2012/13 Lineup

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:was Jess Winchester really ever hyped as a point producer?

and Butler and Da Costa are undrafted guys who really aren't on the same level as other rookies.

And your explanation for Rundblad is...?

It happens all the time. Highly touted rookies, drafted or not, come in, and under perform. There's no denying it. Brayden Schenn was supposed to light the league on fire, too. Instead, he put up 12 goals and 18 points in 58 games.

Why are people resisting this? It happens all the time, every year, to many, many teams and many, many rookies.

Brayden Schenn was always overrated, but it's not like he played offensive minutes in his rookie year. He played bottom 6 minutes.

Rundblad would have put up decent D numbers if they kept him up and played him on the PP, but it was his defense that didn't translate. Based on Silfverberg, Stone, and Zibanejad on the Sens last year, I am confident they can at least defend and keep up with the NHLers.

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Point is it's been about a decade since an OTT rookie stepped in and made a substantial difference. 5-6 players do it every year. RNH, Landeskog, Henrique, maybe Adams (BUF) and C. Smith (NSH) -- that's about it terms of rookies who can into the league last year and made a sizable impact on the score sheet, and even those last two are debatable.

Again, it's really, really rare. If it happens, super -- if it doesn't, it shouldn't mean that we have to play a guy inside the top 6 or 9 all year long for lack of real options. What in god's name is wrong with giving the kids competition for their spots so that they earn them, instead of just handing it to them?

was a weak crop of rookies. This year will be rather intense. Silfverberg, Bartschi, Tarasenko, Yakupov, Granlund, Huberdeau, etc.

Oh come on. It's the same story every year. 5 guys routinely thrive, 10 would be a phenomenal year. If EACH team in the NHL had ONE rookie step into the line up and contribute substantially in terms of points, it would be a remarkable, a phenomenal anomaly, not an every day sort of occurrence.

Is your point that it's a statistical unlikelihood that any rookie steps in and performs at a high level?

In part, yes. The odds are stacked against him. It happens to maybe 5 rookies a year, 10 in a great year. It's not a game of pure stats or odds, I agree, but walking into an NHL line up and producing at a high level in the first year is a rare, rare thing.

True, but I think you're looking at the wrong things here. Who cares what the odds are, the guy's a blue chip. None of Da Costa, Winch, Butler were anywhere near the same class. Sure, the odds are against a statistical player, but this guy has the odds stacked in his favour cause he's good.

What makes a prospect "blue chip" beyond the constant hype? A high first rounder? Hmm, see Hickey, or Bailey. A first rounder? See Rundblad. Lots of attention and hype, and honours in other leagues? See Schenn and Rundblad. And why are we making distinctions between the hype around, say, an undrafted player, and a 2nd rounder?

Prospects are prospects until they prove, in the NHL, that they are anything different. Not every highly touted prospect's game translates seamlessly into the NHL. I'm hopeful, but I don't want to bet an 82-game season on it.

I think somewhere between tearing up the SEL and winning the MVP trifecta (Guldhjälmen, Goldpuken, playoff MVP) he fell into "blue chip" status. Oh, beating Alfie's SEL playoff goal record was sweet too. Like any prospect, he might not work out. Still, he has a better chance than most.

Like, the way Rundblad was the best SEL Dman, and the single most highly touted Dman entering the NHL that year? Hmm.

spader wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

spader wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
The same people who told me to 'watch out for Rundblad, he's Karlsson 2.0!,' or 'Butler could be that 20+ goal guy and fill a top 6 hole,' or (LOL -- different I know, but I can't resist) that 'Cheechoo will come in and score 20+ goals, easy'? I think you can understand my feelings of skepticism.

I buy what I see the kids do in the NHL, on the ice. Until they get there, it's all hype, and it's all equally subject to skepticism. The people who follow the prospects very closely are, for me, too close to them and to this team for me to trust their sense of how our kids stack up against the other 700+ players currently in the NHL.

