Nyquist vs Tatar

[newfy]

Maybe I have the wrong definition of gritty then.

I honestly think you do if you think Nyquist has more grit than Tatar. Nyquist is a pretty soft player out there, going to the net on ABdelkader's goal in Carolina is one of the first times I've ever seen him do that

 

[Eastopia]

Franzen would be Boromir (or any of Sean Bean's characters).

Nah, we should save that for a Chicago game so Hossa can be Boromir. His desire for a ring made him join the forces of evil.

 

[Redwingsfan]

I think Tatar is better at this point.

Honestly, I'm starting to sour a bit on Nyquist. He's a really good player, but I think he could and should be better. He kinda always leaves me wanting more, and its been that way for a while now. We've seen how good he can be. If only he could bring that consistently.

 

[HockeyinHD]

http://redwings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=783019&navid=DL|DET|home

" Aside from Jurco’s season debut, Blashill plans to make one minor tweak to his lines tonight, essentially switching Gustav Nyquist and Johan Franzen.

Nyquist moves down to the third line with Riley Sheahan and Teemu Pulkkinen, while Franzen will be elevated to the second line with Brad Richards and Tomas Tatar."

Right now, Blashill thinks Tatar is better. And that Franzen is better.

 

[HockeyinHD]

I think Tatar is better at this point.

Honestly, I'm starting to sour a bit on Nyquist. He's a really good player, but I think he could and should be better. He kinda always leaves me wanting more, and its been that way for a while now. We've seen how good he can be. If only he could bring that consistently.

^^ That's exactly what I was talking about being a major pitfall of Nyquist's hugely productive and incredibly aberrant year in 13-14.

He was never that guy, anywhere, ever. He had a season completely over the moon. If it had been his 5th year and his first 4 were what he's done otherwise, no big deal. That it was his first year meant people were going to use it as the level of expectation.

This is why it's important to use context and (oh no) statistics when we talk about what a guy should be rather than saying 'upside' and expecting constant improvement. Now we're beginning to see the leading edge of disappointment (disappointment!) in Nyquist because as a 4th round pick he's "only" a 25ish goal a year middle 6'er.

Getting that with the last pick in the 4th is a borderline coup, and as long as Detroit pays him commensurately with that I look forward to having him be in Detroit for plenty more years. It's when fans start thinking he should be a 30+ guy and/or the team starts paying him with that in mind that the issues develop.

 

[Redwingsfan]

^^ That's exactly what I was talking about being a major pitfall of Nyquist's hugely productive and incredibly aberrant year in 13-14.

He was never that guy, anywhere, ever. He had a season completely over the moon. If it had been his 5th year and his first 4 were what he's done otherwise, no big deal. That it was his first year meant people were going to use it as the level of expectation.

This is why it's important to use context and (oh no) statistics when we talk about what a guy should be rather than saying 'upside' and expecting constant improvement. Now we're beginning to see the leading edge of disappointment (disappointment!) in Nyquist because as a 4th round pick he's "only" a 25ish goal a year middle 6'er.

Getting that with the last pick in the 4th is a borderline coup, and as long as Detroit pays him commensurately with that I look forward to having him be in Detroit for plenty more years. It's when fans start thinking he should be a 30+ guy and/or the team starts paying him with that in mind that the issues develop.

I think you're right here, but I still feel he should be more than a 50-55 point player with his talent, ice-time and line mates. I dont expect him to ever score 40 goals or 80 points, but 30 goals and 65ish points should be well within reach.

He's a major steal in the 4th round for sure, but now that he's here and we know what we have, I expect a little more from him. Nothing crazy or borderline impossible, but a little bit more.

We'll see how he does this season. Last season, both the eye test and stats told me he was a little underwhelming. I'd like to see him put up 60+ this year if he stays healthy.

 

[Claypool]

I honestly think you do if you think Nyquist has more grit than Tatar. Nyquist is a pretty soft player out there, going to the net on ABdelkader's goal in Carolina is one of the first times I've ever seen him do that

Nyquist always pulls a Zetterberg and tries to protect the puck with players leaning on him. Tatar doesn't do any of that. The only thing he does well is come off the wall with the puck and fire it on net.

 

[Bench]

It will be interesting to see if one of them emerges this season.

Although ideally we're arguing at the end of the year about which 60 point player had better points.

 

[Frk It]

^^ That's exactly what I was talking about being a major pitfall of Nyquist's hugely productive and incredibly aberrant year in 13-14.

He was never that guy, anywhere, ever. He had a season completely over the moon. If it had been his 5th year and his first 4 were what he's done otherwise, no big deal. That it was his first year meant people were going to use it as the level of expectation.

