Prospect Info: Nick Suzuki Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,776
4,747
As did many and all we hoped for was a long playoff run for the kid.
Not sure about the haters but I guess if you question anything about any Hab you get that label.

If you systematically question everything Hab-related and only see negative all the time, the label fits. If you question as part of a balanced conversation, it's normal.

There are plenty who do fit the hater tag on this and other forums.
 

Sterling Archer

Registered User
Sep 26, 2006
22,949
13,414
If you systematically question everything Hab-related and only see negative all the time, the label fits. If you question as part of a balanced conversation, it's normal.

There are plenty who do fit the hater tag on this and other forums.
Preach!
 

Miller Time

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
22,838
15,041
Remains to be seen what the summer has in store for the roster, but for now, I'd say the nice thing is that there's little to no chance he makes the NHL lineup unless he clearly earns a top 6 spot...

He strikes me as a player that will benefit immensely from a year or two in the AHL, adjusting to the size & speed of the pros at a level where he can/should still be able to be an impact player from day one.

I certainly hope that when he does crack the Habs roster, it's as a top 6 player that is ready to produce (& not as a project/ brought up too soon)
 

Sterling Archer

Registered User
Sep 26, 2006
22,949
13,414
Remains to be seen what the summer has in store for the roster, but for now, I'd say the nice thing is that there's little to no chance he makes the NHL lineup unless he clearly earns a top 6 spot...

He strikes me as a player that will benefit immensely from a year or two in the AHL, adjusting to the size & speed of the pros at a level where he can/should still be able to be an impact player from day one.

I certainly hope that when he does crack the Habs roster, it's as a top 6 player that is ready to produce (& not as a project/ brought up too soon)

I wish this for ALL our prospects. Let them incubate in Laval with Bouchard and them come up when their fully ripe.
 

McGuires Corndog

Marc Bergevin juju exorcist
Sponsor
Feb 6, 2008
25,748
12,880
Montreal
I wish this for ALL our prospects. Let them incubate in Laval with Bouchard and them come up when their fully ripe.

Given that we have guys like Shaw/Lehkonen/Byron interchanging in and out of the Top 6 - if Suzuki is ready let him play. If he isn’t ready, than the AHL is the right call.

Those guys don’t below anywhere near a Top 6.
 

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
20,498
8,810
Given that we have guys like Shaw/Lehkonen/Byron interchanging in and out of the Top 6 - if Suzuki is ready let him play. If he isn’t ready, than the AHL is the right call.

Those guys don’t below anywhere near a Top 6.

Byron has had two straight 20 goal seasons followed by a season on pace for over 20 but hurt for a while.

Who the he*l are you to say he doesn't belong "anywhere near" a Top 6? I guess 7th would be near, maybe 8th too, right?

Andrew Shaw produced for 63 games at a FIRST line rate - 0.75ppg!! He might not do that exact production again, but "nowhere near top 6"? Dude, where do you come off showing such disrespect?

Lehkonen is not a top-6er based on his production. Shaw and Byron seem not be based on your prejudices. Not the same thing.

Just to put things in context, Byron is 53rd among wingers in goals scored the past three seasons.

Andrew Shaw was 19th among RW this year in ppg. There are 62 top-6 RWers, and a few more "somewhere near". Shaw had more ppg this year than:
  • Kopitar
  • Dubois
  • Marchessault
  • JVR
  • Getzlaf
some of whom are even CENTERS that should get more points than wingers.

If you're going to disrespect the achievements of Habs players, does it have to be on a Hab fan board?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaffy27

McGuires Corndog

Marc Bergevin juju exorcist
Sponsor
Feb 6, 2008
25,748
12,880
Montreal
Byron has had two straight 20 goal seasons followed by a season on pace for over 20 but hurt for a while.

Who the he*l are you to say he doesn't belong "anywhere near" a Top 6? I guess 7th would be near, maybe 8th too, right?

Andrew Shaw produced for 63 games at a FIRST line rate - 0.75ppg!! He might not do that exact production again, but "nowhere near top 6"? Dude, where do you come off showing such disrespect?

Lehkonen is not a top-6er based on his production. Shaw and Byron seem not be based on your prejudices. Not the same thing.

