Player Discussion The Slaf Thread - Parabolic Growth Edition

[sandviper]

Slaf making fun of Gallagher will make him my favorite player.

f*** Gallagher, all my homies hate Gallagher.

Slaf was just savage lol. I almost lost my coffee reading that.

 

[Rapala]

Jesus Christ Subban used to be the loudest person in the room too.
This time I have faith the right player will get offed.

We need Slaf being Slaf just embrace it or GTFO.

 

[Rapala]

The thing that most excites me with Slaf is we are seeing some instinctive plays that are off the charts.
These are are two recent ones that come to mind.
That play as he's facing the left hand boards to spring Caufield. (vs not one but two defenders) What a deft pass in a tight space.
That back pass to Suzuki against Boston was another.
I'm sure most of you remember these plays it's stuff you can't teach and is pure reaction.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I'd like them to be even more aggressive and dump Dvorak while they are at it.

I'd love that too, but at worst we have him one more year and we're done.

I gotta say though I don't see us acquiring any of Zegras Monahan or Montour.

The first will likely cost far too much of the kind of capital a rebuilding team is loathe to spend.

My max is one high first rounder if Eiserman, Demidov or Celebrini is not available to us with that pick, and some non-core assets that we won't miss much. If that can't be done, we don't offer the moon.

Refer back to your stance on Dubois vs the group here who were opposed to it for that reason alone never mind the ensuing contract.

My max offer for Dubois was less because he was/is older, less dynamic offensively and cost much more on his contract.

Zegras is not Dubois. He's a very dynamic offensive player who is Caufield's and Dach's age and who wants to contribute, not coast at times.

The second player will likely get an offer elsewhere we won't want to match or top particularly with a good post season.

Then we won't match if that happens. But it behooves us to seriously look at a guy who loves playing Canada and enjoyed his time with us.

The third is not what we need on the back-end we won't spend a dime on that type of player.
I'd actually be very surprised if we spend a dime on a Dman period.

Montour was the number 1D on a team that just went to the SC finals, and is challenging for the President's Trophy again. That "type" of player on the right side is gold. We may not get him for an affordable price, but I would certainly try.

Savard will be gone in a year (unless he extends at a discount). Matheson has 2 years left and we don't know for sure if he will still be here afterwards with all the LDs we have. It would be great to have one first-pairing D with some term. Mailloux and Reinbacher won't be expensive for quite a few years.

I'm hoping Hughes continues to surprise us with moves we don't see coming.

That is always fun!

Agreed on Montour and Monahan.

Montour is not what we will need mid-long term and i fear Monahan is too much risks to take on considering we are at least 3 years away from contending.

Zegras i'm on the fence. Not completly against it. We need pure talent and certainly showed he is full of it. His character is probably what is an unknown for me and i won't act like i know anything about it. I would put complete faith in Hugues to assess this part.

I would only take on Monahan for 2-3 years. No long-term risk.

 

[Mrb1p]

The thing that most excites me with Slaf is we are seeing some instinctive plays that are off the charts.
These are are two recent ones that come to mind.
That play as he's facing the left hand boards to spring Caufield. (vs not one but two defenders) What a deft pass in a tight space.
That back pass to Suzuki against Boston was another.
I'm sure most of you remember these plays it's stuff you can't teach and is pure reaction.

The latest play that actually impressed me was him passing up a good but not great passing option to Cole on his right (he was coming up dead center), to actually deke out the defender and set himself up for a shot. He ultimately missed the net, but the move was bold, confident and actually showed what he hadnt showed much of in his pro career 1. High IQ understanding. (Cole was on his weak side, thus opening up the tap in, something the goaltender took note of, but also that was the easy play. The defender was starting his pivot and he made the move at the very moment he saw that.) And also just a willingness to be the man and beat defenders 1 on 1. Something we sorely lack, and something that, if he unlocks, is gonna make him one of the very best player on the planet.

The Suzuki pass is impressive, but hes displayed that kind of vision and hand-eye coordination multiple times already, it didnt show me any "new" information, the only difference is it converted but thats inconsequential to his development as a star player.

I think the play was against the Bruins but I dont remember exactly.

 

[ReHabs]

Slaf is on another point streak, 6 in his last 5. Production consistency is one of the best possible attributes in a player and has to be considered a sign of high-IQ. It might be a tautology but you have to have high-IQ to be able to put points up in a consistent manner in the toughest league of the sport.

