Toggle sidebar

'24-25 Former Predators Thread

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Kat Predator said:
Preach it. I've been saying this for what feels like forever now.

By the way, there are scientific studies that the only way to master tasks is to perform them. There are graphs on how many hours it takes to be proficient, to attain mastery, etc. Somehow, I don't see the Preds organization really getting that. Skating around in the occasional practice and sitting eating popcorn isn't going to make a young player better. Performing tasks that are watered down aren't going to get you there. It takes a commitment of time and patience, which we haven't had since Lavi was here. Hynes seemed to be under pressure to send Poile out as a winner. Bruno has no plan other than being deeply uninterested in developing players at all.
Click to expand...
My JuCo baseball coach was a huge proponent of this, and intentionality in practice, and the mental side of the game. Was something like 10,000 correct repetitions of a task. In some regards it's likely an impossible thing to actually achieve, but it's also more about the focus on details and the process.

The point is extremely valid though with respect to the Preds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kat Predator
nine_inch_fang said:
Tomasino has always been a straight work ethic issue for me. I don't need the kid to throw hip checks anything of that sort, he's not a grinder. But, damn it, he has to "try" to get to pucks and win wall battles to retain possession.

The reason he did well in his rookie season was the "Master Blaster" effect. McC and Smith or whoever did all the grinding and he added the creativity against other forth lines. What didn't work his rookie season or the next two was when he had PP or top 6 shifts and he didn't want to do the work to get/keep possession against other teams better players. He was young and needed to learn that, I'm not sure "giving" a kid with poor work ethic ice time is a great way for him to learn anything. Evangelista is actually a good counter point to Tomasino in this category. Luke is never going to be a grinding hitting machine like L'Heureux but he does hound pucks and annoy the other team with being determined and present ever shift. And, that earns respect from the coaches.

That being said, I thought he was showing more maturity this season and was more determined to win possession but I guess there's no redemption in Brunette's mind.
Click to expand...
I think we all agreed about that with Tomasino. It might even have applied to a lesser extent with Fabbro as well. Especially if there were concerns with some off-ice/off-season workout issues we don't have any visibility on, and not just the in-game stuff.

But to me, if, despite all that, the players show a level of effectiveness that exceeds that of the our other options... you shouldn't just railroad them out of town, and tank their asset value completely along the way. Tomasino wasn't exactly my cup of tea as a player, but the complaint I have is that I can still see he has the skill, even through any bits of inconsistency or lowered line usage, to produce something in the neighbourhood of 0.5ppg. Or Fabbro can play more effectively than most of our Right side D. If we had better players, ones with no/fewer warts, that'd be great. Once your team gets good enough, you try to replace the wart-y players with better players. My problem is we don't have better players. Lacking better players, we should be making better use of the ones we have, and maintaining/improving their overall asset value against the day we do find better players. So that we can then continue to get a return on our investment. Instead of just taking multiple big losses. There was no reason to take a total loss on players of Tolvanen/Tomasino/Fabbro caliber. Warts and all, they are all valid NHL players who were better than some in our lineup.

You can take the loss on an Afanaseyev or Pitlick or Kamenev or others of that level where it's not really evident if they will ever truly pan out in the NHL or not. But Tolvanen/Tomasino/Fabbro already showed they were going to pan out, warts included.

I don't know how they could fail to learn from this and proceed to do the same things with Evangelista or Parssinen. But I'm bracing for it. :help:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enoch, originalpredfan, nine_inch_fang and 4 others
Kat Predator said:
Lanky made the Finnish team for 4 Nations.
Also Haula and Granlund.

Arvy and Ekky on team Sweden.
Click to expand...
I don't like at all having Nyquist on Sweden a couple weeks before the Trade Deadline? Honestly, the Preds should be trying very hard to trade him before that tournament starts.

I guess it doesn't really matter with Forsberg and Saros, they aren't going anywhere, and we're not going to be in a playoff race, so if they don't get a rest, or if they happen to get hurt in that tourney, it really is no impact to us this season like it might have been in other seasons.
 
Porter Stoutheart said:
I think we all agreed about that with Tomasino. It might even have applied to a lesser extent with Fabbro as well. Especially if there were concerns with some off-ice/off-season workout issues we don't have any visibility on, and not just the in-game stuff.

But to me, if, despite all that, the players show a level of effectiveness that exceeds that of the our other options... you shouldn't just railroad them out of town, and tank their asset value completely along the way. Tomasino wasn't exactly my cup of tea as a player, but the complaint I have is that I can still see he has the skill, even through any bits of inconsistency or lowered line usage, to produce something in the neighbourhood of 0.5ppg. Or Fabbro can play more effectively than most of our Right side D. If we had better players, ones with no/fewer warts, that'd be great. Once your team gets good enough, you try to replace the wart-y players with better players. My problem is we don't have better players. Lacking better players, we should be making better use of the ones we have, and maintaining/improving their overall asset value against the day we do find better players. So that we can then continue to get a return on our investment. Instead of just taking multiple big losses. There was no reason to take a total loss on players of Tolvanen/Tomasino/Fabbro caliber. Warts and all, they are all valid NHL players who were better than some in our lineup.

