Speculation: D.J. Smith

[GCK]

Both Norris and Paul (who takes faceoffs half the time on the White line) have better faceoff numbers this year than Stepan, and Tierney is well within what can be attributed to random variance. Stepan being out only reliable guy at the dot is a bit of a myth imo now that Norris has found his way and Paul is taking draws

What are the face off stats for taking draws on the right side ? I wouldn’t know where to look.

 

[Micklebot]

Stepan is the only one who is solid on the right side. Also, I'm referring to replacing him with someone who doesnt already take significant faceoffs/isnt already in the lineup. Apparently, guys are 5-15% better on their strong side than their average (which stands to reason that they are probably that much worse on their weak side). Approx. 65% of faceoffs are taken by lefties, so having a right shooting guy on his strong side offers an advantage.

Fair point, White struggling at the dot this year (relative to his norm from previous years which wasn't great to start with) puts DJ in a tough spot when we need to win a draw on that side of the ice. It is odd that even with Paul taking weakside draws White is struggling,

But if we are talking strickly about the PP, Tierney and Paul don't play pp so the can replace Stepan in that regard though they'd be lefties.

 

[Micklebot]

What are the face off stats for taking draws on the right side ? I wouldn’t know where to look.

Good question, not sure.

 

[Micklebot]

Apparently, guys are 5-15% better on their strong side than their average

Just coming back to this, while it might be preferable to win a draw back to the strong side, i imagine it's only integral in the defensive zone because you don't want to put the puck right at you goal or into the slot, where as in the OZ there is an advantage to having the puck go to one Dman vs the other, but it doesn't seem to be as big of a deal which guy gets it.

I did a quick look and the correlation between a players fo% in the OZ and their FO% in the DZ is pretty weak, which i really didnt expect. Some guys seem to do better in pne zone vs the other and im not sure why.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

What are the face off stats for taking draws on the right side ? I wouldn’t know where to look.

I'm looking into it. As far as I can tell, right shooting C's tend to have less variance depending on side, whereas a rate of 7-10% below average for left-shot C's when taking draws on the right seems pretty common place. I will follow up if/when I get more information.

 

[h2]

Wow.

I think it's the opposite. He's doing well despite the poor play of the veterans.

 

[The Expert]

Wow.

I think it's the opposite. He's doing well despite the poor play of the veterans.

If you think a 19 year old kid playing in his first year in North America doesn't appreciate having guys on the team and his line with experience, you're insane.

 

[Bileur]

If you think a 19 year old kid playing in his first year in North America doesn't appreciate having guys on the team and his line with experience, you're insane.

I’d add that the quote looks more directed to off-ice contributions in any event.

 

[h2]

If you think a 19 year old kid playing in his first year in North America doesn't appreciate having guys on the team and his line with experience, you're insane.

Yes, because Derek Stepan is so key to Stutzle not busting .

I’d add that the quote looks more directed to off-ice contributions in any event.

Even if that's the case, it sounds like it's Tkachuk, Batherson, and Norris that are doing the bulk of the off-ice contributions.

 

[coladin]

Wow.

I think it's the opposite. He's doing well despite the poor play of the veterans.

Support and mentoring sounds to be off the ice

 

[coladin]

DJ was able to coax a win out of that defence last night, while also only giving up two goals. The lines seem to be set, and good on DJ having fun in OT

 

[h2]

Support and mentoring sounds to be off the ice

You and Bileur are probably right about the context. Regardless, I'm still annoyed about DJ Smith propping up the effect of our 'veterans' and his continued praise of Mike Reilly. The veterans on this team are literally trash. If there's off-ice contributions occurring, cool. I'm not seeing the positive effect on the ice, they've been an anchor if anything but DJ keeps praising and deploying them. There's blame to Dorion for that as well.

 

[Matsens15]

You and Bileur are probably right about the context. Regardless, I'm still annoyed about DJ Smith propping up the effect of our 'veterans' and his continued praise of Mike Reilly. The veterans on this team are literally trash. If there's off-ice contributions occurring, cool. I'm not seeing the positive effect on the ice, they've been an anchor if anything but DJ keeps praising and deploying them. There's blame to Dorion for that as well.

It’s all good. Usually when a Sens coach praise a player, Dorion trade him away during the year. See ya Mike

 

[coladin]

You and Bileur are probably right about the context. Regardless, I'm still annoyed about DJ Smith propping up the effect of our 'veterans' and his continued praise of Mike Reilly. The veterans on this team are literally trash. If there's off-ice contributions occurring, cool. I'm not seeing the positive effect on the ice, they've been an anchor if anything but DJ keeps praising and deploying them. There's blame to Dorion for that as well.

I know I am probably in the minority, but I wanted the vets to be mediocre. What if Josh Brown or Brayden Coburn experienced a rebirth and played well? What if Galchenyuk regained his form? What if Paquette became an anchor on that 4th line? I don't think , ultimately , we do not want that. They were pushed out by the likes of Stutzle, Zub and Brannstrom. That is what we all want? in fact, guys like Paul and Batherson continued to push those guys down the lineup. Norris ended up sticking.

