Gurglesons
Registered User
Obviously you missed his sick even strength sets ups to Carter Rowney which he could have never done here with Riley Sheahan and Matt Cullen because they are so unskilled.
Daniel Sprong Containment Thread Part 3 | Mod Warning Post #1
- Thread starter CrosbyMalkin
- Start date
- Status
Obviously you missed his sick even strength sets ups to Carter Rowney which he could have never done here with Riley Sheahan and Matt Cullen because they are so unskilled.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,554
- 21,097
Vindicated because - as predicted - he's scoring at a ~40 point clip with the sort of modest opportunities he could have been given here, but wasn't.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,554
- 21,097
He scored some points with them, like he scored some points from our 4th line.
Of course, he's scored most of his points in the Ducks top 6/2PP, and gotten a lot more minutes. You know, linemates, TOI, zone starts...key variables that you acknowledge when discussing other players but mysteriously fail to register when talking about Sprong.
If your standard is "almost 40 point pace" with 2nd line time,80% zone starts and PP minutes, while being a dumpster fire at everything else and constantly being demoted. Then yeah you should feel vindicated.
But then again now a days everyone gets a trophy.
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
Which we don't need because we have guys in those same spots doing the same or better.
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
Like I said, he's been decent on the powerplay. His top 6 5v5 performance is not vindicating anybody though.
Gurglesons
Registered User
Gurglesons
Registered User
Not really sure what WC is on about at ES there are nine forwards ahead of him at points per 60. Which seemed to be the be all end all a couple weeks ago.
Ah, he’s second in goals per 60 at ES.
Still, he’s on pace for 25 points at ES. Not exactly awe inspiring.
Last edited:
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
Has he done anything to build a gap between his ES P/60 compared to rust's shp/60? They were dangerously close last I checked.
Gurglesons
Registered User
Don’t really know or care tbh.
The fact is another coach has put Sprong on the fourth line as his team tries to win.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,554
- 21,097
Good thing nobody who supported Sprong made that kind of compartmentalization a condition to his success.
I sure didn't.
Points are points. Sprong happens to be better at scoring them on the 2nd unit PP than some of our other complementary top 9 wingers (past or present) with less natural talent have been, which shouldn't be at all surprising. His shot from the left circle on the PP was probably his defining move in junior and in WBS, not unlike a number of high-end RH goal scorers in the NHL.
His ES numbers - 6 in 18 games - are just fine, particularly considering his most frequent center's been Henrique and not Crosby or Malkin like the guys he's being compared to.
Yet they’ve still dropped him to the fourth line.
I forgot that people said that Sprong would never see another shift on the 4th line.
When was that again?
Honour Over Glory
Fire Sully
- Jan 30, 2012
- 77,316
- 42,447
Would it be so hard to just focus on who we got and hope the kid we gave up has better luck elsewhere? Nah, not according to this forum and 13 pages of this tripe.
Last edited by a moderator:
Honour Over Glory
Fire Sully
- Jan 30, 2012
- 77,316
- 42,447
Yet they’ve still dropped him to the fourth line.
There was a time when even Jake Guentzel was dropped to the 4th line. He was much older than Sprong is even right now when that happened, but it did.
What a bum that kid turned out to be for us, that Jake.
Turin
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2018
- 22,075
- 25,493
Honour Over Glory
Fire Sully
- Jan 30, 2012
- 77,316
- 42,447
Anaheim looked good for a stretch, but man Carlyle should be about done at this point as a coach.
Vigneault would be a good fit there.
Vigneault would be a good fit there.
Penguinsyay
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2007
- 402
- 32
So a player with limited NHL experience is scoring at an almost 30 goal pace with a new team, a team that has been absolutely abysmal offensively (about half the goals scored as us) and in the midst of a terrible losing streak, and yet the discussion about his potential rages on. Its only going to become clearer how much we f***ed up when the Ducks get out of their slump and as Sprong matures as a player - something that often happens when a player is actually played. Also, why does everyone point to his PP numbers as if it is just meaningless stat-padding. You mean the sniper with the wicked shot scores when used in effective situations? For shame!
