dudacek

Would I be correct in saying you see his ceiling as a Jochen Hecht?

Watch the video. I think his awareness is definitely top 6. Look at all the good, unexpected passes he makes in high-traffic situations and the reads when he's breaking up plays defensively. I don't know if the Sabres have a better forward on the roster in terms of moving the puck to a teammate while under pressure. But I see exactly where you're coming from on the skill thing. He doesn't bury enough of the chances his sense and tenacity create. I think it's mostly his shot, which I'd classify as weak at this point, but he's also shown no ability to beat guys one-on-one off the rush. I think that's speed-related, because he's shown quick twitch agility and hands to escape and make plays in traffic situations. He's not shown much ability to create and execute in open ice. I think it would be mistake to ever think he can create offence in the way, say, a Mitch Marner of a JJ Peterka can. But there are other ways to produce and I could see him succeeding offensively in the manner of a Sam Reinhart or a Brad Marchand. When you look at Marchand's skillset, what tools does Brad have that Benson does not?

Have people watched the video?

Two things have changed about the Sabres still-youthful roster: The number of very inexperienced players in crucial roles has declined considerably. The number of players in their prime in key positions has increased considerably. Two years ago, they started the season with 2 players in their top 9 F/top 4 D/starting G who were in their prime (older than 25, younger than 30, Greenway and Tuch), and 4 who had yet to play 80 NHL games (Luukkonen, Quinn, Peterka and Power) This year, they project to start the season with 6 in their prime (Luukkonen, Dahlin, Norris, Thompson, Greenway and Tuch), and one who has yet to play 80 games (Kulich). Benson ended up cracking the top 9 two years ago and Doan may do the same this year.

This is completely false The 3rd and 4th highest scoring wingers from each eastern playoff team: Washington: McMichael 57, wilson 65 Montreal: Gallagher 38, Laine 33 Devils: Noesen 41, Palat 28 Carolina: Roslovic 39, Martinook 36 Tampa: Guentzel 80, Paul 41 Toronto: Knies 58, McMann 34 Florida: Verhaeghe 53, Rodrigues 32 Ottawa: Giroux 50, Greig 34 7 of the 8 playoff teams had 2nd line wingers with between 30-40 points. Half the 2nd line wingers in the playoffs had less than 40 points. Only 4 met your average. Do better.

Did we know that Zach Benson ranks 87th in NHL history in points by a teenager? He also ranks 44th all-time in games played by a teenager. His peers are such a weird list of names. One of his comparables — with 66 points in two teenage years — was Gordie Howe Number one in points is, unsurprisingly, Gretzky with 301. In games played? Timmy Connolly, 163. Connolly had 75 points to Benson's 58. Looking at the past 25 years, there are only 37 players who have played 100 games as a teen. Among them, Benson ranks 25th in points Here are some interesting two-season teenage comparables: Ryan O'Reilly: 55 points Jordan Staal: 70 Nico Hischier 99 Tim Stutzle 87 Alexander Barkov 60 Juraj Slavkovsky 60 ROR, Stutzle and Barkov took big leaps in year three. Staal and Hischier did not. The list of 2-season NHL teens is loaded with superstars but also has plenty of Kappo Kakkos, Jeff Skinners and Dave Gagners. Not a lot in there to establish firm trend lines

I agree it's weird how Benson's defensive excellence is completely handwaved away by some who can't stop complaining about the team's lack of defence. But I don't think its weird at all to question whether Benson can produce enough to play on a first line. Thompson and Kulich played almost exactly the same amount of minutes with Benson as they did with Peterka. Their xGF% with Benson: 57.7%, with Peterka 50.6%. Their actual GF% with Benson: 55.6%, with Peterka 65.4% And it's not like the eye test doesn't show Benson forcing turnovers and shooting into the crest in high danger areas, while Peterka bolts the zone early and picks corners from impossible angles.

Being too young only matters if you play young. Being too small only matters is you play small.

