Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign F Daniel Sprong to 1-Year Deal ($975K)

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

I was pretty sure I remembered seeing him score live in Ottawa... and yep indeed, I was in attendance for 50% of Burmistrov's goals (and 25% of his assists) as a Canuck that night. (Also the game with Vanek's breakaway clapper).

Kind of like how I got to witness 100% of Rory Fitzpatrick's and Mario Bližňák's Canucks goals at the Scotia/Canadian Tire Centre.


Very good call. Marco Sturm too.

And the second Peter Schaefer go-round.

Bryan Smolinski
Eric Weinrich

 

[Vector]

But I wasn't intending the Schenn comparison to be a strict analogue for Sprong (I'd have thought that was obvious), just a refutation of the claim that players of Sprong's age can't improve.

Kiefer Sherwood & Dakota Joshua. Daniel Cleary was 27 when he vastly improved after bouncing around and finding the right fit. There’s loads of examples of players improving in their late 20s.

That doesn’t mean Sprong will and there’s far more examples of players not getting it but it’s not impossible.

 

[arttk]

There's also always the possibility of just keeping 14F - 7D. Everyone just writes that off as though it's impossible. But Friedman ain't squat. He played less games than either of PDG/Aman and barely more than Podkolzin even. We don't need two spare RHD anyway. And it'd allow them to just send PDG down and keep everyone else, including Podkolzin and Aman as the spare Center on the roster.

Frankly, it's really been more traditional for the most part to carry 2 spare forwards and 1 spare D, due to the fact you have twice as many Forward spots as Defence. We've got a ton of guys in Abbyford who can come up and play some games at D this year, including Friedman if he's sent down. That's the way i'd lean.


Though there's certainly some merit to the idea of a Hoglander trade...which could kick loose a roster spot up front and a potential upgrade on defence where it's badly needed. Just not sure where that deal is, especially with the cap so tight now.

Yeah we could run with 14F, I guess the biggest one with that is we’ll be sitting Pod and he’s probably gonna be messed up mentally by that sadly. The way I think about it is that if we can get POD back on track, even as a 40pt guy, he will be more valuable than Hog and he’s probably a riskier investment but a more fruitful investment compared to Hog.

I just think that Hog’s perceived value is buoyed by his shooting % and he won’t be able to make it up offensively when the % drop back down since he’s not a volume shooter nor is he a good playmaker and his defense is meh at best.
The Sprong and other signings we have made has really convinced me that players like Hog even if he hits his ceiling aren’t really worth too much in UFA and if we can use him now as a package to improve the team somewhere else, we should and we can get an equivalent player back in UFA for like around 1M.

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think it takes a radical 180 to realize marginal improvement, and I don't think Schenn's improvement is what you described (and if the "radical 180" is simply a change in attitude that brings more attention to the defensive side of the game, surely there's plenty of precedent for that).

But I wasn't intending the Schenn comparison to be a strict analogue for Sprong (I'd have thought that was obvious), just a refutation of the claim that players of Sprong's age can't improve.

Well Toc sold Sprong to come here and it’s safe to assume that Toc didn’t tell him, well you can come here and play no defense and you’ll still make the team. I presume that Toc must have let Sprong know what type of role he can have here and I am guessing playing D or making an effort to play D is clearly communicated.
Him accepting that to come here at least shows that he has interest to take on those responsibilities. Can he do that is another thing that we’ll find out soon enough.

 

[biturbo19]

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think it takes a radical 180 to realize marginal improvement, and I don't think Schenn's improvement is what you described (and if the "radical 180" is simply a change in attitude that brings more attention to the defensive side of the game, surely there's plenty of precedent for that).

But I wasn't intending the Schenn comparison to be a strict analogue for Sprong (I'd have thought that was obvious), just a refutation of the claim that players of Sprong's age can't improve.

I'm not saying players can't improve at that age. That's not true at all. It's just that, fundamentally...the problem with Sprong's game isn't one that can be marginally, "incrementally" improved.

He either pulls a complete 180 in his entire mentality and approach to the game...or he's a mess defensively. There's really not much in between there. His biggest problem is, he simply doesn't engage with the game defensively. It's not a priority in any aspect of the way he plays. There's not really much room for, "he'll engage with a responsible 2-way outlook for 5% more shifts and that will make him a better defensive player" or whatever. Either he buys in and substantially changes the way he plays and his priorities on the ice...or he doesn't. If he does buy in, he's still not a very good defensive player...but that's where the marginal, incremental improvements could be made. But without the buy-in...it means nothing.



Schenn's growth as a player absolutely wasn't a radical 180 shift. Which is literally exactly the point i was making. He didn't reinvent himself, because that is extremely rare. He didn't become a fundamentally different player. He didn't have to. He was always a defensive-minded defenceman. He simply got marginally, incrementally better at it with experience. Which is...entirely normal. Typical even.

