Pre-Game Talk: All Purpose Off Day Thread | This wasn't what I meant by a balanced defense ...

[Pancakes]

Pearson and Simon were also both really good last game, so I don't really think it's "forcing Pearson and SImon into the lineup".

They were, but it's still a joke that Blueger got scratched for one bad game when every other game he's played he has been good.

Simon had been awful for a long long time prior to last game.

 

[Gurglesons]

We make a little too much of 4th lines anyway, but when it comes to playing guys with decent NHL track records and decent last games, I think its got a little out of control...

And yes, I'm being a tad hypocritical here.

Do you mean people around here are being out of line?

 

[Gurglesons]

They were, but it's still a joke that Blueger got scratched for one bad game when every other game he's played he has been good.

Simon had been awful for a long long time prior to last game.

Simon is scoring at Teddy’s pace through 50 games. For a board that complains we rely to much on coal miners getting mad that Sullivan is running a very skilled 4th line in Pearson - Cullen - Simon is certainly a weird flex.

 

[Pancakes]

Simon is scoring at Teddy’s pace through 50 games. For a board that complains we rely to much on coal miners getting mad that Sullivan is running a very skilled 4th line in Pearson - Cullen - Simon is certainly a weird flex.

Simon has 2 points in his last 10 games, with 0 goals. Blueger has only played 9 games, but has 3 goals in those games to go along with an assist. They're both good possession guys, so that part of it is a bit of a wash, although Blueger does his with 21% o-zone starts versus 54% o-zone starts for Simon. Anyways, my point is Blueger has outperformed him recently and is one of the few players on this team outside of our stars that has been scoring goals with any consistency. Why take him out? At least ride it out with Blueger for another few games and see if he can keep scoring. If the offense dries up, sure, take him out, but ride him while he's hot.

 

[Gurglesons]

Simon has 2 points in his last 10 games, with 0 goals. Blueger has only played 9 games, but has 3 goals in those games to go along with an assist. They're both good possession guys, so that part of it is a bit of a wash, although Blueger does his with 21% o-zone starts versus 54% o-zone starts for Simon. Anyways, my point is Blueger has outperformed him recently and is one of the few players on this team outside of our stars that has been scoring goals with any consistency. Why take him out? At least ride it out with Blueger for another few games and see if he can keep scoring. If the offense dries up, sure, take him out, but ride him while he's hot.

Because Simon and Pearson have a longer history of production and ultimately for this team, this year are more vital to get going.

 

[JackFr]

I get Pearson and Simon in the lineup. But 49 year old Cullen does not need to play every game! He should be resting at least half of them down the stretch. Get Blueg in.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I get Pearson and Simon in the lineup. But 49 year old Cullen does not need to play every game! He should be resting at least half of them down the stretch. Get Blueg in.

they aren't going to sit Cullen to rest him. It just isn't something NHL teams do.

 

[JackFr]

they aren't going to sit Cullen to rest him. It just isn't something NHL teams do.

I get that in most cases but the guy is the oldest player in the league. Keep him fresh.

 

[Gurglesons]

I get that in most cases but the guy is the oldest player in the league. Keep him fresh.

He’s looked pretty fresh to me.

 

[Pancakes]

Because Simon and Pearson have a longer history of production and ultimately for this team, this year are more vital to get going.

So what if Teddy Blueger was Jake Guentzel of two years ago? Same argument applies? We literally don't win that cup if the Pens don't give Guentzel the chance he got. I'd like more than 10 games to see what we have in a young player that is producing at a very good level.

 

[Gurglesons]

So what if Teddy Blueger was Jake Guentzel of two years ago? Same argument applies? We literally don't win that cup if the Pens don't give Guentzel the chance he got. I'd like more than 10 games to see what we have in a young player that is producing at a very good level.

Jake Guentzel was scratched and sent to the minors after having four points in five games.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

So what if Teddy Blueger was Jake Guentzel of two years ago? Same argument applies? We literally don't win that cup if the Pens don't give Guentzel the chance he got. I'd like more than 10 games to see what we have in a young player that is producing at a very good level.

Simon was adding some creativity to the fourth line and Pearson played well to.

TB has come up and given them a really nice glimpse of his talent, so they will hopefully find a place for him next season out of the gate.

He’s likely going down after the deadline I’d imagine, so can’t get mad about it.

 

[Pancakes]

Jake Guentzel was scratched and sent to the minors after having four points in five games.

