Buppy

Yeah, I get what you're saying and again, I don't disagree. But what I was saying is that the whole "wasting talent" thing is a poor argument, because you're always wasting someone's talent. Move Mantha out to the wing, you're taking that spot away from someone else. Someone else with talent. Focusing on "how do we maximize the use of Mantha's talent" is too myopic. The question should be how to best arrange the talent to maximize the team. It's not that I think Mantha can or should only play net-front, or even that he's better at it than he could be on the outside. It's that I think net-front-Mantha is a bigger upgrade over Abby/Bertuzzi than outside-Mantha would be over AA/whichever winger. To a point. Roles are thing, and they matter, but this does raise the point that we're oversimplifying to some degree. That's Mantha's PP shot map from last year. So even playing net-front his other talents aren't wholly "wasted".

You're the one who flipped my "Abby and two kids..." comment around and applied it to the other forwards. At least now you admit it was a very stupid thing for you to do. Good. And I specifically said I thought you would want Zadina on the PP. Your list of wingers was "Nyquist, Vanek, Mantha," then "AA/Zadina/Frk". Three players for that one spot. I was saying that Zadina, if he's on the team, is more of a "comma" than a "slash". So if we have four (or five if you include Frk) wingers you think are good enough, why do you think we have such a desperate need for Mantha in that spot? And if you don't want to discuss your opinions, don't post them on the internet. Don't try to act like I'm the only one arguing. Every post I make, you respond. I don't disagree, but I think we can all also agree that it is a skill. Players can be good at it, or bad. I think most of us would also agree that Mantha appears to be more toward the good side. So if it's a skill that he has, but we don't put him in a role to use it, would that not also be "wasting" talent? Isn't it a waste of talent to take AA or Nielsen or whoever off the PP entirely to make room for Abby/Bert? Nothing happens in a vaccuum. Change one thing, and something else also has to change. No matter what you do, from one perspective or another you're "wasting" something. Krs whines because I focus on the big picture, but that's how reality works. If you're not considering everything, you're not doing it right. Mantha was the best part of the PP, logically it seems that should be one of the last things we look to change. We're already going to "experiment" in plenty of ways. We replaced Tatar with Vanek. We may lose Zetterberg. Likely to insert Rasmussen, maybe Zadina. Frk might be out so maybe we won't spend half of every PP trying to act like he's Ovie. There will also be injuries or other situations where players who aren't regulars get a shot on the PP. Bert and Abby will almost certainly get some time. Someone will likely not perform well, maybe AA, maybe Ras will suck, maybe last year was a fluke and it will be Mantha. But I'd say the time to experiment with the working stuff is either when it stops working or when you find something that works better.

Exactly. Player comparisons are all bulls*** because the only standards are whatever we want to say they are. Wheeler and Mantha are exactly the same, in Wheeler's past, and maybe Mantha's future but probably not because the 30g/60p sniper you think Mantha will be isn't really the same as the 25g/75p all-around player Wheeler is, but that's still the same because sometimes Wheeler does the thing you say Mantha shouldn't be doing because it's a waste of his talents and anyone can do it. Makes perfect sense. Plus they're the exact same size. Ok, so Tatar isn't an insult. Yet your gut reaction was to put down Tatar's game and declare Mantha better. "Not a single similarity" at first, though I guess he's been practicing his shot a bunch since that post if it's now worthy of comparison to Mantha "elite level" shot. Hey, you know who else had stats similar to Mantha in his first couple years? Lol. Yeah, Nyquist, Vanek, Nielsen, and maybe Zetterberg are definitely equivalent to Abby, and there's not a bit of difference between Larkin and AA (combined over 400 games, 99 goals, around 700 minutes of PP time) and Bertuzzi (48g, 7g, under 70 minutes of PP time and a whole 7 shots on the PP). For that matter, both Larkin and AA have more NHL experience as "PP shooters" than Mantha. I'll give you Ras and Zadina, same situation there. But I find it hard to believe that you of all people would rather see Abby on the PP over Zadina, so let's just assume that, like Rasmussen, if he's on the team he should be on the PP. All in all I don't really see how our wingers are any worse off than our net-front play would be without Mantha. Sure, we could put anyone there, but wouldn't that be the same "square peg" thing we're supposedly doing wrong with Mantha? Mantha was one of the few good things we had going last year. I don't think we should be in any hurry to change that just to conform to a 5-year-old preconception of Mantha being a "lethal shooter".

