Player Discussion Peter Cehlarik - II

[BruinsFanSince94]

I’m not being a smartass, asking seriously, but the last one standing out of which group of prospects that people thought would provide secondary scoring?

I said something similar right below you and I was referring to that Donato, Bjork, and Cehlarik grouping. They went with Donato, even though he didn't look very good during preseason instead of Cehlarik, who did look good. Maybe that's who he was talking about?

 

[ODAAT]

He's a good offensive player but confidence seems to be a big factor on his game. Examples like the beginning of the season where he should have made the team out of camp because he was the best player out of the group he was competing with, but was sent down and his game struggled. Also, this most recent stint up where he started off really well, got benched a few times, and his game plummeted.

Cehlarik may be one of those guys that needs to be with top roster talent to produce, and even then it's not consistent enough. It would have been nice to see him on a 3rd line with Coyle and one of Johansson/Heinen. He struggled with Backes, like every player did. That would have been a way to really see if he can produce with that "next tier" talent.

I do hope that Boston trades his rights and doesn't let him walk by not qualifying him if they don't plan to bring him back. However, seeing they let Connolly and Czarnik in that fashion, Cehlarik may follow that route.

I didn`t see this team in camp as others had the luxury of seeing but it does sound like PC was the best of the younger crop out there and he got sent down. Not saying it was the right move and I understand how a young player could get a bit down however, what I would have liked to see or read about was PC`s desire to push himself and show the big club they made a huge mistake. Go down, play hard, work on his game, put pts up and at some point he would get the call.

Sounded like he was demoted, sulked a bit, missed some time with injury, then maybe stopped sulking a bit and started to play well, he got the call, had a nice 5-6 games, then poof, irrelevant since then.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

I've been very consistent with banging the drum about the drafting not being the problem. I've been saying it for 2-3 years now that it's how they're developing that's been making their drafts look poor. I even said that if they had drafted Barzal, he wouldn't be what we see him be in NYI.

The two go hand and hand IMO. If the B’s coaches play a certain style and demand at least a good effort on the defensive end, then the scouts need to be aware of this, look for certain type of player and avoid others.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

He's a good offensive player but confidence seems to be a big factor on his game. Examples like the beginning of the season where he should have made the team out of camp because he was the best player out of the group he was competing with, but was sent down and his game struggled. Also, this most recent stint up where he started off really well, got benched a few times, and his game plummeted.

Cehlarik may be one of those guys that needs to be with top roster talent to produce, and even then it's not consistent enough. It would have been nice to see him on a 3rd line with Coyle and one of Johansson/Heinen. He struggled with Backes, like every player did. That would have been a way to really see if he can produce with that "next tier" talent.

I do hope that Boston trades his rights and doesn't let him walk by not qualifying him if they don't plan to bring him back. However, seeing they let Connolly and Czarnik in that fashion, Cehlarik may follow that route.

I think the Czarnik and Connolly situations were a little different?

Czarnik was a Rule 6 UFA. I’m not sure exactly what Connolly’s status would have been, but he was not qualified by either Boston or the following year by Washington in 16/17?

Like you said though, if he’s not in their plans, get something for him.

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

I think the Czarnik and Connolly situations were a little different?

Czarnik was a Rule 6 UFA. I’m not sure exactly what Connolly’s status would have been, but he was not qualified by either Boston or the following year by Washington in 16/17?

Like you said though, if he’s not in their plans, get something for him.

Ah that's right.... Czarnik was a UFA. I don't know why I thought he was an unqualified RFA. Disregard him. I thought Connolly was an RFA though and he just went unqualified by Boston.

 

[Dr Hook]

The two go hand and hand IMO. If the B’s coaches play a certain style and demand at least a good effort on the defensive end, then the scouts need to be aware of this, look for certain type of player and avoid others.