Just to put things in context, Byron is 53rd among wingers in goals scored the past three seasons.

Andrew Shaw was 19th among RW this year in ppg. There are 62 top-6 RWers, and a few more "somewhere near". Shaw had more ppg this year than:
  • Kopitar
  • Dubois
  • Marchessault
  • JVR
  • Getzlaf
some of whom are even CENTERS that should get more points than wingers.

If you're going to disrespect the achievements of Habs players, does it have to be on a Hab fan board?

No different than when the Leafs of ten years ago had guys like Ponikorovski in their top-6 - they get points but that doesn’t mean they are any good.

If you think this team can compete with Byron and Shaw in the top-6, you’re just as delusional as Bergevin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bsl

jaffy27

From Russia wth Pain
Nov 18, 2007
24,984
21,988
Orleans
No different than when the Leafs of ten years ago had guys like Ponikorovski in their top-6 - they get points but that doesn’t mean they are any good.

If you think this team can compete with Byron and Shaw in the top-6, you’re just as delusional as Bergevin.
Shaw won cups playing a top 6 role.

I prefer Byron on the fourth and have him move up when the injury bug hits
 

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
20,498
8,810
No different than when the Leafs of ten years ago had guys like Ponikorovski in their top-6 - they get points but that doesn’t mean they are any good.

If you think this team can compete with Byron and Shaw in the top-6, you’re just as delusional as Bergevin.

We "can compete" with Shaw in the top-6, and Byron and Lehkonen in the bottom-6, PRECISELY BECAUSE Byron is a well-above average scorer for a bottom 6 winger and Lehkonen is a good defensive player who can score a bit.

In order to compete on this basis, we need Domi to maintain his level, Kotkaniemi to progress and for our LD to provide more puck movement, which will help the forwards.
 

Maitz

Registered User
Aug 3, 2006
3,323
2,022
Montreal
If Evans had a really good year I can’t wait to see Suzuki in Laval next year. A full year, no call up, 16-17 min a game please
 

McGuires Corndog

Marc Bergevin juju exorcist
Sponsor
Feb 6, 2008
25,748
12,880
Montreal
We "can compete" with Shaw in the top-6, and Byron and Lehkonen in the bottom-6, PRECISELY BECAUSE Byron is a well-above average scorer for a bottom 6 winger and Lehkonen is a good defensive player who can score a bit.

In order to compete on this basis, we need Domi to maintain his level, Kotkaniemi to progress and for our LD to provide more puck movement, which will help the forwards.

To me they aren’t legitimate top-6 options. Yes they can fill in during injuries, yes they can get 40ish points playing in that roll mostly due to ice time/usage... but that’s not ideal and that’s not how this team is ever going to compete.

I consider Byron and Shaw both “luxury” 3rd liners - and that’s exactly where they need to play if this team is going to be a legitimate contender.

I’m not sure how the LD is going to magically get better unless we acquire someone to fill the void. Mete is fine, but he’s not exactly a world beater offensively nor do I expect that to change. We need a Gostisbehere or someone of that ilk on the left side to change the dynamic of the blue line.
 

McGuires Corndog

Marc Bergevin juju exorcist
Sponsor
Feb 6, 2008
25,748
12,880
Montreal
Shaw won cups playing a top 6 role.

I prefer Byron on the fourth and have him move up when the injury bug hits

Shaw won cups playing top-6 due to chemistry with line mates and Quenneville spreading the depth throughout the line up. Shaw was 8th in scoring (9th in PPG) on his team among FWDs in 2013 - that’s firmly bottom 6. He was 8th in scoring again in 2015.

And are we seriously using the Blackhawks as an example of contending with Shaw as a top-6?! :laugh:

How delusional has this fan base become because of one season of almost making the playoffs when everything went our way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BehindTheTimes

Sterling Archer

Registered User
Sep 26, 2006
22,949
13,414
There's a few narratives that bother me on this and other boards.

The biggest one is when posters maintain that a player only got top-6 production because, essentially, he got top-6 minutes.

Seriously?

Those posters make it sound like anybody given top-6 minutes would get a top-6 production. At some point, logic needs to take over Ladies and Germs.

Danault only cracked 50 points because he was given top-line minutes?

