Ryan Johansen

[major major]

Personally I think Ryan's main problem (offensively ) is he lacks offensive confidence sometimes. Something I think we are seeing him gain on an almost game to game basis. There were many times early this season and last where he had an opportunity to make something happen whether quick shot for rebound or him using his body to drive to the net. Instead he would just pass it. It's still early in the the season, but as others have said I think his defensive game is hid strong suite (he wouldn't be matched up with opposing teams #1 centers if his defensive game wasn't above average at the least. )and hid offensive game might finally break through if he Cam just gain and mantain his confidence level.

On a side note, evetytime I see that Jenner-Johansen-Atkinson line get a little ice time I die a little from happiness. Knowing that we finally have a entire offensive line, that we drafted, that I would be confident enough to put up against just about any other line in the nhl.

Scott Howson feels the same way, I'm sure.

 

[pete goegan]

Scott Howson feels the same way, I'm sure.

I'm sure ex-GMSH is too busy worrying if he has another Filatov on his hands in Yakopov to take much pleasure in how the CBJ kids are doing!

 

[FANonymous]

Scott Howson feels the same way, I'm sure.

Don't you ruin this for us.

 

[bester vaive]

Scott Howson feels the same way, I'm sure.

And Mayor Bee!

 

[Mayor Bee]

Scott Howson feels the same way, I'm sure.

...and if he doesn't, I'll make sure to remind you.

And Mayor Bee!

 

[Mayor Bee]

People forget how highly Manny was rated. I will never forget this quote at the time of his draft:

"In six or seven years the Rangers will be building the team around him," says the 37-year-old Wayne Gretzky, one star who came through last season.

That eye for talent goes a long way toward explaining how Gretzky drove the Coyotes into the ground.

 

[major major]

That eye for talent goes a long way toward explaining how Gretzky drove the Coyotes into the ground.

That's nonsense, Gretzky scored almost 3000 points.

 

[bizzz*]

Gretzky wasn't that great. He's never won the Cup without Edmonton. Edmonton won the Cup without Gretzky twice. I mean the Rangers'94 as well. Messier, Lowe, Tikkanen, Anderson. They've got more rings than the Great One.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Gretzky wasn't that great. He's never won the Cup without Edmonton. Edmonton won the Cup without Gretzky twice. I mean the Rangers'94 as well. Messier, Lowe, Tikkanen, Anderson. They've got more rings than the Great One.

Kevin Lowe reminds anyone who will listen about his six rings, soon only to be matched by his six 1st overalls.

(Also, Tikkanen wasn't there for the Oilers' first two Cups)

 

[bizzz*]

Kevin Lowe reminds anyone who will listen about his six rings, soon only to be matched by his six 1st overalls.

(Also, Tikkanen wasn't there for the Oilers' first two Cups)

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Tikkanen. I remember that he played a few games for Edmonton in the play-offs 1984/85 and got his ring. So he's got 4 with the Oilers and 1 with the Rangers. Gretzky has only 4.
Well, I double checked myself and my memory hasn't failed:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/events/1998/playoffs/news/1998/06/13/tik_shot/

 

[Crede777]

Even if Johansen were to plateau, I think we can be proud of what he has become -- a steady NHL middle of the line-up center who is good defensively and has some offense.

That said, we would obviously be a bit disappointed because we are hoping for him to harness the offensive talent he shows flashes of and become a consistent, impact top line forward.

 

[bizzz*]

Speaking of Johansen I would say only that for 150th WHL draft pick he is doing pretty well.

 

[EspenK]

Gretzky wasn't that great. He's never won the Cup without Edmonton. Edmonton won the Cup without Gretzky twice. I mean the Rangers'94 as well. Messier, Lowe, Tikkanen, Anderson. They've got more rings than the Great One.

Okay, that's one for the books

 

[Mayor Bee]

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Tikkanen. I remember that he played a few games for Edmonton in the play-offs 1984/85 and got his ring. So he's got 4 with the Oilers and 1 with the Rangers. Gretzky has only 4.
Well, I double checked myself and my memory hasn't failed:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/events/1998/playoffs/news/1998/06/13/tik_shot/

And that's why the rule is in place that a player signed from overseas during the season has to clear waivers before he can suit up for an NHL team.