Sprong, in order to be a decent, reliable defensive player...would have to pull that total 180. That's my point. To liken it to the Schenn example...it'd be like if Schenn had gone off to the woodshed to refine his game, and came back a completely reinvented "Offensive Powerplay Specialist". That doesn't happen.


And it's not even just an age thing. It's an experience thing. This guy has over a few hundred NHL games under his belt under a wide range of situations and coaches. And he's been the same guy pretty much right through. Little ups and downs in his commitment level to playing a two-way game...but it always ends up back in the same place.

Well Toc sold Sprong to come here and it’s safe to assume that Toc didn’t tell him, well you can come here and play no defense and you’ll still make the team. I presume that Toc must have let Sprong know what type of role he can have here and I am guessing playing D or making an effort to play D is clearly communicated.
Him accepting that to come here at least shows that he has interest to take on those responsibilities. Can he do that is another thing that we’ll find out soon enough.

Yeah. It's not impossible that something finally rattles loose and his commitment to playing a genuinely responsible two-way game actually lasts the whole year this time. It's just...extremely unlikely, given his age, experience, and how long he's been playing the game the way that he has.

Yeah we could run with 14F, I guess the biggest one with that is we’ll be sitting Pod and he’s probably gonna be messed up mentally by that sadly. The way I think about it is that if we can get POD back on track, even as a 40pt guy, he will be more valuable than Hog and he’s probably a riskier investment but a more fruitful investment compared to Hog.

I just think that Hog’s perceived value is buoyed by his shooting % and he won’t be able to make it up offensively when the % drop back down since he’s not a volume shooter nor is he a good playmaker and his defense is meh at best.
The Sprong and other signings we have made has really convinced me that players like Hog even if he hits his ceiling aren’t really worth too much in UFA and if we can use him now as a package to improve the team somewhere else, we should and we can get an equivalent player back in UFA for like around 1M.

I'd definitely be inclined to agree. It's really all just down to Podkolzin though. The ability to be that guy is certainly there, but his mental state just seems so far from where it needed to be. No clue if he'll ever be able to get back to there, or if it'll ultimately be years down the road playing for somebody else.

I hope he comes into camp fired up and playing with some restored confidence. It's where i'd even be looking to prop him up a bit and throw him some big opportunities with good skilled players in preseason just to see if you can sort of...bump start him that way.

Because like you've described here...if he can produce comparably to a guy like Hoglander...his "upside" in doing that as an all around player and his broader impact, is substantially higher, because of all the other elements he can bring to the table.

But it'd be a big gamble...

 

[jd22]

Also, the Dutch love their soccer but for a strong soccer nation they are all collectively horse crap on the defensive side. Like you said, defence is somebody else's problem. Then wonder why they lose. Then go to the QJHML, and you get more of the same lack of defensive responsibility. No wonder he's a n'mare defensively.

Interesting point. It would track. It's a society of people that are unable to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[im gangster]

Bryan Smolinski
Eric Weinrich

Add Mika Noronen and ya got triple wasted 2nd round picks. I think.

 

[F A N]

I'd actually say the exact opposite. If Pettersson is going to get stuck with quick-strike Hoggy...he absolutely NEEDS a puck possession beast opposite him. Not another "one touch" sniper. Hoglander isn't a "sniper" per se. But he's also a poor puckhandler/puck possessor and an even worse puck distributor. That's the problem i see with him and Pettersson, and where it detaches Pettersson from the play.

When Hoglander is at his best...the puck is barely on his stick at all. It's forechecking, kicking pucks loose, jumping on pucks, capitalizing on broken plays, cashing in rebounds and turnovers, chaos around the net. The more the puck is on Hoggy's stick, the worse he's usually playing.

I think Hoglander is a puck possession beast. But like I said, I think he does need to get rid of the puck more quickly so I agree with you there. He holds onto the puck too long and ends up not doing much with it. I keep saying that he should learn from Garland.

I'm not saying players can't improve at that age. That's not true at all. It's just that, fundamentally...the problem with Sprong's game isn't one that can be marginally, "incrementally" improved.

He either pulls a complete 180 in his entire mentality and approach to the game...or he's a mess defensively. There's really not much in between there. His biggest problem is, he simply doesn't engage with the game defensively. It's not a priority in any aspect of the way he plays. There's not really much room for, "he'll engage with a responsible 2-way outlook for 5% more shifts and that will make him a better defensive player" or whatever. Either he buys in and substantially changes the way he plays and his priorities on the ice...or he doesn't. If he does buy in, he's still not a very good defensive player...but that's where the marginal, incremental improvements could be made. But without the buy-in...it means nothing.

