Roster Speculation 2015-16 Part IV

[tsujimoto74]

Continued from here.

Click to read more...

 

[stokes84]

Yeah, he needed to play with good players to accomplish anything. He added a nice element to the line, but he wasn't the straw that stirred the drink, he was the drink that needed stirring. That should tell you all you need to know. It wasn't the top line that needed Larsson, it was Larsson that needed the top line. Where have we seen that before?

Remember when Jame tried to argue that Vanek was having a career year because he finally had a legit center? Remember when I argued that Hodgson was a product of Vanek and Pominvilles good play? Yeah, well that center is on the verge of being out of the league now. This has some parallels. Pump the breaks on the kid.

 

[Husko]

Surely we can end this silly argument and just agree (a) when larsson played he was ONE OF the best forwards [along with Girgensons and Ennis] & (b) that isn't much of a compliment...

 

[RocSabres]

Anyone else have a feeling Sabres current forward group is too small and not having the physicality like Murray wants to be an LA sort of team. The defense has more than enough physicality between Risto, Bogosian, Zadorov and Weber, but the forwards currently lack size and physicality. Next years 12 forwards will be comprised of players such as Ennis, Gionta both whom are undersized. (Less than 6 feet tall) Then you have some players who are a little bigger but are not in the least bit physical. Players like Moulson, and potentially Hodgson. That's 1/3 of the 12 forwards who offer nothing physically and are undersized.

I know were not looking to be able to compete immediately with the top teams in the NHL but potentially being locked in with these players for the next 4 years, I feel could hurt us when we are ready to compete in the final years of Reinhart's and Eichel's ELC's.

 

[BakedBuffalo]

Anyone else have a feeling Sabres current forward group is too small and not having the physicality like Murray wants to be an LA sort of team. The defense has more than enough physicality between Risto, Bogosian, Zadorov and Weber, but the forwards currently lack size and physicality. Next years 12 forwards will be comprised of players such as Ennis, Gionta both whom are undersized. (Less than 6 feet tall) Then you have some players who are a little bigger but are not in the least bit physical. Players like Moulson, and potentially Hodgson. That's 1/3 of the 12 forwards who offer nothing physically and are undersized.

I know were not looking to be able to compete immediately with the top teams in the NHL but potentially being locked in with these players for the next 4 years, I feel could hurt us when we are ready to compete in the final years of Reinhart's and Eichel's ELC's.

Chicago and Tampa Bay are among smallest teams in the league. They are currently competing for the Stanley Cup. /theend

 

[Husko]

Tampa Bay is the smallest team in the league. They are currently competing for the Stanley Cup. /theend

I thought it was Chicago? Either way...

 

[BakedBuffalo]

I thought it was Chicago? Either way...

Lol, right after I said it I knew I flipped it. Changed the post. Both are among the smallest in the league.

 

[stokes84]

Surely we can end this silly argument and just agree (a) when larsson played he was ONE OF the best forwards [along with Girgensons and Ennis] & (b) that isn't much of a compliment...

I can't agree that a player who couldn't maintain his status on the team until after the trade deadline can even be considered, quite frankly. He finished the season really strong and in that department. But, on the whole, I think it's laughable. He got sent down a few times with good reason. And no, it's not because Tim Murray wanted to tank. That argument is even more laughable.

 

[mikemcburn]

Surely we can end this silly argument and just agree (a) when larsson played he was ONE OF the best forwards [along with Girgensons and Ennis] & (b) that isn't much of a compliment...

I'll vote for this.

Realistically, last year's showing was crap across the board for every player. The few who stood out as "great" get that dubious claim to fame because the cast around them was that much less not "great".

Ennis was likely the best not so great all in because he generally sustained his productivity rather than fell backwards (ala Moulson, Hodgson for the prime examples). Girgensens was possibly on a par with Ennis, but not for his production so much as his physical break out campaign. After that it tails off dramatically...

I liked Larsson's look as much as the last guy, but realistically we're still talking about a prospect on the cusp of making the rookie/regular transition. It's not like he spent the year grinding it out against hard competition. He was put into a highly favorable opportunity merely because absolutely everyone else (who was permitted to try the top line of course) flopped. Larsson hasn't proven he belongs on a regular NHL roster, much less in the top 6 of a contending team.