90% of the time I agree with you. Rundblad couldn't adapt to the speed of the NA game, thought he'd have no problems personally. Silfverberg is a smart, shifty player who has a laser beam of a shot. If MacLean can get his confidence up from the get go, he's gonna do some damage just by accepting passes and using his skills. If not, then Bingo it is, but he won't last there.

Zibanejad is a different story, Stone is as well, although I think Stone does very well in the pros.

I'm really curious to see how he does. I wonder how he'll translate.

I think he does really well. He can get to those areas to score goals - which is a universal talent - and he'll have Zibanejad or Da Costa or Hoffman feeding him apples all day long. Could score a fair bit this year in the A.

If Scanlon is to be believed, Hoffman had a great camp:

So, who did shine at development camp?

Small but stylish forward Mike Hoffman, a 21-goal scorer for the AHL Binghamton Senators last season, was talked about often this past week. So, too, was Zibanejad (initially called out by head coach Paul MacLean after an early scrimmage — wake up call?), forward Mark Stone, goaltender Robin Lehner and defenceman Mark Borowiecki of Kanata.

http://www.senatorsextra.com/main/scanlan-with-present-needs-met-senators-turn-attention-back-to-the-future

Hoffman, along with Grant, were probably the two forwards who stuck out most at last year's pre-season camp.

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Point is it's been about a decade since an OTT rookie stepped in and made a substantial difference. 5-6 players do it every year. RNH, Landeskog, Henrique, maybe Adams (BUF) and C. Smith (NSH) -- that's about it terms of rookies who can into the league last year and made a sizable impact on the score sheet, and even those last two are debatable.

Again, it's really, really rare. If it happens, super -- if it doesn't, it shouldn't mean that we have to play a guy inside the top 6 or 9 all year long for lack of real options. What in god's name is wrong with giving the kids competition for their spots so that they earn them, instead of just handing it to them?

was a weak crop of rookies. This year will be rather intense. Silfverberg, Bartschi, Tarasenko, Yakupov, Granlund, Huberdeau, etc.

Oh come on. It's the same story every year. 5 guys routinely thrive, 10 would be a phenomenal year. If EACH team in the NHL had ONE rookie step into the line up and contribute substantially in terms of points, it would be a remarkable, a phenomenal anomaly, not an every day sort of occurrence.

Is your point that it's a statistical unlikelihood that any rookie steps in and performs at a high level?

In part, yes. The odds are stacked against him. It happens to maybe 5 rookies a year, 10 in a great year. It's not a game of pure stats or odds, I agree, but walking into an NHL line up and producing at a high level in the first year is a rare, rare thing.

True, but I think you're looking at the wrong things here. Who cares what the odds are, the guy's a blue chip. None of Da Costa, Winch, Butler were anywhere near the same class. Sure, the odds are against a statistical player, but this guy has the odds stacked in his favour cause he's good.

What makes a prospect "blue chip" beyond the constant hype? A high first rounder? Hmm, see Hickey, or Bailey. A first rounder? See Rundblad. Lots of attention and hype, and honours in other leagues? See Schenn and Rundblad. And why are we making distinctions between the hype around, say, an undrafted player, and a 2nd rounder?

Prospects are prospects until they prove, in the NHL, that they are anything different. Not every highly touted prospect's game translates seamlessly into the NHL. I'm hopeful, but I don't want to bet an 82-game season on it.

I think somewhere between tearing up the SEL and winning the MVP trifecta (Guldhjälmen, Goldpuken, playoff MVP) he fell into "blue chip" status. Oh, beating Alfie's SEL playoff goal record was sweet too. Like any prospect, he might not work out. Still, he has a better chance than most.

Like, the way Rundblad was the best SEL Dman, and the single most highly touted Dman entering the NHL that year? Hmm.

He was highly touted but not actually by the media outside of Ottawa or actual hockey people. It was mainly on the internet. But anyways, we all know it's easier for forwards to make the transition to the NHL.

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:was Jess Winchester really ever hyped as a point producer?

and Butler and Da Costa are undrafted guys who really aren't on the same level as other rookies.

And your explanation for Rundblad is...?