I completely forget about that. Tikkanen, not the rule.

 

[bester vaive]

Kevin Lowe reminds anyone who will listen about his six rings, soon only to be matched by his six 1st overalls.

The latter may be his most impressive feat. One couldn't help but win a Cup or two playing with 7, 11, 31, 99, 17, and the other Oilers...Building a team that wins number one picks with regularity shows a level of achievement that is not easily matched.

To tie this back with what the OP wanted, I believe our #19 will outshine 19s that played on those great Oiler teams!

Mayor Bee, wasn't Ruotsalainen joining the Oilers midway in the season(s) also a reason for the overseas rule, too?

 

[Bronz]

I'd love to see RJ with more talented wingers then Foligno and Umberger. You can make a case he's done much more then Anisimov especially with who he has to work with. I think RJ would be dynamite with Gaborik as his wing. Here's hoping Horton finds his way on his line when he comes back but somehow I think they are going to stick him on Dubi's line instead.

 

[blahblah]

I'd love to see RJ with more talented wingers then Foligno and Umberger. You can make a case he's done much more then Anisimov especially with who he has to work with. I think RJ would be dynamite with Gaborik as his wing. Here's hoping Horton finds his way on his line when he comes back but somehow I think they are going to stick him on Dubi's line instead.

RJ is RJ Umberger. Please don't confuse people.

He's fine where he is.

 

[ClevelandJacketFan]

Yeah, the only reason he hasn't put up more points is because his linemates are awful.

Johansen should be playing with Gabby. Perhaps Gabby AND AA should play on the same line as Johansen.

 

[blahblah]

Yeah, the only reason he hasn't put up more points is because his linemates are awful.

And nonsensical hyperbole. To be clear; the line of thought of "This player would have more points if he had more skilled line mates" has been proven to varying degrees of accuracy over time.

It also can prove pointless to the team. Any gain from Johansen might end up being a net neutral with a possible decline of the player he is replacing.

Lastly, those players listed are NOT awful. You can come up with far more accurate descriptions.

This line of thought, quoted, is far too simplistic and at a beginning stage of logic.

 

[JKinCLE]

I'm glad to hear everyone now approving of Joey's play, after hearing a bunch of people on here ready to ship him out while he still had SOME value before the season started... especially because I chose to buy his jersey once my Nash one became unwearable, so I'm hoping he sticks around for a while.

His confidence in himself is there, and the numbers will follow suit. I see Joey around 50 points easily this year, and potting 20 goals
.

 

[ClevelandJacketFan]

And nonsensical hyperbole. To be clear; the line of thought of "This player would have more points if he had more skilled line mates" has been proven to varying degrees of accuracy over time.

I agree, which is why I get frustrated in watching Joey play with a guy who refuses to shoot *Foligno* and a guy who cannot finish *Umberger*.

For all intents and purposes, if Joey doesn't score, then that line is going to be nothing more than a grinding defense line, which I think undersells Johansen's abilities that could easily be replicated by several other centers of this team.

It also can prove pointless to the team. Any gain from Johansen might end up being a net neutral with a possible decline of the player he is replacing.

Perhaps. Are we saying that Johansen's defensive play at center is the best on the team and irreplaceable? Because I don't think it is.

Lastly, those players listed are NOT awful. You can come up with far more accurate descriptions.

They aren't goal scorers, which is what Johansen should be paired with if we wish to have a second line that can score a little bit.

This line of thought, quoted, is far too simplistic and at a beginning stage of logic.

I've got to hand it to you blahblah, you sure do know how to passive aggressively insult someone's intelligence. Only half

 

[Crede777]

It also can prove pointless to the team. Any gain from Johansen might end up being a net neutral with a possible decline of the player he is replacing.

While it could be a net-neutral change in terms of production, there could be an intangible yet positive benefit in giving Johansen some confidence or allowing him to progress. AKA it could be an investment towards the future.

