Forward Depth

[Scriptor]

he did not start a retool, he just failed at landing Tavares/Stastny. That's THE reason KK is not playing in Europe, the other moves ? well it was obvious Pacioretty was not going to re-sign here...

this GM is clearly not smart enough to have an elaborate plan, he is when it's time to invent a new buzzword though (next year I expect : reassessment year)

And the beat goes on...

 

[BaseballCoach]

Dannault drives possession very well. But he doesn't have the offensive talent that you'd want in a 2nd line center. He's ideally suited for the 3rd.

Driving possession is what top-6 players do. I don't care if he dangles with the best, or can rip shots top corner like Matthews. I care about goals for and goals against, and he is good at both. He is not an elite talent, but he is certainly capable of playing 2nd line. He's already outplaying first liners in matchups.

"Ideally" Danault is not good enough for your team, this is a ridiculous standard we are holding him to. If we had a Matthews at 1C, and two Danaults at 2&3, we'd be just fine.

 

[Sorinth]

True, but depth often compensates too. In 2014 we got to an ECF that we probably win with Price in the nets. Some of our best producers were Lars Eller, Rene Bourque, Daniel Briere and Dale Weise.

Last year, Washington got big production from Eller and also Smith-Pelley and Connolly.

Scoring depth is essential to going far in the playoffs.

Sure you don't need those elite players so long as someone steps up and produces like an elite player. So Boston didn't need elite forwards because Krejci stepped and produced ppg numbers, Bourque was scoring at a 40 goal pace, etc...

But that seems like an unreliable strategy. You also seem to be putting too much emphasis on guys who didn't actually produce that much. Briere, Weise scored some key goals but overall they didn't produce that much. I'd rather have the disappointments like Vanek/Pacioretty since they produced more.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Driving possession is what top-6 players do. I don't care if he dangles with the best, or can rip shots top corner like Matthews. I care about goals for and goals against, and he is good at both. He is not an elite talent, but he is certainly capable of playing 2nd line. He's already outplaying first liners in matchups.

Number three centers drive possession well too.

Top six players have the offensive talent to go along with it.

"Ideally" Danault is not good enough for your team, this is a ridiculous standard we are holding him to. If we had a Matthews at 1C, and two Danaults at 2&3, we'd be just fine.

It's not a ridiculous standard at all. As I said, we're just used to putting guys in positions they ideally aren't suited for. Dannault is best suited towards the 3rd. He can be used to fill in on the 2nd... but we're using him as a first.

 

[Scriptor]

Yeah, IMO we need a few things to happen in order for us to become cup contenders soon.

1.) The eagle continues to soar.
2.) We get a big time free agent like Stone or Panarin on the wing
3.) We get our Barzal this year (a homerun forward, and outside of the top 10, could it be?)
4.) Our best D prospects to actually turn into something. Romanov is key, but if Brook could be come a top pairing defender that would open up so many options.

The key prospects reaching their ceilings -- and the ones I have more confidence in doing so -- are Kotkaniemi, Suzuki, Romanov and Brook. Poehling only ends to round into a strong, two-way 3rd line C or winger, or an elite 4th line C, and I'm not counting on Ylonen or Ikonen becoming impact players, nor Harris, nor Juulsen, nor Mete. I think that it is sufficient for Mete and Juulsen (or Fleury) to become dependable NHLers.

What MON needs is another top-4 LHD beyond Romanov that must round out close to his ceiling. What MON needs is Brook rounding out to at least top-4 form at RW. What MON needs is two top-6 RWs who can score, preferably a near elite-level player like Stone and Suzuki rounding out to form near his projected ceiling.

The GM must acquire a top-4 LHD not already in the system and a top-6 RW that can score not already in the system

Without every prospect rounding out to form, a potential lineup in anywhere from 2-4 years could look like:

Domi - Kotkaniemi - Acquired RW (Stone?)
Drouin - Danault - Gallagher
Tatar - Poehling - Suzuki
Lehkonen - Evans - Byron
Armia

Acquired LD - Weber
Romanov - Brook
Mete - Juulsen/Fleury

*Ideally, Petry used to acquire help at LD.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Driving possession is what top-6 players do. I don't care if he dangles with the best, or can rip shots top corner like Matthews. I care about goals for and goals against, and he is good at both. He is not an elite talent, but he is certainly capable of playing 2nd line. He's already outplaying first liners in matchups.

