Stone vs. Chiasson

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Chiasson is a weird one. The guy could be a Conacher just as much as he could be a top 6 forward as soon as next year.

When I watched some games from last year(6-7) he looked like he had a great head on offensively. He made very simple but smart plays. He reads the ice well and can anticipate a better scoring option. However, he usually is caught behind the play cause he camps infront of the net and his speed isn't the greatest when getting back on a counter or what-not. That is why he had a lot of - I THINK. He doesn't have anything that sticks out offensively aside from his IQ and he is strong on the puck but doesn't use it as much as you would hope. Sometimes he uses it marvelously. He also looks like the kind of players that gets much better as he plays(i say progression in his game towards end of the season).

I have no idea how Chiasson will do here and if I even watched enough to form proper judgement of his play. He could break-out like Turris as he becomes more confident.

Stone is more of a safe bet because he has better shot, play-making and IQ. He's also more gritty.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Won't vote being that i have never seen Chiasson play

At the beginning (in some other thread) of last year, I put Chiasson on the "players to watch list".

He has shown some streaks of good play followed by not-so-good play, but I'd still lean towards him.

Stone probably has better hands, but Chiasson may have the better tools in other facets of the game. Can he put it all together, who knows?

 

[Busboy]

I've always been impressed by stone's talent and IQ. There's too much there for me to believe he won't be a top 6 player.

I don't know as much about Chiasson but what I do know doesn't inspire too much confidence in me.

 

[sensfandan]

Stone, IMO, has the highest offensive upside out of any of our prospects. He's the only prospect we currently have that I believe can break 70 points one day. Obviously the likes of Lazar and Zibanejad are great talents, and this is all a guessing game, but I don't see high-end talent from either of those two.

Nothing about Stone screams second-line talent to me. The guy has size, vision, and IQ to spare, and has shown it at every level.

 

[operasen]

Both will fill a need within the lineup now and the near future. How exactly that happens is up to them.

Agree with this. Chaisson I see as a guy that can really get the puck out front to the scoring points. Stone is more one of those finishers.

I think both will have important roles. Given that Chaisson can play Right or Left may also factor into the situation.

Good question.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Let's watch chiasson play first.

 

[M4TR1X]

Let's watch chiasson play first.

You can by just looking up games from last year of the Dallas Stars.

 

[bert]

Hard Poll not voting, Chiasson is defs going to be HEAVILY favoured by coaching and management hopefully hes good..

Why do you feel this way? I am pretty sure whoever plays the best will just take the spot. If anything this organization likes to promote from within, I think Stone has the inside track.

 

[Karlsson2Turris*]

Why do you feel this way? I am pretty sure whoever plays the best will just take the spot. If anything this organization likes to promote from within, I think Stone has the inside track.

Nope they'll be giving Chiasson more opportunities to succeed because he was the main piece coming back in the Spezza deal.

 

[Canadian Time]

Nope they'll be giving Chiasson more opportunities to succeed because he was the main piece coming back in the Spezza deal.

Nah, no team does that. If he plays better than Stone, he'll get more chances.

 

[BonkTastic]

You can by just looking up games from last year of the Dallas Stars.

Rookie season, small sample size, different team, different linemates, different system, PTSD over the Peverley incident, injuries...


... there's enough reasons to want to see him in a Sens uni before passing judgement, IMO.

 

[Busboy]

Nope they'll be giving Chiasson more opportunities to succeed because he was the main piece coming back in the Spezza deal.

If this is the case then it would explain why we have such a tough time keeping coaches.

But really, I highly doubt Murray is making coaching decisions.

 

[Sensinitis]

Looking forward to seeing Chiasson rock that #90.

 

[Boud]

Id say Stone for both. Chiasson really has to devellop his 2 way game and he's mostly a garbage goal getter. He plays well around the net but his overall game is not has good as Stone's. Stone has a lot more talent.

Stona already played last year with McCarthur and Turris and I thought he really started to get things together towards the end of the year. I don't think we should expect a big season out of Chiasson, first year on the team and he really doesnt have that much experience either, but I'm excited to see what he can bring to the team.

 

[aragorn]

I think management & the coaching staff will give Chiasson the first shot at 2nd line RW but I imagine by the end of the season Stone could take that spot away. Then again, maybe the whole 3rd line becomes the 2nd line by the end of the season just as the Turris line became the default #1 line last yr if Zibanejad, Hoffman & Stone al get off to great starts.

 

[dumbdick]

You can by just looking up games from last year of the Dallas Stars.

