You’re wrong on most of those names. And you didn’t even think about the non playoff teams.
I think Jenner can be / is a 2nd line winger for sure.
I'm 100% certain on the majority of them. Strome is a waste of space; he's adjacent-talent-dependent like Jenner only without any redeeming qualities when lacking such linemates. Glass is completely undebatable and that was an egregious reach on your part. Backlund, Carter, and Staal are all very down and trending down further at their ages; Seguin is as well but he started falling from higher up so he has a ways to go yet. Hartman is even more of a "lol out of nowhere" type than you're suggesting Jenner is. I'll concede that Danault was a similarly bad reach on my part and I shouldn't have gone there, and Eriksson Ek probably has a good future ahead of him (tho he's not there yet). But the rest are IMO set.
Jenner’s most common linemates were Laine Nyquist and Voracek.
Yes, of course they were. He produced very well given high quality linemates. That is a skill, and not everybody can do it. That says to me that he can do an acceptable job at #2C. I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. (As to the possible followup of "those were our top line wingers" - dude, have you seen our wing depth?Jenner’s most common linemates were Laine Nyquist and Voracek.
)
Strome could do the exact same thing and he sucks.Yes, of course they were. He produced very well given high quality linemates. That is a skill, and not everybody can do it. That says to me that he can do an acceptable job at #2C. I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. (As to the possible followup of "those were our top line wingers" - dude, have you seen our wing depth?
Yes, but Strome sucks because that's literally the only skill he has. Jenner can do a hell of a lot more.
So if Strome could come in and produce the same as Jenner, and Strome sucks and should not be a top6 C, why exactly should Jenner he regarded as a special top6 C on a good team?
Because a top6 C on a good team should also be able to provide things other than point production. Say, opposition point prevention. Mentoring and leadership for the kids, because there will always be developing kids on every team. Competence in the faceoff circle. And so on.
Is he actually doing that? See post above.
Regardless of who plays there, we need a true 1C because we have a bunch of tweeners.Cool. Then we can play Tex there and sidestep the whole debate.
Yep. The only options are in the system now, or ideally we get the number 1 or 2 pick next year to seal off a rebuild.
Im reading the Jenner exchange and thinking how I disagree with Cow because he’s selling a Jenner short but here you are at the (thus far) conclusion of the discussion and I’m like yeah that’s right.
Frankly, I also agree. I think we're just differing on how to address the issue of Jenner there. I think it's an acceptable result but one that ought to be improved on, and I get the impression he considers it unacceptable regardless.
The "play Silly or Tex at 1C" thing got me running some quick lines and damn it's a mess - in a good way, inasmuchas there are more than 12 guys who are probs NHL-ready even if some have to play highr up/more minutes than we'd prefer.
At this point, those are the only two guys in the system that have the potential to be 1/2C level and can probably handle it at this point in time. Neither are close rn.
Texier played with them a little, except he wasn't able to join Laine and Voracek, Jenner was.. Oh, and we have to consider that the best line was Nyquist -- Jenner -- Laine, which played great even against strong opponents.
Jesus. The offseason just started. How can you already be losing faith lol. They’ve been in on names that have gathered a lot of interest. Would you prefer we push our chips in and trade Chinakhov + for Romanov? Or two firsts + for Chychrun?
Sometimes it takes time for guys to develop.
I wouldn't be shocked if he was trade bait. Even for like a 6th round pick. All the QO the gave out were to guys with value.
