Value of: Conor Sheary to San Jose

[Beauner]

He was playing top six minutes. Yes. But that doesn’t make him a legit one.

That's some pretty twisted logic. Especially considering in his first 2 full seasons he scored 23 and 18 goals. Yeah hes not a superstar but not every top 6 guy is. He was/is a legit top 6 option, just not a high end one. And there's ample evidence to discredit the whole "he only put up those numbers because Crosby".

 

[Gecklund]

Sheary would work well with Hertl imo.

I don’t think so. Hertl’s line is more of a big possession line. He would look best with Kane but he still wouldn’t look good.

 

[Hockeyholic]

That's some pretty twisted logic. Especially considering in his first 2 full seasons he scored 23 and 18 goals. Yeah hes not a superstar but not every top 6 guy is. He was/is a legit top 6 option, just not a high end one. And there's ample evidence to discredit the whole "he only put up those numbers because Crosby".

Evidence such as.....??

 

[Gurglesons]

I don’t think so. Hertl’s line is more of a big possession line. He would look best with Kane but he still wouldn’t look good.

Sheary is a very good possession wing.

 

[Maurice of Orange]

If the Sharks sign Sheary it’s not going to make a difference.

San Jose’s bottom 6 is a bunch of meh and the top 6 forwards or top 4 defense is one injury away from dropping to the bottom of the standings again.

 

[Gecklund]

Sheary is a very good possession wing.

Not in the way the Kane/Hertl/Labanc line is.

 

[Beauner]

Evidence such as.....??

Dominik Simon. David Perron. Lee Stempniak.

Etc

Etc

Etc

 

[Gecklund]

If the Sharks sign Sheary it’s not going to make a difference.

San Jose’s bottom 6 is a bunch of meh and the top 6 forwards or top 4 defense is one injury away from dropping to the bottom of the standings again.

You understand it was 3-4 injuries that caused them to drop last season right?

 

[themelkman]

Sharks have 0 playmakers in the top 6.

Thats not true. Labanc is more of a playmaker than a shooter, and Couture and Hertl are inbetween playmakers and shooters.

 

[BHD]

Sheary’s profile is based on a handful of playoff games. He can be that guy who scores big goals, but the rest of the time he’s falling down.

 

[Gurglesons]

Not in the way the Kane/Hertl/Labanc line is.

K.

 

[Gecklund]

Thats not true. Labanc is more of a playmaker than a shooter, and Couture and Hertl are inbetween playmakers and shooters.

I wouldn’t say Couture/Hertl are more playmakers. They’re definitely more shooters. There’s a reason Couture’s line has looked best with a playmaker with him. You’re right about Labanc but I still don’t know if I consider him top 6. Guess that doesn’t matter though since he’s a lock to be in the top 6.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Sheary has great speed and can score in spurts if he has a good player setting him up.
Incredibly soft and weak. Avoids contact and can disappear for long stretches.
His stint with the Sabres showed how much his early success was a product of Crosby.
I’m sure with the current market he will be signed very cheap and for one year.

I don't agree that he avoids contact, but he is so small that when he tries to disrupt the puck carrier it has little effect.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

It’s a subscription site for Sharks. It’s different when you subscribe but Sheng is probably the most connected insider for the Sharks.

Also like I said on the Sharks board. Guy would be an awful signing. Literally Sorensen who we all hate.

Sheary and Sorensen are nothing alike.

 

[Gecklund]

Sheary and Sorensen are nothing alike.

They are fast and offer nothing but shooting. Very much a like.

 

[Gurglesons]

They are fast and offer nothing but shooting. Very much a like.

Sheary is more of a play maker than a shooter despite what people are saying in here.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

They are fast and offer nothing but shooting. Very much a like.

That's an extremely reductive way to analyze players.

Sorensen is faster in a straight line, but Sheary is quicker and better at changing direction in tight space. Sheary has a more accurate shot, when given time, but is a poor finisher when he doesn't have complete control of the puck. Sorensen has an NHL body, although undersized. Sheary is a midget who can't effectively lean on defenders to apply pressure. Sorensen has replacement-level puck control at best. Sheary has OK puck-handling when he plays it safe, but frequently tries to pull moves that his hands can't keep up with and loses the puck. When he does pull off one of those quick moves however, he is very effective bringing the puck into the OZ.

The biggest difference besides size is in IQ. Sorensen is not an intelligent NHL player. Sheary is a very smart one, although he often fails to convert on the chances his brain puts him in position to make.

 

[Satanphonehome]

I only saw Sheary in spurts for the Penguins. I saw pretty much every game he played for the Sabres. He’d occasionally make a highlight play, but the vast majority of the time he was the definition of a passenger.

