Deuce22
Registered User
Agree in principle, but not sure if the coaching staff will let them play this way. I saw way too many games last year where Ducks played not to lose, playing most of the third period (and OT) in their own end.
Speculation: 2022-23 Roster Thread
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
- Status
I think the Ducks went into OT the most last season compared to other teams. Kings of the loser point. lol.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
I think a lot of Duck fans feels this way, that Manson is overrated.
My macro view of Manson is very positive. Manson's performance in Colorado didn't expose a big loss. For the past two seasons in Anaheim I've tracked revealed his was a big loss whenever he was out of the lineup.
==== LotR Version ====
Read at your own risk.
When the Ducks did have support, ... err NHL talents, we were a playoff team and Gibby is a consistent superstar. Tracking the team statistically for the past two seasons, losing Manson for a period of time hurt the Ducks. I've shared enough of this past season's stats, but here is what I already had from 2020-21 for the first 33 games (out of 56-game COVID season).
| Ducks | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-21 | |||||||||||||
| First 33 games | |||||||||||||
| Item | Games | W | L | OTL | Pts | . | GF | GA | GD | GF/GP | GA/GP | Diff | |
| Total | 33 | 9 | 18 | 6 | 24 | . | 72 | 112 | -40 | 2.18 | 3.39 | -1.21 | |
| W/o Lindholm | 15 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 9 | . | 37 | 64 | -27 | 2.47 | 4.27 | -1.80 | |
| w/ Lindholm | 18 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 15 | . | 35 | 48 | -13 | 1.94 | 2.67 | -0.72 |
Manson played with Lindholm for 1 1/3 games to start the season. Now, let's look at the 15 games without Lindholm where Manson did play 4 games in that set.
| Ducks | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-21 | |||||||||||||
| First 33 games | |||||||||||||
| Item | Games | W | L | OTL | Pts | . | GF | GA | GD | GF/GP | GA/GP | Diff | |
| W/O Lindholm | 15 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 9 | . | 37 | 64 | -27 | 2.47 | 4.27 | -1.80 | |
| W/o L, Manson in | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | . | 14 | 14 | 0 | 3.50 | 3.50 | 0.00 | |
| No Lindholm + Manson | 11 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 4 | . | 23 | 50 | -27 | 2.09 | 4.55 | -2.45 |
Fowler + Manson makes a significant difference versus just Fowler on the ice. Manson is a difference maker. With Colorado this year, it took Manson a long minute to figure out his role and chemistry with the defense during the regular season, but once the playoffs came around is when Manson found his groove.
People forget that we had Sustr for the rest of the season, but he couldn't fill in Manson's shoes as our PK plummeted.
My macro view of Manson is very positive. Manson's performance in Colorado wasn't the only exposure that he's a big loss. For the past two seasons in Anaheim I've tracked revealed Manson was a big loss whenever he was out of the lineup. A lot of people just gloss over the stats and pattern.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
I remember all of our coaches had to keep telling our players to keep attacking, but the players would automatically start to turtle. Even Getz said this. At the start of the season, we gained confidence. Then as we started incurring injuries, we had more and more unsureness.
It's weird b/c it's a mental thing. Two seasons ago, Eakins cited how we can win away games (11-12-5; 27 pts), but struggled at home (6-18-4; 16 pts). We got over that hump this year: Home = 17-19-5, 39 pts and Away = 14-18-9, 37 pts.
Going into this season, I don't think we have the blue line horses to play not to lose b/c I think we'll be scored upon if we do that. We have to adopt the philosophy of scoring as much as you can b/c our best defense is to be on offense.
There were 15 teams with double digit OT losses, which includes the Flames (11 OTL) and Kings (11 OTL). Hard to say if we had the most OT games
1-goal games = 38 (13-11-14)
OT/SO games = 23 (9-14)
OT losses (Loser points) = 14 pts ; Most loser point.
1-goal Games
Games 1-33 (33 games): In 20 games, 7-6-7
Games 34-62 (29 games): In 12 games, 6-3-3
Games 63-82 (20 games): In 6 games, 0-2-4
We couldn't figure how to win close games in our first 10 games, going 1-6 in 1-goal game games and going 1-3 in OT games. Then we caught fire.
OT Games
Games 1-33 (33 games): 6-7
Games 34-62 (29 games): 3-3
Games 63-82 (20 games): 0-4
We were more competitive to start the season and then it waned as the season progressed with injuries and not enough NHL talent depth. Comtois went chubb-chubb and Jones went IR for the season didn't help. At the AHL, both defensemen LD Curran and RD Andersson were oft injured.
Playing Shatty in a top 4 role is probably the best way to decrease his trade value. He's a solid bottom paring offensive d-man at this point. Unfortunately, the ducks don't have better options right now.
