Zach Benson: how good will he be this year?

[Porous Five Hole]

31 minutes ago, spndnchz said:

The sparkle in your eyes keeps me alive. 

The Cult will be at the OLG stage in Niagara Falls in October. But you’ll be paying re-sale prices if you don’t already have tix.  

[LTS]

On 8/22/2025 at 1:30 PM, pi2000 said:

Is that a good thing? 

IMO he would've been better off continuing to develop in junior playing +25min/gm.

Instead he's been pigeon holed in Buffalo during his critical developmental years, stunting his growth as an offensive contributor.

The flaw in this argument is that he's been in Buffalo during his critical developmental years. He has not played any years in the NHL where he would be beyond his critical developmental years and as such you cannot predict whether it's stunted his growth or not.  If he had played the past two years in juniors then he would have been a player who played in juniors with no NHL stats and a question of whether it would translate.  Then we'd talk about him being 21-23 and his early growth years in the NHL and still be trying to project his growth and what he would be when he hits 24.

The only way to know how this has impacted him won't be known for another few years and even then you won't know what could or could not have happened. He may never have been the player you think he was supposed to be.  

And the problem with staying in juniors is that if he's too good for that level, then it does not benefit him to play there either. You learn nothing by dominating lower competition.

The thing is, I don't think anyone would argue that the AHL was where he would have been best served but because of the system (not the team) he was unable to get there. The system could have failed him, but the Sabres did what they could which was play him in the NHL.

And given his ability to stand toe to toe (he won't really ever be eye to eye) with some pretty tough people in the NHL, I don't think it's harmed him at all.

[Archie Lee]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

The flaw in this argument is that he's been in Buffalo during his critical developmental years. He has not played any years in the NHL where he would be beyond his critical developmental years and as such you cannot predict whether it's stunted his growth or not.  If he had played the past two years in juniors then he would have been a player who played in juniors with no NHL stats and a question of whether it would translate.  Then we'd talk about him being 21-23 and his early growth years in the NHL and still be trying to project his growth and what he would be when he hits 24.

The only way to know how this has impacted him won't be known for another few years and even then you won't know what could or could not have happened. He may never have been the player you think he was supposed to be.  

And the problem with staying in juniors is that if he's too good for that level, then it does not benefit him to play there either. You learn nothing by dominating lower competition.

The thing is, I don't think anyone would argue that the AHL was where he would have been best served but because of the system (not the team) he was unable to get there. The system could have failed him, but the Sabres did what they could which was play him in the NHL.

And given his ability to stand toe to toe (he won't really ever be eye to eye) with some pretty tough people in the NHL, I don't think it's harmed him at all.

To the bolded.  It might be true, to a degree.  But I largely reject the notion.  I mean, is anybody seriously arguing that Benson would have dominated junior hockey as an 18 year old more than McDavid dominated the NHL as a 24-25 year old?  And, is anybody seriously arguing that McDavid stopped learning once he started dominating the NHL? The list of players who dominated lesser competition for a year or two in junior, post-draft, and who then went on to have great NHL careers is very long. Very long. Benson, in my view, is the sort of player who would have found many things in his game to improve on whether he was in junior, college, the AHL, or the NHL. He's not the sort of kid who would have pouted, or got lazy, or forgot about the defensive side of the game. 

 

[JohnC]

16 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

To the bolded.  It might be true, to a degree.  But I largely reject the notion.  I mean, is anybody seriously arguing that Benson would have dominated junior hockey as an 18 year old more than McDavid dominated the NHL as a 24-25 year old?  And, is anybody seriously arguing that McDavid stopped learning once he started dominating the NHL? The list of players who dominated lesser competition for a year or two in junior, post-draft, and who then went on to have great NHL careers is very long. Very long. Benson, in my view, is the sort of player who would have found many things in his game to improve on whether he was in junior, college, the AHL, or the NHL. He's not the sort of kid who would have pouted, or got lazy, or forgot about the defensive side of the game. 

 

With respected to your comment about being able to learn when dominating at a lower level, that isn't the issue. The primary issue is whether he would have benefited more in the juniors or playing in the NHL. @LTS gave a strong argument why it made a lot of sense for him to play in the NHL given the rules that would have prohibited him from playing in the AHL. And there is another element to whether Benson would have benefited more in the juniors than the NHL i.e. physical development. It's more likely that the workout and training facilities and staff would be at a higher level in the NHL than it would have been in the juniors where a lot of his time would have been spent on buses. 