Tonight's point wasn't anything special except they made a good read like MSL always preaches and Slaf was found with the puck in a ton of open space and threw the puck into the slot to get the Suzuki deflection goal. Finding that space and making that pass might not have required a ton of difficult thinking but it cannot be considered anything other than the right instinct and right read... high-IQ.

In the absence of a reputation, it seems I don't know how to distinguish constant/consistent high-IQ performances with occasional ("random") good plays. Hockey is a random game with a lot of scrappy play (too much for my liking...) but there is nothing illegitimate about crash-and-bang goals and plays but when evaluating a player you want to identify actual qualities they may possess from the more random outcomes. It is easier to detect the former when there's a significant reputation for such things. I have to apologise for riling so many people up, it wasn't my intention to troll -- like any given Habs supporter, I wanted Slafkovsky to succeed but felt he was out of his depth in the NHL. I argued with the tools I had available to me and measurements I had made in earnest but it seems my tools were imperfect and my understanding of the measurements were therefore wrong. Slafkovsky does not show particularly low hockey IQ, my evaluation was wrong.

 

[ottawa]

Expectations for next year? 2024-25 production and areas you'd like to see him improve?

What a turnaround season for him, from 2 points in his first 15 games to now.

 

[Colezuki]

Expectations for next year? 2024-25 production and areas you'd like to see him improve?

What a turnaround season for him, from 2 points in his first 15 games to now.

Maintain the pace he’s been on since about Christmas ish, would love to see a 60-70 point season

 

[SlafySZN]

Expectations for next year? 2024-25 production and areas you'd like to see him improve?

What a turnaround season for him, from 2 points in his first 15 games to now.

Same pace as he is since around january, so around 60 points (or more, who knows) and get more confidence in himself, maybe carrying the puck even more and drive the net.

If he does that he might get more and explode offensively.

 

[waitin425]

Slaf is on another point streak, 6 in his last 5. Production consistency is one of the best possible attributes in a player and has to be considered a sign of high-IQ. It might be a tautology but you have to have high-IQ to be able to put points up in a consistent manner in the toughest league of the sport.

Tonight's point wasn't anything special except they made a good read like MSL always preaches and Slaf was found with the puck in a ton of open space and threw the puck into the slot to get the Suzuki deflection goal. Finding that space and making that pass might not have required a ton of difficult thinking but it cannot be considered anything other than the right instinct and right read... high-IQ.

In the absence of a reputation, it seems I don't know how to distinguish constant/consistent high-IQ performances with occasional ("random") good plays. Hockey is a random game with a lot of scrappy play (too much for my liking...) but there is nothing illegitimate about crash-and-bang goals and plays but when evaluating a player you want to identify actual qualities they may possess from the more random outcomes. It is easier to detect the former when there's a significant reputation for such things. I have to apologise for riling so many people up, it wasn't my intention to troll -- like any given Habs supporter, I wanted Slafkovsky to succeed but felt he was out of his depth in the NHL. I argued with the tools I had available to me and measurements I had made in earnest but it seems my tools were imperfect and my understanding of the measurements were therefore wrong. Slafkovsky does not show particularly low hockey IQ, my evaluation was wrong.

Well said Rehabs. All good man. I dunked on you hard. Maybe too hard. I apologize for that. Happy to see you back. Happy to read you've had an awakening.

 

[Guy Larose]

Expectations for next year? 2024-25 production and areas you'd like to see him improve?

What a turnaround season for him, from 2 points in his first 15 games to now.

3 points a game or he's a bust.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

HE'S SO GOOD , a legit top 6 player who plays well in all 3 zones at 19 what is happening???

 

[ChesterNimitz]

Slaf is on another point streak, 6 in his last 5. Production consistency is one of the best possible attributes in a player and has to be considered a sign of high-IQ. It might be a tautology but you have to have high-IQ to be able to put points up in a consistent manner in the toughest league of the sport.

Tonight's point wasn't anything special except they made a good read like MSL always preaches and Slaf was found with the puck in a ton of open space and threw the puck into the slot to get the Suzuki deflection goal. Finding that space and making that pass might not have required a ton of difficult thinking but it cannot be considered anything other than the right instinct and right read... high-IQ.