It happens all the time. Highly touted rookies, drafted or not, come in, and under perform. There's no denying it. Brayden Schenn was supposed to light the league on fire, too. Instead, he put up 12 goals and 18 points in 58 games.

Why are people resisting this? It happens all the time, every year, to many, many teams and many, many rookies.

Brayden Schenn was always overrated, but it's not like he played offensive minutes in his rookie year. He played bottom 6 minutes.

Rundblad would have put up decent D numbers if they kept him up and played him on the PP, but it was his defense that didn't translate. Based on Silfverberg, Stone, and Zibanejad on the Sens last year, I am confident they can at least defend and keep up with the NHLers.

You just switched gears on me. I'm also pretty confident that they will be able to hack it in a secondary, lesser, bottom-6 role -- that's where they should start, and there should be 1 or 2 spots open for them, for sure, this year, and then they can move up (or not) based on performance. My problem is depending on any of them to claim a top 6 spot, let alone handing it to them before the season even starts for lack of any other options.

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:was Jess Winchester really ever hyped as a point producer?

and Butler and Da Costa are undrafted guys who really aren't on the same level as other rookies.

And your explanation for Rundblad is...?

It happens all the time. Highly touted rookies, drafted or not, come in, and under perform. There's no denying it. Brayden Schenn was supposed to light the league on fire, too. Instead, he put up 12 goals and 18 points in 58 games.

Why are people resisting this? It happens all the time, every year, to many, many teams and many, many rookies.

Brayden Schenn was always overrated, but it's not like he played offensive minutes in his rookie year. He played bottom 6 minutes.

Rundblad would have put up decent D numbers if they kept him up and played him on the PP, but it was his defense that didn't translate. Based on Silfverberg, Stone, and Zibanejad on the Sens last year, I am confident they can at least defend and keep up with the NHLers.

You just switched gears on me. I'm also pretty confident that they will be able to hack it in a secondary, lesser, bottom-pairing role -- that's where they should start, and there should be 1 or 2 spots open for them, for sure, this year. My problem is depending on any of them to claim a top 6 spot, let alone handing it to them before the season even starts for lack of any other options.

Oh. Well. There's a lot of posts and I guess I'm getting confused/all over the place here.

rooneypoo wrote:Like, the way Rundblad was the best SEL Dman, and the single most highly touted Dman entering the NHL that year? Hmm.

Similar, but forwards seem to perform better after tremendous success in the SEL than Dmen. Listen, you're right that he's still a prospect, but he's a top prospect. It's ok to get a bit excited. Sure, there was a lot of enthusiasm about Rundblad and he didn't work out here in the short time that he played as a Senator. That doesn't mean that Silf will follow the same path. It doesn't even imply it, anymore than the fact that most prospects don't work out doesn't imply that Silf won't. He's not most prospects, and he's not Rundblad.

I'm not saying he's a sure thing, but he's the surest thing we've had in a while (not including Cowen and EK).

rooneypoo wrote:Why are people resisting this?

I think we're all closer to making the same point than it seems. He's a prospect and therefore an unsure thing, but, based on the history of young forwards tearing up the SEL and then coming over to the NHL, Silf has a good shot. He was the best player in the league last year.

If your position is that he's one of x number of rookies and only x% of rookies make an impact in their rookie year and therefore Silf has x% of making it, then you're being thick. If your position is that he's proven nothing and therefore is an unknown commodity, but that he's a great prospect, then we're all in agreement (I think).

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Like, the way Rundblad was the best SEL Dman, and the single most highly touted Dman entering the NHL that year? Hmm.

Similar, but forwards seem to perform better after tremendous success in the SEL than Dmen. Listen, you're right that he's still a prospect, but he's a top prospect. It's ok to get a bit excited. Sure, there was a lot of enthusiasm about Rundblad and he didn't work out here in the short time that he played as a Senator. That doesn't mean that Silf will follow the same path. It doesn't even imply it, anymore than the fact that most prospects don't work out doesn't imply that Silf won't. He's not most prospects, and he's not Rundblad.

I'm not saying he's a sure thing, but he's the surest thing we've had in a while (not including Cowen and EK).