The problem with that is the short shelf life a lot of coaches have. Clode was something of an anomaly. Bruce could be gone 6 months from now. You bring in a new guy and all your draft picks are wrong for that style? The scouts have to find the best players period I think and the coaches should be in part judged by what they can get out of them or how they use them. I remember being frustrated by Clode rigid insistence on the "system" regardless of a player's strengths or weaknesses.It could well be we are seeing some of that with Cassidy too. Probable every coach does it to an extent.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

The problem with that is the short shelf life a lot of coaches have. Clode was something of an anomaly. Bruce could be gone 6 months from now. You bring in a new guy and all your draft picks are wrong for that style? The scouts have to find the best players period I think and the coaches should be in part judged by what they can get out of them or how they use them. I remember being frustrated by Clode rigid insistence on the "system" regardless of a player's strengths or weaknesses.It could well be we are seeing some of that with Cassidy too. Probable every coach does it to an extent.

I think teams should take the best available player as often as possible, but if you see a guy that doesn’t play D and have him rated the same as a guy that at least tries to play D, take the latter.

 

[Dr Hook]

I think teams should take the best available player as often as possible, but if you see a guy that doesn’t play D and have him rated the same as a guy that at least tries to play D, take the latter.

Can't disagree with that at all. Cehlarik can play D, just not consistently. I can recall a handful of really nice backchecking jobs he did. Just not consistent enough with the effort at the end of the day probably. Not enough to make Bruce happy, anyway.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

I've been very consistent with banging the drum about the drafting not being the problem. I've been saying it for 2-3 years now that it's how they're developing that's been making their drafts look poor. I even said that if they had drafted Barzal, he wouldn't be what we see him be in NYI.

I've bitched at you more than once about this but I'm coming around to your thinking here. Sure there are plenty of examples of guys they've successfully developed, but the issues isn't that they can't develop anyone, it's that they can't seem to adapt their approach for certain types of players. Yeah the Pastrnaks & Debrusks of the world who have a non-stop motor & a natural inclination to backcheck will turn into good players in the Bruins system, but they seem to struggle with teaching the guys that stuff doesn't come naturally to.

The Donato situation was definitely eye-opening, because he looked flat out mediocre, even after his last trip to the AHL. Then he gets traded and *boom* he looks like a different player. And yes he has his warts & has lots of growing up to do, but their inability to get the appropriate amount of offensive production out of a lot of these kids is troubling.

 

[rocketdan9]

Guys like Cehlarik who are below avg skaters really need to be nuts and bolts on the ice (no mistakes that can burn them the other way)

Backes for all the criticism he has received (myself included) ... hasn't made many dummy plays where it has turned out a odd man rush the other way etc. He is just not quick enough to get to the loose pucks that is his main issue these days.

The few teams that called Donny about Cehlarik offering a 4th or another prospect they are not keen of (guess).... will prob still be interested to give him a small window of opportunity

Capitals for example I can see being interested

 

[BMC]

The problem with that is the short shelf life a lot of coaches have. Clode was something of an anomaly. Bruce could be gone 6 months from now. You bring in a new guy and all your draft picks are wrong for that style? The scouts have to find the best players period I think and the coaches should be in part judged by what they can get out of them or how they use them. I remember being frustrated by Clode rigid insistence on the "system" regardless of a player's strengths or weaknesses.It could well be we are seeing some of that with Cassidy too. Probable every coach does it to an extent.

Is it the coaches who determine style of play or is it management? I can't see either Sweeney or Neely not having something to say about what style of hockey the Bruins play. Or any team's front office for that matter.

 

[Dr Hook]

Is it the coaches who determine style of play or is it management? I can't see either Sweeney or Neely not having something to say about what style of hockey the Bruins play. Or any team's front office for that matter.

I would say its mostly the coaches, but who the FO picks to coach will have a style that they want to see. We also saw Neely's comments at the end of last season, and the Bruins have consistently tried to sign Cam or Looch pt. 2: Backes, Rinaldo, Beleskey etc. So I am sure they have their input about that. After all, what is "Bruins" hockey? Then we look at what the Bruins draft or sign as undrafted FA's and they don't seem to be looking for the big power forward types, or bruising phyical defensemen so I don't know. Cehlarik as the subject of the thread is not that guy and never was.