 

[haseoke39]

I can't agree that a player who couldn't maintain his status on the team until after the trade deadline can even be considered, quite frankly. He finished the season really strong and in that department. But, on the whole, I think it's laughable. He got sent down a few times with good reason. And no, it's not because Tim Murray wanted to tank. That argument is even more laughable.

Agreed. Larsson looked great for a short while. Forgetting about most of the season and his career based on that is always a fools game. He showed great potential at the end. You hope that's the game he shows up with in the fall, when he's not going to get promoted to 1C just for being here and healthy.

 

[Sabre the Win]

I can't agree that a player who couldn't maintain his status on the team until after the trade deadline can even be considered, quite frankly. He finished the season really strong and in that department. But, on the whole, I think it's laughable. He got sent down a few times with good reason. And no, it's not because Tim Murray wanted to tank. That argument is even more laughable.

Why can't a player find his game overnight?

Saying he is a 3C at best like some In this argument against Jame is just typecasting the guy.

Some players step in and compete, some players find their game a few years later. That's not to say his small sample size of games tells he's on the verge of breaking out rather than just being the product of his linemates but to typecast the guy like most of this argument is based on is just silly.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

All this stressing over projections... It's only going to take until around February to make some solid observations, or have the coach and players prove who should play where. It's an easy wait for me.

 

[joshjull]

welcome



I just don't buy this argument at all. It's an easy attempt at correlation, but it's lazy.

For example:

Ennis played 6 games against the 5 worst non buffalo teams BEFORE Larsson's promotion. In those 6 games (mostly with Girgs and Moulson) Ennis produced 3 points... all of them in 1 game vs Toronto. The other 5 games who put up 0 points.

Against those same teams, with Larsson at center, Ennis put up 9 points in 5 games. I'm assuming that was just a typo



Girgensons most common defensive pairings were
Risto 31.8%
Myers 30.9%
Bogo 29.2%

Larsson got...
Risto 34.0%
Mesz 30.1%
Benoit 25.6



I think the possession and defensive data from Larsson in 2013-14 made it clear he'd be successful in a bigger role. So it's no surprise that in his first stint in such a role he was wildly successful. Small sample? yup. But fit the profile.



I understand that. But the fact is... they WERE absolutely more productive with Larsson. You are looking for reasons that bring more context to that production. And that's fine.



He was providing a significantly larger impact in goals for, goals against and puck possession.

It was Gorges who played 29.2% with Girgs, not Bogo. Who only dressed in 6 games with Girgs

Girgs % of ES shifts with dmen

1) Risto 31.8%
2) Myers 30.9%
3) Gorges 29.2%
4) Zads 25.3%
5) Weber 22.3%
6) Mess 20.4%

Larsson % of ES shifts with dmen

1) Risto 34%
2) Mess 30.1%
3) Benoit 25.6%
4) Bogo 24.1%
5) Weber 23.3%
6) Zads 21.9%


Girgs played the bulk of his time with Gorges/Myers or Zads/Risto. Larsson spent the bulk of his time with Mess/Risto or Benoit/Bogo. The percentages for Larsson with his top parings would likely be reversed had Bogo not been out injured for 6gms. Since these are small sample sizes.

Not really making a point beyond clarifying the situation.

 

[joshjull]

Not really sure how Larsson in the long run will ultimately be our top defensive center or the center tasked with the toughest match ups with Eichel and Reinhart in the mix.

Dan Bylsma and Jordan Staal say hi...

Staal played a ton at ES (as either the 3rd line center or on Malkin's line) because Crosby and Malkin were not suited to that defensive role. I love Larsson but you've gone way off in cloud cuckoo land.

Can you be a little more specific about what you think is cloud cuckoo land about my Larsson opinions?

I thought it was obvious I viewed Eichel and Reinhart as the better options for top defensive center than Larsson down the line. So why would he be used as our top defenseiv center with better options on board? My opinion of those two is also why I see little relevance to the Pittsburgh situation with Bylsma's use of Staal.

But I get your confusion since you debating at least 10 posters at once on this.

Its about Eichel and Reinahrt not about dissing Larsson from my pov. I love Larsson and feel he is a versatile (wing/center) two way player. But IMO those two are simply much better options for top defensive center. I'd even through Girgs in the mix as well. Thats why I said you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think he will be better than both of them.

