But what is a chance? If all he's generating is things that have very low probability of ending up as goals, then it is still completely valid for fans to be frustrated with his ability to generate scoring chances.The only part of his post I responded to was the part where he said Bennett wasn't creating chances for himself and/or his teammates.
All I posted about was his scoring chances and how he was unlucky in the offensive end last season, nothing else.
Based on the fact that he was criticized in end of season meetings and himself agreed that he had to make some changes and get better, I don't think it's a reasonable conclusion that anyone with the club was satisfied with what he was doing on the ice.AS, if we’re talking about Bennett generating consistent low scoring chances, does that not describe Gully’s system perfectly? In which case Bennett was doing exactly what was asked.
But what is a chance? If all he's generating is things that have very low probability of ending up as goals, then it is still completely valid for fans to be frustrated with his ability to generate scoring chances.
Go back to post #571. The chances being botched by linemates do not fall under your presumption.
But what is a chance? If all he's generating is things that have very low probability of ending up as goals, then it is still completely valid for fans to be frustrated with his ability to generate scoring chances.
What is it in his game that convinces you that he's unlucky and not just creating poor chances which he is not capable of converting? If you're saying he was just unlucky, then you're implying that if he does the same exact thing next season, he'll produce better. Is that what you think?
Sure, and first of all, that's a highlight video that cuts out all of his play between those snippets, as I'm sure you acknowledge.
But even for a highlight video, it's not like there are a significant number of those occasions you're referring to. Every chance created is just that- a chance. Sometimes they don't go in. Every single player on the team would have a highlight video for last year where a number of chances are wasted by linemates. Even Troy Brouwer could have such a video created. But watching that Bennett video, there are at least as many "succeeding in spite of himself" moments as there are chances wasted, so I would definitely not call him an unlucky player. And again, the biggest issue with Benny boy is what happens between the clips in that video.
I don't expect to change your opinion, but between the qualitative support and the quantitative support, there is reason to think he was indeed, an unlucky player. .
To be clear, I think Bennett will be much improved this season. I have to believe that as a Flames fan, because the alternative would be pretty depressing. But I believe it will be because of him making tangible changes to the way he plays the game (and hopefully a system that increases quality of chances team-wide), not because of puck luck.Re: Bolded 1 - not true to nearly the same extent as Bennett. That's a disingenuous claim. In fact, you can watch the same youtuber's videos for pretty much every forward on the team and few of them contain as many quality plays created other than Gaudreau and Tkachuk. Even Jankowski's highlight package is predominantly consisting of Bennett's chance creation. Of course these are just highlight packages, but they support the quantitative evidence (the fact that Bennett's individual expected goals led the entire team at 5 on 5 last year, and his on-ice expected goals trailed only Gaudreau and Monahan who played together) that Bennett was involved in significant creation of events that have a high likelyhood of ending up as goals.
Re: Bolded 2 - I don't expect to change your opinion, but between the qualitative support and the quantitative support, there is reason to think he was indeed, an unlucky player. In more aspects than one (some having less to do with on-ice luck and more to do with luck of the draw in terms of deployment beside the likes of Curtis Lazar and Garnet Hathaway). Of course there's reasons to think that those stats are not the end-all be-all. I'll be the first to tell you I'd expect Ferland or Monahan to have lead this team in actual goals because those two have got the best actual shooting skill on the team. But as pertains to quality of chance, I think the combination of these two aspects, and my own personal observations over the course of the previous 82 games, are sufficient for me to think so.
It seems you are attached to the idea that counting stats fully describe a player's play. I don't expect to sway you away from that idea, especially since no amount of personal anecdote, quantitative on-ice results, and qualitative support is enough to change your mind since you have an opinion of Bennett which is most likely formed by isolated incidents that you're attributing the bulk of his play to. I've seen it here on CFHF that some perceptions get repeated until they are collectively treated as fact, and then when events in the game contradict these "facts", people just ignore them, until the post-game driveby IF the box score "supports" said perception.
If you're attached to your position, so be it. But to me your arguments are machinisms of a popular narrative rather than an actual breakdown of his game or supported by anything resembling evidence. I guess we just see counting stats in a different light - of course they are important but they are a result that requires a certain collection of TEAM inputs, they are not the inputs themselves.
Sam should play with Tkachuk and Lindholm. As a unit they are solid defensively, Tkachuk has the mind to get the line going, all three of them are good along the boards with Tkachuk being one of the best in the league. Lindholm is good down low and Sam would have the freedom to move around and not have to rely on **** line-mates.
I really hope Peters puts this line together in pre-season and early in the regular season and let them build some chemistry, I think the line has huge potential.
Only real problem this leads to is moving Backlund down to the 3rd line and Janko to wing which I think is a waste of Janko's talent moving forward and then Backs is underplayed for his salary which will annoy anal hockey fans who only look at the numbers.
Only real problem this leads to is moving Backlund down to the 3rd line and Janko to wing which I think is a waste of Janko's talent moving forward and then Backs is underplayed for his salary which will annoy anal hockey fans who only look at the numbers.
He did?
According to Canes fans and Calgary media outlets, he essentially took their version of Mangi and made him look like a top 6 NHLer
I don't see how that is possible.
He played 10 game last year in the NHL that seems like a super small sample size, plus the guy had a good AHL season so not sure how it was Peters turning him into anything over him being a talented guy.
Look what Gulutzan did with Mangiapane. Nuff said.
It's Gulutzan's fault Mangiapane was easily knocked off the puck and unimpressive in almost every way? Good to knowLook what Gulutzan did with Mangiapane. Nuff said.