Boston Bruins 2023-2024 Roster & Salary Cap Discussion IV

[ON3M4N]

I think the term better to use is tough to play against instead of physical. When most people think "physical" they think about hitting. Radko Gudas is #1 in hits since 2021-2022 season, but is he really that difficult to play against? On the flip side McAvoy ranks 125th in hits over the same timeframe, but he is a hell of a lot tougher to play against.

 

[Sheppy]

I think the term better to use is tough to play against instead of physical. When most people think "physical" they think about hitting. Radko Gudas is #1 in hits since 2021-2022 season, but is he really that difficult to play against? On the flip side McAvoy ranks 125th in hits over the same timeframe, but he is a hell of a lot tougher to play against.

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why can't you still have a physical element?

Odd comparison when comparing an elite #1 D-man, who's probably a top 5-7 guy in the world vs a guy who has always pretty much played on the bottom pair. Gudas as a #5-6 guy is EXACTLY what teams want when going on a playoff run. He's a destroyer back there.

Physicality wears down players, especially for a long playoff grind.

 

[Fenian24]

I think the term better to use is tough to play against instead of physical. When most people think "physical" they think about hitting. Radko Gudas is #1 in hits since 2021-2022 season, but is he really that difficult to play against? On the flip side McAvoy ranks 125th in hits over the same timeframe, but he is a hell of a lot tougher to play against.

Might want to rewatch last years playoffs to see why Gudas is effective in his roll.

 

[Yeti34]

I think the term better to use is tough to play against instead of physical. When most people think "physical" they think about hitting. Radko Gudas is #1 in hits since 2021-2022 season, but is he really that difficult to play against? On the flip side McAvoy ranks 125th in hits over the same timeframe, but he is a hell of a lot tougher to play against.

Were you not watching the playoffs last year Gudas was the epitome of tough to play against.

 

[ON3M4N]

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why can't you still have a physical element?

Odd comparison when comparing an elite #1 D-man, who's probably a top 5-7 guy in the world vs a guy who has always pretty much played on the bottom pair. Gudas as a #5-6 guy is EXACTLY what teams want when going on a playoff run. He's a destroyer back there.

Physicality wears down players, especially for a long playoff grind.

What extreme? Did I say that someone whose tough to play against can't also be physical? no I didn't. I think some folks put too much emphasis on the physical/hitting aspect when its only a piece of being tough to play against.

Might want to rewatch last years playoffs to see why Gudas is effective in his roll.

Were you not watching the playoffs last year Gudas was the epitome of tough to play against.

I remember the playoffs just fine. The Panthers with Gudas on the ice at 5v5 during the playoffs:

Outshot by opp 146-131
Outscored by opp 14-8
Outchanced by opp 144-110

He had the worst high danger goals against for Florida. He had the 2nd most penalties minutes on the team, while having the 4 most turnovers and the 2nd fewest takeaways. Sure he threw some great hits, but again that doesn't mean he was hard to play against.

 

[Sheppy]

What extreme? Did I say that someone whose tough to play against can't also be physical? no I didn't. I think some folks put too much emphasis on the physical/hitting aspect when its only a piece of being tough to play against.




I remember the playoffs just fine. The Panthers with Gudas on the ice at 5v5 during the playoffs:

Outshot by opp 146-131
Outscored by opp 14-8
Outchanced by opp 144-110

He had the worst high danger goals against for Florida. He had the 2nd most penalties minutes on the team, while having the 4 most turnovers and the 2nd fewest takeaways. Sure he threw some great hits, but again that doesn't mean he was hard to play against.

You used a comparison between an elite #1 d-man and a #5-6 d-man. If you had an entire back end of Charlie McAvoys vs an entire back end of Radko Gudas', of course the McAvoy back end would be better. You need a mixture of both.

Who would you say is physical on the back end after McAvoy? To me, he's far and away the most physical.

What about up front? Who's our physical forwards in the top 9?

You absolutely need a mixture of both. Do people put too much emphasis on physicality? Maybe, Maybe I'm one of them, but when your roster has essentially one guy who will throw his body around I don't think it's unfair and unreasonable to want another guy or two who can help in that regard.

 

[Knight]

Any interest in a retained Laine?

Laine - Poitras - DeBrusk?

 

[dugg133]

Any interest in a retained Laine?

Laine - Poitras - DeBrusk?

Would have to be an offseason move, even with retention idk how we'd fit him mideseason.