You can take the loss on an Afanaseyev or Pitlick or Kamenev or others of that level where it's not really evident if they will ever truly pan out in the NHL or not. But Tolvanen/Tomasino/Fabbro already showed they were going to pan out, warts included.

I don't know how they could fail to learn from this and proceed to do the same things with Evangelista or Parssinen. But I'm bracing for it. :help:
Click to expand...
Agreed. No one has said any of these guys were McDavid superstars that a coach should just put out there.

The nuance is in what we mean by "earning it". A young player can earn time on ice without having to play to his weaknesses and correct his warts solely using visualization techniques while eating popcorn in a pressbox. He can be sheltered. He can be placed with complimentary players and have some success even while he continues to get better at the details and work on shoring up his liabilities. Even McDavid isn't perfect and is on the ice when the Oilers break down and make bad plays, so it's a disservice to everyone to dismiss a capable NHL player only to play an older player who may even have more flaws.

On Tomasino in particular, his game always had some similarity to Kevin Fiala to me. But the way they were handled is very different. Fiala was not a great defender, and not going to grind in the corners. He was also often weak on the puck and turned it over. Those were his flaws, so Lavi stapled him with Craig Smith, who was a complementary winger. Smith's game was to go hard in the corners, throw checks, be a net front nuisance. Fiala had a wicked shot and Smith was inaccurate and streaky. As a pair, those two complimented each other well and Lavi mostly kept them together rather than dribbling Fiala up and down the lineup constantly and each time he had a turnover in the neutral zone or whatever the pet peeve might be.

Moreover, mistakes are coaching moments. Instead of knee-jerk punishment, a great coach is going to have already built a rapport with his young players and should know and explained to them what they need to work on as well as encouraged them to utilize their strengths in the appropriate situations. So, when that neutral zone turnover happens, a quick reminder of what the kid should have done instead along with some positive encouragement will go a long way. From the shift charts, it's apparent that Bruno will just pack the young guys on a particular line together during the game and then stop putting them out on regular shifts.

PS: On the issue of complimentary players, Bruno has often paired Stamkos and March together. That hasn't worked and they are not complementary players. Both of them are scorers that need a playmaker to set them up in scoring position.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GoldOnGold, originalpredfan, Porter Stoutheart and 2 others
Kat Predator said:
Agreed. No one has said any of these guys were McDavid superstars that a coach should just put out there.

The nuance is in what we mean by "earning it". A young player can earn time on ice without having to play to his weaknesses and correct his warts solely using visualization techniques while eating popcorn in a pressbox. He can be sheltered. He can be placed with complimentary players and have some success even while he continues to get better at the details and work on shoring up his liabilities. Even McDavid isn't perfect and is on the ice when the Oilers break down and make bad plays, so it's a disservice to everyone to dismiss a capable NHL player only to play an older player who may even have more flaws.

On Tomasino in particular, his game always had some similarity to Kevin Fiala to me. But the way they were handled is very different. Fiala was not a great defender, and not going to grind in the corners. He was also often weak on the puck and turned it over. Those were his flaws, so Lavi stapled him with Craig Smith, who was a complementary winger. Smith's game was to go hard in the corners, throw checks, be a net front nuisance. Fiala had a wicked shot and Smith was inaccurate and streaky. As a pair, those two complimented each other well and Lavi mostly kept them together rather than dribbling Fiala up and down the lineup constantly and each time he had a turnover in the neutral zone or whatever the pet peeve might be.

Moreover, mistakes are coaching moments. Instead of knee-jerk punishment, a great coach is going to have already built a rapport with his young players and should know and explained to them what they need to work on as well as encouraged them to utilize their strengths in the appropriate situations. So, when that neutral zone turnover happens, a quick reminder of what the kid should have done instead along with some positive encouragement will go a long way. From the shift charts, it's apparent that Bruno will just pack the young guys on a particular line together during the game and then stop putting them out on regular shifts.

PS: On the issue of complimentary players, Bruno has often paired Stamkos and March together. That hasn't worked and they are not complementary players. Both of them are scorers that need a playmaker to set them up in scoring position.
Click to expand...
ssshhhh. You’re making the coach look bad. You may get sent to the press box for a few games for a reset.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Kat Predator
Does anybody here actually wish we had Kiefer Sherwood back? :huh:

I was on the Canucks board for another reason, and they seem to be infatuated with him in some way? The guy was totally borderline as an NHLer afaic. He hustled well. Didn't have an NHL skill level really, not in a physical tools/skating sense, but he had a motor. I liked him better than some of our other "tweener" types, but still think we had too many of those players, and he was the smallest one who made the least impact physically, despite his efforts. He chipped in a little more offensively than some. But still at a replacement level that was essentially taking opportunity away from our more skilled younger players.

