Confirmed with Link: Brady Tkachuk - The decider: signs 3 year ELC
- Thread starter Micklebot
- Start date
- Status
- Sep 9, 2009
- 26,454
- 6,442
Now watch him have that effect on all team mates and then tell me that’s not valuable. (In addition to the top 6 level points he will get)
It’s still an “if” he can do that but it’s close to the expectation.
TkachukNorris79
Registered User
- Jan 27, 2018
- 1,509
- 1,375
I absolutely agree with this. And they're good friends from STL. A Tkachuk-Brown-Stone line could be a very, very good one for years to come. Pair that with Dzingel, Duchene, and one of White, Batherson, Formenton, Boedker (hell even Ryan maybe) and that's really not a bad top 6 at all. And the bottom 6 is pretty darn good with Pageau, Smith, Chlapik, Paajarvi and all of those others who didn't crack the top 6. I don't think we're that bad this year (depending on goaltending)
Tuna99
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2009
- 16,846
- 8,707
You wonder if Tkachuk can ignite Ryan's game, not only on the ice as a net presence for Ryan's play making (Ryan did look good with Logan Brown) butoff the ice with Ryan mentoring him (American Kid, high draft, winger, family story) the youth injection could ignite Ryan's game and give him a legit roll as mentor and veteran on the team.
Ryan's game changed with Maccarthur with th obvious chemistry they had in the playoff run but Ryan seemed to play like he was a star player with Mac around, just his attitude on the ice and body language completely changed for Ryan when Mac came back into the lineup - you hope Tkachuk can ignite that same spark in Ryan.
Ryan's game changed with Maccarthur with th obvious chemistry they had in the playoff run but Ryan seemed to play like he was a star player with Mac around, just his attitude on the ice and body language completely changed for Ryan when Mac came back into the lineup - you hope Tkachuk can ignite that same spark in Ryan.
bert
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2002
- 37,576
- 23,899
If you really look at it objectively they are inconsistent at both. The players they take their time with turn out the ones they rush dont. Coincidentally its the first rounders that always seem to dissapoint. Is it drafting or development? Its hard to say.
Stone, dzingel, pageau, hoffman, smith, wideman, boro all played significant time in Jr/College then multiple seasons in the AHL. They all have just about maxed out their potential.
Lazar, Cowen, Zibanejad, Ceci did not and id Say none of them hit the peak potential they should have been capable of.
Yet many posters here want to see Brown, Tkachuk, Batherson and Chlapik all play in the NHL this season. Makes no sense. The results are right in front of us. Hopefully management recognizes them... However I wont hold my breath.
Having true NHL depth allows teams to develop players properly, unfortunately this team currently does not.
Last edited:
bert
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2002
- 37,576
- 23,899
Surefire way to ruin these prospects is to have them all in the NHL this year. If you want to see those pairings be successful these players need time to develop and that wont happen by getting smoked in the NHL.
Sensung
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2017
- 6,101
- 3,357
There is no "surefire" way to develop or ruin players. Different players need different paths and the path can be adjusted if the athlete is not responding to the route taken.
bert
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2002
- 37,576
- 23,899
Ok just screw the proven results and data then. Superstar generational players walk right into the NHL and succeed roughly .5% of players drafted at each draft. The other 99.5% dont hit their potential unless they are developed properly.
Last edited:
Sensung
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2017
- 6,101
- 3,357
Or consider previous results while adapting to each individual case.
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 68,565
- 54,965
Important decisions for sure. I was referring more to how they develop players. Owning an AHL team and giving them a place to play, a coach or two, practice time .. is a start. Chlapik is in a good position to get more games this year because he paid some dues last year and did quite well. They need to be slotted properly when they are brought up as well.. Not just to plug a hole. Boucher in y1, said its not a development league.. but imo in some cases its a matter of properly evaluating where a player is at, what their strengths and weaknesses are. Throw a playmaker on the 4th line , give him 7 minutes, and Boucher is right... not a development league.. but play him where his abilities can be uses, tested , and honed .. then it is.. We see it all over the league. ...but its an individual thing, not a formula. If you have a machine like the Wings were at one time , then you keep whoever in the minors until you can plug him in anywhere and the machine works .. that's a different case. Some players can read, react , be in the right spot, move the puck, and shoot, but need the extra time to be physically stronger so they can win their share of battles, and faceoffs, and create space.
Last year in Belleville,.. If you are not going to have focused skill development practices, vs team play... how will the guys that get drafted as top 6 or middle 6 players you are wanting skills from going to get better when 2/3 of the guys you play with can't see the ice, and can't execute a pass at speed. That may exaggerate slightly to make a point but . You want nice clean exits you need to have players to execute, you want plays in the offensive zone you need that as well.. Dump it in , chase it down, dig, support , throw it at the net hope for a rebound, crash the net .. that's ok I guess, but rince and repeat for many players, that's not much development other than what occurs naturally. For some players .. that would be a terrible place to develop.