I look at the locker room , on the bench stuff to help the young players. But I endorse the vets not playing well because it allows the coach to try the young players

 

[Alf Silfversson]

I know I am probably in the minority, but I wanted the vets to be mediocre. What if Josh Brown or Brayden Coburn experienced a rebirth and played well? What if Galchenyuk regained his form? What if Paquette became an anchor on that 4th line? I don't think , ultimately , we do not want that. They were pushed out by the likes of Stutzle, Zub and Brannstrom. That is what we all want? in fact, guys like Paul and Batherson continued to push those guys down the lineup. Norris ended up sticking.

I look at the locker room , on the bench stuff to help the young players. But I endorse the vets not playing well because it allows the coach to try the young players

If Brown or Coburn were dynamite then you trade them for assets that can be of use to the organization now or in the future. Instead we'll just pay them to take up a roster/ taxi squad spot. Having too many good players is never a bad thing.

 

[h2]

I know I am probably in the minority, but I wanted the vets to be mediocre. What if Josh Brown or Brayden Coburn experienced a rebirth and played well? What if Galchenyuk regained his form? What if Paquette became an anchor on that 4th line? I don't think , ultimately , we do not want that. They were pushed out by the likes of Stutzle, Zub and Brannstrom. That is what we all want? in fact, guys like Paul and Batherson continued to push those guys down the lineup. Norris ended up sticking.

I look at the locker room , on the bench stuff to help the young players. But I endorse the vets not playing well because it allows the coach to try the young players

I agree it worked out well and benefitted the players mentioned. I don't think the result was actually the intention of management, but you're focusing on the positive from the whole situation and I respect that.

I'm still puzzled why Stepan and Reilly are immune compared to the rest of the veterans in regards to the leash the coach provides. I'm starting to actually worry we'll extend Reilly in the offseason :|

 

[Ice-Tray]

I agree it worked out well and benefitted the players mentioned. I don't think the result was actually the intention of management, but you're focusing on the positive from the whole situation and I respect that.

I'm still puzzled why Stepan and Reilly are immune compared to the rest of the veterans in regards to the leash the coach provides. I'm starting to actually worry we'll extend Reilly in the offseason :|

Because we still have to ice a full team. We already have integrated several young players onto the team this year, let them be for a bit.

There will be a new wave next year and most of the vets will be gone.

As usual, patience during this rebuild is the biggest problem. It’s not that people are unable to see what is clearly happening, it’s that they refuse to see it because it doesn’t jive with being able to endlessly criticize management, coaches, and players (not you specifically).

I mean we have amateur coaches in here that think they know better than the NHL coach, when they have no access to the full spectrum of information that was used in decision making.

Personally I’m far more curious to know why decisions were made, instead of hating on things I don’t understand, but that’s just me.

 

[aragorn]

Just coming back to this, while it might be preferable to win a draw back to the strong side, i imagine it's only integral in the defensive zone because you don't want to put the puck right at you goal or into the slot, where as in the OZ there is an advantage to having the puck go to one Dman vs the other, but it doesn't seem to be as big of a deal which guy gets it.

I did a quick look and the correlation between a players fo% in the OZ and their FO% in the DZ is pretty weak, which i really didnt expect. Some guys seem to do better in pne zone vs the other and im not sure why.

I wonder if some of this has to do with the other team & who they put out there depending on which zone they are in. I'd imagine they would put out their offensive lines for O-Zone faceoffs & their best defensive lines for faceoffs in the D-Zone. Bergeron & ROR are great at faceoffs, but given how good they are offensively probably take more offensive faceoffs during most of the game, but are used in the D-zone to protect a lead in the 3rd as an example. Paul might not get a lot of O-Zone faceoffs because he is considered a defensive player & might take more faceoffs in the D-Zone.

However, DJ could also be looking at some of these younger players as experiments to see who does well at faceoffs & where so he knows how to use them in future when the team is competitive. Hard to know or gauge anything on a rebuilding team & exactly what the coaches are trying to accomplish at any given time whether they are trying to win this game or using it as a learning example to know what a player can handle in any situation.

Wow.

I think it's the opposite. He's doing well despite the poor play of the veterans.

Just because the vet players are doing poorly themselves doesn't mean that they can't help a young guy about a particular situation. Most young guys I would hope would still have a ton of respect for players who have played in the league for a number of years more than them. It's not that much different than being coaches, most coaches coach because they can no longer play & a number of them may not have been great players. but they know what to do in certain situations & help the players know what they should be doing & where they should be on the ice in that situation.

I would have to believe that most young guys would appreciate that otherwise vets won't help young guys who think they know it all already. We see it all over the league where young guys are learning from older players on & off the ice & those that think they don't need anyone's help usually fail.

 

[h2]

Just because the vet players are doing poorly themselves doesn't mean that they can't help a young guy about a particular situation. Most young guys I would hope would still have a ton of respect for players who have played in the league for a number of years more than them. It's not that much different than being coaches, most coaches coach because they can no longer play & a number of them may not have been great players. but they know what to do in certain situations & help the players know what they should be doing & where they should be on the ice in that situation.