That doesn't make that decision right unless you want to buy the narrative that Jake needed a few more games in the minors after absolutely tearing the AHL a new asshole.

It worked out for the Pens in the end but they probably never should have sent him down to begin with.

 

[Corvidae]

Pearson and Simon were also both really good last game, so I don't really think it's "forcing Pearson and SImon into the lineup".

This is true. I was all aboard the scratch them train but they were good and deserve another game.

If not for the huge blow-back it would cause, Kessel would be my odd man out right now, but I understand why that won't happen.

 

[Peat]

That doesn't make that decision right unless you want to buy the narrative that Jake needed a few more games in the minors after absolutely tearing the AHL a new *******.

It worked out for the Pens in the end but they probably never should have sent him down to begin with.

Tearing the AHL a new one doesn't make an NHL player. They sent him down to work on some small holes in his game and he did. What about the narrative doesn't make sense?

Its funny how many times it works out for leaving a guy longer in the AHL.

In any case... Bloogs isn't Jake. We'd know if he was. His best case is Rust. Which also happens to be about Pearson's and Simon's best case too, albeit in slightly different ways.

Sitting one instead of the other really shouldn't be a big deal.

 

[Gurglesons]

That doesn't make that decision right unless you want to buy the narrative that Jake needed a few more games in the minors after absolutely tearing the AHL a new *******.

It worked out for the Pens in the end but they probably never should have sent him down to begin with.

No. Sending players down to the AHL is actually very useful. Look at Teddy’s career path. The organization likes him. We just have current players we are paying term to and that looked good last game.

Teddy likely is our 4C next year and will get a one way contract.

I don’t know why you wouldn’t trust this team in terms of development. The only player that has not developed here is Sprong who clearly suffered due to being used in the NHL when he wasn’t ready.

 

[Pancakes]

Tearing the AHL a new one doesn't make an NHL player. They sent him down to work on some small holes in his game and he did. What about the narrative doesn't make sense?

Its funny how many times it works out for leaving a guy longer in the AHL.

In any case... Bloogs isn't Jake. We'd know if he was. His best case is Rust. Which also happens to be about Pearson's and Simon's best case too, albeit in slightly different ways.

Sitting one instead of the other really shouldn't be a big deal.

Or maybe he was already a productive NHL player and sending him down did nothing to make him any better since when he came up he continued to produce just as he was?

NHL GMs/coaches love to push the narrative that extra seasoning in the AHL is what made a guy good but the truth is we don't know and it's very convenient for them to be able to say it's true since they can then turn around and peddle the same story to other prospects in the future who aren't being given much leeway in the NHL.

Anyways my point isn't that Blueger is necessarily better than Pearson or Simon, but rather that Blueger is producing as of right now, and I'd rather ride that hot streak out rather than just scratch him because we simply have to play more established players.

 

[Pancakes]

No. Sending players down to the AHL is actually very useful. Look at Teddy’s career path. The organization likes him. We just have current players we are paying term to and that looked good last game.

Teddy likely is our 4C next year and will get a one way contract.

I don’t know why you wouldn’t trust this team in terms of development. The only player that has not developed here is Sprong who clearly suffered due to being used in the NHL when he wasn’t ready.

I think we do a good job for the most part, but I think like all NHL organizations we defer a little too much to veterans sometimes out of a fear of the unknown.

 

[Peat]

Or maybe he was already a productive NHL player and sending him down did nothing to make him any better since when he came up he continued to produce just as he was?

NHL GMs/coaches love to push the narrative that extra seasoning in the AHL is what made a guy good but the truth is we don't know and it's very convenient for them to be able to say it's true since they can then turn around and peddle the same story to other prospects in the future who aren't being given much leeway in the NHL.

Anyways my point isn't that Blueger is necessarily better than Pearson or Simon, but rather that Blueger is producing as of right now, and I'd rather ride that hot streak out rather than just scratch him because we simply have to play more established players.

Being a good NHL player is about more than being a productive one. Its those details - to give consistency - that they were presumably looking for. Admittedly, I don't know for sure, but neither do you, and whether by correlation or causation the AHL narrative holds true.

As for Bloogs... he was scratched after a cold game. Maybe what Sully is seeing practice said to him that the streak was done and other guys looked more energetic. Who knows? The answer to which is none of us. If the coach makes a decision based on info only he has, and the players he puts in perform, that should be good enough.

 

[Gurglesons]

Or maybe he was already a productive NHL player and sending him down did nothing to make him any better since when he came up he continued to produce just as he was?

NHL GMs/coaches love to push the narrative that extra seasoning in the AHL is what made a guy good but the truth is we don't know and it's very convenient for them to be able to say it's true since they can then turn around and peddle the same story to other prospects in the future who aren't being given much leeway in the NHL.

Anyways my point isn't that Blueger is necessarily better than Pearson or Simon, but rather that Blueger is producing as of right now, and I'd rather ride that hot streak out rather than just scratch him because we simply have to play more established players.

Did you jump right into your career?

Chances are you started in a lesser role and got pushed up from there. Same thing in hockey.

It wasn’t like Teddy was burning people with insane individual efforts. He had a couple good games and a couple bad games. The coaching staff said they think he’s part of their group moving forward.

I think the whole he needs to play now thing is just impatience.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Randy B
2:56
Would you rather fight a Zdeno Chara sized Bobby Farnham, or a Bobby Farnham sized Zdeno Chara?

Jason Mackey
2:57
A Bobby Farnham-sized Zdeno Chara. Although a Zdeno Chara-sized Bobby Farnham would be one hell of a spectacle.


I think I'm funny.

 

[Pancakes]

Being a good NHL player is about more than being a productive one. Its those details - to give consistency - that they were presumably looking for. Admittedly, I don't know for sure, but neither do you, and whether by correlation or causation the AHL narrative holds true.

As for Bloogs... he was scratched after a cold game. Maybe what Sully is seeing practice said to him that the streak was done and other guys looked more energetic. Who knows? The answer to which is none of us. If the coach makes a decision based on info only he has, and the players he puts in perform, that should be good enough.

True. It's difficult to prove either way. Actually @Jesse if you're reading it would be cool if you researched this to see if the narrative about AHL seasoning leading to NHL success is a true one. I know you're always receptive to ideas for articles so that might be an interesting topic to look at some time. Or maybe someone else has already done a study that I do not know of.

As for your last point Peat yes Sullivan has more information than you or I but that doesn't mean his decisions are necessarily more sound. JR has access to loads of more data points than I do about JJ but there's a near universal consensus in the analytics community that the JJ signing was a huge mistake and that he has performed badly. Saying JR is right because he has more information would just be deferring to authority. Authority is not always correct.

Did you jump right into your career?

Chances are you started in a lesser role and got pushed up from there. Same thing in hockey.

It wasn’t like Teddy was burning people with insane individual efforts. He had a couple good games and a couple bad games. The coaching staff said they think he’s part of their group moving forward.

I think the whole he needs to play now thing is just impatience.

Argument doesn't really work since plenty of guys do jump right in and do well with zero AHL seasoning at all.

Maybe I am being impatient, but I just hate scratching a guy who is scoring goals when our other depth players continue to struggle to do that. If Teddy were to go cold, I'd be perfectly content with scratching him. I just don't think we've given him that chance. I would rather he be given 2-3 more games and if the offense is still dry take him out.

 

[Peat]

True. It's difficult to prove either way. Actually @Jesse if you're reading it would be cool if you researched this to see if the narrative about AHL seasoning leading to NHL success is a true one. I know you're always receptive to ideas for articles so that might be an interesting topic to look at some time. Or maybe someone else has already done a study that I do not know of.

As for your last point Peat yes Sullivan has more information than you or I but that doesn't mean his decisions are necessarily more sound. JR has access to loads of more data points than I do about JJ but there's a near universal consensus in the analytics community that the JJ signing was a huge mistake and that he has performed badly. Saying JR is right because he has more information would just be deferring to authority. Authority is not always correct.

But in this case it was a sound decision because Pearson and Simon had good games - particularly Pearson - that helped us net 2 points. If they'd sucked I might understand giving out about it but they didn't.

 

[Pancakes]

But in this case it was a sound decision because Pearson and Simon had good games - particularly Pearson - that helped us net 2 points. If they'd sucked I might understand giving out about it but they didn't.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn.

I kid...I'm not that down on Sullivan. And at least the guys coming into the lineup at Blueger's expense do have skill.

 

[AjaxTelamon]

If only his minutes reflected that of a bottom pairing defender ...

Oh absolutely, he'd be better at 17 minutes and bottom pair assignments than 20 minutes and 2nd pair. But he is our 5th highest paid D man, not our 3rd highest paid, so he should be slotting down.

He's just not our top issue right now, and he should be less of an issue in the playoffs due to play style.