In the absence of a reputation, it seems I don't know how to distinguish constant/consistent high-IQ performances with occasional ("random") good plays. Hockey is a random game with a lot of scrappy play (too much for my liking...) but there is nothing illegitimate about crash-and-bang goals and plays but when evaluating a player you want to identify actual qualities they may possess from the more random outcomes. It is easier to detect the former when there's a significant reputation for such things. I have to apologise for riling so many people up, it wasn't my intention to troll -- like any given Habs supporter, I wanted Slafkovsky to succeed but felt he was out of his depth in the NHL. I argued with the tools I had available to me and measurements I had made in earnest but it seems my tools were imperfect and my understanding of the measurements were therefore wrong. Slafkovsky does not show particularly low hockey IQ, my evaluation was wrong.

Well thought out contrarian opinions are refreshingly welcome as they serve as the best antidote to the ‘Emperor has no Clothes ‘ syndrome. These unpopular opinions make you think. Too bad it doesn’t happen more often in a more important forum like politics.

 

[Egresch]

Same pace as he is since around january, so around 60 points (or more, who knows) and get more confidence in himself, maybe carrying the puck even more and drive the net.

If he does that he might get more and explode offensively.

Marian Hossa had 30p in 60GP in his D+2 season. His D+3 was 57P in 78 GP, I would expect something similar from Slaf.
And HoF induction in 2044

 

[BaseballCoach]

Slaf is on another point streak, 6 in his last 5. Production consistency is one of the best possible attributes in a player and has to be considered a sign of high-IQ. It might be a tautology but you have to have high-IQ to be able to put points up in a consistent manner in the toughest league of the sport.

Tonight's point wasn't anything special except they made a good read like MSL always preaches and Slaf was found with the puck in a ton of open space and threw the puck into the slot to get the Suzuki deflection goal. Finding that space and making that pass might not have required a ton of difficult thinking but it cannot be considered anything other than the right instinct and right read... high-IQ.

In the absence of a reputation, it seems I don't know how to distinguish constant/consistent high-IQ performances with occasional ("random") good plays. Hockey is a random game with a lot of scrappy play (too much for my liking...) but there is nothing illegitimate about crash-and-bang goals and plays but when evaluating a player you want to identify actual qualities they may possess from the more random outcomes. It is easier to detect the former when there's a significant reputation for such things. I have to apologise for riling so many people up, it wasn't my intention to troll -- like any given Habs supporter, I wanted Slafkovsky to succeed but felt he was out of his depth in the NHL. I argued with the tools I had available to me and measurements I had made in earnest but it seems my tools were imperfect and my understanding of the measurements were therefore wrong. Slafkovsky does not show particularly low hockey IQ, my evaluation was wrong.

Good post, good man. I am not surprised by what has been unfolding because I am lucky to have very high level coaching and development tools, albeit in two other sports than hockey, plus 60 years experience following the Habs and the NHL.

In the last 26 games, Slaf has 22 points, which is a pace of 69.4 in 82 games. I think it's safe to say he is currently playing like a 60 point player at age 19, on a team that still attracts most of the top defensive coverage to his line. When Dach++ open up more space, Suzuki will go over 1.0 ppg and Slaf/Caufield will benefit too.

 

[Seb]

Slaf is on another point streak, 6 in his last 5. Production consistency is one of the best possible attributes in a player and has to be considered a sign of high-IQ. It might be a tautology but you have to have high-IQ to be able to put points up in a consistent manner in the toughest league of the sport.

Tonight's point wasn't anything special except they made a good read like MSL always preaches and Slaf was found with the puck in a ton of open space and threw the puck into the slot to get the Suzuki deflection goal. Finding that space and making that pass might not have required a ton of difficult thinking but it cannot be considered anything other than the right instinct and right read... high-IQ.

In the absence of a reputation, it seems I don't know how to distinguish constant/consistent high-IQ performances with occasional ("random") good plays. Hockey is a random game with a lot of scrappy play (too much for my liking...) but there is nothing illegitimate about crash-and-bang goals and plays but when evaluating a player you want to identify actual qualities they may possess from the more random outcomes. It is easier to detect the former when there's a significant reputation for such things. I have to apologise for riling so many people up, it wasn't my intention to troll -- like any given Habs supporter, I wanted Slafkovsky to succeed but felt he was out of his depth in the NHL. I argued with the tools I had available to me and measurements I had made in earnest but it seems my tools were imperfect and my understanding of the measurements were therefore wrong. Slafkovsky does not show particularly low hockey IQ, my evaluation was wrong.