"Ideally" Danault is not good enough for your team, this is a ridiculous standard we are holding him to. If we had a Matthews at 1C, and two Danaults at 2&3, we'd be just fine.

Driving possession is A thing that top 6 players do.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Number three centers drive possession well too.

Top six players have the offensive talent to go along with it.

It's not a ridiculous standard at all. As I said, we're just used to putting guys in positions they ideally aren't suited for. Dannault is best suited towards the 3rd. He can be used to fill in on the 2nd... but we're using him as a first.

Third line pigeon-holing is just arbitrary in Danault's case. He produces like a second liner, and defensively is within a Selke conversation, not a finalist yet. Any line lower than his true value, which is top-6 player, is a bonus.

 

[Sorinth]

Number three centers drive possession well too.

Top six players have the offensive talent to go along with it.

It's not a ridiculous standard at all. As I said, we're just used to putting guys in positions they ideally aren't suited for. Dannault is best suited towards the 3rd. He can be used to fill in on the 2nd... but we're using him as a first.

Number three centers don't tend to put up 25 points in 27 games either. When Galchenyuk put up those numbers it was a sign that he had top line potential, but Danault does the same and he's not even a #2?

Seems a bit hypocritical.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Third line pigeon-holing is just arbitrary in Danault's case. He produces like a second liner, and defensively is within a Selke conversation, not a finalist yet. Any line lower than his true value, which is top-6 player, is a bonus.

It's not arbitrary. He's getting top minutes with our best wingers... of course his production is going to go up.

I'm not saying he's horrible on the second line but I'd much rather it if he's on my 3rd. It was the same with Koivu. He was a bottom third top line center. He'd have been one of the best 2nd line centers in the league but he wasn't nearly good enough to carry an offense the way other top flight centers can.

Cup winning teams have top talent AND depth. That's how you win. We don't have top line talent, we have guys who are overperforming in roles that are one level up from where they should be. That's a huge difference.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Number three centers don't tend to put up 25 points in 27 games either. When Galchenyuk put up those numbers it was a sign that he had top line potential, but Danault does the same and he's not even a #2?

Seems a bit hypocritical.

He's not being played like a third line center. He may not be used on the PP much but he's getting top line minutes with our best players.

He's had a couple of big games that have boosted his point totals and that's great. But I have to see him maintain this for me to believe he's the real deal. I'll be willing to change my mind, but right now I think people are getting ahead of themselves on how good he is.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Driving possession is A thing that top 6 players do.

Yes, top-6 players also score points. And Danault scores points. Is it really necessary for a player to do dipsy-doodles and get two "oohs and ahhs" per game to be considered a top-6 player?

 

[NotProkofievian]

The key prospects reaching their ceilings -- and the ones I have more confidence in doing so -- are Kotkaniemi, Suzuki, Romanov and Brook. Poehling only ends to round into a strong, two-way 3rd line C or winger, or an elite 4th line C, and I'm not counting on Ylonen or Ikonen becoming impact players, nor Harris, nor Juulsen, nor Mete. I think that it is sufficient for Mete and Juulsen (or Fleury) to become dependable NHLers.

What MON needs is another top-4 LHD beyond Romanov that must round out close to his ceiling. What MON needs is Brook rounding out to at least top-4 form at RW. What MON needs is two top-6 RWs who can score, preferably a near elite-level player like Stone and Suzuki rounding out to form near his projected ceiling.

The GM must acquire a top-4 LHD not already in the system and a top-6 RW that can score not already in the system

Without every prospect rounding out to form, a potential lineup in anywhere from 2-4 years could look like:

Domi - Kotkaniemi - Acquired RW (Stone?)
Drouin - Danault - Gallagher
Tatar - Poehling - Suzuki
Lehkonen - Evans - Byron
Armia

Acquired LD - Weber
Romanov - Brook
Mete - Juulsen/Fleury

*Ideally, Petry used to acquire help at LD.

Yeah, prospects emerging gives us a large number of options, which was evidenced by how f***ing hand cuffed we've been since forever, because our drafting and development has sucked. Just imagine how different things would have been if we managed to draft an extra 60 point winger or a top pairing defenceman.

Looking like our string of bad luck will extend through the 2015 draft unless Juulsen is healthy. The ''window'' is the window for our 2017 prospects and on. That was when we made the shift to asset drafting instead of....whatever it was they were doing before.

Poehling emerging also frees up options. Brook emerging frees up Petry for a trade. But time is of the essence for these guys. It does us very little good if they take another 3 years to make other players on our roster expendable.

 

[BaseballCoach]

It's not arbitrary. He's getting top minutes with our best wingers... of course his production is going to go up.

The same wingers that people are calling second liners! And his production is without PP time.

At ES, there are only 22 centers with more points than him. It's ok to evaluate him as a second line center. Even if he's a local boy.

We often do the same with our wingers, too. There are 62 first-line wingers in the league. We have the 29th and 38th wingers for points, and the 24th, 37th and 42nd wingers for goals.

Yet it is said we have no first line wingers.

We see the flaws in our own team, and that's ok, no need to wear rose-colored glasses, but other teams have flaws too.

Posters point out that some of our players are having career years and should be valued lower, but who is saying that about Duchene or Stone?

 

[BaseballCoach]

Yeah, prospects emerging gives us a large number of options, which was evidenced by how ****ing hand cuffed we've been since forever, because our drafting and development has sucked. Just imagine how different things would have been if we managed to draft an extra 60 point winger or a top pairing defenceman.

Well, we can do that, but then our results would have been different and we would not have Drouin or Kotkaniemi today.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Number three centers don't tend to put up 25 points in 27 games either. When Galchenyuk put up those numbers it was a sign that he had top line potential, but Danault does the same and he's not even a #2?

Seems a bit hypocritical.

He's not being played like a third line center. He may not be used on the PP much but he's getting top line minutes with our best players.

He's had a couple of big games that have boosted his point totals and that's great. But I have to see him maintain this for me to believe he's the real deal. I'll be willing to change my mind, but right now I think people are getting ahead of themselves on how good he is.

You didn't really answer Sorinth's point, though. Galchenyuk also had our best wingers when he produced for 45 games at a ppg.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The same wingers that people are calling second liners! And his production is without PP time.

They are the best we have. And I'd say Gallagher is the one legit first line forward we have.

At ES, there are only 22 centers with more points than him. It's ok to evaluate him as a second line center. Even if he's a local boy.

Sure. But it's also okay to take a look at his history and play on the ice. He had a great 20 game streak where he had a couple of big games and put up over a point per game. You're talking like this is what we should expect from the guy going forward rather than recognizing it as the hottest streak of his career.

He's been a .5 point per game player for his career and mostly used with our best players. And he was a .5 point per game player before he got hot.

If he continues to put up points at a high rate, then I'll re-evaluate him. Right now I see it as a hot streak and ideally he's still a guy I'd like on the 3rd line.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Yes, top-6 players also score points. And Danault scores points. Is it really necessary for a player to do dipsy-doodles and get two "oohs and ahhs" per game to be considered a top-6 player?

Yes. Dipsy doodles and oohs and aahs are actually quite important. They're only denigrated in these parts because our talent has been garbage with very few exceptions for a very long time. Players who can dipsy doodle have agency on the ice. That means correct defence might not be enough to stop them. It means that they're very difficult to shut down. It means that they can contribute to offence in more than 50% of the games the play (which Danault cannot). It means that if they get a point, they more than likely actually generated the chance, instead of merely being implicated in the play (which is how Danault gets his points e.g. the Winnipeg game).

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You didn't really answer Sorinth's point, though. Galchenyuk also had our best wingers when he produced for 45 games at a ppg.

What's the question here?

Galchenyuk was always bounced around the lineup and had injury issues. As a 21 year old he was easily our best forward and we'd play him on lower lines until he was finally put as our number one and he put up a top five point per game pace to end the year.