While nobody knows if that could or would happen, it's a possibility. It's also a possibility that he doesn't do well and it sets him back. My point is that while there might be no overall change for the team on the scoresheet, throwing Johansen onto a top line with the likes of Gaborik could have intangible benefits (or drawbacks).

I for one have a bit of trust in Richards, JK, and JD because I think any one of them has more hockey knowledge than all the posters on this site combined. They know what they're doing. Also it's good to teach Johansen that on nights he isn't contributing to the score he can contribute in other ways -- a lesson Nash was a fan of at the peak of his career here.

 

[blahblah]

While it could be a net-neutral change in terms of production, there could be an intangible yet positive benefit in giving Johansen some confidence or allowing him to progress. AKA it could be an investment towards the future.

That "investment", as you are calling it, will occur at some point as Johansen continues to develop. I've said it a while ago, Johansen will be the top center on this team over the next year or two. He's already starting to draw time even strength minutes. There is the balancing act of trying to win versus proper development of the player. I don't see his line causing him severe developmental issues.

Are you claiming with this post that Johansen has a confidence problem? If so, I don't see it. I see him developing, so I don't see any issue there.

To best honest, Johansen seems to be getting the "best of the rest" as line mates. I'm expecting to see Johansen paired with either Gaborik or Horton later in the year.

Frankly I find it absurd that we are considering splitting this line up now, when they continue to improve and are finally starting to really click. That is becoming the most dominant line we have on the ice. Not the most dangerous, but dominant.

I'll be honest, when I listened to Horton it sounded like he was dying to get on that line.

I'll be honest, in the last 5 games he's been averaging about 18 minutes with a 22 minute prod. That is top line production. 6 more minutes than Gaborik with almost the exact same prod.

What does that mean? Two lines are producing. At least with the help of the D. Hell even RJ has managed, over the last 5 games, to get his prod under 30.

 

[alphafox]

And nonsensical hyperbole. To be clear; the line of thought of "This player would have more points if he had more skilled line mates" has been proven to varying degrees of accuracy over time.

It also can prove pointless to the team. Any gain from Johansen might end up being a net neutral with a possible decline of the player he is replacing.

Lastly, those players listed are NOT awful. You can come up with far more accurate descriptions.

This line of thought, quoted, is far too simplistic and at a beginning stage of logic.

While I agree that the "his line mates are terrible, and if only we'd give him new ones he'll become Jumbo Joe and..." argument is overly simplified however IMO, there is a level of accuracy in it. (Fair disclaimer I am not a Foligno fan or Umberger)

Firstly, while often time the skill of a player's linemates is overrated (i.e. Nash, Anisimov) play-makers are often greatly affected by their linemates. A good sniper will exponentially improve a playmakers game by (1) finishing chances that are created by the Play-maker and (2) creating openings for the playmaker. A sniper on Johansen's wing could have a major impact on his offense as the chances he creates would be converted to goals more often and also by increasing the effectiveness of his shot as they would have to honor the sniper and would be prevented from cheating so much.

Secondly, while it is true that Foligno and Umberger are not horrible, both Foligno and Umberger are good defensive forwards as we have seen, their skill set offensively is (1) lacking and (2) Foligno in particular is a bad pairing with Johansen. Johansen is primarily a playmaker who uses his brain and body to create chances, as a result he needs the puck on his stick, something Foligno with his dangles prevents. A play-maker also needs someone with the ability to shoot the puck, which neither Umberger (dirty goal scorer) or Foligno (no goal scorer) are.

I honestly believe that this is the reason they signed Horton. A skilled sniper who is defensively sound can replace Foligno on Johansen's wing. Paired with someone who can screen the goalie (Umberger) and a playmaker (Johansen) that line could be our best line on both ends of the ice.

Regarding the benefits and negatives of the line changes I agree the loss of that defensive line would be a blow, unless you replace Johansen's winger(s) with players that are equally capable defensively and even then the players may not have the chemistry to be as effective.

 

[Bronz]

I'd love to see Johansen flanked by Horton and Jenner