I don't really want to start a debate and my post might be better suited as a private message but whatever.

Your point of view/opinion is always welcome even if it goes against the current. That's healthy.

What was always wrong was the amount of posts and the obsession. It made this thread painful to read.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Slaf is on another point streak, 6 in his last 5. Production consistency is one of the best possible attributes in a player and has to be considered a sign of high-IQ. It might be a tautology but you have to have high-IQ to be able to put points up in a consistent manner in the toughest league of the sport.

Tonight's point wasn't anything special except they made a good read like MSL always preaches and Slaf was found with the puck in a ton of open space and threw the puck into the slot to get the Suzuki deflection goal. Finding that space and making that pass might not have required a ton of difficult thinking but it cannot be considered anything other than the right instinct and right read... high-IQ.

In the absence of a reputation, it seems I don't know how to distinguish constant/consistent high-IQ performances with occasional ("random") good plays. Hockey is a random game with a lot of scrappy play (too much for my liking...) but there is nothing illegitimate about crash-and-bang goals and plays but when evaluating a player you want to identify actual qualities they may possess from the more random outcomes. It is easier to detect the former when there's a significant reputation for such things. I have to apologise for riling so many people up, it wasn't my intention to troll -- like any given Habs supporter, I wanted Slafkovsky to succeed but felt he was out of his depth in the NHL. I argued with the tools I had available to me and measurements I had made in earnest but it seems my tools were imperfect and my understanding of the measurements were therefore wrong. Slafkovsky does not show particularly low hockey IQ, my evaluation was wrong.

In the absence of the majority of posters who simply pretend it didn't happen when they were wrong, good for you. I don't think there's any reason for anyone to keep bringing that stuff up now.

 

[Andy]

I don't really want to start a debate and my post might be better suited as a private message but whatever.

Your point of view/opinion is always welcome even if it goes against the current. That's healthy.

What was always wrong was the amount of posts and the obsession. It made this thread painful to read.

It's a good reminder that this isn't a Kappo Kakko situation where he's been in the league for 5 years now and people are still hoping he breaks out.

Slafkovsky played 39 games as an 18 year old. It was way too early to be committed to a decision about his potential.

It's a lesson to wait and see. I hope folks will show Reinbacher some patience, especially since it takes D-men longer to develop. Owen Power in Buffalo is still putting things together.

 

[shamrun]

Slaf is a pass first power forward that sits at the faceoff dot on for one timers on the pp. I like it. He had a shift at the end of the game i think where no oiler could actually out power him down low. They could only slow him down after throwing different guys at him.

 

[waitin425]

I love this kid with all my heart

 

[417]

It's a good reminder that this isn't a Kappo Kakko situation where he's been in the league for 5 years now and people are still hoping he breaks out.

Also a good reminder that we need to look at these situations in isolation and to stop comparing Player A with Player B....comparisons are often anecdotal, there are too many changing variables to draw the type of conclusions we like to draw when we compare players.

Kakko and Slafkovsky's situations weren't that similar other than both being high picks and starting in the NHL as 18 year olds.

Slafkovsky played 39 games as an 18 year old. It was way too early to be committed to a decision about his potential.

It's a lesson to wait and see. I hope folks will show Reinbacher some patience, especially since it takes D-men longer to develop. Owen Power in Buffalo is still putting things together.

You'd think so...

 

[417]

Slaf is on another point streak, 6 in his last 5. Production consistency is one of the best possible attributes in a player and has to be considered a sign of high-IQ. It might be a tautology but you have to have high-IQ to be able to put points up in a consistent manner in the toughest league of the sport.

Tonight's point wasn't anything special except they made a good read like MSL always preaches and Slaf was found with the puck in a ton of open space and threw the puck into the slot to get the Suzuki deflection goal. Finding that space and making that pass might not have required a ton of difficult thinking but it cannot be considered anything other than the right instinct and right read... high-IQ.