We never seem to mention him around here in this thread. Which I think is entirely fitting. What am I missing? :dunno:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Softball99 and Kat Predator
Porter Stoutheart said:
Does anybody here actually wish we had Kiefer Sherwood back? :huh:

I was on the Canucks board for another reason, and they seem to be infatuated with him in some way? The guy was totally borderline as an NHLer afaic. He hustled well. Didn't have an NHL skill level really, not in a physical tools/skating sense, but he had a motor. I liked him better than some of our other "tweener" types, but still think we had too many of those players, and he was the smallest one who made the least impact physically, despite his efforts. He chipped in a little more offensively than some. But still at a replacement level that was essentially taking opportunity away from our more skilled younger players.

We never seem to mention him around here in this thread. Which I think is entirely fitting. What am I missing? :dunno:
Click to expand...
Was never a big fan of his but I do think he turned it on at the end of last season and played really well. I haven't watched the Canucks outside of our game against them so don't have much insight but the numbers look like he's kept it up. Glad to see it for him but I am skeptical he all of a sudden figured it out at age 29 but who knows. Either way I still don't mind that we let him go and are giving L'Hereux that role instead of him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Porter Stoutheart
I'll take Sherwood over McC, Smith and Jankowski any day of the week.

He had a motor that never stopped. He actually finishes checks, which none of these guys are doing these days. He could get a shot off without it fluttering off into the corner or getting blocked like Smith does 90% of the time. His shot was pretty solid too.

Jank probably has the highest hockey IQ of all 4 and don't mind him but McC and Smith can go away never to be seen again and I'd be fine with it.

That fourth line used to set the tone on their first shift laying the body and skating hard and all I see is three guys that go out there and don't make any sort of impact.

So as much as I may have been on Sherwood, I'd take him and Colin Blackwell back in a heartbeat over the crap I see out there now. (ZLH is not included in any of my thoughts - he's actually been exactly what I thought he'd be and is doing great)
 
  • Like
Reactions: predhead1, Soundgarden and herzausstein
Sherwood is an easy guy to like if he is on your team. Has a motor, gives 100% every shift, hits everything that moves, currently getting about 0.5 pts/game, doesnt commit a ton of penalties, puts the puck on net, and only gets 1.5M a year. Id take that over smith, Jankowski, or McCarron all day every day. Not something ill lose sleep over though
 
  • Like
Reactions: glenngineer and Kat Predator
Sherwood is easy to like as a 4th line energy guy. He brings that to the table for sure.

I don't think he's missed exactly, but if he were still here it would allow ZLH to play in the middle-6, which is hopefully where he ends up. Maybe when the new coach arrives?
 
Porter Stoutheart said:
Does anybody here actually wish we had Kiefer Sherwood back? :huh:

I was on the Canucks board for another reason, and they seem to be infatuated with him in some way? The guy was totally borderline as an NHLer afaic. He hustled well. Didn't have an NHL skill level really, not in a physical tools/skating sense, but he had a motor. I liked him better than some of our other "tweener" types, but still think we had too many of those players, and he was the smallest one who made the least impact physically, despite his efforts. He chipped in a little more offensively than some. But still at a replacement level that was essentially taking opportunity away from our more skilled younger players.

We never seem to mention him around here in this thread. Which I think is entirely fitting. What am I missing? :dunno:
Click to expand...
I think the team misses him. I'm not saying things would be gravy if he was still on the team but he plays with an effort and ferocity that this team needs. He could've been a tone setter guy.

Yes, his skating isn't all that great but he has a good shot and made plays happen with his effort on the forecheck. He seems to be one of those offensive players that had to reinvent his game to stick in the NHL. Even after reinventing his game the offensive ability sticks so what you are left with is a grinder who sets the tone and can score. At 1.5 million over two years I'd take that. I'd take him over Smith, McCarron, Janko. He seems to be playing well in Van.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Softball99, nine_inch_fang, Kat Predator and 1 other person
How embarrassing is it for all of us that we are paying Duchene’s salary to lead the Stars in points? We pretty much all have egg on our face on this one. Yikes.

The only saving grace is if/until the Stars win a Cup with him it doesn’t really mean shit outside of the cash we are tying up. Still. Barry, come on.
 
Yeah, Duchene is a pretty good indicator of something I've suspected for a while (in all sports)- the idea of a "serial winner" has more to do with the team put around someone than anything else. There are edge cases, but for the most part anyone who has made it to the top level of a sport has the drive necessary to win, if the talent level around them allows it. Hence I'm not a fan of this idea that signing a bunch of guys who happened to be on good teams will make a good team.

I mean, FFS, Michael Jordan was by all accounts a grade-A ahole. But he was an amazing talent with a great team around him. If he got stuck in a terribly run organization we'd have heard how his treatment of other players was a problem.
 
hido said:
How embarrassing is it for all of us that we are paying Duchene’s salary to lead the Stars in points? We pretty much all have egg on our face on this one. Yikes.

The only saving grace is if/until the Stars win a Cup with him it doesn’t really mean shit outside of the cash we are tying up. Still. Barry, come on.
Click to expand...
How is "we" in all of this?

I don't recall anyone that was like, "hell, yeah! Trotz bought out Duchene and sent him packing! Poile should have done it long ago...effing idiot!"

I think most people were sitting there saying, "okay, I guess he was a problem in the locker room?".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armourboy
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom