Nate Thompson
- Thread starter Alivesi
- Start date
ThunderAlleyNomad
Registered User
- Aug 24, 2009
- 6,042
- 228
Really? Do tell oh wise one. Nobody on this forum is too cowardly to discuss anything. You're allowed to have your opinion. And I'm allowed to tell you that IMO, you're way off base on Thompson.
Stammer Time*
Sons of Pirates
So you want to get rid of a proven quality 4th line center to try to pigeon hole a prospect into his spot with the hope that he might be better, while killing his development by only playing him limited minutes?
TheDaysOf 04
[ 2 6 ] [ 4 ]
If anything Nate has been good for our young guys. That's why Coop played Brown and Kucherov with Thompson. He's a smart, responsible, veteran player and that helped his rookie wingers. His leadership is also of good use here with all the young players we had up and all our rookies are better for it.
But Thompson is a 4th line center. There aren't many players in the AHL he's taking that role away from. Paquette and Angelidis maybe, but Angelidis is more of a AHLer and Paquette is not ready defensively. You're not going to play Namestnikov, Drouin, Erne, Connolly, Kucherov or other young players with high upside on your checking line. And I don't think Yzerman would like playing them 8 to 10 minutes a night either.
Nothing wrong with debating. We are on a message board.
Lord Stan 2020
Elite fan
If anything Nate has been good for our young guys. That's why Coop played Brown and Kucherov with Thompson. He's a smart, responsible, veteran player and that helped his rookie wingers. His leadership is also of good use here with all the young players we had up and all our rookies are better for it.
But Thompson is a 4th line center. There aren't many players in the AHL he's taking that role away from. Paquette and Angelidis maybe, but Angelidis is more of a AHLer and Paquette is not ready defensively. You're not going to play Namestnikov, Drouin, Erne, Connolly, Kucherov or other young players with high upside on your checking line. And I don't think Yzerman would like playing them 8 to 10 minutes a night either.
Nothing wrong with debating. We are on a message board.
This !!
A time will come when nate is expendable I brought that up and was laughed down before the start of last season. Yet we aint even in the area code of that happening yet
Nate is a great fourth line center not just good but great and he gets seriously under rated for all that he does on the ice. He is almost perfect for what you want him to be. Is kinda like brown you would hope he gets more break aways and pots 25 points and like 10-15 goals but he does a great job for his time.
The one point boltman you made on nate being guy on ice whom else is on the ice?
Maybe a couple of guys we wish we didnt have is all im going to say. Guys who are old or slow or young and stupid? Yeah that is majority of the case.
Someday we will have a very good full defense. Guys like nate I hope lives out his contract or close to it myself. If vladdy and erne and panik and brown and paquette could take his role im happy too but he does a very good job honestly.
Of course Thompson has no upside, he isn't a prospect. People confuse what upside means, it means his potential to improve. Just like people confuse what the word "regress" means. We don't expect Thompson to improve, that is why he gets reduced minutes on the fourth line and everybody is happy with his production.
Thompson isn't perfect, but he's the perfect fourth line center for the team. He's a role player and he plays that role perfectly. I mean, I guess in a perfect world Jordan Staal would be the fourth line center but come on...
Thompson isn't perfect, but he's the perfect fourth line center for the team. He's a role player and he plays that role perfectly. I mean, I guess in a perfect world Jordan Staal would be the fourth line center but come on...
Stamper
Registered User
This idea of Nate taking a spot from youth is really confusing, like who the #### is that better and cheaper 4th line C that Nate is blocking?
And to further point out Nates underrating, I'd like for somebody to tell me which team has a better 4th line C?
And to further point out Nates underrating, I'd like for somebody to tell me which team has a better 4th line C?
Boltman seems to lack the basic understanding of what a 4th line or a checking line is supposed to be and do at the NHL level. I'm too lazy to explain...but Boltman lets just say you are waaaaaay off base here and a little better understanding of hockey might go a long way in your opinion of Nate Thompson.
Nate handles his role well and is a good leader. Much in the way that you need your backup goalie to be capable of winning games while knowing he'll never be a Vezina candidate, your 4th line center needs to be competent in handling defensive zone faceoffs, killing penalties, and proving his value to the team in other ways than scoring goals. I feel that Nate brings those qualities.
9g, 7a is perfectly acceptable production from a 4th line center. However, he's not on the team for production purposes, and a lot of what he brings to the team does not show up on the stat sheet. This team has a few positions with guys that need to be replaced/upgraded, but I think 4th line center is a loooooong way down on that list.
9g, 7a is perfectly acceptable production from a 4th line center. However, he's not on the team for production purposes, and a lot of what he brings to the team does not show up on the stat sheet. This team has a few positions with guys that need to be replaced/upgraded, but I think 4th line center is a loooooong way down on that list.
snowden
Man is matter
- Jul 5, 2011
- 3,766
- 37
You are the one who said you weren't going to debate because it didn't accomplish anything. You are a facebook like fan and that's not a compliment. Thompson is great for the 4th line. Who goes on 4th line duties then? Thompson is a hard working puck hound who does his job. If he could finish or had better offensive skill, guess ****ing what, he'd be in the top 6! That's why you just got put on ignore. I can only take so much.
BOLTMAN
Registered User
- Jun 29, 2011
- 517
- 0
How about this.
I predict that after next season he will not be a member of the Lightning.
Because we don't need him. (there will be no room for him)
And I will bump this when that happens.
And I'm an old timer and I do not have a face book.
I have had many season tickets over the years with the Blackhawks starting in the early eighties so not new to hockey.
4th line needs to control the puck you don't need grinders to do that. You could have energized young players that are fast and creating action on the other end of the ice.
You watch he will not be on the team in 2015/2016
Don't fall in love with these guys. you will just get hurt
I predict that after next season he will not be a member of the Lightning.
Because we don't need him. (there will be no room for him)
And I will bump this when that happens.
And I'm an old timer and I do not have a face book.
I have had many season tickets over the years with the Blackhawks starting in the early eighties so not new to hockey.
4th line needs to control the puck you don't need grinders to do that. You could have energized young players that are fast and creating action on the other end of the ice.
You watch he will not be on the team in 2015/2016
Don't fall in love with these guys. you will just get hurt
AimForTopCheddar
trust the yzerplan
Dude....really? What the hell are you even talking about.....
Why in the world would anyone put young players with good upside on the 4th line to get 8-10 minutes a night?.....I don't think you understand the role of a 4th liner...
We don't need him? Really? We have no room for him? Yeah okay, tell me one player on our current roster that 1) Can take his spot centering the 4th line 2) Can replace his leadership in our lockerroom. Please do tell
TheDaysOf 04
[ 2 6 ] [ 4 ]
Who's going to take his spot? Seriously? I've brought up Paquette, but even when he is NHL ready and he sticks with the big club, you're still not going to trade Thompson. Nate would still be better than Crombeen or any of the other players we have who could be a 4th liner, and he's still a better center than Paquette.
You say people are in love with him but it seems like you just don't like him for some reason. It's not that people love him, it's just nobody has a complaint about the way he plays. Is he expendable? Sure. But there is really no reason to trade him to upgrade a position that doesn't need upgrading. He plays hard, he does what's asked of him, he kills penalties, takes important draws, he's part of the leadership group, and Yzerman obviously likes him. You don't see many 4th liners get 4 year contracts. And it's not just Yzerman but the folk at USA hockey have thought highly of him too.
Look at the players Yzerman has used since he took over for that 4th line. He's gone with grinders, guys who can kill penalties, some who can drop the gloves, and players who focus more on their defense than their offense. You are not going to see our young, offensively gifted prospects on the 4th line if that's what you're getting at.
Last edited:
This guys awesome, he's the opposite of me, bashing on players for being mediocre. Thompson has a contract for three more years so I'm pretty sure he'll be on the team next season. I see no scenario where we trade him or buy him out. His value wouldn't be worth it for us to move him.
Is he the best 4th liner out there, no. He does his job and gives his all every shift. He nearly potted 10 last year and he puts up typical 4th line numbers. Namestnikov isn't a 4th liner, Angeledis isn't better then him, Kunyk isn't close to being ready, Paquette would be an upgrade but is showing he could possibly be a 3rd liner so no need to stymie his development by playing him at 4C. Who do you consider good 4C's and what's your lineup look like without Nate?