In the absence of a reputation, it seems I don't know how to distinguish constant/consistent high-IQ performances with occasional ("random") good plays. Hockey is a random game with a lot of scrappy play (too much for my liking...) but there is nothing illegitimate about crash-and-bang goals and plays but when evaluating a player you want to identify actual qualities they may possess from the more random outcomes. It is easier to detect the former when there's a significant reputation for such things. I have to apologise for riling so many people up, it wasn't my intention to troll -- like any given Habs supporter, I wanted Slafkovsky to succeed but felt he was out of his depth in the NHL. I argued with the tools I had available to me and measurements I had made in earnest but it seems my tools were imperfect and my understanding of the measurements were therefore wrong. Slafkovsky does not show particularly low hockey IQ, my evaluation was wrong.

Debatable IMO...production is often circumstantial and depends on many factors which aren't in an individual player's control.

Perfect example, Slafkovsky isn't playing all that much different than he was earlier in the season, it's just alot of what he's doing now is ending up in production, he's also playing with consistent linemates, he's got more PP time, better deployment all together.

The sign of high IQ, IMO, is not the consistency in production...the sign of the high IQ is consistently doing all of the things on the ice that lead to production or not (aka the "process"). That part, he's in full control of and kudos to him because he's been as consistent a player on this team for the last 40ish games as anyone not named Nick Suzuki.

Process > results...

 

[Lshap]

Slaf is on another point streak, 6 in his last 5. Production consistency is one of the best possible attributes in a player and has to be considered a sign of high-IQ. It might be a tautology but you have to have high-IQ to be able to put points up in a consistent manner in the toughest league of the sport.

Tonight's point wasn't anything special except they made a good read like MSL always preaches and Slaf was found with the puck in a ton of open space and threw the puck into the slot to get the Suzuki deflection goal. Finding that space and making that pass might not have required a ton of difficult thinking but it cannot be considered anything other than the right instinct and right read... high-IQ.

In the absence of a reputation, it seems I don't know how to distinguish constant/consistent high-IQ performances with occasional ("random") good plays. Hockey is a random game with a lot of scrappy play (too much for my liking...) but there is nothing illegitimate about crash-and-bang goals and plays but when evaluating a player you want to identify actual qualities they may possess from the more random outcomes. It is easier to detect the former when there's a significant reputation for such things. I have to apologise for riling so many people up, it wasn't my intention to troll -- like any given Habs supporter, I wanted Slafkovsky to succeed but felt he was out of his depth in the NHL. I argued with the tools I had available to me and measurements I had made in earnest but it seems my tools were imperfect and my understanding of the measurements were therefore wrong. Slafkovsky does not show particularly low hockey IQ, my evaluation was wrong.

All of us were guessing with Slafkovsky, just like we were guessing with a decade of draft picks who were supposed to stock our top-six but amounted to (almost) nothing. The biggest difference in Slaf's case was something none of us could see – his competitive drive to learn and succeed. Drive, coachibility, maturity – those are the key factors that separate good/great NHL players from kids who never progress beyond flashes and signs. Looks like the Habs did their homework with Slafkovsky and saw a mindset worth investing in.

Related to your point about consistency, my concern about Slaf's earlier point streak was how he'd react when he hit a normal dry spell, which happened a few weeks back. He cooled off for about 10 games, which would be when a kid questions himself and overcompensates. Happy to see Slafkovsky shrug it off and push forward. I won't guess as to his future; he could produce 50 to 75 points next season and neither result would shock me.

 

[Rapala]

Slaf is a pass first power forward that sits at the faceoff dot on for one timers on the pp. I like it. He had a shift at the end of the game i think where no oiler could actually out power him down low. They could only slow him down after throwing different guys at him.

I talked about both of those aspects of his game in the GDT.
He was getting seriously interfered with on his forecheck in the third period but was able to bull his way through.
The last player I can remember being able to do it at that level was John LeClair.
Our inability as a team to break checks has been a burr in my side for years.

I've also been harping about our left side focused PP1 for a while now.
They finally switched it up later in the game and we started seeing scoring chances from both sides.
Better zone entry on the right better puck control on the right. Mike Matheson will use Suzuki when he's lined up on that side.
Suzuki ensures Slaf will get more touches. We really want Cole Caufield's touch to be a finishing touch.
Not a last touch before having to track back 200'.

 

[tooji]

He’s starting to learn he can buy himself time with puck protection at this level. I sense more calm+confidence in his game every time he touches the puck.