Sens Lineup Card for 11/12

SpezDispenser wrote:
Oh, I don't dislike, I just don't fully understand it. As Neely said, the Sens won't be pushed around by anyone - that's fine, but we'll score 82 goals all year at this rate.
.

Ultimately Paul MacLean wanted him on the team to do what he does. FO% is important if we're going to implement his system.

Oglethorpe wrote:
I would be shocked if even 3 of those guys hit 15 goals much less all 6. We better hope Spezza hits 35 and Alfie and Michalek get 25 each. Maybe one of Butler/Foligno/Filotov can hit 20+, but if we score 190 goals this year, it will mean the D stepped up for 35+ goals.

EK should be good for 10-15 and hopefully Gonchar as well. So that's 20-25 easy. If the other can chip in 10+ that'd be better.

My guess for next year:

Filatov - Spezza - Alfredsson
Michalek - Regin - Butler
Foligno - Smith - Condra
Greening - Konopka - Neil
Winchester

Alfie and Butler may swap (not sure if Alfie is up for 1st line ice time). Filatov and Michalek may move around as well (Filatov may start on the 2nd to ease him in a bit possibly).

Hoags wrote:

Ultimately Paul MacLean wanted him on the team to do what he does. FO% is important if we're going to implement his system.

Then why is Winchester in the pressbox? He is consistently near the top FO% for Ottawa.

SeawaySensFan wrote:
Then why is Winchester in the pressbox? He is consistently near the top FO% for Ottawa.

Konopka is higher FO%, he's #4 overall in the entire NHL

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm?fetchKey=20112ALLCACAll&sort=faceOffWinPctg&viewName=faceOffPercentage

1 David Steckel NJD C 75 388 239 14 6 109 64 287 137 67.7 224 172 56.6 511 309 820 62.3
2 Manny Malhotra VAN C 72 588 362 45 21 145 100 396 231 63.2 382 252 60.2 778 483 1261 61.7
3 Paul Gaustad BUF C 81 487 335 48 25 157 106 336 218 60.6 356 248 58.9 692 466 1158 59.8
4 Zenon Konopka NYI C 82 459 317 24 13 137 125 294 219 57.3 326 236 58.0 620 455 1075 57.7
5 Jarret Stoll LAK C 82 577 439 78 45 98 73 388 274 58.6 365 283 56.3 753 557 1310 57.5
6 Jerred Smithson NSH C 82 471 324 11 8 96 96 316 218 59.2 262 210 55.5 578 428 1006 57.4
7 Ryan Kesler VAN C 82 602 452 122 69 135 116 449 317 58.6 410 320 56.2 859 637 1496 57.4
8 Jonathan Toews CHI C 80 646 508 176 121 115 87 513 345 59.8 424 371 53.3 937 716 1653 56.7
9 Patrice Bergeron BOS C 80 615 470 82 54 118 100 408 274 59.8 407 350 53.8 815 624 1439 56.6
10 Jason Spezza OTT C 62 463 365 118 88 100 76 301 231 56.6 380 298 56.0 681 529 1210 56.3


How's that for puck possession ?

Konopka can also fight and stand up for the team vs. (insert Maple Leafs goon here). Neil is better off when he's not a pure enforcer, Carkner will be a #7D he will not play much and Smith isn't a fighter either.

Hoags wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:
Then why is Winchester in the pressbox? He is consistently near the top FO% for Ottawa.

Konopka is higher FO%, he's #4 overall in the entire NHL

Konopka can fight and stand up for the team vs. (insert Maple Leafs goon here). Neil is better off when he's not a pure enforcer, Carkner will be a #7D he will not play much and Smith isn't a fighter either.

And none of those guys can hold on to the puck like Winchester can which is a puck possession skill. So basically faceoffs and puck possession are important unless it applies to Winchester?

He should be higher on the depth chart than Konopka for sure and even Condra but we'll see what the coach does and what injuries dictate.

SeawaySensFan wrote:
He should be higher on the depth chart than Konopka for sure and even Condra but we'll see what the coach does and what injuries dictate.

Yeah it's a good point I don't really know, the Sens website quoted Murray as MacLean wanting him on the team.

The fighting part makes more sense to me as I don't think Carkner will be playing much unless there are injuries.