This is why it's important to use context and (oh no) statistics when we talk about what a guy should be rather than saying 'upside' and expecting constant improvement. Now we're beginning to see the leading edge of disappointment (disappointment!) in Nyquist because as a 4th round pick he's "only" a 25ish goal a year middle 6'er.

Getting that with the last pick in the 4th is a borderline coup, and as long as Detroit pays him commensurately with that I look forward to having him be in Detroit for plenty more years. It's when fans start thinking he should be a 30+ guy and/or the team starts paying him with that in mind that the issues develop.

Never been "that guy"? What does that mean? He actually has been "that guy" quite a bit.

What he has been is a very productive player at every level of hockey he has played at, ever. Most productive guy on his college team, most productive guy on his AHL team from day 1 one, and then scored the most goals on the Wings over the last 2 seasons. Been a more productive player than Tatar to date, though Tats closed that gap and the two are about dead even now.

Wanting to use 1 game of being put on line 3 as some kind of decisive benchmark is hilarious. Good players definitely NEVER get moved down a line because of matchups, or to try and light a spark, or chemistry (played on line with Pulkks and Sheahan in GR).

 

[Classicnamesup]

Went with Tatar. Nyquist was fortunate to be stapled to Z nearly 24/7 last year and he has not been impressive so far without him. Tatar had Dats but not for the entire year, I think Tatar creates more offence than Nyquist and is more physical.

Their stats are oddly similar last year

 

[HockeyinHD]

Never been "that guy"? What does that mean? He actually has been "that guy" quite a bit.

Like I said, that's why it's important to use statistics and context. He's never done what he did in the NHL in 13-14.

What he has been is a very productive player at every level of hockey he has played at, ever.

You're not understanding my position. I understand you're very predictably going to knee-jerk defend Nyquist, he's one of the players you've expressed a positive bias about.

That said, he has never been as offensively productive as he was n 13-14. People saw that production, extrapolated from it, and are now bumping into the realities of a disappointment they blame Nyquist for, since he failed to meet their expectations.

The problem was with the expectations. Nyquist has always been productive, yes. Just not that productive, as in 13-14 productive. What he's done since? 25ish goals, 50ish points in a middle 6 role? Yep.

People were working themselves up to believe Nyquist was a legit top line 35-40 goal scoring winger.

Been a more productive player than Tatar to date, though Tats closed that gap and the two are about dead even now.

Tatar's ahead of him.

Wanting to use 1 game of being put on line 3 as some kind of decisive benchmark is hilarious.

"Right now, Blashill thinks Tatar is better. And that Franzen is better."

I don't quite see what's so controversial or obscure about that comment, or why you'd try to infer some kind of 'decisive benchmark' from it.

Right now, Blashill thinks Tatar is better. Is it necessary to try and hyperexaggerate the implications of that to cape up for a player you like?

Good players definitely NEVER get moved down a line because of matchups, or to try and light a spark, or chemistry (played on line with Pulkks and Sheahan in GR).

I agree. If Blashill thought he was a bad player he'd scratch him. The question wasn't, as far as I was aware, whether or not Nyquist was good.

It was whether Tatar was better. The answer to that can be yes now without having to say it is yes for all eternity, right?

 

[Frk It]

Like I said, that's why it's important to use statistics and context. He's never done what he did in the NHL in 13-14.



You're not understanding my position. I understand you're very predictably going to knee-jerk defend Nyquist, he's one of the players you've expressed a positive bias about.

That said, he has never been as offensively productive as he was n 13-14. People saw that production, extrapolated from it, and are now bumping into the realities of a disappointment they blame Nyquist for, since he failed to meet their expectations.

The problem was with the expectations. Nyquist has always been productive, yes. Just not that productive, as in 13-14 productive. What he's done since? 25ish goals, 50ish points in a middle 6 role? Yep.

People were working themselves up to believe Nyquist was a legit top line 35-40 goal scoring winger.



Tatar's ahead of him.



"Right now, Blashill thinks Tatar is better. And that Franzen is better."

I don't quite see what's so controversial or obscure about that comment, or why you'd try to infer some kind of 'decisive benchmark' from it.

Right now, Blashill thinks Tatar is better. Is it necessary to try and hyperexaggerate the implications of that to cape up for a player you like?



I agree. If Blashill thought he was a bad player he'd scratch him. The question wasn't, as far as I was aware, whether or not Nyquist was good.

It was whether Tatar was better. The answer to that can be yes now without having to say it is yes for all eternity, right?

For what it's worth, I never expected 13-14 to be the norm for Nyquist. I was actually telling people during that season he was not going to be a 40 goal scorer moving forward, believe it or not quite a few believed that.

If that's your argument then I 100% agree.

