Sheary is kind of a fascinating case study. By most people's eye test he should be sitting. But by his stats, and now the last few posts comparing his teammates stats, he's neither that bad nor a line killer. Will the really Connor Sheary please stand up?
The All Purpose Thread | Relevant Rivalries
- Thread starter ColePens
- Start date
- Status
ZeroPucksGiven
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2017
- 6,338
- 4,275
Tom Hanks
Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
- Nov 10, 2017
- 30,456
- 32,528
Maybe Sheary should ask to change the pronunciation to Connor Cher. Then maybe he could turn back time......
Ryder71
Registered User
- Nov 24, 2017
- 23,230
- 11,213
Yeah, it kind of defeats the purpose of bringing in Brassard. We have four very capable centers here. They should leave them in place. If you want to move players around better to do it on wing. And even then there are few obvious wingers you keep where they are.
Maybe Sheary should ask to change the pronunciation to Connor Cher. Then maybe he could turn back time......
You did not actually post a Cher gif in this forum!....As vomit-inducing as a Kuhn-Rowney fourth line.....
ZeroPucksGiven
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2017
- 6,338
- 4,275
Since the start of Febuary (20 games), during which time Sheary's played 190 minutes in 17 games, we've outshot, outchanced, and outscored the opposition during his time on the ice. And we've done it to a greater degree than we have in the the 783 minutes he hasn't been on ice.
Which, honestly, going by the eye test reads as why people don't trust stats as much as anything.
It doesn't read quite as nice just for March, but he's still got generally nice possession stats and while he has a negative goal differential for the month, that's possibly down to goaltending.
I think in March his offensive numbers have been boosted by that one game blast and while the numbers with Sid are good, its more in a shut down way than a score lots way. We're deffo not getting consistent offence from him or any line he's on. But that's on more than one person, and it's not bleeding the other way.
What? That Cher is the worst thing to happen to music since Coldplay? I definitely have no reason to take that back....
AverageJoeFan
Mad cat
Yeah tripping over the blue line and falling down each time you shoot look bad ....unless you score I guess. lol
AverageJoeFan
Mad cat
Tom Hanks
Spelling mistakes brought to you by my iPhone.
- Nov 10, 2017
- 30,456
- 32,528
I didn't really mean to hurt you
I didn't want to see you go
I know I made you vomit, but baby
If I could turn back time
If I could find a way
I'd take back those gifs that hurt you
And you'd stay
She’s tried hard with all of her plastic surgeries....
If I could turn back time, I’d erase her from the 70s...
Even Greg Allman would probably agree with me....
AverageJoeFan
Mad cat
pretty sure each time she had surgery she lost a piece of clothing in the process...
Ugene Magic
EVIL LAUGH
HandshakeLine
A real jerk thing
Return of the Paek
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2016
- 771
- 660
I think my overall point about the Brassard deal is the philosophy behind it seemed flawed, i.e., we strengthened a strength (we were scoring more goals than anyone at the deadline) and weakened a weakness (losing Cole was not just a hit to our starting 6, but also depth). If anything, we should of added a D-man, but instead we lost Cole.
To make matters worse, the team looks slightly worse offensively than it did prior to bringing on Brass. I don't know if that team chemistry, expected variance, etc. However, it certainly looks like Brass was a luxury add at this point who is contributing in a minor way.
To make matters worse, the team looks slightly worse offensively than it did prior to bringing on Brass. I don't know if that team chemistry, expected variance, etc. However, it certainly looks like Brass was a luxury add at this point who is contributing in a minor way.
AverageJoeFan
Mad cat
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Sheary is a frustrating player to watch. I don't know how he went from doing what he did last year to doing what he's doing this year. His production is alright considering his ice time and pay (he gets 3rd line minutes, gets paid like a 3rd liner and produces at a 3rd liner's rate). His ice time has actually plummeted in 2018, he was at 15:01 in the first 40 games of this year, but he's only at 12:50 in the last 30 games and 12:20 in the last 20 games. That's probably why his production hasn't improved with the rest of the team, he's producing at the same rate that he did in the first half of the season (31 points/82 games vs 27 points per 82 games), but his ice time is over 2 minutes less.
I think Sheary overall has been fine this year. Over 15 goals and around 30 points for $3 million isn't bad, it's about the going rate for that kind of production. He's a 3rd liner who's paid like a 3rd liner, produces like a 3rd liner and gets the ice time of a 3rd liner. The issue is that he's not actually on the team's 3rd line most of the time, he's either with Crosby or on the 4th line and those average out to 3rd liner ice time.