That's the thing, you can argue just about any player being similar to/different from just about any other player depending on what criteria you choose to emphasize, how specific you want to be, whether you're talking purely style or taking skill level into account, and how much disparity in skill level constitutes a stylistic difference. When I said Tatar was a better comparison, I was thinking more in terms of their complete game. You only want to consider offense. You say Mantha is a sniper, and his best asset is his shot, but the one player in the league you think is most comparable is Wheeler, who isn't a sniper, has developed into more of a playmaker since his breakout, is also a complete two-way player, and his best asset is that he doesn't have a singular best asset, not to mention he's far better than Mantha. Yet all of that is somehow less of a "style" difference than your belief that Tatar sometimes makes an extra move. I'm not going to pretend I can remember enough details of enough shifts to say Tatar "tries to do too much", and I'm not going to pretend you can either. I'm sure you'll just argue some nonsense like it's so obvious that you don't need to remember. Since I'm not going to go over hours of video to try to compile the stats, and neither are you, instead I'll just argue that it doesn't matter. Shot metrics, both team and individual, are similar. As are actual production rates. Tatar has a much lower giveaway rate. So even if you're right, either it doesn't have any impact, Mantha is doing something just as detrimental, or Tatar is doing something else better to offset it. You're acting like being compared to Tatar is some kind of insult. Really? Nyquist, Vanek, Larkin, AA, Nielsen, Zetterberg, Zadina as potential shooters/playmakers. Potential net-front players are Abby and two kids who have never been tried there in the NHL? Begs re-asking the question: Just how good do you really think Mantha is? Because the things you're saying don't really add up.

In lieu of a retirement fund, I built a diverse portfolio of unhealthy habits. So while you're spending your whole 401k on cardigans and replacement hips I'll be long gone. Sucker.

Could say the same about Franzen. Not a single similarity between them other than both are left shots and tall. Franzen was a converted center who played a strong two-way game, much better with the puck especially in traffic, more physical, better along the boards, significantly more productive, but a worse skater. Aside from being big, and so playing net front on the PP, he's very similar to Tatar. Both offensively oriented, shoot-first finesse players. Good but not great speed. Wide variety of shooting abilities. High corsi% and shot generation. Good in transition. Neither is physical. Mantha is stronger on the boards/corners, but I'd say Tatar is better with the puck. Mantha turns the puck over much more frequently, most likely the result of poor decision-making and (ironically) trying to do too much. This video does not support your Tatar comments: Not trying to make anyone into anything. Mantha plays net front on the PP because otherwise we'd have to play Abby the full two minutes every time. It's a reaction to a weakness on the roster. (Makes it all the more sad that everyone went berserk when we drafted Ras.) At even strength, there's no such thing as a net front guy. At least not without a Datsyuk-Zetterberg-Lidstrom combo to give a Holmstrom that luxury. At ES Mantha plays like every other scorer: react to the play, try to find open spots in high-percentage areas, support the puck when needed, look for deflections/rebounds/loose pucks when someone else takes the shot. Even with Ras though, Mantha should still play net front on the other PP unit. He's better than Abby, and with 9 PP goals last year I don't think you can argue that it's hurting him. Nyquist, Vanek, Larkin, AA, Nielsen, Zadina, Zetterberg, Frk...all even less suited to a net front role, but as capable as Mantha filling a shooting role IMO.

No, I'm also poor, I've just learned to accept it. Going to a hockey game is a luxury. Something you do after you take care of the important things. If you can't afford the luxuries you want, you're too poor; or not rich enough if you prefer that term. If you're complaining about it, you're in denial. Learn to accept it. TV is better than going to a game anyway, because god loves poor people. That's why he invented television. For poor people. Who can afford televisions.

Owners do not drive the market. Demand does. Prices aren't too high, you're too poor.

He's more of a big Tatar, who doesn't use his size very much.

So you're saying we're screwed with only five decent defensemen? Why are you counting out Malte Setkov already?

In theory, a line like Bert/Abby-AA-Frk/Svech could be effective, but it would rely on AA finding the ability to create offense for his linemates rather than just himself. Also, at any given time someone is probably going to be hurt, so it'd be more like Glen-AA-Svech. I expect we'll see AA some at center, but mostly when one of the other centers is hurt. One of Turgeon/Holmstrom/Ehn will probably be the next Emmerton/Andersson, and the other two cast off. Hopefully Glendening's "replacement" will be Helm/Nielsen being pushed down the depth chart by Veleno (or maybe someone we draft next year).