Jesse Winchester only looked so good because the rest of the group was garbage. It's like the a semi-decent good looking girl in a computer science class.

He had, what, 6 goals? Konopka replaces him and then some, he brings leadership to the table. Winny is serviceable but he really is irrelevant right now, IMO.

Hoags wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:
He should be higher on the depth chart than Konopka for sure and even Condra but we'll see what the coach does and what injuries dictate.

Yeah it's a good point I don't really know, the Sens website quoted Murray as MacLean wanting him on the team.

The fighting part makes more sense to me as I don't think Carkner will be playing much unless there are injuries.

Either way I like Konopka. Certainly MacLean has had input into roster moves because Murray said that he would make a decision on Shannon once he talks to MacLean.

I find it hard to believe that the lineup is set just yet too. I just don't see how the D can be the way it is going into the season. Who knows?

Big Ev wrote:Jesse Winchester only looked so good because the rest of the group was garbage. It's like the a semi-decent good looking girl in a computer science class.

He had, what, 6 goals? Konopka replaces him and then some, he brings leadership to the table. Winny is serviceable but he really is irrelevant right now, IMO.

I like Konopka but he hardly makes Winchester irrelevant.

Naturally Winchester looked good but the rest of the team was garbage and I'm sure that logic applies to other players who didn't look like garbage. On the other hand, it's nice that some players managed not to look like garbage, including Winchester.

Besides, that science class girl was dirty and that's what really matters.

Oglethorpe wrote:I would be shocked if even 3 of those guys hit 15 goals much less all 6. We better hope Spezza hits 35 and Alfie and Michalek get 25 each. Maybe one of Butler/Foligno/Filotov can hit 20+, but if we score 190 goals this year, it will mean the D stepped up for 35+ goals.

Notice how I said "15 goals a piece on average." That doesn't mean they all hit 15 -- that means that the 6 of them collectively score something like 90 goals. Maybe Butler or Filatov has a great year and puts up 25. That leaves 65 for the rest of them -- or about 12-13 goals a piece.

My #s are pretty conservative by all accounts, if you ask me. If Michalek, Spezza, and Alfie stay healthy -- always a question mark, I know -- I fully expect them to score more than 20 a piece. Combined, they could be good for 75 or more. But, like I said, I'm low balling to prove a point.

Further to this:

-Butler put up 10 goals in 36 games.
-Greening put up 6 goals in 24 games.
-Condra put up 6 goals in 26 games.

And yet, somehow, we should be surprised if these guys hit 10-15 over 82 games?

Then there's the other guys I mentioned in my group of 6:

-Foligno hit 14 goals last year after a brutal start, and 17 goals 2 years before that.
-Regin obviously had an overall brutal year last year, but he had 13 goals in the previous season.
-Filatov, well, he's the only real total x factor here in that he doesn't have a history of producing in the NHL at all.

Getting somewhere between 75 and 90 goals looks like a reasonably good bet to me.

SpezDispenser wrote:

NEELY wrote:
Same reason Karlsson was a healthy scratch, why Seguin was a healthy scratch, why a lot of other rookies don't play every night. There is nothing wrong with scratching a kid if he needs it, nothing.

Karlsson was scratched for a few games here and there, not for long periods of time. Same with Seguin, he was scratched for 10-15 games max. Better to let these kids get out there and play IMO, but if the Sens choose to keep Z-Bad around and scratch him, I'll obviously trust their judgement.

Karlsson was scratched here-and-there *last season*. In his rookie season he got sent back down to Bingo for a while. Plus that's all we are talking about -- a few games here and there, after he's had a rough patch, or against tough opponents. Between Konopka, Winchester and the eventual injuries there will be plenty of room for him to get his feet wet but not drown.

Big Ev wrote:Jesse Winchester only looked so good because the rest of the group was garbage. It's like the a semi-decent good looking girl in a computer science class.

He had, what, 6 goals? Konopka replaces him and then some, he brings leadership to the table. Winny is serviceable but he really is irrelevant right now, IMO.

First of all, Konopka had 2 goals in 82 games on a team that scored more goals than the Sens did. Winchester had 4 in 72.