Not disagreeing with your underlying point, but it reminded me of something I do disagree with that's become a bit of a summertime meme. If: UPL plays like a legitimate starter Lyon plays provides 30+ good games Norris stays healthy Greenway stays healthy Benson takes a step Quinn takes a step Kulich takes a step Power takes a step Kesselring is what he's supposed to be they replace Peterka's offence they play better team defence and they fix their special teams they might make the playoffs. No, none of those things happened and they missed the playoffs by 12 points. They need some of those things to happen to give them a chance to make the playoffs. Ottawa didn't jump from 78 points to 97 by dramatically overhauling the roster. They made one big move (Ullmark), a few support pieces and the players played better, collectively. That's typically how it works in the NHL. If all those things above happen the Sabres will be this year's Washington Capitals.

Fantastic tape of the Carnival Kid playing the game as it was meant to be played. Winning battles, going to the dirty areas, making smart passes and working his ass off. What are people's expectations for #9 this year?

I love fiddling with line combinations as much as any fan, but check out one of the sites that tracks this stuff. It’s so all over the map though the course of a season I’m not sure it matters. To me it’s about ice time and situational use.

Östlund is a better player right now but he’s 2 years older and not as edgy. I think their niche is each middle-six centre. I take Helenius, but it’s close enough that I’d let the buyer have his pick and not sweat it

Because players don’t play together nearly as much as depth charts indicate. Malenstyn played away from Lafferty nearly as much as he did with him

Jobst won’t be back, confirmed https://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/sabres-wont-re-sign-mason-jobst-for-rochester-amerks/

I tend to agree. By my eye test last year: Good defensively: Greenway, McLeod Tuch, Benson, Dahlin Bad: Cozens, Quinn, Peterka, Lafferty, Power, Clifton, Samuelsson, Bryson Fine: Krebs and Zucker Adequate: Thompson, Kulich, Jokiharju, Malenstyn and Byram By reputation Doan is good, Timmins Kesselring, Norris and Danforth are fine. We shall see if that survives the Sabres, and if Power, Quinn and Samuelsson- who were all better under Granato - can bounce back.

1. yes it works like +\-, all 5 get get blame 2. Not according to 2 of these stats, he was fine in the 3rd.

The good defenders: Least shot attempts against per 60: Benson 50.58 Dahlin 52.61 Malenstyn 55.5 Krebs 55.68 Greenway 56.32 Least high danger shots against per 60: Benson 1.84 Greenway 2.23 Dahlin 2.44 Power 2.48 McLeod 2.48 Fewest expected goals against per 60: Benson 2.2 Dahlin 2.36 Malenstyn 2.45 Lafferty 2.55 Tuch 2.58

Money puck has an interesting section I hadn’t really checked out before: basically defence per hour: The bad defenders: Most shot attempts against per 60: Clifton 63.4 Zucker 62.1 Peterka 61.5 Kulich 60.6 Quinn 60.4 Most high danger shots against per 60: Peterka 3.41 Lafferty 3.16 Byram 3.06 Clifton 3.04 Samuelsson 2.94 Expected goals against per 60: Peterka 3.0 Bryson 2.9 Quinn 2.8 Zucker 2.8 Clifton 2.8

Thompson ranks 4th among Sabres forwards in Corsi, 3rd in GF% and 2nd in xG%. He’s above 50% in all three measures. He’s also almost certainly playing against good players.

I fully understand the limitations of +\- but I disagree it should be ignored. The object of the game is to score more than the other guy. It doesn’t show if a player is good or bad, but it shows how successful a player was in the manner he was deployed.

I’m speaking in terms of player to player comparisons on different teams. Generally speaking, a sheltered offensively deployed defenceman on a good team (Gostisbehere?) is going to have good xG% and a defensively deployed defenceman getting tough minutes on a bad team (Vlasic?) is going to have bad xG%. I’ve read many posts saying Seth Jones and Bo Byram are supposed to be bad because xG, when each was demonstrably good enough to get significant minutes for Stanley Cup winning teams.

Could you clarify? I understand the Sabres 10-game win streak scenario where fancy stats correctly predicted the team was getting bounces and wasn’t going to sustain. But does it have any predictive qualities when it comes to individual players?

I was very much in favour of trading the reality of Peterka for the concept of Kesselring and Doan. The concept of Peterka for (what might be) the reality of of Kesselring and Doan is another story.

Absolutely. It might narrow the pool of available players but not in a crippling fashion and ownership still has a great deal of control to keep themselves off of NTC lists. Come on Kevyn, two of the best teams in the league last year were Edmonton and Winnipeg.

I haven’t read the particulars on how, but that has apparently been dealt with in the new CBA