The Penguins didn't strengthen a strength, though. They desperately needed another center, just because the Penguins were scoring goals doesn't mean their forward group didn't need to be improved. You can argue that they didn't need a 3C, which I'd agree with because of how well Sheahan has played this year, but you can't argue that their forward group was fine.
It's also not like Brassard has played bad, though. He has 5 points in 10 games in the 3C spot, did you really expect that much better? What was a reasonable expectation for him? 6 or 7 points per 10 games?
I think Sheary overall has been fine this year. Over 15 goals and around 30 points for $3 million isn't bad, it's about the going rate for that kind of production. He's a 3rd liner who's paid like a 3rd liner, produces like a 3rd liner and gets the ice time of a 3rd liner. The issue is that he's not actually on the team's 3rd line most of the time, he's either with Crosby or on the 4th line and those average out to 3rd liner ice time.
The Penguins didn't strengthen a strength, though. They desperately needed another center, just because the Penguins were scoring goals doesn't mean their forward group didn't need to be improved. You can argue that they didn't need a 3C, which I'd agree with because of how well Sheahan has played this year, but you can't argue that their forward group was fine.
It's also not like Brassard has played bad, though. He has 5 points in 10 games in the 3C spot, did you really expect that much better? What was a reasonable expectation for him? 6 or 7 points per 10 games?
Last edited:
Return of the Paek
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2016
- 771
- 660
Would this team really be that much worse off offensively with Sheahan at 3C and Rowney or Jooris at 4C? I would argue that 15 and 81 clearly had better chemistry than 19 and 81. Doesn't seem like Sully plays the 4th line much anyway...
I'm all for moving guys to wing if it makes the team play better. Right now we are on not better the way you are describing.
If moving Brassard to Sid's wing gets one or both of them going, the team will instantly improve. Sheahan is capable at 3C.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
I feel like people had way too high expectations for Brassard when he was acquired, myself included. He's a good 2nd line center for sure, but his production is going to be capped due to the role he's playing in. Before he was acquired, he was on pace for 54 points and only had 39 points last year. He's probably a 50-60 point center per 82 games, but that's in a top-6 role. What's he going to produce while getting 2-3 minutes less per game?
The last time he was used as a 3C was in New York prior to 2014-2015, when he was behind Brad Richards and Stepan on the Rangers depth chart. He was also used as a 3C in Columbus in the last year+ before being traded. In those years where he was a 3C, he produced 41 points in 74 games, a pace of 51 points per 82 games and 45 points in 81 games. You're looking at a guy who's going to be producing between 45 and 50 points per 82 games as a 3C. He's on pace for 41 points with the Penguins, so it's not really that far off from what you can reasonably expect from him. Look at what Staal was able to produce behind a healthy Crosby and Malkin. Staal's best when Crosby and Malkin were healthy was 49 points, and that was with Staal getting 1C minutes as the 3C.
Yes, they would be dramatically worse off. Sheahan and Kessel did not have chemistry, they did not work well together. The Penguins center depth was clearly a problem, the only discussion to be had here was whether Brassard was too much to fill that hole.
The last time he was used as a 3C was in New York prior to 2014-2015, when he was behind Brad Richards and Stepan on the Rangers depth chart. He was also used as a 3C in Columbus in the last year+ before being traded. In those years where he was a 3C, he produced 41 points in 74 games, a pace of 51 points per 82 games and 45 points in 81 games. You're looking at a guy who's going to be producing between 45 and 50 points per 82 games as a 3C. He's on pace for 41 points with the Penguins, so it's not really that far off from what you can reasonably expect from him. Look at what Staal was able to produce behind a healthy Crosby and Malkin. Staal's best when Crosby and Malkin were healthy was 49 points, and that was with Staal getting 1C minutes as the 3C.
Yes, they would be dramatically worse off. Sheahan and Kessel did not have chemistry, they did not work well together. The Penguins center depth was clearly a problem, the only discussion to be had here was whether Brassard was too much to fill that hole.
ZeroPucksGiven
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2017
- 6,338
- 4,275
I think you have to put things into perspective: Brass has only had 10 games to get acclimated to this team. Sheahan struggled early, heck even Hossa had some MAJOR initial chemistry issues with Sid
But 99% of the time, good hockey players find a way to integrate with other good hockey players. Brass is a proven commodity in this league and all signs point to him being fitting in just fine. And his playoff resume is proven.