[pi2000]

9 hours ago, LTS said:

The flaw in this argument is that he's been in Buffalo during his critical developmental years. He has not played any years in the NHL where he would be beyond his critical developmental years and as such you cannot predict whether it's stunted his growth or not.  If he had played the past two years in juniors then he would have been a player who played in juniors with no NHL stats and a question of whether it would translate.  Then we'd talk about him being 21-23 and his early growth years in the NHL and still be trying to project his growth and what he would be when he hits 24.

The only way to know how this has impacted him won't be known for another few years and even then you won't know what could or could not have happened. He may never have been the player you think he was supposed to be.  

And the problem with staying in juniors is that if he's too good for that level, then it does not benefit him to play there either. You learn nothing by dominating lower competition.

The thing is, I don't think anyone would argue that the AHL was where he would have been best served but because of the system (not the team) he was unable to get there. The system could have failed him, but the Sabres did what they could which was play him in the NHL.

And given his ability to stand toe to toe (he won't really ever be eye to eye) with some pretty tough people in the NHL, I don't think it's harmed him at all.

The list of players who entered the league too soon and never fully blossomed, is very very long.   

The list of players ruined because they played 1 or 2 more years in junior (or NCAA) post draft, is very short, if it even exists.

If his career arc resembles that of Zemgus Girgensons, would that be satisfactory?  Zemgus also had 30 points his sophomore year.

I believe he would've grown his offensive game in junior more than he has is the NHL.   That could've paid dividends down the road, but we'll never know.

[dudacek]

48 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

The list of players who entered the league too soon and never fully blossomed, is very very long.   

The list of players ruined because they played 1 or 2 more years in junior (or NCAA) post draft, is very short, if it even exists.

If his career arc resembles that of Zemgus Girgensons, would that be satisfactory?  Zemgus also had 30 points his sophomore year.

I believe he would've grown his offensive game in junior more than he has is the NHL.   That could've paid dividends down the road, but we'll never know.

The list of players who played 40 games as an 18-year-old in the NHL this century is exactly 40 players deep.

https://www.eliteprospects.com/league/nhl/stats/all-time-season?age=u19&from=2000-2001&sort=gp

Show me this very, very long list of ruined players.

[SABRES 0311]

8 hours ago, pi2000 said:

The list of players who entered the league too soon and never fully blossomed, is very very long.   

The list of players ruined because they played 1 or 2 more years in junior (or NCAA) post draft, is very short, if it even exists.

If his career arc resembles that of Zemgus Girgensons, would that be satisfactory?  Zemgus also had 30 points his sophomore year.

I believe he would've grown his offensive game in junior more than he has is the NHL.   That could've paid dividends down the road, but we'll never know.

Girgensons did show flashes of offensive upside in his first couple years. Benson has too. Unless he’s putting up 20 goals in the top six he can stay on the third line. Third liners aren’t bad players and he brings energy along with some offensive capabilities.

When he’s 23-24 we’ll know better if he is a top six guy.

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, pi2000 said:

The list of players who entered the league too soon and never fully blossomed, is very very long.   

The list of players ruined because they played 1 or 2 more years in junior (or NCAA) post draft, is very short, if it even exists.

If his career arc resembles that of Zemgus Girgensons, would that be satisfactory?  Zemgus also had 30 points his sophomore year.

I believe he would've grown his offensive game in junior more than he has is the NHL.   That could've paid dividends down the road, but we'll never know.

When dealing with prospects and young players you are rarely certain how they will develop and what level of player they will be with the exception of the few ultra elite players. Whether Zemgus was rushed or not he would have turned out to be the same player that shown to be over a long career.

[LGR4GM]

12 hours ago, pi2000 said:

The list of players who entered the league too soon and never fully blossomed, is very very long.   

The list of players ruined because they played 1 or 2 more years in junior (or NCAA) post draft, is very short, if it even exists.

If his career arc resembles that of Zemgus Girgensons, would that be satisfactory?  Zemgus also had 30 points his sophomore year.

I believe he would've grown his offensive game in junior more than he has is the NHL.   That could've paid dividends down the road, but we'll never know.

Zemgus Girgensons was 21yrs old in his 2nd season and he played an entire AHL season at 18yrs old. In his 30pt season he averaged 19:05toi a game for 1163:51 total TOI for the year. His CF% was 37.8 but he was getting 58.5% dzone starts. His xGF% is 39.6% or -16.2 depending on how you want to look at the split. He had 0.8g/60 and 0.8a/60 but 0.5a/60 were secondary. Zemgus has never reached 30pts again and has never even reached 20 again. In fact Benson's first 2 season would ranked tied for 1st with zemgus and standalone in 2nd in terms of points.