Wow. Top-line minutes AT EVEN STRENGTH ONLY and, also, IN A SHUTDOWN ROLE against the opponents' best line, usually with plenty more D-zone starts than O-zone starts. Yeah, that sure sounds like a player that was spoon fed quality minutes undeservedly.

Shaw created stuff when he was on the ice. He deserved the .75 PPG production that he got when playing in a top-6 role because he contributed to his line producing. When he was injured, the team suffered as a result because it was now playing mostly on one line.

The only difference with Byron, honestly, is that he will score his points whether he plays in the top-6 or not. For that reason, alone, I would use him in the bottom-6, to add more scoring depth to a team in need of it.

The real argument that can be made isn't whether the players producing as top-6 players in top-6 minutes are top-6 players, but, rather, whether they are impactful players in a top-6 role. That means, are they dominant outside of the points they are putting up.

Do Byron, Shaw or Dananult put the fear of God in opponents and attract attention from the opposing Ds that frees up their line mates? Does their defensive play enable their line mates to concentrate more on their offensive strengths and better produce as a result? Do they break up plays and regularly contribute to a counter attack?

The argument can be made that, perhaps, to compete for the Cup, Montreal would need better top-6 players than Danault, Byron and/or Shaw, but not that these players aren't top-6 players.

Small nuance, IMO.

I disagree with your premise that players who produce at a top 6 pace are top 6 players. They should have to validate their top 6 status with a birth certificate that states unequivocally that they were in fact bred, top 6 certified. Otherwise, really, who knows what you’re getting???
 

Lebowski

El Duderino
Dec 5, 2010
17,585
5,218
[...]

The argument can be made that, perhaps, to compete for the Cup, Montreal would need better top-6 players than Danault, Byron and/or Shaw, but not that these players aren't top-6 players.

Small nuance, IMO.

If you can't win a cup with them in your top 6, then they're not top 6 players. I dislike the argument that there's "31 #1 defensemen in the league because there's 31 teams" for the same reason. The reality of it is that beyond the top 15ish defensemen, most teams that are looking to compete for the cup would want to improve on their current #1 or else competing for the cup becomes nigh impossible. And if you're not a suitable option in a given role on a winning team, it doesn't make you any more of a suitable option on a losing team. In the best of cases, it makes you a stopgap.

It's never black and white. You can get away with some weaker players in some areas if you have superstars that can carry the load elsewhere, say Pittsburgh with Crosby and Malkin. They made it work with sub-par wingers for a number of years because they had centers that could elevate their game and make everyone around them produce.

We don't have that luxury in Montréal. Unless Danault has some kind of exponential growth later in his career à la Bergeron (who was already an established 1st liner before then, mind you), I doubt he'll ever be a suitable 2nd line center since he just lacks the talent to be an offensive driver on a line. To me, that holds true whether he can produce 50 points or not. In a perfect world, I see him as an excellent 3rd line center. If we're arguing definitions and semantics, to me that makes him more of a middle-six player than a top 6 player.
 

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
20,498
8,810
No different than when the Leafs of ten years ago had guys like Ponikorovski in their top-6 - they get points but that doesn’t mean they are any good.

If you think this team can compete with Byron and Shaw in the top-6, you’re just as delusional as Bergevin.

Not sure who is delusional.

Over a four-year period, from ages 26-30, seasons 2006-2010, Ponikarovsky was 31st among RW in ppg while being a plus player. He was definitely a top-6 during that time, he just fell off quickly afterwards (after 30 yo in other words).

Only four teams had two LW ahead of Ponikarovsky during those years.

As for: "they get points but that doesn’t mean they are any good" - consider this: Getting points (without giving up a ton yourself) is a good thing, because in hockey, they award two points to the team that scores more goals during each contest. If you get a point, it means your team scored a goal!!

What is probably more true is that making a lot of posts doesn't mean they are all good.
 

cphabs

The 2 stooges….
Dec 21, 2012
7,668
5,131
If you systematically question everything Hab-related and only see negative all the time, the label fits. If you question as part of a balanced conversation, it's normal.

There are plenty who do fit the hater tag on this and other forums.
Is the “hater” tag like the “not a true fan” tag of yesterday? LMAO!
 