I would like to see Brown and Batherson in Belleville. Tkachuk go back to London, and Chlapik will likely split time in Belleville. As a young player , like Tkachuk, I am sure he feels , that he can crack the Sens lineup.. Its gotta be one of the weakest lineups in the league.. so he thinks he can crack it. I wold prefer he goes back to London so he can focus on his offensive skills and come back next year with more tools in the toolbox.. I don't think he would need AHL time.
TkachukNorris79
Registered User
- Jan 27, 2018
- 1,509
- 1,375
I'm with sensung here for sure. It depends on the player. Brown was drafted 2 years ago and it ready for his first year pro. If that means some AHL time, that's fine. But he's more than likely with the big club permanently by the end of the year. This is his transition year.
As for Tkachuk, everyone knew that he was likely the most NHL ready draft prospect after Dahlin and Svechnikov and maybe Zadina. Some players are more ready to play than others. Give him his 9 games and figure it out from there. But I think he'll adapt faster than most think.
Sensung
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2017
- 6,101
- 3,357
For the record and based on the little information I have about BT, I'd like to see him go to London to work on his offensive game and add some strength for the robust game he likes to play before taking on men in the NHL/AHL. I'll be happy if he proves me wrong and shows himself capable of making the jump right away.
Well you said he lacked vision and IQ to be a meaningful scorer, and then you go on to say that you expect him to be a 20 goal 50 point guy, which in the current NHL is a top line player, and definitely a meaningful scorer.
If you mean that you don't expect him to be a top goal scorer in the league, perhaps you're right, but he's got a lot more IQ and vision than you're seemingly giving him credit for. He will be an effective offensive player as you put it, and is known to have a very high hockey IQ.
As I said we shall see, but I expect folks to be pleasantly surprised.
Yeah, problem is people are super impatient and want immediate results. Lots of people think first round picks will all turn out amazing, and that’s just not the case. Every player is different, but unless a guy looks ready to be in the league, he probably should be in junior, AHL, Europe, wherever.
Player development is a funny thing. Some folks here seem to think that if a player doesn't reach the potential ascribed them by scouts that they have been improperly developed, and if they do they have been properly developed.
The reality is that many of these players simply reach the potential that they actually have. A scout may see potential in a player that they just don't have the skill set to reach in the end, and no development strategy would have helped. Given that we cannot watch an individual player take more than one development path there is no solid evidence that can be use to show that an individual would have become a better player had they played an extra year here or there. This is a myth that's used to slam management decisions, and in our team's case is effective on a surface level because you have a player that doesn't reach the potential set by someone else (often scouts, ironically that many think they could do better than anyways) and a management staff that is a lightening rod for criticism already.
Ceci and Lazar are good examples of folks claiming that they were rushed, while at the same time these folks argue that they don't have the hockey IQ to be more effective NHL players anyways. Cowen as well was mentioned and while he never reached the potential ascribed him, he suffered from development stifling injuries that had nothing to do with his development deployment.
A year in junior, a year in the AHL, a year in the NHL, none of it guarantees the best development for a player on it's own, nor is the players potential that we read about an actual guaranteed level of play that the player COULD reach if developed properly. Sometimes we have to accept that players are what they are. The development plan for a player has to be crafted for the individual based on who they are and what their strengths are. Our team drafts and develops a lot of players that end up in the NHL, many from later rounds; that's good development. Sometimes our first and second rounders bust, but they only have a 50% chance of making the NHL anyways so we should be expecting half to bust based on skills that weren't good enough to make it regardless. Remember potential is a massive maybe, not a guaranteed attainable level like in a video game.
From looking at them play, I don't think our first round busts are guys that would have made it to the NHL had they played for another team, they just didn't have the skill sets to meet the potential heights projected for them.
Personally, what I like to see is the varied development plans that we seem to have for every individual player. Some play longer in lower leagues, some progress quickly because they are that good. BT is the highest pick we have chosen in a long time, and has a character, at the very least, that one needs to have to make the jump right away. We'll see what his development plan looks like, but given the way our top prospects have been brought along, whatever the path is, it will be crafted with the goal of maximizing BT's potential at the heart of it.
I'd love to see him crack the big team's roster, because if he does he'll have earned it. This is the first year in a long time that we will see a bunch of younger players on the team since we're rebuilding/retooling. It really will be a development team to some degree since we will undoubtably be focussing on building our team over squeezing out points from every game with grizzled vets at the helm. It should be really fun to watch.
The reality is that many of these players simply reach the potential that they actually have. A scout may see potential in a player that they just don't have the skill set to reach in the end, and no development strategy would have helped. Given that we cannot watch an individual player take more than one development path there is no solid evidence that can be use to show that an individual would have become a better player had they played an extra year here or there. This is a myth that's used to slam management decisions, and in our team's case is effective on a surface level because you have a player that doesn't reach the potential set by someone else (often scouts, ironically that many think they could do better than anyways) and a management staff that is a lightening rod for criticism already.
Ceci and Lazar are good examples of folks claiming that they were rushed, while at the same time these folks argue that they don't have the hockey IQ to be more effective NHL players anyways. Cowen as well was mentioned and while he never reached the potential ascribed him, he suffered from development stifling injuries that had nothing to do with his development deployment.