Zach Benson just completed his 2nd season at age 19 (he's about 1.5yrs younger than Zemgus was in his 2nd season). He has no AHL season previously. In his 28pt season he averaged 14:31toi a game for 1030:44 total TOI for the year. His CF% was 56.6% and he got 44.4% dzone starts. His xGF% was 52.65%or +3.7 depending on how you want to look at the splits. He had 36.8xGF compared to Zemgus' 30.8 in more ice time. Benson had 0.5g/60 and 1.0a/60 with 0.8a/60 as primary. 

To recap, a younger Zach Benson put up better assist numbers, better CF%, and better xGF% including a better xGF than Zemgus while being 1.5 years younger in only his 2nd, not 3rd pro season like Zemgus but this is the comparison you think makes your argument? What number of points would Zach Benson need to put up this year in order for you to "know" that playing the last 2 years in the NHL didn't stifle his offensive game? 50pts? 60pts? I am genuinely asking what would Benson have to produce this year?

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

The list of players who played 40 games as an 18-year-old in the NHL this century is exactly 40 players deep.

https://www.eliteprospects.com/league/nhl/stats/all-time-season?age=u19&from=2000-2001&sort=gp

Show me this very, very long list of ruined players.

Zach Benson is in 24th on this list alongside names like Tim Stutzle (29pts), David Pastrnak (27pts), Cole Sillinger (31pts), and I would like to toss out Aleksander Barkov (24pts). We also have Alex Galchenyuk (27pts and Jesper Kotkoniemi (34pts) as maybe some less than great guys around there too. The list of players who played in the NHL at 19 for 40+ games is 100 players long. 

[pi2000]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Zemgus Girgensons was 21yrs old in his 2nd season and he played an entire AHL season at 18yrs old. In his 30pt season he averaged 19:05toi a game for 1163:51 total TOI for the year. His CF% was 37.8 but he was getting 58.5% dzone starts. His xGF% is 39.6% or -16.2 depending on how you want to look at the split. He had 0.8g/60 and 0.8a/60 but 0.5a/60 were secondary. Zemgus has never reached 30pts again and has never even reached 20 again. In fact Benson's first 2 season would ranked tied for 1st with zemgus and standalone in 2nd in terms of points.

Zach Benson just completed his 2nd season at age 19 (he's about 1.5yrs younger than Zemgus was in his 2nd season). He has no AHL season previously. In his 28pt season he averaged 14:31toi a game for 1030:44 total TOI for the year. His CF% was 56.6% and he got 44.4% dzone starts. His xGF% was 52.65%or +3.7 depending on how you want to look at the splits. He had 36.8xGF compared to Zemgus' 30.8 in more ice time. Benson had 0.5g/60 and 1.0a/60 with 0.8a/60 as primary. 

To recap, a younger Zach Benson put up better assist numbers, better CF%, and better xGF% including a better xGF than Zemgus while being 1.5 years younger in only his 2nd, not 3rd pro season like Zemgus but this is the comparison you think makes your argument? What number of points would Zach Benson need to put up this year in order for you to "know" that playing the last 2 years in the NHL didn't stifle his offensive game? 50pts? 60pts? I am genuinely asking what would Benson have to produce this year?

It depends where they deploy him.   I've said this before... if he plays top line and PP, I expect somewhere in the 45-55 pt range.     If he plays 3rd line and very little PP time then probably somewhere around 35-40pts.   

I look at a guy like Andrew Cristall, who put up similar numbers as Benson his draft year in the WHL.    Unlike Benson, he stayed in junior and put up 132 points in his d+2 season, an NHLe of 48 points.   That's a good target for Benson imo.     If he plays the full season and puts up <40 points, then I'll considered him damaged goods.

[LGR4GM]

37 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

It depends where they deploy him.   I've said this before... if he plays top line and PP, I expect somewhere in the 45-55 pt range.     If he plays 3rd line and very little PP time then probably somewhere around 35-40pts.   

I look at a guy like Andrew Cristall, who put up similar numbers as Benson his draft year in the WHL.    Unlike Benson, he stayed in junior and put up 132 points in his d+2 season, an NHLe of 48 points.   That's a good target for Benson imo.     If he plays the full season and puts up <40 points, then I'll considered him damaged goods.

There's our threshold then, 40.5o/u

I think I put Benson at 45pts this season but forget where I put that projection. 

[dudacek]

42 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

There's our threshold then, 40.5o/u

I think I put Benson at 45pts this season but forget where I put that projection. 

If i had to make a prediction I'd say 50.

I think Peterka's departure and Zucker's likely regression will leave a hole that almost guarantees a jump for at least one of Kulich/Quinn/Benson and I think Bennie is the one most likely stapled to Thompson.