He is fast enough to get open on the rush and could finish at times.
He doesn’t win puck battles. Ever. Literally bottom of the league.
If he’s got a line to open ice or an uncontested puck he’s got a great burst.
Unless he had a clear step, he would rarely dive in to contest pucks. He does not get to the net.
His backchecking was adequate
He rarely forced turnovers
He can make passes on the rush, but otherwise rarely created chances for teammates
He doesn’t turn the puck over much through bad passes, or really handle it much
He consistently turns it over on contact.
He isn’t skilled enough to be an asset on the PP
He doesn’t kill penalties
And as many have said, he falls down. A lot.

Essentially he is a pretty effective forward on the rush, and is skilled and smart enough to use the open ice a great player creates for him.

He adds very little outside that specific situation.

He is not the ideal choice to play with your best players, but he can be useful if he does.

If he is not playing with good players, he brings nothing at all.

 

[themelkman]

I only saw Sheary in spurts for the Penguins. I saw pretty much every game he played for the Sabres. He’d occasionally make a highlight play, but the vast majority of the time he was the definition of a passenger.

He is fast enough to get open on the rush and could finish at times.
He doesn’t win puck battles. Ever. Literally bottom of the league.
If he’s got a line to open ice or an uncontested puck he’s got a great burst.
Unless he had a clear step, he would rarely dive in to contest pucks. He does not get to the net.
His backchecking was adequate
He rarely forced turnovers
He can make passes on the rush, but otherwise rarely created chances for teammates
He doesn’t turn the puck over much through bad passes, or really handle it much
He consistently turns it over on contact.
He isn’t skilled enough to be an asset on the PP
He doesn’t kill penalties
And as many have said, he falls down. A lot.

Essentially he is a pretty effective forward on the rush, and is skilled and smart enough to use the open ice a great player creates for him.

He adds very little outside that specific situation.

He is not the ideal choice to play with your best players, but he can be useful if he does.

If he is not playing with good players, he brings nothing at all.

Well the sharks are really trying to become a better rush team. They really want to get away from the shoot from the point model and score more when breaking in so that fits.

 

[DG93]

I only saw Sheary in spurts for the Penguins. I saw pretty much every game he played for the Sabres. He’d occasionally make a highlight play, but the vast majority of the time he was the definition of a passenger.

He is fast enough to get open on the rush and could finish at times.
He doesn’t win puck battles. Ever. Literally bottom of the league.
If he’s got a line to open ice or an uncontested puck he’s got a great burst.
Unless he had a clear step, he would rarely dive in to contest pucks. He does not get to the net.
His backchecking was adequate
He rarely forced turnovers
He can make passes on the rush, but otherwise rarely created chances for teammates
He doesn’t turn the puck over much through bad passes, or really handle it much
He consistently turns it over on contact.
He isn’t skilled enough to be an asset on the PP
He doesn’t kill penalties
And as many have said, he falls down. A lot.

Essentially he is a pretty effective forward on the rush, and is skilled and smart enough to use the open ice a great player creates for him.

He adds very little outside that specific situation.

He is not the ideal choice to play with your best players, but he can be useful if he does.

If he is not playing with good players, he brings nothing at all.

So sounds like he might be good on a fast, skilled depth line that is out there for scoring. A guy like Nieto sounds like a good linemate for him.

 

[Jerkbait]

Many people said Kunitz was a product of Crosby. Maybe to an extent. But Kunitz was still a legit top six forward without Crosby. He wasn't useless without him. Nor a liability.

Sheary? Absolutely a product of Crosby. Shouldn't be a top six forward on any cup contending team. He can't create his own chances. He can't finish most times. And he falls down consistently.

I wouldn't be shocked if he's out of the league within a year or two.

Kuntiz was a top 9... top 6 No.. he played well with crosby and Malkin when deployed and could fit in top 6 when needed . Perhaps in his absolute prime with sid he was a top 6... still a gritty useful player who is light years ahead of sheary

 

[Beauner]

Kuntiz was a top 9... top 6 No.. he played well with crosby and Malkin when deployed and could fit in top 6 when needed . Perhaps in his absolute prime with sid he was a top 6... still a gritty useful player who is light years ahead of sheary

In his prime he had seasons of 61, 52 (in 48 games) and 68 points. He also had 60 and 50 point seasons with Anaheim. He absolutely was a top 6 player before he started breaking down around 2015

 

[SpeakingOfTheDevils]

Dominik Simon. David Perron. Lee Stempniak.

Etc

Etc

Etc

That doesn’t mean anything.

 

[JackFr]

Just as a counterbalance to all the Pens fans here who are definitely experts on his time in Buffalo, his underlying numbers remained pretty stable and strong with the Sabres even when stuck in the bottom six there. He's a middle six forward, probably best suited to the third line.

He's a good forechecker, can carry the puck, and has a good shot. Yes, he falls down often, but while that made him a whipping boy in Pittsburgh it doesn't totally negate the effective things he does.

 

[Beauner]

That doesn’t mean anything.

Oh, because you say so?

Good talk