Gratton, Valabik not on the ice

Here is your morning update from Thrashers practice.

Josh Gratton is not on practice ice. I will check later to see if he cleared waivers or was claimed.

Boris Valabik, who fell during yesterday’s practice, is also not on the ice. I will check if there is an update on his condition.

As for the line pairings, they are the same as yesterday. Colby Armstrong skating with third line of Rich Peverley and Evander Kane. Marty Reasoner on the fourth line with Eric Boulton, Jim Slater and Chris Thorburn. Armstrong is skating strong, no noticeable effects of groin injury.

They have not run drills with defensive pairings yet, but I assume they will be the same as yesterday as well.

I will check back later after practice and interviews and the drive home. Let’s hope I-285 has recovered.

62 comments Add your comment

Lee

October 6th, 2009
8:33 pm

ok, I had one problem with opening game regarding mr. kane. He was being pushed around like a doll (he kinda is one)!!!!!! He was getting socked and pushed around almost every time he had the puck!

KLS1

October 6th, 2009
9:39 pm

Game 2 will tell the tale.

Jim

October 6th, 2009
9:44 pm

I can’t imagine they resigned Reasoner (2 yrs around 2.5 mil) to center the 4th line. He was a huge part of last years team and has too much knowledge of the game to be logging 7-10 mins plus 2 or 3 on the PK.

I don’t think these are the lines that we will see last. I don’t pretend to know the answers (that’s JA’s job) but i don’t think Antropov will last as a center and don’t think Kane will turn out to be like Bogo at 18.

Sara

October 6th, 2009
10:34 pm

Ya know I really have to laugh my butt off at some of these comments. “So and so is too good for the 3rd/4th line.” I realize depth is a foreign concept around these parts but dang …

Brendan

October 6th, 2009
11:20 pm

Well Sara, Thrasher fans have been properly ‘conditioned’ like Pavlovian dogs to expect inadequacy. I’d love to have a 4th line that would be some mid-level club’s 2nd line. But it’s just not gonna happen.

I want to thank Philadelphia tonight, who trailed the Capitals late in the 3rd period, 5-4, for tying it up and winning the game in the overtime. Way to DENY our division rival a point. Carolina defeated Tampa Bay in the shootout. Unfortunately, that reflects points to both our division rivals. I really wish the NHL would just make these games wins and losses. But I understand why they don’t. It prolongs, substantively, the playoff race. And that helps ticket sales down the stretch.

Imagine some team got off to an 0-5-6 start? In the strictest sense, that’d be 0-11, and basically, their season is over, barring some miracle stretch of games. If that “O-fer” team put together a 4-game winning streak, “NHL-style,” they’d be 4-5-6, for 14 of a possible 30 points, and be one (1) game under .500. Whereas, in my suggestion, that team would be 4-11, and still in a HEAP O’TROUBLE. And yes, in my scenario, teams would make the playoffs with a record of 37-45, potentially. Oh well. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. If 37-45 is good enough for 7th or 8th spot, TAKE IT!! Just think, the team that finishes 32-50 was only five (5) games out of a playoff berth. And that should be their offseason goal. To make up those 5-7 games that might put them into the playoffs the next year.

Imagine a playoff race … where you DON’T have to root for your rival to lose in REGULATION time, so they don’t get that “pity” point in the standings.

Jeff

October 7th, 2009
7:20 am

ranallo10 (in AT) is quite simply wrong with regard to Peverley and White ability on faceoffs. Peverley is great on faceoffs, and he’s much better than White too. White historically has been mostly under 50% on faceoffs. Though White improved from 46.6% his first season here to 50.6% last season. But for his career, including Atlanta and previous years, White’s been under 50% most seasons.

That said, I agree that Reasoner is great on faceoffs. But again, that is true of Peverley as well. And that’s partly why I want to see those two taking most of the key faceoffs with the game on the line.

Speaking of Rich, Peverley is the real deal, DW would be wise to lock him up now. If not he’ll pay more after the season or lose him to another team. It will be tough to lose him or Armstrong after this season. The same is true for Kovalchuk of course, but DW is at least trying to lock him up now.

Jeff

October 7th, 2009
7:27 am

I like Todd White, but he needs to be traded at some point this season, IMHO. We just don’t have room for him at center on the top three lines. Peverley and Reasoner should be our main centers. And of course, the top line is set with Little/Antropov playing wing or center.

PS: Peverley needs to replace White on the top PP unit too…

ranallo10 (in AT)

October 7th, 2009
7:59 am

It’s just an opinion Jeff. White took the most faceoffs for this franchise last season, with Reasoner as the number two. Meanwhile Peverley has a smaller body of work to compare against. You’re right that Peverley’s faceoff percentage was higher than White’s, and it’s quite possible that it’ll be higher when facing the same quantity and quality of situations that White faced this past season, but it’s yet to be proven.

In my opinion (key word) Peverley is not a third line faceoff guy. I’d rather Reasoner (the more proficient faceoff man, in my opinion) taking third line faceoffs because the role of that line historically has been to shut down the top offensive line of the opponent. If the role of the third line is no longer that of which should shut down the first line (i.e. the Lecavalier’s/Staal’s of the NHL) then a less proficient faceoff taker is welcome to be there, or a more offensively skilled player like Peverley.

You misunderstood my point as being White vs. Peverley for the #2 faceoff role, but rather it’s Peverley vs. Reasoner as who I trust to win a faceoff in the important points of a game (i.e. the #3 faceoff role). Of course it’s just my opinion and clearly multiple people including yourself disagree with me.

I did say in my above post “If [Peverley] was a top line center I wouldn’t be concerned, but right now he’s a #3 center and that’s where I want a faceoff professor [like Reasoner].” I also said it was just an opinion, and not the scripture according to ranallo10.

Jim

October 7th, 2009
11:48 am

When your talking about FO% you have to remember that Reasoner was up against the other teams top scoring and top PP units. White and Pevs were not!

Viking

October 7th, 2009
12:50 pm

To you who discuss Face off percentages;

At this point, the previous season’s percentage should be what matters. It is a large sample statistically to show ability for the players involved in your discussion. The compiled lifetime stats are irrelevant and other seasons percentage is not adequate to consider either.

ranallo10 (in AT)

October 7th, 2009
1:11 pm

Viking — I agree with you, however (you knew it was coming), Peverley didn’t play a full season of hockey to accurately compare his stats to other Atlanta players. Jim also brings to light the idea that Peverley, White, and Reasoner did not necessarily face the same quality of opponent regarding the oppositions faceoff taker. To me the most recent year’s statistics is usually enough evidence to prove their ability, but comparatively Peverley has about 40 games of faceoffs while White and Reasoner have nearly 80. Thus their body of work is uneven for straight numerical comparison.

Now we’re wandering into the Falconer’s area of expertise.

ranallo10 (in AT)

October 7th, 2009
1:11 pm

Sorry about the bold issue.