McGuires Corndog

Marc Bergevin juju exorcist
Sponsor
Feb 6, 2008
25,748
12,880
Montreal
Not sure who is delusional.

Over a four-year period, from ages 26-30, seasons 2006-2010, Ponikarovsky was 31st among RW in ppg while being a plus player. He was definitely a top-6 during that time, he just fell off quickly afterwards (after 30 yo in other words).

Only four teams had two LW ahead of Ponikarovsky during those years.

As for: "they get points but that doesn’t mean they are any good" - consider this: Getting points (without giving up a ton yourself) is a good thing, because in hockey, they award two points to the team that scores more goals during each contest. If you get a point, it means your team scored a goal!!

What is probably more true is that making a lot of posts doesn't mean they are all good.

I remember quite well how crap Ponikarovski was.

Maybe stick to Baseball?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bsl and Deebs

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
20,498
8,810
I remember quite well how crap Ponikarovski was.

Maybe stick to Baseball?

He was crap because he played 20 minutes per game to get his 50 points? Nope.

He was crap because he would not backcheck and gave up a ton of goals against while on the ice? Nope.

He was crap because AFTER his good years, he fell off? Sure, he was crap AFTER age 30.

But if you thought he was crap during his prime, the problem is your evaluation criteria.

Ponikarovsky got 15 minutes per game and used them well for four years. Objectivity would be nice.
 

McGuires Corndog

Marc Bergevin juju exorcist
Sponsor
Feb 6, 2008
25,748
12,880
Montreal
He was crap because he played 20 minutes per game to get his 50 points? Nope.

He was crap because he would not backcheck and gave up a ton of goals against while on the ice? Nope.

He was crap because AFTER his good years, he fell off? Sure, he was crap AFTER age 30.

But if you thought he was crap during his prime, the problem is your evaluation criteria.

Ponikarovsky got 15 minutes per game and used them well for four years. Objectivity would be nice.

Ponikarovski scored at a 2nd liners pace playing top line minutes on a bottom feeder playing run and gun hockey to entertain the fans.

Maybe your memory doesn’t serve you as well as mine, there’s a reason he burnt out fast. He wasn’t good.
 

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
20,498
8,810
Ponikarovski scored at a 2nd liners pace playing top line minutes on a bottom feeder playing run and gun hockey to entertain the fans.

Maybe your memory doesn’t serve you as well as mine, there’s a reason he burnt out fast. He wasn’t good.

He played 2nd line minutes and had second line production, and if they were running and gunning, he held his own, remaining a plus player throughout.

Are you suggesting that safe players who produce little are better?

There have been many good players who slow down after 30. That doesn't meant they were no good before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cphabs

McGuires Corndog

Marc Bergevin juju exorcist
Sponsor
Feb 6, 2008
25,748
12,880
Montreal
He played 2nd line minutes and had second line production, and if they were running and gunning, he held his own, remaining a plus player throughout.

Are you suggesting that safe players who produce little are better?

There have been many good players who slow down after 30. That doesn't meant they were no good before.

And how many playoffs did the Leafs make with Ponikarovsky in the top-6? That’s my point, and always has been my point.

How many playoffs has Montreal made with Byron/Shaw in the top 6? 1 out of 4.

Yeah, that’s what I thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bsl

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
20,498
8,810
And how many playoffs did the Leafs make with Ponikarovsky in the top-6? That’s my point, and always has been my point.

How many playoffs has Montreal made with Byron/Shaw in the top 6? 1 out of 4.

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

If Ponikarovsky were 2RW, but the centres were better, and the goalie was better, and the defence better, they could have made the playoffs. The problem was NOT Ponikarovksy!

Shaw scoring 0.75ppg last year was NOT why the Habs did not make the playoffs. We have an IdiotGM and Chu-Rien for a coach, and they could not assemble enough talent and play enough talent to make it at the end, even though Shaw had a great stretch run.

Put the plans for change in the right place - winger is the least of our problems.
 

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
20,498
8,810
And how many playoffs did the Leafs make with Ponikarovsky in the top-6? That’s my point, and always has been my point.

Same number as the times the Sabres made the playoffs with Eichel as 1C.

What kind of ridiculous argument is this? Blame the few good players on a bad team for why the team is bad?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Lurk
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->