Fixed

Unless he has made some major strides over the summer, AA is not suited for a 2nd line C role, particularly not with a rookie and a defensive liability for wingers. He'd be fine for a depth center role though, where he could be sheltered. But most likely Larkin, Nielsen, Helm, Glendening will be the centers if Z is done. We can do three scoring lines: AA-Larkin-Mantha Zadina-Nielsen-Nyquist Ras-Helm-Vanek Abby-Glen-Bert AA is probably better at this point than Bert, and Helm is a better center than AA. Probably even better to swap AA and Ras, but I think Ras should be eased in a bit. Four scoring lines would be even better but without Z I don't think we can pull it off.

You may want to re-read what I said.

Mantha normally plays his off wing anyway, but can play either, as can pretty much any winger ever. Zadina is listed as a LW, though I don't know for sure if he normally played the left side or not. But I would guess they wouldn't want Zadina and Mantha on the same line anyway. Only so many pucks to go around, balance is likely a better option.

Feds won the hardest shot at the all-star game one year. Really, in terms of pure physical ability and skill, he did almost everything better than almost everyone. But for whatever reason it didn't translate fully to points. Maybe his head, maybe his heart, or maybe just more focus on defense. For what it's worth, though the 90s, Feds was +229, Yzerman +164. No good way to judge what effect their linemates had in that, but we did get better on-ice results with Fedorov.

Lol. Probably known since shortly after his dips*** comments in that Swedish paper. Holland called him up, like: "Hey Z, just wanted to let you know how sorry I was to hear about how crippling your back injury got next year." "What? My back's fi..." "Yeah, must be tough. Also, the internet's a thing, not sure if you knew that. Oh well, see you at your LTIRetirement party next fall."

During Yzerman's prime (the 7 years from 87-94) the only players to outscore him were Gretzky and Lemieux. Fedorov's peak scoring was from 90-96, when he was 10th. Yzerman was 7th over the same span. 4-year peak from 92-96 he was 6th, and over 3 years he got to 4th. Feds peak 3-year period he averaged 1.37 p/g, slightly better than Yzerman's peak 7-years (1.36, adjusted for league scoring average), but below his 3-year peak (1.44). Scoring-wise Yzerman wins hands down, if only for longevity. In terms of complete game, Fedorov might have an edge, but it's hard to say since it's so difficult to quantify all the other stuff, particularly intangibles like "leadership".

Yeah, it's where you project him in this post. Earlier you'd said 30/60, but I'm sure you'll just say that was "max potential", or some other nonsense to make it look like you're not just yanking numbers out of your ass to fit whatever argument you're trying to make at the time. And it's seven months, not six. And if it wasn't a big deal, why'd you bring it up in regards to Veleno? I do believe it was a mistake. Just one that wouldn't have been made if you were making a well-reasoned argument instead of trying to avoid admitting that "not close to" was an exaggeration. Awful as the wordplay might have been, the "best/better" thing was in reference to this quote; "I'm not saying that the 2 or 3 players that were better than him, will go on to have more successful careers (I doubt any of them will), but they did have more productive seasons." So better, but not really better, you just meant they scored more points. But you couldn't say it that way because you said "3rd or 4th best" when you were trying to make him look bad relative to Mantha. While you didn't mention Vilardi by name, you did take yet another shot at the Ras pick: "for whatever reason they were determined to get bigger last year, even if it was at the expense of getting higher end skill". Let's not try to argue that it wasn't. This is why I tried to tell everyone freaking out about the pick last year that they shouldn't make a big deal about one stat from one season. Yet some still formed opinions based on it, and some of them will never change their minds, even though this really wasn't true this year. While most of his goal scoring comes on the PP, and it's probably fair to think he's a better PP goal scorer than an ES goal scorer, I don't think that's an important distinction. I would suggest it's probably being made more as an attempt to define "driving offense" in a way to make him look bad. His ES goal scoring isn't actually bad. In his draft year his ES G/60 was 1.23. 79th in the CHL, 15th among other 17 year olds. This year it slipped to .99, pretty low, but overall looks to be decent at ES, exceptional on the PP. Assists however, went the opposite way. Draft year was terrible: .61 assists/60, .31 primary assists/60. This year a/60 was 1.81. Tied for 34th in the CHL. primary 1.27. Tied for 22nd. Still a respectable 65 in the CHL in P1/60. 61st in P/60. Overall, just under 41% of his points came on the PP. Comparatively, Mantha's final junior year was just under 37%. Or maybe Mantha doesn't drive offense either. Vilardi was under 32%. Veleno was over 45%. Guess he won't be driving anything. 230th in the CHL in ES P1/60.