 

[ODAAT]

I would say its mostly the coaches, but who the FO picks to coach will have a style that they want to see. We also saw Neely's comments at the end of last season, and the Bruins have consistently tried to sign Cam or Looch pt. 2: Backes, Rinaldo, Beleskey etc. So I am sure they have their input about that. After all, what is "Bruins" hockey? Then we look at what the Bruins draft or sign as undrafted FA's and they don't seem to be looking for the big power forward types, or bruising phyical defensemen so I don't know. Cehlarik as the subject of the thread is not that guy and never was.

I actually think they would more than welcome the "big power forward types" but look around, those guys just aren`t growing on trees and the teams that have them aren`t sending out memo`s to the other 30 teams to let them know they are available

Something tells me the B`s are now very hesitant on the UFA market after the names you mentioned just haven`t panned out

 

[Blowfish]

needs to be better but shouldn't be the number 1 guy to sit IMO

Very interesting stats.

 

[Blowfish]

Nordstrom is the new "Zero-Zone Champion" of the Boston Bruins. At this point he's only slightly better than former champ, the great Joonas Kemppainen.

I don’t get dumping on nords. Dude plays fast and hard on the forecheck. Plays excellent PK. What he was hired to do.

 

[Blowfish]

I don`t think Butch is being unreasonable with wanting players like Cehlarik commit to, at the very least, working hard in all 3 zones. Pasta is far from a defensive whiz kid but he puts the effort in, Cehlarik plays like he gives 0 craps about his own zone.

This I can see. Cehlarik was meant to be on this bruin team.

 

[TCB]

I don’t get dumping on nords. Dude plays fast and hard on the forecheck. Plays excellent PK. What he was hired to do.

This is true.

He was brought in as 4th line Mucker/Pk Guy, what he does very well. Unfortunately he's been asked to play 2nd and 3rd line roles , what he cannot do because he has zero finish. I mean he is tenacious on the pk and fore-check at times but his best play offensively is dump and chase.

 

[Dr Hook]

This is true.

He was brought in as 4th line Mucker/Pk Guy, what he does very well. Unfortunately he's been asked to play 2nd and 3rd line roles , what he cannot do because he has zero finish. I mean he is tenacious on the pk and fore-check at times but his best play offensively is dump and chase.

It's hard to blame Nords for how he is used. He works hard, does his best, and if he was playing a 4th line and PK role, there wouldn't really be many complaints.

 

[Dr Hook]

I actually think they would more than welcome the "big power forward types" but look around, those guys just aren`t growing on trees and the teams that have them aren`t sending out memo`s to the other 30 teams to let them know they are available

Something tells me the B`s are now very hesitant on the UFA market after the names you mentioned just haven`t panned out

I agree about the scarcity, but I also don't see the Bruins going out of their way to draft those types either

 

[Mick Riddleton]

needs to be better but shouldn't be the number 1 guy to sit IMO

Nordy was not brought in for offence, he is a PK bottom line guy that provides forechecking and puck pursuit. He is doing what he was brought in to do for that salary he makes as opposed to Backes who has 2 even strength pts since christmas for a cap hit of SIX MILLION.

Nordy and Acciari both have 'ONE' less pt than Backes 5 on 5 all year. Carlo has 'TWO' less pts than the 6 million dollar man 5 on 5.

As for Cehlarik I am disappointed in his progress, thought he would be better.

Carey as a 30 year old with some decent size, he is not a 36 year old Stemp. He is the hottest AHL Bruin and has played in the NHL. No one else down there deserves a shot above him right now.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

I've *****ed at you more than once about this but I'm coming around to your thinking here. Sure there are plenty of examples of guys they've successfully developed, but the issues isn't that they can't develop anyone, it's that they can't seem to adapt their approach for certain types of players. Yeah the Pastrnaks & Debrusks of the world who have a non-stop motor & a natural inclination to backcheck will turn into good players in the Bruins system, but they seem to struggle with teaching the guys that stuff doesn't come naturally to.