He was a 35 point guy and a -9 who played all 82 games and had the mot blocked shots of any D man. He also will be the #2 PK Dman on our current roster if last years trends continue.
Tied for 43rd amongst Dmen in points, 64th in TOI/GP, 84th in EVP, tied for 26th in PPP, 71st in Bks/60, 43rd in TkA/60. Also only 1 of 14 Dmen to play all 82.
Maybe he has a drop off year as he gets a year older but those numbers dont say bottom pairing guy. Maybe on the top 10 teams in the league hes a bottom pairing guy, but for the majority of the league hes at least a #4.
bsu
"I have no idea what I am doing" -Pat VerBleak
- Sep 27, 2017
- 28,539
- 29,293
Eye test in the defensive zone begs to differ. He's brutal and doesn't move his feet for jack shit. I never seen a defensemen float so much in the defensive zone (unless I include 10pm Tuesday night gold games). He's decent with the puck on his stick but when it's not I never seen a defensemen make his partner cover as much as Shattenkirk does, I literally feel bad for any defensemen paired with him in the D zone. I'd hate to be paired with someone that plays that lazy. For this upcoming season I still even with all that put him in the top 4 above Drysdale because I think developing our young player in the best situations we can put them in is more important than anything else this season.
If what you are saying is true, and I'm not going to argue it because I never disliked Shatty enough to keep an eye on him like that, then our coaches are really really dumb for putting him on the PK as much as they were.
Honestly, dont really care because I dont expect him to be on this team at the end of the year and like you said, I think its best for Drysdale to remain somewhat protected in order to develop him more and not throw him to the wolves. I just dont think Shatty is as bad as people make him out to be.
bsu
"I have no idea what I am doing" -Pat VerBleak
- Sep 27, 2017
- 28,539
- 29,293
If he moved his feet as much as he does when he has the puck I actually think he would be solid. When he gets mad (like gets hit) he usually plays harder for a shift or two... if he did that all game he would be solid.
I think that’s the biggest debate. Is Drysdale ready for a top 4 spot? Do they ease him back into it or throw him back to the wolves? Would love to see him with Benoit who compliments his game.
That means Shattenkirk is in the Top 4. But what are they winning next season? It’s a transition year and player development should be just as important as winning this stage of the game for the Ducks.
That means Shattenkirk is in the Top 4. But what are they winning next season? It’s a transition year and player development should be just as important as winning this stage of the game for the Ducks.
I worry about damage vs development. Putting a guy in a spot where he is making a ton of mistakes and not giving him help could set some pretty bad habits that become difficult to break.
Im all for giving guys spots once they earn them. But there is a difference between giving them a spot on the roster, say, McTavish coming in this year as a 3rd liner; and forcing too much on them to the point where they arent able to succeed and it hinders their overall development, say, McTavish being given a #1 center role out the gate.
I dont want to see him rushed and put into a position where he turns into a one dimensional guy like Klingberg.
I think one of the main reasons for the Klingberg signing was to help support Drysdale, who will most likely be sheltered next season and develop the right way, and earn his ice time and not be thrown to the wolves. Same can be said for adding Strome, to help support Zegras, and McTavish.
Drysdale shows flashes of being a top pairing D, but then has nights where he looks overwhelmed. Verbeek likely sees this as well.
Paul4587
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2006
- 31,206
- 13,233
He played some incredibly sheltered minutes last season and despite that had some of the worst underlying numbers around. He is barely a third pairing dman at this point.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
Drysdale fell into the Lundestrom scenario.
2018-19 was the season that dictated we needed to go into a rebuild. But we lost F Eaves and C Kelser in 2017-18 to where we traded D Vatanent for C Henrique. To begin 2018, we were missing several starting centers to where we started Steel and Lundy. Lundy lasted longer and initiated his ELC. Lundy has been up and down for the next two seasons. He did solidify his status in year 3.
Drysdale found himself at the AHL as an 18-year old b/c the OHL didn't re-start due to COVID. He won rookie of the month in the AHL, which includes winning it over Zegras. Impressive! Then he got called up. Drysdale looked good in his first few games, then the season wore him down fast. Our blue line got hit with mass injuries and that's why Drysdale got 24 NHL games.
Because we're in the middle of a rebuild, 2021-22 was all about the kids' development. Both Zegras and Drysdale were full time NHL'ers this season. For this season, I just wanted Drysdale to be able to last all season instead of wearing out after a few games. He finished like 14th in rookie scoring. IMO, Drysdale has exceeded my expectations last season. Now that he can endure a full 82-game season, he can improve from there. He's earned an NHL spot, but we're not sure if he's a 2nd or third pairing guy.