 

[CellyHard]

Ducks have been sliding a little since their hot start…Sam Carrick would be a solid pickup for the bottom six. He’s basically what they hoped Patrick Brown could be.

Also, Nashville is a good place to look for some physicality up front. They are kind of loaded with it but just don’t have enough skill players…Trenin, McCarron, Cole Smith are all UFA’s. Anyone see a fit there?

 

[GordonHowe]

Will Geekie add positively to the DeBrusk - Poitras combination when he returns from injury?

A local B's writer, I can't remember who, observed that Matt's gone a bit quiet with the Geek out of the lineup. They seem to have developed chemistry, so I hope that continues.

 

[BergyWho37]

Any interest in a retained Laine?

Laine - Poitras - DeBrusk?

Nope lazy selfish and certainly not worth the cost to acquire rather just sign Kane at least he can dominate by himself

 

[dugg133]

A local B's writer, I can't remember who, observed that Matt's gone a bit quiet with the Geek out of the lineup. They seem to have developed chemistry, so I hope that continues.

There is something to this, but I'm not really sure what's causing it. Cause Geekie has 3 points on the season, so it's not like he's really doing a ton. And all of Poitras' underlying metrics are better WITHOUT Geekie then then are with him, see here:

BUT the one thing that does get better is the actual goals generated, Poitras's on-ice S% jumps nearly 7% when he has Geekie on the ice with him. Not really sure what's causing it tbh, could be just an early season aberration. Could also be that having a big body in Geekie driving the net is opening up more space for Poitras to get things done. Either way I think they should probably put Debrusk-Poitras-Geekie back together when Geekie is healthy.

 

[SPLBRUIN]

Does it ever get tiring constantly blaming the refs?

Do I enjoy it, no, but last nights shitshow isn't getting a pass, that was downright horrific.

 

[ON3M4N]

You used a comparison between an elite #1 d-man and a #5-6 d-man. If you had an entire back end of Charlie McAvoys vs an entire back end of Radko Gudas', of course the McAvoy back end would be better. You need a mixture of both.

Who would you say is physical on the back end after McAvoy? To me, he's far and away the most physical.

What about up front? Who's our physical forwards in the top 9?

You absolutely need a mixture of both. Do people put too much emphasis on physicality? Maybe, Maybe I'm one of them, but when your roster has essentially one guy who will throw his body around I don't think it's unfair and unreasonable to want another guy or two who can help in that regard.

What do you want to define as physical? Do you want to go off hits? hits/60? something else? What can we use to define physical that isn't just an opinion?

 

[Sheppy]

What do you want to define as physical? Do you want to go off hits? hits/60? something else? What can we use to define physical that isn't just an opinion?

I want a defenseman who will clear the front of the net. I want a d-man who will make opponents fear going into the corner. Teams have a field day against the Bruins because they know they won't be punished. The Bruins haven't had a guy like this since Kevan Miller.

I'd like a player or two who won't allow the team to constantly be the nail. I'd like to have a guy or two who go out there and set the tone and aren't afraid of mixing it up.

The top 9 forward group has next to no physicality and outside of McAvoy on the back end, there's not much there either.

 

[ON3M4N]

I want a defenseman who will clear the front of the net. I want a d-man who will make opponents fear going into the corner. Teams have a field day against the Bruins because they know they won't be punished. The Bruins haven't had a guy like this since Kevan Miller.

I'd like a player or two who won't allow the team to constantly be the nail. I'd like to have a guy or two who go out there and set the tone and aren't afraid of mixing it up.

The top 9 forward group has next to no physicality and outside of McAvoy on the back end, there's not much there either.

So everything you have here is opinion based. I could say players "x, y & z" are physical and you could argue they aren't, because its all subjective. There is nothing objective in the definition and thus this just turns into a back and forth of personal opinion that leads to nowhere.

 

[Sheppy]

So everything you have here is opinion based. I could say players "x, y & z" are physical and you could argue they aren't, because its all subjective. There is nothing objective in the definition and thus this just turns into a back and forth of personal opinion that leads to nowhere.

So do you agree or disagree with what I'm saying?

I feel like you're trying to make something out of nothing here. I'm saying what I think this team needs are you seem more concerned with defining the word.

 

[UncleRico]

What do you want to define as physical? Do you want to go off hits? hits/60? something else? What can we use to define physical that isn't just an opinion?

You shouldn’t need a statistic to measure physicality. You don’t judge physicality off a box score. Watch the game and see how the player performs.