Yeah, no. No reading between the lines. Nothing there about "at the same age". Didn't even mention that in your initial response. You just backtracked and changed it to "not quite as good". I accepted that, then called you out for exaggerating. Everything since is just your logical gymnastics trying to prove that you meant what you said but what you said didn't mean what it meant and I was reading between the lines by not reading between the lines to assume you meant things you didn't say. Fascinating, really. For additional fuel: Now you've changed Ras to 25/50, because now you have to put him below Mantha. Earlier you said Ras was ahead of Veleno because he was older, but ignore that Mantha was older in his +1 year than Ras was in his. You say the stats show Ras was the 3rd or 4th best player on his team, while ignoring that the 3 players who outscored him all played 20+ more games and Ras in fact led the team in both goals/game and points/game, and was their best playoff performer by a healthy margin. When Mantha was hurt in camp coming out of junior, you used that to excuse even his dog s*** performance in the playoffs at the end of the year. Ras apparently isn't off the hook for not scoring in games he didn't even play. And are you seriously trying to argue that "best" doesn't mean "better". How the hell can he be 4th best if you're not saying the other players were better? Do you think "best" means "highest total points"? Thinking we should have drafted someone else doesn't mean anything, but saying every time the subject comes up for more than a year does. Even notable loon LW dropped the Tippett complaints after a few months. Now you add something new and suggest that Ras can't "drive offense", which again would imply that you think he's unskilled. So there you go, plenty of jumping-off points for your next round of poorly thought out arguments.

Which is it, "not close to" or "not quite as"? Or are you going to try to say they mean the same thing? To me, the first would imply someone on the level of Abby or Sheahan at best. Certainly doesn't suggest 30g/60p potential when that's right around what you usually suggest for Mantha. Plus saying he was only the 3rd or 4th best player on his team, and the frequently repeated criticism of drafting him... Do you really not see how all of that could be taken as you having a notably negative opinion of him?

I'm sure all the people who vote on the SHL awards watched him plenty, and they still gave all the trophies to Pettersson.

But you didn't say "not the same". You said "not close". Relative to Mantha. Saying it relative to McDavid or another elite player would have been different. There's a lot of room below elite where a player can be both "good" and "not close" at the same time. Not so much with Mantha, as even you admit he's not even close to elite skill. Again, I get your clarification. I'm just saying your previous, exaggerated, comment gave a more negative impression than you seemingly intended, particularly coming from you when you've hardly passed up an opportunity to deride the pick.

Ok. "I don't think Rasmussen has close to the level of skill as Mantha" gives a somewhat different impression, but ok. Yeah, I meant the similarity comment in reference to the description of their offensive skills. I see now I forgot to add something in my last post. The two quoted scouting profiles were intended to be a "which is which" question. One is describing Mantha, one Rasmussen, yet close enough that the author might be accused of plagiarism.

While I'm not particularly concerned about Mantha's "compete level", it's something that's been talked about since his junior days. I don't think it can be dismissed as simply as "he's big". Maybe if it was just fans saying it. However, I think it would be disappointing if Ras doesn't end up a better player than Mantha, especially if we're considering their complete game and not just offense. For one thing I think this whole "Rasmussen isn't skilled" thing is nonsense. Read any scouting report by anyone besides Jeremy Davis and you'll see a lot of praise for his skills. Similar to Mantha in many ways actually: Potential-wise considered to be a strong two-way top-six center/wing, with #1 center ceiling. I get thinking that Vilardi (or a couple others) would have been a better pick, but that's because those players are really good prospects, not because Ras isn't. Ironically, Veleno is the one considered to not have the high-end potential, and you seem really high on him. (I am as well. Great speed and determination is a recipe for exceeding expectations. If he never learns to shoot, just play him with Zadina.)