The following season he was point per game until he was hurt and then... back to the 3rd line. 5 years younger, less opportunity and injury issues. Why are we comparing these guys?

 

[Sorinth]

He's not being played like a third line center. He may not be used on the PP much but he's getting top line minutes with our best players.

This is such BS, so producing at ppg numbers doesn't count because he's getting top line minutes with our best players?

Also haven't you spent the whole thread claiming we don't have any elite players, so Danault is actually putting up those numbers without PP time and without elite linemates

He's had a couple of big games that have boosted his point totals and that's great. But I have to see him maintain this for me to believe he's the real deal. I'll be willing to change my mind, but right now I think people are getting ahead of themselves on how good he is.

Everybody scores in bunches, last game they showed a graphic of Kucherov's scoring and it was eye popping how many 3-4 point nights he had. I guess his season is just being boosted by a few big games and he isn't really as good as people are making him out to be. Plus he plays the top line with the teams best players so in reality most of his points shouldn't really count, so I guess he's what a 2nd liner at best?

You are applying a set of insane standards that Danault has to meet to be a top-6 guy, yet no one else in the league has to meet those same standards to be a top-6 guy.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Yes. Dipsy doodles and oohs and aahs are actually quite important. They're only denigrated in these parts because our talent has been garbage with very few exceptions for a very long time. Players who can dipsy doodle have agency on the ice. That means correct defence might not be enough to stop them. It means that they're very difficult to shut down. It means that they can contribute to offence in more than 50% of the games the play (which Danault cannot). It means that if they get a point, they more than likely actually generated the chance, instead of merely being implicated in the play (which is how Danault gets his points e.g. the Winnipeg game).

I don't buy it. Perezhogin had dipsy-doodles. Scherbak got more oohs and aahs than Danault.

There are plenty of good forwards who produce against good defence who are not dipsy-doodle studs.

There are plenty of great defencemen who don't play Subban's particular style but are still great (Hedman, Doughty, etc.)

Results matter, not oohs and aahs. Subban is great because he gets results, not because his spins create "agency".

 

[NotProkofievian]

I don't buy it. Perezhogin had dipsy-doodles. Scherbak got more oohs and aahs than Danault.

There are plenty of good forwards who produce against good defence who are not dipsy-doodle studs.

There are plenty of great defencemen who don't play Subban's particular style but are still great (Hedman, Doughty, etc.)

Results matter, not oohs and aahs. Subban is great because he gets results, not because his spins create "agency".

Yeah, what results does Danault have while we're at it?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

This is such BS, so producing at ppg numbers doesn't count because he's getting top line minutes with our best players?

I didn't say it doesn't count.

I said he's been put in a position to succeed - and he's succeeding. But as I said, he's traditionally been a .5 per game player. For about 20 games this year he scored over a point per game. To me, that's a hot streak.

As I said, I'll re-evaluate as we continue on. If he goes back to .5 per game player using our best wingers then yeah, I'll continue to think he's a third line guy. If he continues on this higher pace then I'll be happy to change my mind.

 

[BaseballCoach]

What's the question here?

Galchenyuk was always bounced around the lineup and had injury issues. As a 21 year old he was easily our best forward and we'd play him on lower lines until he was finally put as our number one and he put up a top five point per game pace to end the year.

The following season he was point per game until he was hurt and then... back to the 3rd line. 5 years younger, less opportunity and injury issues. Why are we comparing these guys?

Not comparing the guys. Comparing the arguments.

And by the way, Chucky was only dropped from the top two lines after 15 games under Julien, about 22 games after his return and struggles.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Yeah, what results does Danault have while we're at it?

39 points more than Scherbak.

More details: More goals scored for his line than surrendered, by far. Good faceoff percentage, superior penalty killer, all part of the game of hockey, not an all-star skills competition.

 

[NotProkofievian]

39 points more than Scherbak.

More details: More goals scored for his line than surrendered, by far. Good faceoff percentage, superior penalty killer, all part of the game of hockey, not an all-star skills competition.

Yeah, he's not a bust, I'll give him that. But since you asked, I'll stop the presses for the 93rd ranked scorer in the NHL this year.

R E S U L T S