Jonathan Cheechoo Depreciation Thread

N4L I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

You seem to be implying that any centre in the league could have put up those numbers playing with Heatley and Alfie back in the day.... not a chance.

You also seem to be implying that Spezza is nothing special when he's considering one of the best playmakers in the league behind only Thornton and perhaps Savard.

As for chemistry it's an unpredictable funny thing. The Sharks killer line of Marleau, Thornton and Heatley wasn't working early on and McLellan split them up and now it is working.

#1 centres in the league are always paired with the team's top wingers on the first line and obviously have chemistry together. Would Stamkos be putting up such crazy numbers if he didn't have good chemistry with Malone and St.Louis ?

As for "pumping Cheechoo's tires" I believe in giving the guy a better chance to suceed, same with #19.

If a player is slumping and not living up to expectations you rotate the lines to mix things up or make a trade to find someone who perhaps they will click with. You don't don't label them a flop and dismiss their past successes as an anomaly.

Like you, I call it like I see it.

N4L wrote:You dont see me here pumping Cheechoo's tires like he's going to come around and score 30 or 40 again.

Actually, there was a lot of discussion when the trade was finalized that Cheechoo could return to 30 goal form (though not 40). Remember how 20 was supposed to be a guarantee?

asq2 wrote:

N4L wrote:You dont see me here pumping Cheechoo's tires like he's going to come around and score 30 or 40 again.

Actually, there was a lot of discussion when the trade was finalized that Cheechoo could return to 30 goal form (though not 40). Remember how 20 was supposed to be a guarantee?

He'd be on a 20 goal pace if he didnt hit the crossbar and posts a few times.

This thread was started about Cheechoo. He is a problem whether anyone likes it or not. If we could get someone to take him on waivers we would and do it before they sobered up!

Picking on Spezza is ridiculous in the context of this thread. If we put him on waivers there would be a lineup. He still has talent, he still is a top 10 center in this league. He is trying to change his game and he is struggling. He will come around.

Saying that Cheechoo would get goals playing more minutes is speculation at best. Perhaps he might because statistically there are more opportunities but I am not sure that our team would get better having him play more and his absolute top end is 20 goals, I am convinced. Even if you gave him 60 minutes a game. He is no longer a goal scorer in this league nor does he have any talent that is of any value.

MurderOnIce wrote:This thread was started about Cheechoo. He is a problem whether anyone likes it or not. If we could get someone to take him on waivers we would and do it before they sobered up!

I'd love him traded or waived but it won't happen. If we don't want him why would any other team ?

I think he can score, he's come awful close. Playing him with our worst centre and an agitator and then wondering why he's not scoring is just

asq2 wrote:

N4L wrote:You dont see me here pumping Cheechoo's tires like he's going to come around and score 30 or 40 again.

Actually, there was a lot of discussion when the trade was finalized that Cheechoo could return to 30 goal form (though not 40). Remember how 20 was supposed to be a guarantee?

I would have said Spezza getting 20 is a garentee too...

MurderOnIce wrote:This thread was started about Cheechoo. He is a problem whether anyone likes it or not. If we could get someone to take him on waivers we would and do it before they sobered up!

Picking on Spezza is ridiculous in the context of this thread. If we put him on waivers there would be a lineup. He still has talent, he still is a top 10 center in this league. He is trying to change his game and he is struggling. He will come around.

Saying that Cheechoo would get goals playing more minutes is speculation at best. Perhaps he might because statistically there are more opportunities but I am not sure that our team would get better having him play more and his absolute top end is 20 goals, I am convinced. Even if you gave him 60 minutes a game. He is no longer a goal scorer in this league nor does he have any talent that is of any value.

How is Cheechoo a problem? Tell me what problems he is causing cap wise, on the ice, off the ice, or in the grand scheme of things in Ottawa in a long term sense?

He isnt signifigant enough at this point to be a problem.

Hoags wrote:N4L I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

You seem to be implying that any centre in the league could have put up those numbers playing with Heatley and Alfie back in the day.... not a chance.

You also seem to be implying that Spezza is nothing special when he's considering one of the best playmakers in the league behind only Thornton and perhaps Savard.

As for chemistry it's an unpredictable funny thing. The Sharks killer line of Marleau, Thornton and Heatley wasn't working early on and McLellan split them up and now it is working.

#1 centres in the league are always paired with the team's top wingers on the first line and obviously have chemistry together. Would Stamkos be putting up such crazy numbers if he didn't have good chemistry with Malone and St.Louis ?

As for "pumping Cheechoo's tires" I believe in giving the guy a better chance to suceed, same with #19.

If a player is slumping and not living up to expectations you rotate the lines to mix things up or make a trade to find someone who perhaps they will click with. You don't don't label them a flop and dismiss their past successes as an anomaly.

Like you, I call it like I see it.

Im not dismissing anything, but you have guys who acheive their success very early in their careers based on who they played with, the situation they were thrown into, and the TEAMS overall success.

Spezza was thrown onto a 1st line, on a 1st place team with perhaps the best defense in The NHL In all seriousness, has there ever been a 2nd overall pick that has come into a better situation in the history of The NHL then Jason Spezza?

Spezza was obviously a factor in that teams success with Heatley, Alfi, Redden, Chara, how much? Not as much as he is given for IMO. Two of them are NHL captains, one is a 50 goal scorer (over rated but still scores 50) and Redden, well, w/e he is now... but he was once very effective.

I think Spezza peaked offensvily before he had facial hair and what you have seen last year and this year is about all you are going to get from Spezza on a team that plays a very team oriented game.

I defently agree with giving Cheechoo a little help in an offensive sense because he's working hard, but the team is having success with him in the 3rd, 4th line role so even though I want him to acheive some personal success it doesnt come before team success. I think they only people that are not OK with that are ripping Cheechoo because of that.

I dont think Cheechoo is a problem short term, I dont think Spezza is a problem short term either, ust for the record. Spezza himself isnt even "a problem". his contract and consistant declien in production are.

Currently, I dont think Ottawa has many problems and even though they lost last night, I think that was an encouraging game because, for the most part, they were stride for stride with "The best team in The NHL, *puke*). More encouraged by that loss then most wins.

I think ripping Cheechoo is stupid because he is doing what's asked of him.

Fair enough Neely, your points aren't wrong about Spezza. It's time he got things going for sure.

N4L wrote:
Im not dismissing anything, but you have guys who acheive their success very early in their careers based on who they played with, the situation they were thrown into, and the TEAMS overall success.

Spezza was thrown onto a 1st line, on a 1st place team with perhaps the best defense in The NHL In all seriousness, has there ever been a 2nd overall pick that has come into a better situation in the history of The NHL then Jason Spezza?

Spezza was obviously a factor in that teams success with Heatley, Alfi, Redden, Chara, how much? Not as much as he is given for IMO. Two of them are NHL captains, one is a 50 goal scorer (over rated but still scores 50) and Redden, well, w/e he is now... but he was once very effective.

I think Spezza peaked offensvily before he had facial hair and what you have seen last year and this year is about all you are going to get from Spezza on a team that plays a very team oriented game.

I defently agree with giving Cheechoo a little help in an offensive sense because he's working hard, but the team is having success with him in the 3rd, 4th line role so even though I want him to acheive some personal success it doesnt come before team success. I think they only people that are not OK with that are ripping Cheechoo because of that.

Our team isn't a dominating force in the opposing team's end anymore. Look at how bad the power play is and the problems we seem to have with cycling the puck effectively. Years ago we were far better at controlling the game and maintaining puck possession and our powerplay was far more dangerous. Spezza's play is a partial result of that. I also think Clouston's system benefits some players (Fisher) more than Spezza.

As for Cheechoo I'm in 100% agreement, team before individual stats. My point was people complaining about Cheechoo's lack of production should note he is playing with Stone Hands and Ruutu, two players who are not scorers nor are they paid to be.

Heatley would be hard pressed to score 20 playing with those 2.

Hoags wrote:

N4L wrote:
Im not dismissing anything, but you have guys who acheive their success very early in their careers based on who they played with, the situation they were thrown into, and the TEAMS overall success.

Spezza was thrown onto a 1st line, on a 1st place team with perhaps the best defense in The NHL In all seriousness, has there ever been a 2nd overall pick that has come into a better situation in the history of The NHL then Jason Spezza?

Spezza was obviously a factor in that teams success with Heatley, Alfi, Redden, Chara, how much? Not as much as he is given for IMO. Two of them are NHL captains, one is a 50 goal scorer (over rated but still scores 50) and Redden, well, w/e he is now... but he was once very effective.

I think Spezza peaked offensvily before he had facial hair and what you have seen last year and this year is about all you are going to get from Spezza on a team that plays a very team oriented game.

I defently agree with giving Cheechoo a little help in an offensive sense because he's working hard, but the team is having success with him in the 3rd, 4th line role so even though I want him to acheive some personal success it doesnt come before team success. I think they only people that are not OK with that are ripping Cheechoo because of that.

Our team isn't a dominating force in the opposing team's end anymore. Look at how bad the power play is and the problems we seem to have with cycling the puck effectively. Years ago we were far better at controlling the game and maintaining puck possession and our powerplay was far more dangerous. Spezza's play is a partial result of that. I also think Clouston's system benefits some players (Fisher) more than Spezza.

As for Cheechoo I'm in 100% agreement, team before individual stats. My point was people complaining about Cheechoo's lack of production should note he is playing with Stone Hands and Ruutu, two players who are not scorers nor are they paid to be.

