don't believe we have offensive dynamos at LW yet.  We have two potential dynamos in Baertschi, and Gaudreau, and some other LW's that will be irrelevant by the time Poirier enters the NHL scene.   Two potential dynamos for LW is okay, but not really sufficient.  It does not put the odds on our side.  Granted, it's better than the pipelines for most of our other positions. It doesn't mean we're okay at LW.  It means we have a lot of work to do everywhere else.

[Lucid_Flame91]

Emile Poirier continues to be a force in the QMJHL. He is fourth in league scoring, is riding a 12-game point streak and leads the Olympiques in scoring. In three games this week, he registered six points (two goals, four assists). The Flames selected Poirier 22nd overall in the 2013 NHL Draft.

 

POSITION               TEAM                  LEAGUE         GP G   A  PTS  PIM  +/-

Left Wing     Gatineau Olympiques      QMJHL           16  12 14  26    42    12
 

[travel_dude]

Emile Poirier continues to be a force in the QMJHL. He is fourth in league scoring, is riding a 12-game point streak and leads the Olympiques in scoring. In three games this week, he registered six points (two goals, four assists). The Flames selected Poirier 22nd overall in the 2013 NHL Draft.

 

POSITION               TEAM                  LEAGUE         GP G   A  PTS  PIM  +/-

Left Wing     Gatineau Olympiques      QMJHL           16  12 14  26    42    12

 

It was 6 points in 4 games.  I'm a little concerned about the high PIM.  While it is junior, that is close to half of the minutes he had all last year.  By the looks of it, there were 2 majors, so the rest is 2 minutes or double minors.  Can't tell the way stats were listed.  That said, there are others on his team with similar number; may just be a result of playing in the "Q".

 

BTW, wasn't trying to be a DB, just was clarifying the number of games. 

[Lucid_Flame91]

It was 6 points in 4 games.  I'm a little concerned about the high PIM.  While it is junior, that is close to half of the minutes he had all last year.  By the looks of it, there were 2 majors, so the rest is 2 minutes or double minors.  Can't tell the way stats were listed.  That said, there are others on his team with similar number; may just be a result of playing in the "Q".

 

BTW, wasn't trying to be a DB, just was clarifying the number of games. 

 

I got that info from the front page, and from their schedule they played 3 times last week not 4

Thurs, October 24   Sat, October 26   Sun, October 27

[travel_dude]

I read the same thing myself.  I was digging into his numbers a bit and looked into the team site.  I came up with this:

 

http://theqmjhl.ca/roster/show/id/8455

 

look at the game by game stats.

 

I think they included October 20th in the total.  That is where I got the penalty info from.

[Redslinger]

I saw a couple of highlights and Poirier certainly plays with an edge.  He nailed a guy behind the net with the elbow/shoulder and only got 2 minutes.  As the teams leading scorer and offensive catalyst he does his team no favours by being in the penalty box.  He's going to have to learn to go to the edge without going across it.

 

Someone earlier compared him to Burrows without the hair pulling, biting, diving, etc.  I think that's a pretty good comparison.

[s4xon]

I saw a couple of highlights and Poirier certainly plays with an edge.  He nailed a guy behind the net with the elbow/shoulder and only got 2 minutes. 

 

 

 

That wasn't an elbow, he pushed his arm out at the end.  The hit was a blatant headshot though.  Glad the kid was ok. 

 

In Porier's defense, he's 6'2" and the other kid is a midget playing with his head down behind the net of all places.  An excuse, yes, but those are the facts.

 

I'm glad to see he plays with grit.  The higher end talent coming up in the Flames ranks has been a refreshing sight, however, most of it is all skill, no grit.  Poirier should fill that RW Iggy sized hole quite nicely sometime down the line.

[ScottMacMahon]

 

That wasn't an elbow, he pushed his arm out at the end.  The hit was a blatant headshot though.  Glad the kid was ok. 

 

In Porier's defense, he's 6'2" and the other kid is a midget playing with his head down behind the net of all places.  An excuse, yes, but those are the facts.

 

I'm glad to see he plays with grit.  The higher end talent coming up in the Flames ranks has been a refreshing sight, however, most of it is all skill, no grit.  Poirier should fill that RW Iggy sized hole quite nicely sometime down the line.

 

Really? Looked like a pretty blatant elbow to me, regardless of the push out of his arm afterwards. Anyways, really really glad to see Poirier playing well & with some grit. Loving his skillset of speed, skill and grit. Fills lots of organizational weaknesses.

 

Question though, does anyone know if he is playing LW or RW this year? It lists him as LW but i could have sworn he was playing RW the second half of last year.

[s4xon]

Really? Looked like a pretty blatant elbow to me, regardless of the push out of his arm afterwards.

 

Pause the vid at 40 seconds.  Porier catches the kid's head with the middle of his upper arm just below his shoulder.  The push out at the end makes it look like an elbow.  Regardless, it's a headshot.