As for faceoffs, while both played primarily against the other team's 4th line centers, Konopka had more than 50% more short-handed ice time, when he would clearly be lining up against the top center. So his FO% being higher than Spezza's is pretty huge.

Winchester had fighting lessons from Neil; Konopka clearly will not need lessons. Overall, Konopka brings more, but I don't think you should discount Winchester as looking good only because the rest was garbage. On the offense, clear advantage to the Winch.

Second, are you seriously saying attractive girls/women will not be found in a Comp Sci classroom? Where do you go to school? Are you saying biology or math or geography classrooms are more Maxim-worthy? Or were you just trying to be clever and ignored the fact that you just offended a lot of people?

rooneypoo wrote:Further to this:

-Butler put up 10 goals in 36 games.
-Greening put up 6 goals in 24 games.
-Condra put up 6 goals in 26 games.

And yet, somehow, we should be surprised if these guys hit 10-15 over 82 games?

Then there's the other guys I mentioned in my group of 6:

-Foligno hit 14 goals last year after a brutal start, and 17 goals 2 years before that.
-Regin obviously had an overall brutal year last year, but he had 13 goals in the previous season.
-Filatov, well, he's the only real total x factor here in that he doesn't have a history of producing in the NHL at all.

Getting somewhere between 75 and 90 goals looks like a reasonably good bet to me.

Add those games up and you have 86 games -- just over a full season. That's over 20 goals, each. Of course who knows if they can keep that pace up over 82 games? On the other hand, some of them could also improve on their numbers. They won't be getting the same ice time with a healthy Alfie and Filatov in the top-six. Nor will they get the same linemates -- although Filatov and/or a healthy Alfie could make their totals even greater.

Ah, that's the agony of the summer. You can slice it fifteen different ways and still not come up with the right answer in any of those slices.

wprager wrote:

Big Ev wrote:Jesse Winchester only looked so good because the rest of the group was garbage. It's like the a semi-decent good looking girl in a computer science class.

He had, what, 6 goals? Konopka replaces him and then some, he brings leadership to the table. Winny is serviceable but he really is irrelevant right now, IMO.

First of all, Konopka had 2 goals in 82 games on a team that scored more goals than the Sens did. Winchester had 4 in 72.

As for faceoffs, while both played primarily against the other team's 4th line centers, Konopka had more than 50% more short-handed ice time, when he would clearly be lining up against the top center. So his FO% being higher than Spezza's is pretty huge.

Winchester had fighting lessons from Neil; Konopka clearly will not need lessons. Overall, Konopka brings more, but I don't think you should discount Winchester as looking good only because the rest was garbage. On the offense, clear advantage to the Winch.

Second, are you seriously saying attractive girls/women will not be found in a Comp Sci classroom? Where do you go to school? Are you saying biology or math or geography classrooms are more Maxim-worthy? Or were you just trying to be clever and ignored the fact that you just offended a lot of people?

Who exactly did I offend by saying that? I was in some comp sci classes myself

Just a joke, lol. I thought it was hilarious. It shouldn't be taken seriously.

I thought of it because of this:

OK, maybe I misunderstood.

Still, back in my day (this is university, some time in the 80s) the Engineering class had (I think) one girl in the entire year; over on the Comp Sci side of things, we had 25% female enrollment. That was about the only thing we had over the Engineers.

wprager wrote:OK, maybe I misunderstood.

Still, back in my day (this is university, some time in the 80s) the Engineering class had (I think) one girl in the entire year; over on the Comp Sci side of things, we had 25% female enrollment. That was about the only thing we had over the Engineers.

That's good, the engineers at Carleton irk me

Big Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:OK, maybe I misunderstood.

Still, back in my day (this is university, some time in the 80s) the Engineering class had (I think) one girl in the entire year; over on the Comp Sci side of things, we had 25% female enrollment. That was about the only thing we had over the Engineers.

That's good, the engineers at Carleton irk me

A little too rowdy for ya?

shabbs wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:OK, maybe I misunderstood.

Still, back in my day (this is university, some time in the 80s) the Engineering class had (I think) one girl in the entire year; over on the Comp Sci side of things, we had 25% female enrollment. That was about the only thing we had over the Engineers.

That's good, the engineers at Carleton irk me

A little too rowdy for ya?

Uh oh. Do I smell an engineer?