Absolutely. I can agree with all that. So, keep a roster spot or two open, give him and the others every chance to earn it, and then start him off in a secondary, bottom 6 role and let him/them complete against the legitimate top 6 talent in the lineup, perform well, and earn the chance to move up the line up into a more prominent position. Let's do JUST that. But let's not go into the season with rookies as our only real options for the top 6, with our season largely depending on whether or not they can contribute 15+ goals and 35+ points a piece.

All I'm preaching for here is 1) us to moderate our expectations with respect to the rookies, 2) for OTT to have some top-6 talent with whom the rookies have to compete, and 3) to start those kids off in lesser roles, giving them every chance to move up but not leaving ourselves with no options if they can't / don't in their first season.

Big Ev wrote:was Jess Winchester really ever hyped as a point producer?

and Butler and Da Costa are undrafted guys who really aren't on the same level as other rookies.

Sadly, yes. He was brought in as a winger for Spezza and we were all scratching our heads after checking his stats.

I remember that too prages.

You know how we are all penciling Latendresse in on the 1st or 2nd line? Simpson was on the morning show today or yesterday and it was a very interesting call. He talked about all the recent signings/trades. His take on Latendresse was that he'll get a try out on the third line, and if he works out, great. He certainly has the ceiling to play top six but at this point it's not what Murray/Maclean will be planning.

Very sobering interview. He didn't come out and say it but I figure he was thinking Regin -- until there is another move, that is.

Shawn Simpson doesn't know what Murray and Maclean are planning.

wprager wrote:You know how we are all penciling Latendresse in on the 1st or 2nd line? Simpson was on the morning show today or yesterday and it was a very interesting call. He talked about all the recent signings/trades. His take on Latendresse was that he'll get a try out on the third line, and if he works out, great. He certainly has the ceiling to play top six but at this point it's not what Murray/Maclean will be planning.

Very sobering interview. He didn't come out and say it but I figure he was thinking Regin -- until there is another move, that is.

I have to say that makes zero sense. Everyone here knows I love Regin, but Latendresse was signed to play in our top 6 and score 25 goals, there can be no mistake there in my mind.

Regin will have to work - and work hard to get back into that top six - and even then, to do it he'll have to either usurp Silfverberg or move up due to injury. Unless Lat comes in out of shape, then he's Cussed here.

SpezDispenser wrote:

wprager wrote:You know how we are all penciling Latendresse in on the 1st or 2nd line? Simpson was on the morning show today or yesterday and it was a very interesting call. He talked about all the recent signings/trades. His take on Latendresse was that he'll get a try out on the third line, and if he works out, great. He certainly has the ceiling to play top six but at this point it's not what Murray/Maclean will be planning.

Very sobering interview. He didn't come out and say it but I figure he was thinking Regin -- until there is another move, that is.

I have to say that makes zero sense. Everyone here knows I love Regin, but Latendresse was signed to play in our top 6 and score 25 goals, there can be no mistake there in my mind.

Regin will have to work - and work hard to get back into that top six - and even then, to do it he'll have to either usurp Silfverberg or move up due to injury. Unless Lat comes in out of shape, then he's Cussed here.

He was signed because he MIGHT BE ABLE TO do that. Nobody who is guaranteed to do that signs for 1 year at $1 million...

To be given the chance to do that is what I meant. Itsvmy opinion that he will.

Hypothetically, how do people feel about our lineup if Latendresse and Regin both miss significant time this season. I know we have a ton on young talent, but both these guys getting hurt might mean 3-4 guys getting tossed into the fire.

stempniaksen wrote:Hypothetically, how do people feel about our lineup if Latendresse and Regin both miss significant time this season. I know we have a ton on young talent, but both these guys getting hurt might mean 3-4 guys getting tossed into the fire.

My personal opinion is that Greening moves up and takes a top six role because we know he can fill it from last year. Probably Stone and Zibanejad would start in the bottom six, maybe Neil moves up, maybe Smith. It'll basically be the same as when Foligno goes absolutely stone cold and invisible, we'll have to make due. Although...all of this conjures up slightly bad memories of how many times Condra could miss a net.