The Utica Comets Thread XXIV - Calder Cup Playoffs Edition!

[Zarpan]

I can partially understand the reluctance to throw new players in during the playoffs for a team that has Calder Cup aspirations.

Would definitely like to see Virtanen and McCann play, but of the first rounders from the last three years, only Grigerenko and Wilson played in the AHL playoffs without playing a regular season AHL game first. Grigerenko already had NHL experience at that point too, so it would only be Wilson who went from Juniors/Europe straight to the AHL playoffs.

 

[Tiranis]

The only issue I see is Hutton and potentially McCann if he doesn't eventually draw in. Don't think Virtanen beats anyone out. Says more about him than it does about how we're developing prospects in Utica.

 

[WTG]

The only issue I see is Hutton and potentially McCann if he doesn't eventually draw in. Don't think Virtanen beats anyone out. Says more about him than it does about how we're developing prospects in Utica.

Virtanen is easily better than Archibald. Only reason I can see being against him in the lineup because he does stupid stuff.

McCann should draw in easily IMO.

Hutton should have drawn in last series. Ehrhart played pretty terrible going into the playoffs and at the beginning of the series. Hutton should've drawn in.

I'm incredibly high on Hutton.

 

[Shareefruck]

I agree.

I think Green's (relatively short) track record speaks for itself. There were complaints earlier in the year about Shinkaruk, Gaunce and Corrado's ice time, PP time, etc.

I'm not sure anyone can really say that Shinkaruk has not been handled well throughout the year. Ditto Gaunce, Pedan, Corrado. Even Grenier compared to last year.

Yeah, they've been handled very well-- Given some of their struggles over the course of the year, you almost get the impression that Gaunce and Shinkaruk would be toiling right now and trending on a disappointing path the way Jensen has been with anyone behind the bench other than Green. I'm very happy with how Gaunce/Shinkaruk has progressed.

 

[Tiranis]

Virtanen is easily better than Archibald. Only reason I can see being against him in the lineup because he does stupid stuff.

Based on what though? Archibald was just as productive in junior (which was many years ago for him and he has improved since), is almost as physical at this level of hockey and actually plays well defensively.

If your goal is to develop Virtanen then it makes sense but on merit, he doesn't crack the line-up. The fact that I can say that about a 6th overall pick is disappointing.

Either way, I anticipate Virtanen will draw in if they lose a game, to provide some spark with his physical play.

 

[WTG]

Based on what though? Archibald was just as productive in junior (which was many years ago for him and he has improved since), is almost as physical at this level of hockey and actually plays well defensively.

Based on the fact he's a bottom 6 AHLer.

If Virtanen can't beat him out then I'd be extremely disappointing with Virtanen.

A six overall pick should be able to beat out bottom 6 AHLers in the depth chart.


EDIT: I agree with your edit.

I'm more pissed if McCann doesn't draw in.

 

[BoHo Bangins]

Archibald was just as productive in junior.

Not even close.

 

[UticaHockey]

So you really want to take the closest thing the Comets have for a physical guy out who can keep plugs honest and not running your prized prospects out of the lineup and replace him with an 18 year old? In case you haven't noticed the Comets are not an overly physical team and we just got done with a series against a Wolves team that played a very cheap style of game.

Archie plays that role for the Comets while at the same time contributing some very timely goals. You really need to think about the roles that some of these "replaceable players" provide to the team. The Comets only have one heavy physical line and it includes DeFazio and Archibald.

 

[Tiranis]

Not even close.

Archibald left the AHL going PPG both in the regular season and the playoffs, scoring 10 goals in 14 games. He did that at an older age and he's unlikely to ever be an NHLer, but for the purposes of this conversation that's all that matters. We're not talking about a guy who couldn't score in junior.

 

[BoHo Bangins]

Archibald left the AHL going PPG both in the regular season and the playoffs, scoring 10 goals in 14 games. He did that at an older age and he's unlikely to ever be an NHLer, but for the purposes of this conversation that's all that matters. We're not talking about a guy who couldn't score in junior.

You are comparing 18yo and 21yo seasons. How is that not relevant? You said it's disappointing that they produced at nearly the same rate in junior.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

So you really want to take the closest thing the Comets have for a physical guy out who can keep plugs honest and not running your prized prospects out of the lineup and replace him with an 18 year old? In case you haven't noticed the Comets are not an overly physical team and we just got done with a series against a Wolves team that played a very cheap style of game.

Archie plays that role for the Comets while at the same time contributing some very timely goals. You really need to think about the roles that some of these "replaceable players" provide to the team. The Comets only have one heavy physical line and it includes DeFazio and Archibald.

It seems just from this thread that Utica needs more physical players. Likely Jake could add that. He would be able to replace Kennis. Go look at Jakes videos he crushes junior players and is a great skater. You have a good point about Archie but your argument is one in favour of Jake. He can easily be a energy player for Utica. I do not care much if he plays or not but if he did he would knock multiple opponents on their ass and the other team would be going after him. If that kind of player has no value to Utica in the playoffs so be it. However no one should pretend that he is unable to play a role. If he doesn't play it likely is because Green knows what other players bring better. I read about a player on Utica with one assist in 30 Ahl games who main role is on the PK but is a winger. No winger on the PK is so valuable that they can overcome zero production. If he was a face off specialist maybe there would be an argument. However I do not think Virtanen or McCann need to play to develop. It would make little difference to their development. So my position is they both are better than players who are playing now but in the end it doesn't matter to their future. Go Utica Go!!

 

[Bgav]

Archibald scored 45 goals as a 16/17 year old in the chl? Lmao what?