Is he the best 4th liner out there, no. He does his job and gives his all every shift. He nearly potted 10 last year and he puts up typical 4th line numbers. Namestnikov isn't a 4th liner, Angeledis isn't better then him, Kunyk isn't close to being ready, Paquette would be an upgrade but is showing he could possibly be a 3rd liner so no need to stymie his development by playing him at 4C. Who do you consider good 4C's and what's your lineup look like without Nate?
Nate does a fine job. This isn't NHL 14, so sorry that we don't have Paul Stastny or Derek Stepan as a 4th line center. He eats minutes and plays solid defense. Could we upgrade the position? Of course, we *could* upgrade every position except for #1C. Is it necessary? Out of all the things this team needs, a new 4C is so far down the list that I'm finding this thread closeworthy.
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
- Jun 5, 2008
- 4,109
- 0
Building a winning team isn't about finding or making room for any young player that potentially has upside. You need to have guys in the right place for the right price. And if you have those guys, you keep them so long as they are useful (and sometimes, a little beyond that--building an organizational concept of loyalty goes a very long way, even if it does mean being stuck with an extra year of a blown out player from time to time).
Nate Thompson is an ideal 4th line center (3rd line sub) + PKer, playing exactly that role, serving as a good work ethic model for a team full of younger players, and getting paid a team friendly price for what he brings.
Your really going to follow this thread for over a year so you can point out that you are right?
Thompson isn't a core player, nobody should be massively shocked if he is dealt or leaves via free agency. That is different than saying what you were saying, that he brings nothing to the table and can be replaced easily by a young prospect.
He might not be on the team in that year. Because sooner or later a young player is going to come and take his spot. But what you seem to be failing to realize is that young player, the guy who replaces Nate Thompson, is going to play a hell of a lot like Nate Thompson. So you're probably going to wind up disappointed.
Vasilevskiy
The cat will be back
Guys like Thompson win you cups.
He is not ****ing Mike Bossy.
He will never be more than a 3rd liner and anyway, that's not his role on this team.
His role is to lead by example and do his job good. And he delivers.
He is not ****ing Mike Bossy.
He will never be more than a 3rd liner and anyway, that's not his role on this team.
His role is to lead by example and do his job good. And he delivers.
BergyMeister
Overpaid 4th liner
Agreed
The B's have a guy like Nate Thompson.
These guys are essential to putting together a cup winning team.
BOLTMAN
Registered User
- Jun 29, 2011
- 517
- 0
Thanks you have spoken what I'm trying to say
Now for the un bold part of your quote. All players bring something until a better player takes his place. he will be gone the year after next. Its simple as that.
Place your names here that says he will be with the Lightning in year 2015/2016.
And place names here the other way.
You guys don't see where the Lightning are at right now. Thompson is for a non playoff team.
Too much talent on the team to keep him. I mean the last team that had him threw him out for free for us. is there that much difference in his play when the Islanders let him go and now that he is with the lightning? You guys just fall in love with less talented guys because they hustle out there. (but they accomplish nothing, oh I forgot he does wonders in the locker room. hahahahahahaha)
TheDaysOf 04
[ 2 6 ] [ 4 ]
It's not that simple that you want him gone that poof he will be gone.
This is ridiculous. Look at the team we have. Killorn, Panik, Kucherov, Johnson, Gudas, Sustr, Palat, Brown, + Drouin most likely. We lost Marty, and Malone, Salo, and Callahan are all question marks. That leaves you with a very young team. Veteran leaders are important especially when the majority of your team is made of 1st and 2nd year players. You need them. And Thompson has helped us make the playoffs twice. Again it's not just Yzerman (or us) but USA hockey too that has asked him to be a leader for their Worlds teams twice.
come on. Talent isn't everything. You need skill players, but you also need a good mixture of other players too. That's why Callahan fits so well here even though he's no where as skilled offensively as Marty. And you want to bring up the Islanders waiving him. That's really dumb. Nate being waived 5 seasons ago means absolutely nothing today. He has since cemented his place as an NHL player. The Islanders have made a ton of dumb moves they probably wish they could take back. You could not be more wrong on everything here. Look at what a pick up Dale Weise has been for the Habs. Look at the Rangers 4th line of Boyle - Moore - Dorsett. Look at the 4th lines of the past Stanley Cup teams.
You refuse to address any of the points made by me and others. When you said you didn't like to debate, you weren't kiddin.Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Post-Series Talk: Edmonton Oilers defeat the LA Kings, 4-1- Latest: Shanahanigans
-