Anyone else not very impressed by Chiasson's highlight reel from last year? Lots of tips a few gimmes and an empty netter in there. A goal is a goal, but he didn't seem to be driving the play in any of the clips.

Can someone who's seen more please assure me we didn't just trade a top line centre for a small sample of Conacheresque "jacked up because I'm playing my first few games in the NHL" type production?

(BTW that's not a shot on honey badger, I still expect the kid to rebound big time).

 

[Sensinitis]

Chiasson > Conacher ainec.

 

[Boud]

Anyone else not very impressed by Chiasson's highlight reel from last year? Lots of tips a few gimmes and an empty netter in there. A goal is a goal, but he didn't seem to be driving the play in any of the clips.

Can someone who's seen more please assure me we didn't just trade a top line centre for a small sample of Conacheresque "jacked up because I'm playing my first few games in the NHL" type production?

(BTW that's not a shot on honey badger, I still expect the kid to rebound big time).

Honestly, I hope you're not right but I think people are maybe expecting too much out of him. I saw lots and lots of clips of him and couple games from Dallas and some games he is there, some games he isnt. All goals are around the net, garbage goals mostly. He is a big guy so he takes advantage of that atleast around the net. He is not good defensively and will really have to work on that. From what i've heard he does work hard on his game so thats good.

Some guys do turn up to be very good, look at Holmstrom who was that type of player and really became a unique player.

I'd rather look at the player than the stats and not be disappointed. He did have a good season production wise last year but he needs to work hard in order to be consistent and effective.

 

[dumbdick]

Chiasson > Conacher ainec.

I don't know enough about Chiasson to say much about the guy. Judging by the AINEC remark, you've obviously seen a lot more than I have...since stat wise, it's actually very close (or at least it would be if you ignore Conacher's massive AHL season and Chiasson's crummy plus/minus. )

I just meant maybe that he was a bit overvalued because of a hot start in the league. For the most part, I like what I see, but I just want to make sure it's not an early career hotstreak that may or may not translate to our team's playing style.

EDIT: I'd be more likely to give a pass when I see the skill without the production. I figure the points will come. When I see the production without the pure skill (Chiasson, Cony), I expect the worst and figure that it's unsustainable. Probably why I was so wrong about Filatov.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Based on what I saw of Chiasson in college, he looked like a sure-fire NHLer, albeit not one with huge offensive upside. His short AHL career reinforces this, as he put up solid, not great numbers. His first NHL season was solid, but I don't know how much he'll improve on the 35 points he produced. He puts up points primarily by using his hockey sense - being in the right place at the right time. He's got decent playmaking instincts and hands for a big man, but it's his hockey sense that will determine whether he develops into a top 6 producer. I'm hoping his game improves and he develops into a guy who can put up 20 goals and around 50 points.

Stone, on the other hand, has big upside. The guy's resume since being drafted is what you'd expect from a high 1st round pick. 145 points in two WHL seasons, over a PPG in his second AHL season, led Team Canada in scoring in the World Juniors, and just had a great NHL stint playing alongside Mac and Turris. His hockey sense is incredible - noticeably good every time he steps on the ice. He's always creating something out of nothing and makes his linemates better when he's on the ice. I could see him challenging for the Calder if he's placed beside Turris on the top line, and makes an immediate impact in that role. He'll be a guy that comes out of nowhere and starts posting 50-60 point seasons, like Palat, Johnson, Gallagher and Saad in previous seasons.

 

[Samsquanch]

The thing that I like most about both Stone and Chaisson is that they're both great in and around the front of the net.

We take a lot of shots on goal, and I don't foresee that changing as long as Erik karlsson is the driving force of our offence. We need some big bodied guys with soft hands to compliment our style of play and help us capitalize on more of those shots that are directed at the goal.

I think the organization identified chaisson for that very reason, and that he and stone are both going make an impact in that regard. I can see them both being long term members of the core.

Gotta love our size up front these days.

 

[thesensguy]

Wait is stone eleigible for the Calder?

 

[Xspyrit]

Chiasson is not a goals scorer, he is more a playmaker...

One thing I can say for absolute certain, is that if one or both of these guys doesnt become 50+ point players, then I don't see us ever being more than a 7-15th place team for the next 3 or more years. Along with zibby, our potential is entirely dependant on their growth as players.

I have no idea how you can affirm that with assurance, I mean so many things can happen... trades, UFAs, draft picks, other prospects, surprise boom players...