 

[me2]

You are comparing 18yo and 21yo seasons. How is that not relevant? You said it's disappointing that they produced at nearly the same rate in junior.

Age is irrelevant. We are trying to work out who is better now, not who Virtanen will be in 5 years. Archibald left the CHL performing as well as Virtanen (even if older) and has been seasoned so he is much better than he was during his CHL years.

 

[Bgav]

Age is irrelevant. We are trying to work out who is better now, not who Virtanen will be in 5 years. Archibald left the CHL performing as well as Virtanen (even if older) and has been seasoned so he is much better than he was during his CHL years.

Well it's a bad comparison. It's like saying Dane Fox is better then Virtanen because of his over age year

 

[Catamarca Livin]

They are not sitting Archibald he is a good AHL player. They are deep at forward so is tough call. No wrong /answer. No reason to be passionate on either side of discussion because it is a tough decision. Utica barely beat Chicago so I do not think lineup is untouchable, there must be improvements possible.

 

[BoHo Bangins]

Age is irrelevant. We are trying to work out who is better now, not who Virtanen will be in 5 years. Archibald left the CHL performing as well as Virtanen (even if older) and has been seasoned so he is much better than he was during his CHL years.

Ya that makes sense. The reason I was replying to him is he said it's disappointing that he can say our recent 6h overall pick scored at the same rate as Archibald in junior.

 

[me2]

Well it's a bad comparison. It's like saying Dane Fox is better then Virtanen because of his over age year

Fox was better in his overage year. That is the point. Let's take draft position out of this because draft position has nothing to do with it how well a person can play. Would people be driving the Jake for AHL bus so hard if he had been taken 206th instead of 6th? Same player, same season, just different draft position, no noise here. That is all this comes down to: draft position.

 

[DadBod]

This thread is a complete **** hole now. Too bad we've turned a positive thread into this negative, dramatic black hole.

Virtanen is better than Archiblad, fact. But that doesn't mean he should be scratched for JV, Archi is a huge part of the team.

McCann and JV are better than some players in Utica, fact. But that doesn't mean they'll just slot in right away.

JV isn't as bad defensively as people are suggesting, fact. They're just butt hurt because he was drafted instead of who they wanted.



There's a whole bunch of nonsense going on here. Can't we keep it positive?

GO COMETS GO!

 

[DadBod]

Fox was better in his overage year. That is the point. Let's take draft position out of this because draft position has nothing to do with it how well a person can play. Would people be driving the Jake for AHL bus so hard if he had been taken 206th instead of 6th? Same player, same season, just different draft position, no noise here. That is all this comes down to: draft position.

You're comparing a 17/18 year old, who was about a month away from being in this years draft and who's a PPG player, to a couple of players (Archiblad and Fox) over age years, who doesn't bring 1/4 of the talent JV brings...and you think this is a valid comparison?

You don't see anything odd with that?

 

[me2]

You're comparing a 17/18 year old, who was about a month away from being in this years draft and who's a PPG player, to a couple of players (Archiblad and Fox) over age years, who doesn't bring 1/4 of the talent JV brings...and you think this is a valid comparison?

You don't see anything odd with that?

Nope. We are comparing them based on their ability to help the comets win. Age means nothing in that comparison.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Nope. We are comparing them based on their ability to help the comets win. Age means nothing in that comparison.

yes it does. very few 18 year olds are prepared to make a substantial contribution to their pro hockey team for the first time in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

win, win win all the time do what we need to do to win this organization needs to have some winning.

 

[me2]

yes it does. very few 18 year olds are prepared to make a substantial contribution to their pro hockey team for the first time in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

win, win win all the time do what we need to do to win this organization needs to have some winning.

I'm pretty sure you are agreeing with ie take the best player at that point in time regardless of age (ie the one most likely to help the team win).

 

[CanaFan]

Fox was better in his overage year. That is the point. Let's take draft position out of this because draft position has nothing to do with it how well a person can play. Would people be driving the Jake for AHL bus so hard if he had been taken 206th instead of 6th? Same player, same season, just different draft position, no noise here. That is all this comes down to: draft position.

Well... ya. And what does draft position usually indicate? Better player with better NHL potential.

And what does Foxes overage year have to do with him being a better player than Virtanen? For all his numbers in his overage year, he didn't even make the Comets the next year as a 21 year old. Just about any modest NHL prospect could do better than that.

 

[Baby Pettersson]

Guys let's take it down a notch here. We are all arguing over a moot point. At least for now anyways.

Green has openly said he will play the players that gives the team the best chance to win. He will observe McCann and Virtanen in practice and will make judgements from there. He hasn't said they will play, nor has he said they won't.

Only thing we know for certain is that the players that deserve to play will play. You can't argue with any coach over that decision.

 

[vancityluongo]

Keep it positive all you want, there are effectively two scenarios here, given that you believe Green is committed to playing the best players in his lineup.

1) Virtanen, McCann, and to a lesser degree Hutton, are better than players currently in Utica's lineup. This means that the above mantra is not being followed, either because of coach Green or the Canucks management providing a different directive.

2) The three prospects are currently not AHL playoff calibre players. Two first round picks and a Hobey Baker runner up. This would be a massive disappointment to both Canucks fans and Utica fans now and in terms of the future.

There is a third scenario: Utica is a juggernaut, so despite the prospects being really, really good, the Comets are just too stacked for newcomers to crack the lineup. However, it's really hard to buy that an AHL roster, no matter how good they were in the regular season, is so good that a sixth overall pick can't crack the lineup, and then to also argue that the player in question is tracking well.

I don't get why this thread is heated. There's clearly a potential issue, and although we have yet to see it fully played out, for engaged fans there is reason to be concerned.