The Donato situation was definitely eye-opening, because he looked flat out mediocre, even after his last trip to the AHL. Then he gets traded and *boom* he looks like a different player. And yes he has his warts & has lots of growing up to do, but their inability to get the appropriate amount of offensive production out of a lot of these kids is troubling.

Is Donato a different player though? I have watched a number of the games he has played for the Wild and he looks like the same guy. They are letting him be more aggressive and less concerned with the backcheck, but that’s about all I see. He’s still not strong on the puck, takes ill-advised shots from everywhere, etc. As Dom mentioned in the Cehlarik thread, let’s see what he looks like after the adrenaline from the trade wears off.

Generally speaking, the B’s have been a better and more successful organization than the Wild for the last decade, so they must be doing something right?

 

[LSCII]

The two go hand and hand IMO. If the B’s coaches play a certain style and demand at least a good effort on the defensive end, then the scouts need to be aware of this, look for certain type of player and avoid others.

And yet they've been drafting offensive minded guys and trying to change their games every time, to very mixed results.

 

[NDiesel]

I've *****ed at you more than once about this but I'm coming around to your thinking here. Sure there are plenty of examples of guys they've successfully developed, but the issues isn't that they can't develop anyone, it's that they can't seem to adapt their approach for certain types of players. Yeah the Pastrnaks & Debrusks of the world who have a non-stop motor & a natural inclination to backcheck will turn into good players in the Bruins system, but they seem to struggle with teaching the guys that stuff doesn't come naturally to.

The Donato situation was definitely eye-opening, because he looked flat out mediocre, even after his last trip to the AHL. Then he gets traded and *boom* he looks like a different player. And yes he has his warts & has lots of growing up to do, but their inability to get the appropriate amount of offensive production out of a lot of these kids is troubling.

For what it's worth Donato looked unreal the first five games in Minnesota, picking up 7 points.

His next 5? He picked up 2 points while be held pointless in 4 of the 5 logging 17 minutes, 19 minutes, 16 minutes and 18 minutes in those 4 games.

The first five could very well be adrenaline induced - or a glimpse into what he can do in the future.

However, it's more of the exact same thing that we saw here - looks great for a few games followed by some poor efforts. The skill has been obvious be he's just way too inconsistent especially for a team that is going to be a contender. I don't think that has to do with the Bruins' handling of him but rather the type of player that he is and where he is in his development.

No doubt he'll at the very least be a PP specialist - but he is barely doing that well up to this point

 

[LSCII]

I've *****ed at you more than once about this but I'm coming around to your thinking here. Sure there are plenty of examples of guys they've successfully developed, but the issues isn't that they can't develop anyone, it's that they can't seem to adapt their approach for certain types of players. Yeah the Pastrnaks & Debrusks of the world who have a non-stop motor & a natural inclination to backcheck will turn into good players in the Bruins system, but they seem to struggle with teaching the guys that stuff doesn't come naturally to.

The Donato situation was definitely eye-opening, because he looked flat out mediocre, even after his last trip to the AHL. Then he gets traded and *boom* he looks like a different player. And yes he has his warts & has lots of growing up to do, but their inability to get the appropriate amount of offensive production out of a lot of these kids is troubling.

You're spot on about the JDB's and Pastas of this team not being the issue. The issue is the Senyshyns, Reilly Smiths, Spooners, Wheelers, Cehlariks, Donatos, and Frank Vatranos of this world. Those guys have all come here and been wildly misused and/or miscast in roles that their skill sets were simply ill suited for. They all moved on and showed at least some value to other teams. Think of it this way. Marchand was a 4th line stiff to start and thankfully he progressed, since the initial use of his skill was grinder/PK specialist. And I get people don't like to hear or don't want to be critical, but the way they've developed is at the very least a little concerning to me.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The fact that Donato is gone is the result of the Wild wanting him in exchange for something the Bruins were desperate to acquire.
If the Wild felt Cehlarik was the better player, I'm sure they could have had him instead.