Even if Stone and Chiasson totally bust (which won't happen), we could end up with :

Puempel-Zibanejad-Ryan
MacArthur-Turris-Lazar
Hoffman/Michalek/Paul/Guptill/Prince/Dzingel/Schneider/Smith/etc

I voted Stone now and future. Stone is a solid 2nd liner already while Chiasson may become one in the future but seems more suited for 3rd line duties.

Chiasson was on fire at the start of last season with goals in his first three games, and a pair in the ninth game, but then went on to only score 8 more goals in the next 70 games including only one goal in his last fifteen regular season games. He's still young and inexperienced, and should develop into a solid 15 goal guy.

Neither is good defensively yet, but I expect both to improve. Stone doesn't take shifts off where it has been reported that Chiasson has. Stone has great stick work to help in this area, and is very dangerous to try to stick work past in the neutral zone. He's a pick pocket.

Saying that he will become a guy who can score 2 more goals than in his (illness filled) rookie season is extremely optimistic.

There was a lot of hype for that guy... He also scored 6 goals in his first 7 NHL games. He's pretty close to a 2nd liner already

That being said, I voted for Stone now and future. It's clear that not everyone realize how good that guy can be. He is a special player IMO, the way he sees the ice, his physical attributes, his shot/passing and his hockey IQ makes him a can't miss, again IMO

And I'm not sure what makes you say Stone is not good defensively, he knows where to position himself very well and can use his body and stick skills to retrieve the puck very fast. At the very least, he didn't get scored much when he was on the ice in his stint with the big club.

Nope they'll be giving Chiasson more opportunities to succeed because he was the main piece coming back in the Spezza deal.

That's an HF perception, not a certainty in reality

 

[Samsquanch]

I have no idea how you can affirm that with assurance, I mean so many things can happen... trades, UFAs, draft picks, other prospects, surprise boom players...

Even if Stone and Chiasson totally bust (which won't happen), we could end up with :

Puempel-Zibanejad-Ryan
MacArthur-Turris-Lazar
Hoffman/Michalek/Paul/Guptill/Prince/Dzingel/Schneider/Smith/etc

Thats not a playoff team anytime soon.

Yes I suppose that I cant be absolutely certain (god knows we get all the good UFAs, and always win trades), but we're taking a step backwards if Stone and Chaisson dont pan out and we have to wait for the other guys to develop into NHLers.

Assuming Stone and Chaisson fail (1-2 years of waste there), I dont see any of the guys your listing being capable of stepping up and being solid contributors in the next three years. Lazar will take time, and Im really not sold on Puemple yet myself.

Hence why I believe that we're going to toil in mediocrity until some of our young talent develops into legitimate second line NHLers.

 

[CanadianGuest]

Saying that he will become a guy who can score 2 more goals than in his (illness filled) rookie season is extremely optimistic.

There was a lot of hype for that guy... He also scored 6 goals in his first 7 NHL games. He's pretty close to a 2nd liner already

That being said, I voted for Stone now and future. It's clear that not everyone realize how good that guy can be. He is a special player IMO, the way he sees the ice, his physical attributes, his shot/passing and his hockey IQ makes him a can't miss, again IMO

And I'm not sure what makes you say Stone is not good defensively, he knows where to position himself very well and can use his body and stick skills to retrieve the puck very fast. At the very least, he didn't get scored much when he was on the ice in his stint with the big club.



That's an HF perception, not a certainty in reality

Here's a game from last year, go to the 21:19 mark, Spezza loses a faceoff, Ceci picks up a loose puck after the Canadiens didn't connect on a pass, he moves it up to Stone who flips it over to Spezza who sends it into the Canadiens zone on a Greening deflection, Greening chases. The puck moves around the boards to Stone who passes to Phillips who takes a shot at the point at 21:36, it's blocked and the play goes the other way.

Here is where the Sens need to back check. Ceci and Phillips start back, Stone is third man back, Greening and Spezza back check at a, um, calm pace. The play crosses neutral ice at 21:40.

Watch Stone. He can't catch the third Canadien in, and doesn't watch the fourth Canadien in. He's caught in the middle, watching the puck, and ends up taking a 2 minute penalty because of, IMO, a lack of position he could have had. This is Stone, he knows he has to back check, is willing to, but the finer nuances of who he was capable of defending wasn't there. Phillips and Ceci had the first three covered as best as two D can cover them, he wasn't helping against those three, so cover the fourth guy coming in, Greening and Spezza were in deep at the other end. Repetition and instruction at this level will correct this.


Direct link; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3YjuxifoE