Yes, Tatar could be considered to be better right now. As I said even as a big Nyquist fan, I have them about dead even. (Actually like Tatar a lot too). I just don't see the point in even bringing up lines if it's just for 1 game. Yes, I'd consider that worthless in this argument.

And for as much as you say I have a positive bias, sure seems like you have an equivalent negative bias on him and love expressing that too.

 

[HockeyinHD]

And for as much as you say I have a positive bias, sure seems like you have an equivalent negative bias on him and love expressing that too.

Depends on if you think calling him a ~25 goal ~50 point middle 6 forward and wanting him paid as such is negative or not, I suppose.

 

[vladdy16]

I think they're both really good secondary options. Neither has a game as complete, or intangibles as exciting as Hudler or Filppula, but I think they have a chance to be of the same caliber.

Nyquist is interesting, because on the one hand, I would agree that he might be a little soft, but on the other hand, I think he has the aptitude to really grow in this area. He seems to respond to challenges really well.(I thought he had a really gritty playoff as a rookie)

I think Nyquist might be one of those guys that continues putting things together as he ages well into his 30's, whereas Tatar might have a more typical development curve for a forward, with his utility closely tied to his production, which will drop off eventually.

I don't see a reason to pick between the two, aside from thoughts of making a trade, which would have more to do with what you're getting in return.

It wasn't too long ago I was reading Red Wings fans rejecting deals involving Nyquist for Subban. I think our farm is healthy enough to entertain roster moves involving both players, and I think both players are suited to blossom under the current coach, so lots of value, no reason to split hairs.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Depends on if you think calling him a ~25 goal ~50 point middle 6 forward and wanting him paid as such is negative or not, I suppose.

may i see list of these middle 6 forwards who score 25 goals and 50 points?

this isn't the 80s. 25 goals and 50+ points is definitely top 6 and borderline 1st line production. 81 forwards have scored 100 points or more in the previous 2 seasons. 78 scored 50 points or more last season.

 

[TimoneX]

I voted for Goose, though you could flip a coin. I like Nyquist's all around game a bit more than Tatar's. #14 is a very cerebral player and I think it'll make him more adaptable and hopefully a bit more consistent with the points. Doesn't hurt that he reminds me of the captain at times.

 

[TheOtherOne]

may i see list of these middle 6 forwards who score 25 goals and 50 points?

this isn't the 80s. 25 goals and 50+ points is definitely top 6 and borderline 1st line production. 81 forwards have scored 100 points or more in the previous 2 seasons. 78 scored 50 points or more last season.

I believe the bottom half of the top 6 is also the top half of the middle 6.

If you know what I mean.

 

[Frk It]

I believe the bottom half of the top 6 is also the top half of the middle 6.

If you know what I mean.

Yes, but top 6 would have been more accurate.

 

[Frk It]

may i see list of these middle 6 forwards who score 25 goals and 50 points?

this isn't the 80s. 25 goals and 50+ points is definitely top 6 and borderline 1st line production. 81 forwards have scored 100 points or more in the previous 2 seasons. 78 scored 50 points or more last season.

Old, but still good resource IMO: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2...onceptions-how-much-should-that-forward-score

 

[TheOtherOne]

I guess but I don't see much point in distinguishing the two these days. How many players do we have that would NOT play on the third line? Probably Dats-Z, but even that may change soon. How many players do we have that could NOT play on the first line? I guess Pulk-Jurco, but they'd probably even be fine.

IMO the most accurate thing you can say is that we have 2 unquestionable top 6ers, and something like 9 guys who are top 9ers. The rest is all up to chemistry.

Plus, if Nyquist scores more points than most 3rd liners, but doesn't have a complete enough game (arguable) to be on the top line, then I think it makes complete sense to call him a "middle 6er".

Anyway it's semantics.

 

[gretskidoo]

Went with Tatar. Nyquist was fortunate to be stapled to Z nearly 24/7 last year and he has not been impressive so far without him. Tatar had Dats but not for the entire year, I think Tatar creates more offence than Nyquist and is more physical.

Their stats are oddly similar last year

As if Tatar has been good to start the season.

I don't understand why there's this versus thing anyway. We have both. Good. Great. Awesome.

 

[Ulysses31]

see what happens when Nyquist is pissed?

He got gooned today and scored 10 seconds later.

Pissed nyquist > tatar

but remember when tatar's father died?

mourning tatar= pissed nyquist

 

[DetBigWangs]

see what happens when Nyquist is pissed?

He got gooned today and scored 10 seconds later.

Pissed nyquist > tatar

but remember when tatar's father died?

mourning tatar= pissed nyquist

Tatar's mother might not like where this is heading...