On the blue line, we don't have a lot of talent to push Drysdale down, but I do feel more confident in Drysdale going into next season. I don't think Drysdale's built to play like Klingberg, but rather Fowler. Fowler's an offensive guy who can play defense, just not shutdown defense like a Manson or Lindholm.
I agree in general. Only reason I brought up Klingon is because of his complete lack of defensive ability. Right now, thats what I worry about for Drysdale and why I dont want to see him rushed or put with someone who cant help him out.
I do see some similarities to Fowler, I just hope he brings his defensive game along to support that.
Paul4587
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2006
- 31,206
- 13,233
So where would you think he sits in the lineup on a team with a roughly league average D core?
I think he wouldn’t even dress on half the teams around the league. He’s absolutely terrible in his own end and his production mostly stemmed from a really hot streak to start the season.
Mortal Wombat
Registered User
- Dec 7, 2014
- 2,295
- 1,157
Shattenkirk played incredibly sheltered minutes? No he did not. He was asked to do a lot more than he should have because there was no-one else. Don't you remember how people complained all the time that he was being overused?
He started most of his shifts in the d-zone while Drysdale started most of his in the o-zone. The difference was not huge (I think it was around 52-48 for both, I'm on my phone), but still. Shatt routinely played more than 23 minutes, pretty often more than 25, and was used in all situations, so how exactly was he sheltered?
People love to go on about how poor his defense is, but he was still way better defensively than Drysdale, who at times looked completely lost in his own zone. Mind you, I'm not saying Shatt was good, this is just by comparison. Our defense is horrifyingly bad.
I don't understand how people are ready to hand Drysdale a top 4 spot after the season he just had. If anything, he needs more sheltering than he's received so far. I hope he improves quickly, but he needs to play minutes he can handle. Last season he was at times overwhelmed.
I hope Klingberg and Shattenkirk (ideally we add someone but it might not happen) shoulder most of the responsibility (and blame) on the right side. At least to start with, until Drysdale forces his way up the line-up.
Paul4587
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2006
- 31,206
- 13,233
He was heavily sheltered at ES. Shattenkirk played just 23% of his minutes against elite competition last year, 33% against mid range opponents and 43% against lower end players. Compare that to Drysdale who was asked to play 39% of his minutes against elite players, 31% against mid range players and 30% against lower end players. In terms of quality of competition our third pairing last year was among the most sheltered in the league - basically Lindholm, Fowler, Manson and Drysdale chewed up all the tough minutes and the others were spoon fed third and fourth liners far more than most.
In terms of defensive metrics both Drysdale and Shattenkirk were terrible last season. Drysdale was among the bottom 15% of the league and Shattenkirk was among the bottom 17% of the league. I will give Shattenkirk a bit of credit, he was half decent on special teams last year and justified getting the PK minutes he did. But at ES defensively he was a trainwreck - the numbers say that and do the eye test. Just because Drysdale was worse doesn't mean Shattenkirk wasn't terrible. Shattenkirk also had a woeful penalty differential.
Mortal Wombat
Registered User
- Dec 7, 2014
- 2,295
- 1,157
You're never going to convince me that the guy who played the third most minutes on the team (2nd most after Lindholm left) and played a lot of PK was "incredibly sheltered". I maintain that he was used more than he should have been, but that was because the alternatives were even worse. We do agree that he should not be a top 4 guy, there are several conversations going on here.
I never claimed Shattenkirk was good, just that Drysdale was worse (last season, hopefully not the next). And as such Drysdale should start on the third pairing in order not to overwhelmed him. With our current roster that means Shattenkirk would start in the top 4, which is obviously not ideal.
- Sep 21, 2018
- 3,871
- 6,133
This is a good debate and I don't mean to interject, but I'd like to point out the chances of Drysdale improving and Shattenkirk's play slipping even further are pretty good.
Mortal Wombat
Registered User
- Dec 7, 2014
- 2,295
- 1,157
True. But I'm less worried about putting Shattenkirk in a tough spot than Drysdale. Shatty will be gone soon enough, while it is important to develop Drysdale right. Our defense is going to be terrible either way. My hope is that Drysdale shows great improvement and forces his way into the top 4.
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
Maybe, but it's also a contract year for Shatt, should be highly motivated on a nightly basis.
- Sep 21, 2018
- 3,871
- 6,133
In theory. He might just mail it in and call it a career though. The Rangers are still paying him not to play for them.
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
He's in the final year of being paid out his buyout money as well. He's made bank and has a ring, but he's also only 33 (turns 34 mid season). Seems more likely he'll still be fighting for another contract, but who knows?
- Status