 

[Bps21*]

I know this has been pointed out to stokes before...but Larsson's game didn't change overnight. His role did. He rated out great as a possession player in a **** role while getting yo yo'd up and down. Injuries and trade deadline forced Nolan to give him a better spot and the production came...just as all his advanced stats indicated they would if put in a better situation.

I also know that pointing this out, again...will do the same amount of good as it did the last time.

 

[Jame]

Yeah, he needed to play with good players to accomplish anything.

Completely false

He was already accomplishing possession and defensive numbers that dwarfed anyone else on the team in 13-14, and in his early stints in 14-15

He added a nice element to the line, but he wasn't the straw that stirred the drink, he was the drink that needed stirring. That should tell you all you need to know. It wasn't the top line that needed Larsson, it was Larsson that needed the top line. Where have we seen that before?

you're are wrong, the numbers completely contradict you:

Ennis WITH Girgs
GF 1.75
GA 2.52
CF 37.07
CA 67.47

Ennis WITHOUT Girgs
GF 1.78
GA 2.17
CF 45.47
CA 71.90

Ennis WITH Larsson
GF 2.18
GA 1.09
CF 45.55
CA 63.33

Ennis WITHOUT Larsson
GF 1.66
GA 2.63
CF 40.53
CA 71.20

Moulson WITH Girgs
GF 2.19
GA 2.63
CF 39.74
CA 65.45

Moulson WITHOUT Girgs
GF 2.15
GA 2.15
CF 47.21
CA 66.77

Moulson WITH Larsson
GF 2.95
GA 1.48
CF 53.48
CA 62.34

Moulson WITHOUT Larsson
GF 1.99
GA 2.53
CF 42.25
CA 67.18

Remember when Jame tried to argue that Vanek was having a career year because he finally had a legit center? Remember when I argued that Hodgson was a product of Vanek and Pominvilles good play? Yeah, well that center is on the verge of being out of the league now. This has some parallels. Pump the breaks on the kid.

2008-2014
Vanek w/ Roy GF 2.58
Vanek w/ Ennis GF 2.33
Vanek w/ Hodgson GF 2.60

try again

 

[Jame]

I thought it was obvious I viewed Eichel and Reinhart as the better options for top defensive center than Larsson down the line. So why would he be used as our top defenseiv center with better options on board? My opinion of those two is also why I see little relevance to the Pittsburgh situation with Bylsma's use of Staal.

But I get your confusion since you debating at least 10 posters at once on this.

Its about Eichel and Reinahrt not about dissing Larsson from my pov. I love Larsson and feel he is a versatile (wing/center) two way player. But IMO those two are simply much better options for top defensive center. I'd even through Girgs in the mix as well. Thats why I said you're in cloud cuckoo land if you think he will be better than both of them.

my long term view is that Larsson remains in the top 6, alongside Eichel or Reinhart.

 

[Husko]

my long term view is that Larsson remains in the top 6, alongside Eichel or Reinhart.

Ennis and Moulson will be so damn good on our third line

 

[Jame]

Agreed. Larsson looked great for a short while. Forgetting about most of the season and his career based on that is always a fools game. He showed great potential at the end. You hope that's the game he shows up with in the fall, when he's not going to get promoted to 1C just for being here and healthy.

How does this argument persist? Most of his career up until his breakout is the reason his breakout was so predictable.

 

[Jame]

Ennis and Moulson will be so damn good on our third line

on a protected co caps era vanek-roy-max 3rd line? yup they sure would

 

[Husko]

How does this argument persist? Most of his career up until his breakout is the reason his breakout was so predictable.

Because points

 

[Jame]

I know this has been pointed out to stokes before...but Larsson's game didn't change overnight. His role did. He rated out great as a possession player in a **** role while getting yo yo'd up and down. Injuries and trade deadline forced Nolan to give him a better spot and the production came...just as all his advanced stats indicated they would if put in a better situation.

I also know that pointing this out, again...will do the same amount of good as it did the last time.

exactly

 

[Jame]

Because points

sekera redux

 

[Husko]

on a protected co caps era vanek-roy-max 3rd line? yup they sure would

Imagine if just one of our several RW prospects pans out as a top 6 guy. Him plus Eichel, Reinhart, Girgensons, Larsson, and Kane? Top 6 set.

 

[joshjull]

my long term view is that Larsson remains in the top 6, alongside Eichel or Reinhart.

Fair enough. Not something I would take issue with right now.