I would have to believe that most young guys would appreciate that otherwise vets won't help young guys who think they know it all already. We see it all over the league where young guys are learning from older players on & off the ice & those that think they don't need anyone's help usually fail.

I don't disagree with that. Gudbransson/Coburn/Brown (either one), Dadonov, Tierney, Watson, etc can fill that role which you described.

My two main problem players this year are Derek Stepan (trading a 2nd for him is another separate issue) and Mike Reilly. They are both overplayed and kill momentum and commit costly errors on a regular basis. They are not being held accountable like the other shaky veterans which have been scratched. The coach is actually praising Reilly which is completely baffling to me.

 

[Micklebot]

I know I am probably in the minority, but I wanted the vets to be mediocre. What if Josh Brown or Brayden Coburn experienced a rebirth and played well? What if Galchenyuk regained his form? What if Paquette became an anchor on that 4th line? I don't think , ultimately , we do not want that. They were pushed out by the likes of Stutzle, Zub and Brannstrom. That is what we all want? in fact, guys like Paul and Batherson continued to push those guys down the lineup. Norris ended up sticking.

I look at the locker room , on the bench stuff to help the young players. But I endorse the vets not playing well because it allows the coach to try the young players

Ok, so a couple points;

1. If vets play well, they have value at the deadline, at least in theory (this year is a bit wonky)
2. Aside from Coburn and Paquette, who I think we were paid a 2nd to take on, why are we shipping out assets, even low cost ones like 4th and 5th round picks, for vets that we don't want to perform?
3. We crowded out some reasonable prospects like Balcers with all these vets, who is now playing in a top 6 role over in SJ and looking good doing so.
4. Lets say Galchenyuk regained his form, could we not push out Stepan or Paquette, If Coburn played well, not really a bad thing since Wolanin hasn't played well and is getting scratched anyways, Reilly is not in the long term plans, we could still run with Chabot, Brannstrom and some hypothetical good version of Coburn. Who would Paquette be pushing out if he was a staple on the 4th line? Anisimov or the human thermostat Haley?

I think the "vets" hypothetically playing well only really would put pressure on Zub's icetime, though I'd argue it should put pressure on Gudbranson.

Idk, this season was always a write off to me, so the vets playing poorly doesn't so much bother me as it gets us a better shot at a strong draft spot, I just think there was and is plenty of room for the rookies whether the vets play well or not, and I think a team that isn't a disaster is a better option for developing good habits for the kids.

 

[coladin]

If Brown or Coburn were dynamite then you trade them for assets that can be of use to the organization now or in the future. Instead we'll just pay them to take up a roster/ taxi squad spot. Having too many good players is never a bad thing.

If they were dynamite, they would be in the lineup

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Take STEPAN off his line you creep. And keep your mask on, no need to pull it down to look.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

If they were dynamite, they would be in the lineup

or on another team

 

[coladin]

Ok, so a couple points;

1. If vets play well, they have value at the deadline, at least in theory (this year is a bit wonky)
2. Aside from Coburn and Paquette, who I think we were paid a 2nd to take on, why are we shipping out assets, even low cost ones like 4th and 5th round picks, for vets that we don't want to perform?
3. We crowded out some reasonable prospects like Balcers with all these vets, who is now playing in a top 6 role over in SJ and looking good doing so.
4. Lets say Galchenyuk regained his form, could we not push out Stepan or Paquette, If Coburn played well, not really a bad thing since Wolanin hasn't played well and is getting scratched anyways, Reilly is not in the long term plans, we could still run with Chabot, Brannstrom and some hypothetical good version of Coburn. Who would Paquette be pushing out if he was a staple on the 4th line? Anisimov or the human thermostat Haley?

I think the "vets" hypothetically playing well only really would put pressure on Zub's icetime, though I'd argue it should put pressure on Gudbranson.

Idk, this season was always a write off to me, so the vets playing poorly doesn't so much bother me as it gets us a better shot at a strong draft spot, I just think there was and is plenty of room for the rookies whether the vets play well or not, and I think a team that isn't a disaster is a better option for developing good habits for the kids.

1. I don't care as much about asset management, I am more about asset development at this stage as we have too many assets

2. because they are placeholders

3. Balcers is still far, far behind on this team's depth chart

4. I don't think Stepan would be expendable, and was expecting Paquette to be a mainstay. Still, young players will take both of these spots next year

Same, it is a write off season, but tantalizing just the same!

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

You and Bileur are probably right about the context. Regardless, I'm still annoyed about DJ Smith propping up the effect of our 'veterans' and his continued praise of Mike Reilly. The veterans on this team are literally trash. If there's off-ice contributions occurring, cool. I'm not seeing the positive effect on the ice, they've been an anchor if anything but DJ keeps praising and deploying them. There's blame to Dorion for that as well.

Yeah, I guess he should trash them, and blame everything negative on them, as that would be great for team building.