Heatley would be hard pressed to score 20 playing with those 2.

I think last night showed just how dominating a force out forcheck and offense can be. Our PP is balls though.

N4L wrote:
I think last night showed just how dominating a force out forcheck and offense can be. Our PP is balls though.

Usually we don't play like that, I wonder if Clouston laid out a different plan before the game.

Look at how Boston shut us down, we couldn't get into the zone at all and we were horrible at dumping the puck in.

In the past we dominated the play in the offensive zone far more than we do now, Clouston has us playing more conservative hockey this year.

Spezza is at his best when we have control in the zone and we start getting set up, same with Kovy, I must say he's pretty bad at entering the zone he usually gets stripped of the puck as soon as he crosses the line by any competent player.

If we'd control the play more in the other team's end Spezza and Kovalev would have more of a chance to shine. If we're entering the zone only to give it away and have the play coming the other way, Spezza is largely useless.

Hoags wrote:

N4L wrote:
I think last night showed just how dominating a force out forcheck and offense can be. Our PP is balls though.

Usually we don't play like that, I wonder if Clouston laid out a different plan before the game.

Look at how Boston shut us down, we couldn't get into the zone at all and we were horrible at dumping the puck in.

In the past we dominated the play in the offensive zone far more than we do now, Clouston has us playing more conservative hockey this year.

Spezza is at his best when we have control in the zone and we start getting set up, same with Kovy, I must say he's pretty bad at entering the zone he usually gets stripped of the puck as soon as he crosses the line by any competent player.

If we'd control the play more in the other team's end Spezza and Kovalev would have more of a chance to shine. If we're entering the zone only to give it away and have the play coming the other way, Spezza is largely useless.

A lot of what you said is why I dont think Spezza fits in on a team like Ottawa. Hard forcheck, cycle, get to the net... Like it or not teams that have a center dishing out everywhere without the ability to cycle the puck dont win come playoff time for the most part. IE San Jose.

If you look at the teams who get to the finals, all of them can take part in the cycle, get in the dirty area's, score the flukey goals, so on.

Hoags wrote:
Usually we don't play like that, I wonder if Clouston laid out a different plan before the game.

Look at how Boston shut us down, we couldn't get into the zone at all and we were horrible at dumping the puck in.

I think we play a heavy forecheck now, especially with Fisher, Foligno, Alfie, Michalek, then the entire 3rd, 4th lines. Much more of a cycle game as well when we do forecheck the puck off an opposition's stick.

The Fisher, Kovalev, Foligno line was having all kinds of fun forechecking until Fisher got hurt and subsequently the lines got all moved around and now Fisher's cooling off. But I still think this is a heavy forechecking team.

N4L wrote:A lot of what you said is why I dont think Spezza fits in on a team like Ottawa. Hard forcheck, cycle, get to the net... Like it or not teams that have a center dishing out everywhere without the ability to cycle the puck dont win come playoff time for the most part. IE San Jose.

If you look at the teams who get to the finals, all of them can take part in the cycle, get in the dirty area's, score the flukey goals, so on.

And see, this is where I think there's an exception on every team. Boston had a team that SHOULD have competed for the Cup and their top center is Marc Savard - who just learned to play a complete game.

Getzlaf is the best player as an example for you, but what about little Andy Mac? He's not the grinding forechecker.

No, to me, there has to be a good balance between the complete star (Fisher, Alfie) and the slick player that's hard to contain (Spezza, Kovalev).

Not to rehash this again, but someone needs to explain to me why we didn't take Ehroff and Michalek. It was evident that SJ was gonna jettison both anyway.

Still don't 100% understand why we needed to take Cheechoo.

SpezDispenser wrote:

N4L wrote:A lot of what you said is why I dont think Spezza fits in on a team like Ottawa. Hard forcheck, cycle, get to the net... Like it or not teams that have a center dishing out everywhere without the ability to cycle the puck dont win come playoff time for the most part. IE San Jose.

If you look at the teams who get to the finals, all of them can take part in the cycle, get in the dirty area's, score the flukey goals, so on.

And see, this is where I think there's an exception on every team. Boston had a team that SHOULD have competed for the Cup and their top center is Marc Savard - who just learned to play a complete game.

Getzlaf is the best player as an example for you, but what about little Andy Mac? He's not the grinding forechecker.

No, to me, there has to be a good balance between the complete star (Fisher, Alfie) and the slick player that's hard to contain (Spezza, Kovalev).

Spezza isnt as good as Savard or McDonald, both those two are guys I would take ahead of Spezza. McDonald defently plays well on both sides of the puck though, very resposnsible and does get the dirty goals where he gets put on his Donkey. Savard has bought in to everything Boston is selling.