Jump to content

Tage-ing the Thompson: Expectations


LGR4GM

Tage good?  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Tage Thompson be a useful contributor to the Sabres this season 2019/20?

    • Yes, he will contribute as a top 9 forward
      7
    • No, he will be bad again and needs to spend at least a year in the AHL
      19
    • Maybe, it depends on his linemates or his physical development
      33
  2. 2. If Thompson makes the team, how many points will he score? He had 7g, 5a in 65games last season.

    • 15 points or less
      6
    • 16-20 points
      16
    • 21-25 points
      17
    • 26-30 points
      10
    • 31-40 points
      2
    • 41 or more points
      1


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Loaded question. "Bad again"? I don't think he was bad. He showed me a lot. Did we not see a one-timer that seemed to defy physics (until Randall got hold of it)?

You can't preach prospects and then quit on them after one season.

TT will be o'tay.

What false prophet preached the good word of Tage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think this is the likeliest answer to our nagging question of “why was Tage (and Casey) kept in the NHL all year?”

While many of us may disagree, it’s pretty clear that the Sabres thought playing in the NHL was what was best for their long-term development. You could make the argument that Casey was on the team because he was one of our four best centres, but that’s a lot harder argument to make for Tage.

I would suspect you don’t improve your processing speed being challenged by people with lesser processing speed, you do it by being forced to play at a higher pace. The question is defining where the increased pace becomes overwhelming and therefore counterproductive.

 

The other question is how much do you weigh the development of the prospect versus doing what's best for the team?

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, darksabre said:

I'm firmly in the maybe camp. Thompson's biggest problem last year was that he was big, but not particularly strong on his skates. 205lbs at 6'-6" is...light.

I don't know what kind of gains are possible in one off-season, but he needs to add like 25lbs.

I think half of that is reasonable, don't know how healthy it is to add a lot of muscle in short period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Derrico said:

I understand how unpopular this opinion is but Tage will be a bigger contributor this season than most expect.  Between him being one of the bigger pieces of a terrible trade (not his fault) and the way the whole team went last year it’s not surprising he’s already a whipping boy.  I’m excited to see him show some development this year as the vast majority of young players do early in their careers.

Care to be a bit more specific? I expect zilch, so the bar to being a "bigger contributor" is basically the ground. Clearing that doesn't mean he'll be a valuable piece on the team.

21 hours ago, Derrico said:

It’s tough to properly evaluate some of these guys based on last year imo.  I’m really not trying to make excuses for these guys but it’s also tough to do anything but trash playing with guys like sobotka and the ghost of pommers.  This team is one more top 6 away from having acceptable level talent through the top 12 forwards.  Not earth shattering but not chalked full of AHLers and washed up guys either.  How he does this season will really sway my opinion of him.  He showed enough to me that if he’s playing with competent players he will be fine. 

He was also terrible in his 41 games in St. Louis. 

20 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Loaded question. "Bad again"? I don't think he was bad. He showed me a lot. Did we not see a one-timer that seemed to defy physics (until Randall got hold of it)?

You can't preach prospects and then quit on them after one season.

TT will be o'tay.

It didn't seem to defy physics, it did. So long as we're talking about the physics of hitting the net. 

Edited by TrueBlueGED
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Loaded question. "Bad again"? I don't think he was bad. He showed me a lot. 

Actually, that wasn't part of the question. The bad again was an answer.

Also you saying he wasn't bad is funny,  that is backed up by nothing. Points, advanced stats, eye test all showed a player at the bottom of the league. So he was bad last year. How will he be this year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Care to be a bit more specific? I expect zilch, so the bar to being a "bigger contributor" is basically the ground. Clearing that doesn't mean he'll be a valuable piece on the team.

He was also terrible in his 41 games in St. Louis. 

By February/March he will look like he belongs in the top 9 (not just a placeholder there).  I think he will show signs that he will be a legit third line winger going forward.  If he plays close to a full 82 game season he will be sniffing 20 goals (17 or 18).  This time next year we will be asking if he can be a 20 goal scorer for the upcoming season.  Specific enough?

A 20/21 year old winger struggling in the NHL is hardly unique.  He has put up points at every single level up until now.  That does not guarantee success at the nhl level but it is a strong indicator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Derrico said:

By February/March he will look like he belongs in the top 9 (not just a placeholder there).  I think he will show signs that he will be a legit third line winger going forward.  If he plays close to a full 82 game season he will be sniffing 20 goals (17 or 18).  This time next year we will be asking if he can be a 20 goal scorer for the upcoming season.  Specific enough?

A 20/21 year old winger struggling in the NHL is hardly unique.  He has put up points at every single level up until now.  That does not guarantee success at the nhl level but it is a strong indicator.

His scoring at the usdp and ncaa levels are just okay. There's nothing exciting there to make you believe he will be good in the nhl. There's nothing saying he won't but his production in the ncaa is just okay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

His scoring at the usdp and ncaa levels are just okay. There's nothing exciting there to make you believe he will be good in the nhl. There's nothing saying he won't but his production in the ncaa is just okay. 