Fully agree though on the defense being weakened. Losing Cole was a HUGE hole-- especially on the PK
Empoleon8771
Registered User
If you want to make an issue out of bringing in Brassard, it should be that the Penguins traded Cole to open up the cap space to bring him in, when they should have traded Sheary to bring him in. It didn't make sense to me at all to take away from an area of weakness, rather than an area of strength, to afford Brassard. Brassard was a luxury that also filled a need, it was filling a lesser hole with a great player just because you had the opportunity to bring in that guy. Sheary probably shouldn't even be playing when the entire team is healthy, he's easily replaceable. It makes more sense to me to trade Sheary for Brassard than to trade Cole for Brassard because of what Brassard brings to the table.
CommissionerGordon
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2017
- 402
- 27
How about that Derick Brassard trade?
Not only do you lose Ian Cole. Everyone wants him gone, right? I don't know how many times I said if you have Cup plans you keep Ian Cole. So, once again, clueless
You break up your best line. Guentzel-Sheahan-Kessel
You slot in Brassarrrrrrd. Hard for Brassard so many were. Hey Jimmy why trade for Brassarrrrrrrd? Have you seen him play?
And then you slide down the mountain. Does that sound about right?
It's not about what you did, it's about what you didn't do. And that was simple. How many times did I say this? You get Evander Kane. Because Sheahan line was not sustainable for Crosby. He's tired of playing with bums. That way you have Guentzel, Kane, and Hagelin. And you pair Crosby-Guentzel, Malkin-Kane, Sheahan-Hagelin
In the future, I hope you understand that it's not about getting brand names and slotting them in. Brassard - never losing again. No - you dumb **** Yinzer. It's about talent, YOUR SCHEME, and fit. Which is why you get as one example who was available for peanuts - Evander Kane. Plus, I always traded Sheary and I got clowns telling me Sheary is a talent. No - he's an AHL player made feasible playing with Crosby or a 2nd line role on the Kessel line. But his competition is worse playing on a "3rd line"
So then what does it become? We made a bad trade. I told you it was not a fit. And you already had your fit with Sheahan with two good wingers that made him better.
Evander Kane has 5 goals, 5 assists in 10 games.
Ian Cole has 2 goals, 4 assists in 12 games
Derick Brassard has 1 goal, 4 assists in 10 games
This is Earth.... and you're not too bright
Not only do you lose Ian Cole. Everyone wants him gone, right? I don't know how many times I said if you have Cup plans you keep Ian Cole. So, once again, clueless
You break up your best line. Guentzel-Sheahan-Kessel
You slot in Brassarrrrrrd. Hard for Brassard so many were. Hey Jimmy why trade for Brassarrrrrrrd? Have you seen him play?
And then you slide down the mountain. Does that sound about right?
It's not about what you did, it's about what you didn't do. And that was simple. How many times did I say this? You get Evander Kane. Because Sheahan line was not sustainable for Crosby. He's tired of playing with bums. That way you have Guentzel, Kane, and Hagelin. And you pair Crosby-Guentzel, Malkin-Kane, Sheahan-Hagelin
In the future, I hope you understand that it's not about getting brand names and slotting them in. Brassard - never losing again. No - you dumb **** Yinzer. It's about talent, YOUR SCHEME, and fit. Which is why you get as one example who was available for peanuts - Evander Kane. Plus, I always traded Sheary and I got clowns telling me Sheary is a talent. No - he's an AHL player made feasible playing with Crosby or a 2nd line role on the Kessel line. But his competition is worse playing on a "3rd line"
So then what does it become? We made a bad trade. I told you it was not a fit. And you already had your fit with Sheahan with two good wingers that made him better.
Evander Kane has 5 goals, 5 assists in 10 games.
Ian Cole has 2 goals, 4 assists in 12 games
Derick Brassard has 1 goal, 4 assists in 10 games
This is Earth.... and you're not too bright
I was a HUGE proponent of getting Brassard. But it's really not working, not yet.
Thing is Shehan has gotten better each month since we got him. I think he's probably playing better then Brassard is right now. At the very least he has better chemistry.
We all tend to forget that the whole is greater then the sum of the parts. Cole might've been a #4/5 defensemen, but he made our defensive corp better then his individual contribution. Big Rig was absolutely better when Cole was on the team. The team was just starting to heat up before the deadline. Since the trade we've looked like garbage more nights then we've looked good.
All I gotta say is Brassard and the coaches better figure it out damn fast because regular season is almost done.
Thing is Shehan has gotten better each month since we got him. I think he's probably playing better then Brassard is right now. At the very least he has better chemistry.
We all tend to forget that the whole is greater then the sum of the parts. Cole might've been a #4/5 defensemen, but he made our defensive corp better then his individual contribution. Big Rig was absolutely better when Cole was on the team. The team was just starting to heat up before the deadline. Since the trade we've looked like garbage more nights then we've looked good.
All I gotta say is Brassard and the coaches better figure it out damn fast because regular season is almost done.
- Status