Turin
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2018
- 22,075
- 25,493
Empoleon8771
Registered User
How did the Penguins "**** up" by trading Sprong for a better player who filled a much larger need? No matter what happens with Sprong in Anaheim, the Penguins were massive winners in that deal. How Sprong does is only relevant to how Anaheim does in the deal, because the Penguins benefited greatly from the trade.
Like I said from day 1 of the trade, even had Sprong been performing well in a top-9 role for the Penguins, I still would have traded him in that deal the second the opportunity came up. The Penguins just didn't even remotely need him.
EightyOne
My posts are jokes. And hockey is just a game.
- Nov 23, 2016
- 12,697
- 12,034
Sprong scores 358 goals, goes +746 in the remaining 35 games.
Do the Pens win the deal, still?
Empoleon8771
Registered User
Sprong scores 358 goals, goes +746 in the remaining 35 games.
Do the Pens win the deal, still?
Idk, I'm very much not a fan of the zero-sum idea of "trade winners". If you make a trade that ends up benefiting your team, you're a winner in the deal. Sprong was horrible for the Penguins, and Pettersson has been fantastic in a position of much greater need. To me, that's a clear win for the Penguins. That doesn't mean the Ducks lose, it just means that the Penguins won.
It's the same reason I don't put much emphasis on the idea of "trade value" anymore. If you make a trade that benefits your team both now and in the long run, the value of what you give up doesn't matter. That matters a lot more than getting good trade value on your assets.
EightyOne
My posts are jokes. And hockey is just a game.
- Nov 23, 2016
- 12,697
- 12,034
Indeed! Prospects and potential fit of established players are great, but the largest bucketful of potential from either type doesnt matter unless it is realized AND that realization coincides with timing the team needs.
The planets did not align for Sprong in Pittsburgh. His carriage was turning into a pumpkin. The Pens needed something else. End.
But I mean, we have managed to roll out like 3 threads and over a hundred pages on this circular reasoning.
The planets did not align for Sprong in Pittsburgh. His carriage was turning into a pumpkin. The Pens needed something else. End.
But I mean, we have managed to roll out like 3 threads and over a hundred pages on this circular reasoning.
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
I mean sure, points are points. But he doesn't actually score more points than our other options, and he doesn't bring as much as they do outside of points. And when he has to be played with our skilled centers to be effective at 5v5, you really should be considering how he does at 5v5. Scoring on the powerplay is nice, but it doesn't make him a good top 9 wing option for us. He's simply not as good as Kessel, Horny, or Rust at 5v5. And we agree that he shouldn't be on our 4th line. So is he so good at the powerplay to be worth playing him on the 4th line anyway? Or so good that it's worth making a top 9 line worse to keep him in the line-up?
His ES production per 60 with the Ducks is lower than Rust's short handed production per 60 over the last three years, which works out to very similar minutes. Even just this year Rust's SHP/60 with Cullen is very close to Sprong's ESP/60 with the Ducks. So sure, our other RWs are going to score a bit more at ES thanks to playing with Sid and Geno. But the fact that our other RWs can also be effective in other spots really is the key for me. It's a HUGE flaw that Sprong HAS to play with our top end players to be effective. His strengths simply don't justify that limitation considering our other options.
I'm not saying Sprong is a bad player. He's been solid to good every time I've seen him with the Ducks. But he's worse than our other options for the same positions except for on PP2. And since we simply don't have a decent position for him when healthy since he can't play on the 4th line, trading him made perfect sense to me. He's not so good on the powerplay to justify keeping him around just for the powerplay, or just to fill in when we have injuries.
Sprong is a PP specialist, nothing more.
His p/60 in Anaheims top 6 is on par with what Ryan Reaves did for us last year on line 4. Except he doesnt add anything else...at all. And is a distinct liability when not scoring.
His p/60 in Anaheims top 6 is on par with what Ryan Reaves did for us last year on line 4. Except he doesnt add anything else...at all. And is a distinct liability when not scoring.
I don't see how this is different than what most, if not all, of us have said here? Sprong would never be used here as he is in Anaheim, because we have a lot better options. I don't think anyone should be surprised that he's being used more and in more favorable settings on a team with terrible winger depth vs a team with four guys ahead of him on the depth chart.
- Status