A year in junior, a year in the AHL, a year in the NHL, none of it guarantees the best development for a player on it's own, nor is the players potential that we read about an actual guaranteed level of play that the player COULD reach if developed properly. Sometimes we have to accept that players are what they are. The development plan for a player has to be crafted for the individual based on who they are and what their strengths are. Our team drafts and develops a lot of players that end up in the NHL, many from later rounds; that's good development. Sometimes our first and second rounders bust, but they only have a 50% chance of making the NHL anyways so we should be expecting half to bust based on skills that weren't good enough to make it regardless. Remember potential is a massive maybe, not a guaranteed attainable level like in a video game.
From looking at them play, I don't think our first round busts are guys that would have made it to the NHL had they played for another team, they just didn't have the skill sets to meet the potential heights projected for them.
Personally, what I like to see is the varied development plans that we seem to have for every individual player. Some play longer in lower leagues, some progress quickly because they are that good. BT is the highest pick we have chosen in a long time, and has a character, at the very least, that one needs to have to make the jump right away. We'll see what his development plan looks like, but given the way our top prospects have been brought along, whatever the path is, it will be crafted with the goal of maximizing BT's potential at the heart of it.
I'd love to see him crack the big team's roster, because if he does he'll have earned it. This is the first year in a long time that we will see a bunch of younger players on the team since we're rebuilding/retooling. It really will be a development team to some degree since we will undoubtably be focussing on building our team over squeezing out points from every game with grizzled vets at the helm. It should be really fun to watch.
BondraTime
Registered User
Of course battling and driving the net is important...that's a given
You're the one equating driving the net with scoring goals while using the most skilled players in the league. They are the best players in the league for a reason, Tkachuk can't be compared to ten for a gigantic amount of reasons. The biggest being he doesn't have their skill....
Of course they are the best goal scorers...they have the most skill in the league at goal scoring...which is a skill, a tiny amount of which can be attributed with their net presence.
Simmonds, Clarkson, Foligno, Backes. These are the guys who don't have the mass skill to score who make up for it with driving and battling.
Tkachuk is similar to some of these guys, and has their drive and battle. He should be a David Backes type of guy for us.
Sensinitis
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2012
- 16,010
- 5,625
Tkachuk is more skilled and has a higher IQ than all of those guys imo. Closest one to him being Simmonds.
BondraTime
Registered User
Which is pretty similar to what he will be, 50-60 point guy in most years with a physical presence and mean streak, which is basically what all those guys (outside of Clarkson) were.
Simmonds has never gotten more than 60 points before, I think Tkachuk may get over that hump at some point.
Last edited:
Sens Vader
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2016
- 7,502
- 5,335
If he can be a Simmonds I would be very happy
But like most powerforwards I will expect him to take longer to develope his offensive game
But like most powerforwards I will expect him to take longer to develope his offensive game
Simmonds is a great player. Big, strong, physical, skilled. If Tkachuk turns out like that, I’m very happy.
Agent Zuuuub
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2015
- 15,866
- 13,718
honestly Bobby is the last player I want mentoring young players.
Bobby is fragile and lazy.
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 68,565
- 54,965
Hitting the crossbar/post
https://morehockeystats.com/players/reversestats/miss/2017/abs/filter=zacha/active=0
Hoffman was not in the top 30 in the league for hitting the cb/post last year... Patrick Laine hit the cb/post an amazing 18 times. Clayton Keller (rookie) 12 times.
In 2016/17 Hoffman finished 7th in the league with 10... Karlsson finished 4th with 11 .. Turris also had 10
https://morehockeystats.com/players/reversestats/miss/2017/abs/filter=zacha/active=0
Hoffman was not in the top 30 in the league for hitting the cb/post last year... Patrick Laine hit the cb/post an amazing 18 times. Clayton Keller (rookie) 12 times.
In 2016/17 Hoffman finished 7th in the league with 10... Karlsson finished 4th with 11 .. Turris also had 10
Clayonator
Registered User
Dzingel Duchene White
Tkachuk Brown Stone
Boedker Pageau Ryan
Pajaarvi Smith Pyatt
Chabot Karlsson
Wolanin Ceci
Borowiecki Wideman
UnHappyDude
Fire Dorion
- Jan 11, 2011
- 2,128
- 175
Before last season I was just plain old Happydude
In some cases it's true, and in some cases it is not. Improper team development absolutely is a factor in some cases when a prospect doesn't turn out. It's not so black and white. There's a myriad of reasons why a prospect might not turn out as expected and team development is one of those reasons, as is a lack of hockey iq as you mentioned.
In the case of Ceci, Lazar, and Cowen - I absolutely believe that all three were improperly rushed to the NHL, do all three also lack hockey iq? Yes. Could their hockey iq have been further nurtured if developed more over time? That's the unknown answer. I think confidence can do a lot for a prospects development, it's clear that all 3 lacked confidence at the NHL level, something that could have possibly been avoided if brought up to the NHL with a more patient development strategy.
- Status
