Player Discussion Chabot's realistic potential in 2018-2019

Korpse

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 5, 2010
20,723
9,568
Karlsson sticking around would certainly help chabot

The whole narrative that chabot wouldn't have broken out if Karlsson was still here is one of the dumbest takes I have seen this year .

Who needs Karlsson when we got chabot right .why not have both

Offensively it’s unlikely he would have the impact he has had, he stepped in and took over for Karlsson. All the opportunities Karlsson received, Chabot got. With Karlsson around those opportunities would have been dimished. When people say that it’s not saying Chabot wouldn’t have had a good year, just not as good of a year and it’s a very real argument. Playing along side Karlsson would have helped to a degree as far as production goes but he wouldn’t have been nearly as productive. Opportunity is everything and there’s only so much to go around.
 

Sensinitis

Registered User
Aug 5, 2012
15,934
5,526
Not that far off, but luckily for us I think he'll be closer to a PPG player then a 0.5 PPG player. He's on pace for 0.8 PPG this season, and I think that'll be around average for him most years. There are few blue liners that control the play like he does while on the ice.

Yep 100% agreed. He should crack 60 pts next season. Excited to watch him grow into one of the best Ds with us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sensmileletsgo

Alex1234

Registered User
Oct 14, 2014
16,075
6,236
Karlsson sticking around would certainly help chabot

The whole narrative that chabot wouldn't have broken out if Karlsson was still here is one of the dumbest takes I have seen this year .

Who needs Karlsson when we got chabot right .why not have both
Burns certainly doesn't seem bothered by Karlsson presence on his team
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Hat and bert

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
daveengledowworldsbestfathersteak_thumb_560x425.jpeg
 

topshelf15

Registered User
May 5, 2009
27,993
6,005
Kid has been great,but we all saw this coming....He really didnt surprise many,good attitude ,work ethic and good team mate...All with a great skill set...He is a homerun pick
 

KnuckChuckinTkachuk

Give'yer balls a tug
Jan 23, 2011
2,095
945
Seems like I was bang on with my assessment of "I'll go with similar to Werenski's rookie season while having good zone exit stats and a few dzone lapses."

He actually out produced Werenski's rookie season (which was 47 points 11 goals in 78 games) and was a leader on our backend. He does however have some of the same defensive zone tendencies as EK did earlier in his career (caught puck watching, standing still, losing his coverage in front of the net, positioning on off man rushes).
 

KnuckChuckinTkachuk

Give'yer balls a tug
Jan 23, 2011
2,095
945
Chabot looked fantastic as part of the PP. I am very very bullish on his potential production, especially if Karlsson is traded and Chabot becomes our top PP QB.

In a season where Chabot was used in a conservative role early on, and only played 63 games, he had 25 points. 8 of those were powerplay points, 17 even strength. If used in a major role next season, I could see 50+ points over 82 games. His shot and vision lead me to believe he could possibly be a 20+ goal 60+ point d-man in a career year.

People forget, Chabot is a blue chipper. This is a guy who was up there with Keller and Puljujarvi being heralded as a top NHL affiliated prospect. I would attribute this loss status both to the kind of year the Senators had where nothing went right and our team couldn't buy a win, and also to Guy Boucher's hesitation to use Chabot to the full extent of his current ability.

If Boucher buys into the apparent "don't be afraid to play anybody under 42" mantra that Dorion claims the team has pushed, maybe as soon as next season I'd expect Chabot to cement himself as one of the best young defenders in the NHL.
You sir were absolutely right. You get a cookie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danielpalfredsson

Agent Zub

Registered User
Jan 2, 2015
14,424
11,713
Offensively it’s unlikely he would have the impact he has had, he stepped in and took over for Karlsson. All the opportunities Karlsson received, Chabot got. With Karlsson around those opportunities would have been dimished. When people say that it’s not saying Chabot wouldn’t have had a good year, just not as good of a year and it’s a very real argument. Playing along side Karlsson would have helped to a degree as far as production goes but he wouldn’t have been nearly as productive. Opportunity is everything and there’s only so much to go around.

No, all they would have is two pairings with elite offensive production.

Just look at San Jose. Not to mention that Karlsson and Chabot would be on at the same time in critical offensive or 5 on 5 play.

There's 60 minutes in a game, more than enough opportunity for both.
 

Korpse

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 5, 2010
20,723
9,568
No, all they would have is two pairings with elite offensive production.

Just look at San Jose. Not to mention that Karlsson and Chabot would be on at the same time in critical offensive or 5 on 5 play.

There's 60 minutes in a game, more than enough opportunity for both.

Doubt it. While there is in fact 60+ minutes to a game, there was a limited amount of skill players. Chabot benefited greatly from playing with players like Stone and Duchene and they benefited greatly playing with him as well. But with EK being around the amount of time Chabot was on the ice with our best players would have decreased and I think it would have hurt his production more than situational play with EK. Not to mention how EK would have impacted his PP role. It’s not meant to be a slight against Chabot in any way, it’s just the way team sports work. The fact that he was able to seamlessly step in for EK speaks volumes.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,121
30,340
Doubt it. While there is in fact 60+ minutes to a game, there was a limited amount of skill players. Chabot benefited greatly from playing with players like Stone and Duchene and they benefited greatly playing with him as well. But with EK being around the amount of time Chabot was on the ice with our best players would have decreased and I think it would have hurt his production more than situational play with EK. Not to mention how EK would have impacted his PP role. It’s not meant to be a slight against Chabot in any way, it’s just the way team sports work. The fact that he was able to seamlessly step in for EK speaks volumes.

Idk, in 2016-17, Stone played 356 mins with Ceci, and 425 with Karlsson at 5v5 (chose that year because ceci and Karlsson played a similar number of games), not a giant gap, but keep in mind that they pretty much never played as a pair, where as you bet that Chabot would have played with Karlsson late in any game we were down if they were both here this year.

As for the PP, again, I'm not so sure. Having two offensive Dmen never hurt Subban and Markov's production in Mtl, they worked in tandem and were extremely effective together, moreso than either appart.

I think it's impossible to say how things would have gone. Karlsson's production didn't drop this year from last year because Burns gets the offensive ice time, and neither has Burns'.
 

Korpse

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 5, 2010
20,723
9,568
Idk, in 2016-17, Stone played 356 mins with Ceci, and 425 with Karlsson at 5v5 (chose that year because ceci and Karlsson played a similar number of games), not a giant gap, but keep in mind that they pretty much never played as a pair, where as you bet that Chabot would have played with Karlsson late in any game we were down if they were both here this year.

As for the PP, again, I'm not so sure. Having two offensive Dmen never hurt Subban and Markov's production in Mtl, they worked in tandem and were extremely effective together, moreso than either appart.

I think it's impossible to say how things would have gone. Karlsson's production didn't drop this year from last year because Burns gets the offensive ice time, and neither has Burns'.

Ceci and Karlsson were playing different roles though where as Chabot and Karlsson would be playing similar roles. They would be splitting opportunities with an edge going toward Karlsson. Of course there would be times when both play together, after all Karlsson was Chabot's most common partner last season but I dont think it would be the 400 minutes that they did play together. And despite Karlsson being his most common partner in 17/18, the two only combined on one EV goal, even the rate in which goals were scored when Chabot played with Karlsson vs when he didn't was virtually the same.

Markov and Subban were dynamic because Markov was the setup man and Subban the triggerman. I'm not sure Karlsson-Chabot would find the chemistry together as both are very similar. As for Bruns and Karlsson you are talking about a team with significantly better scoring depth.

There's arguments to be made either way and as you said it is impossible to say which way it would go. Based on how I view the game I believe Chabot wouldn't be as productive but you could make an argument he would. Which goes back to the post in which I responded to, which said it was a terrible narrative. I completely disagree, there are many valid points to be made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sens of Anarchy

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,121
30,340
Ceci and Karlsson were playing different roles though where as Chabot and Karlsson would be playing similar roles. They would be splitting opportunities with an edge going toward Karlsson. Of course there would be times when both play together, after all Karlsson was Chabot's most common partner last season but I dont think it would be the 400 minutes that they did play together. And despite Karlsson being his most common partner in 17/18, the two only combined on one EV goal, even the rate in which goals were scored when Chabot played with Karlsson vs when he didn't was virtually the same.

Markov and Subban were dynamic because Markov was the setup man and Subban the triggerman. I'm not sure Karlsson-Chabot would find the chemistry together as both are very similar. As for Bruns and Karlsson you are talking about a team with significantly better scoring depth.

There's arguments to be made either way and as you said it is impossible to say which way it would go. Based on how I view the game I believe Chabot wouldn't be as productive but you could make an argument he would. Which goes back to the post in which I responded to, which said it was a terrible narrative. I completely disagree, there are many valid points to be made.

Yeah, kind of what I was getting at; there are variables that would both aid and hinder his production in both cases. Karlsson drew a lot of shutdown matchups, would that mean having both presents a matchup advantage for Chabot? We typically kept Stone and Duchene apart, so there would have still been plenty of mins with offensive minded players. Who would their partners be, ect.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I just think you can't assume one way or the other, particularly when you have no idea how the coach will deploy them. Chabot isn't as refined defensively as Karlsson, maybe we opt to use Karlsson as our shutdown guy 5v5 if we had both, who knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCraigAnderson

stempniaksen

Registered User
Oct 12, 2008
11,004
4,262
The main board thread between Chabot and McAvoy got me thinking about something, so I figure I'd float the idea here.

Hot take alert: Is Chabot the best PP QB the Senators have ever had?

This isn't based on any numbers, as I'm sure those are tilted toward Karlsson and/or Redden given the supporting casts, it's simply based off of the eye test. The PP always seemed predictable with EK here, that could be as much a coaching problem as anything, but I also feel like EK's strengths are much more apparent 5 on 5. I can't recall the PP every running so seamlessly through one player without looking like we were forcing it to that guy.

The Senators have obviously had some great PP options in their history (Karlsson, Redden as QB's and Chara, Alfredsson and Hoffman as trigger men) but none of those guys impressed me as much as Chabot does. Maybe there's something even further back then that (MacIver, Duschene)?
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,121
30,340
The main board thread between Chabot and McAvoy got me thinking about something, so I figure I'd float the idea here.

Hot take alert: Is Chabot the best PP QB the Senators have ever had?

This isn't based on any numbers, as I'm sure those are tilted toward Karlsson and/or Redden given the supporting casts, it's simply based off of the eye test. The PP always seemed predictable with EK here, that could be as much a coaching problem as anything, but I also feel like EK's strengths are much more apparent 5 on 5. I can't recall the PP every running so seamlessly through one player without looking like we were forcing it to that guy.

The Senators have obviously had some great PP options in their history (Karlsson, Redden as QB's and Chara, Alfredsson and Hoffman as trigger men) but none of those guys impressed me as much as Chabot does. Maybe there's something even further back then that (MacIver, Duschene)?

I'd argue Spezza was the QB in his hay-day. The play went threw him off the sidewall.
 

stempniaksen

Registered User
Oct 12, 2008
11,004
4,262
I'd argue Spezza was the QB in his hay-day. The play went threw him off the sidewall.

I meant defenceman originally, and then broke my own rule mentioning Alfie and Hoffman.

You're absolutely right though, Spezza was a PP wizard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NB613

topshelf15

Registered User
May 5, 2009
27,993
6,005
I meant defenceman originally, and then broke my own rule mentioning Alfie and Hoffman.

You're absolutely right though, Spezza was a PP wizard.
Alfie was something ,he was a wizard anywhere he played....As the main PP point man or as our best PK forward ,would love to see him pass of some of those skills to some of our kids
 
  • Like
Reactions: Icelevel

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
The main board thread between Chabot and McAvoy got me thinking about something, so I figure I'd float the idea here.

Hot take alert: Is Chabot the best PP QB the Senators have ever had?

This isn't based on any numbers, as I'm sure those are tilted toward Karlsson and/or Redden given the supporting casts, it's simply based off of the eye test. The PP always seemed predictable with EK here, that could be as much a coaching problem as anything, but I also feel like EK's strengths are much more apparent 5 on 5. I can't recall the PP every running so seamlessly through one player without looking like we were forcing it to that guy.

The Senators have obviously had some great PP options in their history (Karlsson, Redden as QB's and Chara, Alfredsson and Hoffman as trigger men) but none of those guys impressed me as much as Chabot does. Maybe there's something even further back then that (MacIver, Duschene)?

Karlsson had the better tool set, especially with his shot, but for some reason our PP never seemed to work with him. I don't know if it was a coaching issue. We had so much trouble entering the zone, and then when we were in the zone, it was always very predictable and easy to stop. I remember we tried maybe last year or the year before to move Karlsson off of the point into the slot, but that only lasted a short period of time.

Chabot might have better vision working the point, but I also think he's benefited from Guy Boucher being the one in charge of the PP this season, which if I recall, he wasn't last year or the year before. One of Boucher's pros was his ability to construct a PP.
 

Alex1234

Registered User
Oct 14, 2014
16,075
6,236
Idk, in 2016-17, Stone played 356 mins with Ceci, and 425 with Karlsson at 5v5 (chose that year because ceci and Karlsson played a similar number of games), not a giant gap, but keep in mind that they pretty much never played as a pair, where as you bet that Chabot would have played with Karlsson late in any game we were down if they were both here this year.

As for the PP, again, I'm not so sure. Having two offensive Dmen never hurt Subban and Markov's production in Mtl, they worked in tandem and were extremely effective together, moreso than either appart.

I think it's impossible to say how things would have gone. Karlsson's production didn't drop this year from last year because Burns gets the offensive ice time, and neither has Burns'.
This
 

Alex1234

Registered User
Oct 14, 2014
16,075
6,236
Karlsson had the better tool set, especially with his shot, but for some reason our PP never seemed to work with him. I don't know if it was a coaching issue. We had so much trouble entering the zone, and then when we were in the zone, it was always very predictable and easy to stop. I remember we tried maybe last year or the year before to move Karlsson off of the point into the slot, but that only lasted a short period of time.

Chabot might have better vision working the point, but I also think he's benefited from Guy Boucher being the one in charge of the PP this season, which if I recall, he wasn't last year or the year before. One of Boucher's pros was his ability to construct a PP.
PP was static with EK for no reason
Nobody moved their feet waiting for EK or Hoff one timers
Very predictable
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->