Why is this so hard to understand for people and why is there a constant reversion back to stats?

Even the slightest bit of common sense goes a mile in this regard.

 

[Fenian24]

Any interest in a retained Laine?

Laine - Poitras - DeBrusk?

Less than zero, laziest player in the NHL

Ducks have been sliding a little since their hot start…Sam Carrick would be a solid pickup for the bottom six. He’s basically what they hoped Patrick Brown could be.

Also, Nashville is a good place to look for some physicality up front. They are kind of loaded with it but just don’t have enough skill players…Trenin, McCarron, Cole Smith are all UFA’s. Anyone see a fit there?

Of those three Trenin is the most talented, McCarron the toughest and biggest and Smith a mix of the two. I would take any of them but Trenin has the most versatility

 

[ON3M4N]

So do you agree or disagree with what I'm saying?

I feel like you're trying to make something out of nothing here. I'm saying what I think this team needs are you seem more concerned with defining the word.

Your question to me was:

"Who would you say is physical on the back end after McAvoy? To me, he's far and away the most physical.

What about up front? Who's our physical forwards in the top 9?"

I can give you my opinion, but odds are high you'll disagree because we don't have a mutual definition of what physical means. With no objective way to measure physical, it just turns into a back and fourth that leads to nowhere.

 

[Fenian24]

So do you agree or disagree with what I'm saying?

I feel like you're trying to make something out of nothing here. I'm saying what I think this team needs are you seem more concerned with defining the word.

Analytics. The numbers people watch a game and see somebody with 4 "hits" where that player umps into a player and it is technically a hit while Nikita Zadarov lines up three guys and destroys them but an analytics person will tell you player A had more hits therefore is more physical than Zadarov.

Reason I discount analytics for the most part, until they find a way to measure hits that change momentum and other factors that can turn a game around they have little use to me.

Traditionally analytic people have never played the game at any level and can't tell the difference between getting hit by Matt Grezclyk or Chris Pronger.

 

[Sheppy]

Your question to me was:

"Who would you say is physical on the back end after McAvoy? To me, he's far and away the most physical.

What about up front? Who's our physical forwards in the top 9?"

I can give you my opinion, but odds are high you'll disagree because we don't have a mutual definition of what physical means. With no objective way to measure physical, it just turns into a back and fourth that leads to nowhere.

So... who?

Do you disagree with what I said in terms of what's needed for a playoff run? This really doesn't need to be this fictional game of hopscotch.

 

[sarge88]

Aside from McAvoy, there is nobody on this team that opponents worry about when they are on the ice.

Not saying they need 12 guys like this at the expense of talent….but 1 isn’t enough, IMO.

 

[Sheppy]

Aside from McAvoy, there is nobody on this team that opponents worry about when they are on the ice.

Not saying they need 12 guys like this at the expense of talent….but 1 isn’t enough, IMO.

This is essentially what I'm getting at.

 

[Son of Donegal]

I mean...I get nervous when Gudas is on the ice and I am watching from the couch, so I can only imagine what the players are feeling. He may be leaky in the D zone and make bone-headed plays , but I am willing to bet my 401k that there isn't forward on the Bruins roster who enjoys going into the corners or taking a pass in open ice with Gudas nearby. Not to mention him stirring things up after the whistle. It's impressive that he gets away with most of it...and despite getting hemmed in, he is still by far a + player at the end of the day.

Fenian said it. There isn't a stat for momentum shifting hits OR attrition/fatigue/wear and tear resulting from matching up with players like Gudas. But, there ARE stats for turnovers, lost puck battles, and generally getting caved in defensively and that is one of the risks that come with guys like him.

For me personally, I go back and forth on whether the Bruins NEED a guy like Zadorov or Gudas or if they just need a better infusion of general toughness and intimidation through the line-up.

You look at a team like Vegas and they don't really have a Gudas/Zadorov...but everyone is pretty tough, can skate, hit and there is a general swagger to that whole line-up.

Then you look at Tampa from 2020-2022 and it was similar. No one player aside from Cernak and maybe Maroon stands out...but then you have players like Perry, Killorn, Joseph, Cirelli, etxc who mix things up. They had over 2100 hits that year and everyone was on board.

The Bruins have McAvoy, Marchand and Freddy at this point...

Hell Pasta has thrown some of the biggest hits of the season...and I appreciate it...but, god, do we really want him laying the body all season long?