33 goals in 70 NCAA games before turned 20 is better than OK IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While always allowing for the possibility for any amount of development with a player so young, I generally reserve actual, firm belief in prospects for the ones who don't struggle with processing speed to the degree that Tage did last year. That's, like, the ONLY real barometer I have when watching prospects, to be honest. That's where my "negativity" surrounding him comes from. A guy like Olofsson may well fail too, like any other prospect, but I'm going to sound more pleasant talking about him, because he cleared a fundamental (for my analysis purposes) bar that Tage tripped over in spectacular fashion. Of course, there are other ways and reasons Victor may not make it.

The reason why that's the key characteristic I look for is because (and this is completely unscientific) I've simply never seen a player that's really bad at processing the game at the NHL speed suddenly become good at it. I don't think there's anything else you can look at which would sort out prospect outcomes as cleanly as that does, even if we all may define and see it differently.

Edited by Randall Flagg
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

While always allowing for the possibility for any amount of development with a player so young, I generally reserve actual, firm belief in prospects for the ones who don't struggle with processing speed to the degree that Tage did last year. That's, like, the ONLY real barometer I have when watching prospects, to be honest. That's where my "negativity" surrounding him comes from. A guy like Olofsson may well fail too, like any other prospect, but I'm going to sound more pleasant talking about him, because he cleared a fundamental (for my analysis purposes) bar that Tage tripped over in spectacular fashion. Of course, there are other ways and reasons Victor may not make it.

The reason why that's the key characteristic I look for is because (and this is completely unscientific) I've simply never seen a player that's really bad at processing the game at the NHL speed suddenly become good at it. I don't think there's anything else you can look at which would sort out prospect outcomes as cleanly as that does, even if we all may define and see it differently.

giphy.gif

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

33 goals in 70 NCAA games before turned 20 is better than OK IMO

It's not. Eichel was what better than okay looks like. Tage was fine but his ncaa scoring translates to like 30 nhl points. It's nice he scored goals but it hasn't transferred. 

Edited by LGR4GM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

 

The reason why that's the key characteristic I look for is because (and this is completely unscientific) I've simply never seen a player that's really bad at processing the game at the NHL speed suddenly become good at it. I don't think there's anything else you can look at which would sort out prospect outcomes as cleanly as that does, even if we all may define and see it differently.

I would say I have. Going back a little, but Brian Campbell comes to mind.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

giphy.gif

It's not. Eichel was what better than okay looks like. Tage was fine but his ncaa scoring translates to like 30 nhl points. It's nice he scored goals but it hasn't transferred. 

Eichel and Kyle Connor were what exceptional look like.

Boeser had 43 over his first two college seasons. Colin White 35, Ryan Poehling 21, JT Compher 23, Alex Tuch 32, Nick Schmaltz 15

Thompson had 33.

 

Comparing him to guys who came out after one year, Clayton Keller scored 21 as an NCAA rookie. Jack Roslovic 10, Casey Mittelstadt 11, Tyson Jost 16, Keifer Bellows 7, Dylan Larkin 15.

 

I think he was better than OK.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Eichel and Kyle Connor were what exceptional look like.

Boeser had 43 over his first two college seasons. Colin White 35, Ryan Poehling 21, JT Compher 23, Alex Tuch 32, Nick Schmaltz 15

Thompson had 33.

 

Comparing him to guys who came out after one year, Clayton Keller scored 21 as an NCAA rookie. Jack Roslovic 10, Casey Mittelstadt 11, Tyson Jost 16, Keifer Bellows 7, Dylan Larkin 15.

 

I think he was better than OK.

Fine, I don't agree. I partly don't agree because his goals are just part of his production. His college production doesn't stand out much. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Fine, I don't agree. I partly don't agree because his goals are just part of his production. His college production doesn't stand out much. 

My eye test, especially if he continues what we saw over the summer where he looked a lot bigger and played a lot smarter... gotta believe he takes the next step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

My eye test, especially if he continues what we saw over the summer where he looked a lot bigger and played a lot smarter... gotta believe he takes the next step.

He absolutely could, if he's suddenly better it's because he bulked up and plays smarter/faster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dudacek  I appreciate the list of NCAA Player comparisons and the cogent defense of his collegiate career.   I think I too gave up on his ability to  contribute to the Sabres this season.   Partly due to his point production, advanced metrics and overall observations.  But comparing his overall PPG at UConn to the others, and assuming the ratio of difficulty (.41) interesting to note:

  • Eichel is performing 24% better than the "assumed" rate of difficulty using NCAA stats
  • Larkin 22% better
  • Roslovik  19% better
  • Boeser 59% better
  • Connor - 6% worse
  • Compher 15% worse
  • Tage is 46% worse

I would not be surprised to see him start in Rochester regardless of his performance in camp.  Ralph and others using tough love to see if he has the intestinal fortitude to push and prove himself there first.    What I definitely know is that looking at Tages' collegiate numbers, and AHL numbers compared to others, and factoring his age, has left me a glimmer of hope that a 18/18 year (this or next) is reasonable to expect.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Curt said:

He might not be, with Buffalo at least.

Looking at the roster it’s not hard to picture a scenario where he is not one of of our 12 best forwards.

But given the way he was handled last year, it is hard to think that Botterill does not have him pencilled in the lineup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...