You hit the nail. What I would say is that on the one hand, defensive effort and engagement IS something that can be improved all of sudden when that's been Sprong's problem. Do I expect Tocchet to be frustrated with him? I do. We also don't really know if Sprong is poor defensively if he actually tries to be engaged defensively and how that would impact his offensive game.

There's a comment earlier by another poster about how Tocchet had helped recruit Sprong. That means very little in this context. Tocchet's always going to say that X player knows what his expectations are. That phone call could simply be Tocchet talking about a possible top 6 role, a bit about his system and expectations etc. No player is going to think that they play zero defence.

 

[biturbo19]

I think Hoglander is a puck possession beast. But like I said, I think he does need to get rid of the puck more quickly so I agree with you there. He holds onto the puck too long and ends up not doing much with it. I keep saying that he should learn from Garland.

I just think the fact that the longer he holds the puck, the less likely something good is going to happen...is descriptive of a poor puckhandler/puck possessor.

His actual raw puck skills are fine. He's got some slick little moves in a phonebooth and really soft hands in and around the net area and traffic. But over any sort of larger area...it's when he holds onto the puck for an extended period, that the tends to get himself into trouble. Or at best, tends to just sort of stickhandle himself into a lack of options where the play dies. Or where he too often tries to force a pass that just isn't there.

He just lacks that spatial sense and vision to use his puck carrying to improve his options the way someone like Petey does with aplomb. He works far better off of surprise, suddenness, decisiveness in that. He makes great instant decisions and has the puck skills to be lethal in doing that. It's one little dipsy doodle and rip the puck in. On little swerve and make the easy little pass or area dump for a forechecking linemate. That's when he's at his best.

When he starts to struggle is when he's given too long to possess the puck in space and think about what he wants to do. Starts getting delusions of grandeur trying to pull off things that just aren't there, and that he doesn't have the speed or deft passing touch to pull off.


I just wouldn't characterize that sort of player as a "puck possession beast". In terms of actually...possessing the puck. Maybe in analytics terms, Shots For/Against, but that's not what i'm talking about at all here, in his incompatibility with Pettersson.

 

[F A N]

I just think the fact that the longer he holds the puck, the less likely something good is going to happen...is descriptive of a poor puckhandler/puck possessor.

I would have to disagree. Hoglander doesn't just get the puck and promptly loses it. He is able to maintain possession. He does create offensive opportunities it's just that he's not a good distributor like you said and he hangs onto the puck too long. Garland received some criticism by fans here too for his spins but overall he drives possession and I think Hoglander does to. The stats support this.

His actual raw puck skills are fine. He's got some slick little moves in a phonebooth and really soft hands in and around the net area and traffic. But over any sort of larger area...it's when he holds onto the puck for an extended period, that the tends to get himself into trouble. Or at best, tends to just sort of stickhandle himself into a lack of options where the play dies. Or where he too often tries to force a pass that just isn't there.

He just lacks that spatial sense and vision to use his puck carrying to improve his options the way someone like Petey does with aplomb. He works far better off of surprise, suddenness, decisiveness in that. He makes great instant decisions and has the puck skills to be lethal in doing that. It's one little dipsy doodle and rip the puck in. On little swerve and make the easy little pass or area dump for a forechecking linemate. That's when he's at his best.

When he starts to struggle is when he's given too long to possess the puck in space and think about what he wants to do. Starts getting delusions of grandeur trying to pull off things that just aren't there, and that he doesn't have the speed or deft passing touch to pull off.

I agree.

I just wouldn't characterize that sort of player as a "puck possession beast". In terms of actually...possessing the puck. Maybe in analytics terms, Shots For/Against, but that's not what i'm talking about at all here, in his incompatibility with Pettersson.

That's fair, but you know the way you're using the term isn't how the term is commonly used. And I would certainly that puck possession stats isn't some magical stat like on base percentage is depicted in the Moneyball movie.

 

[biturbo19]

I would have to disagree. Hoglander doesn't just get the puck and promptly loses it. He is able to maintain possession. He does create offensive opportunities it's just that he's not a good distributor like you said and he hangs onto the puck too long. Garland received some criticism by fans here too for his spins but overall he drives possession and I think Hoglander does to. The stats support this.



I agree.



That's fair, but you know the way you're using the term isn't how the term is commonly used. And I would certainly that puck possession stats isn't some magical stat like on base percentage is depicted in the Moneyball movie.

I don't think we really disagree on this.

You're just inserting "puck possession" where i originally said "puckhandler/puck possessor". Which is very much a different thing. As i'm aware that the term "puck possession" has come to mean nearly sweet diddly about a player actually possessing the puck individually, or even as a line.


But when describing individual players, talking about how effective they are as an individual puckhandler/puck possessor/puck carrier/puck protector/puck distributor is still very meaningful...rather than just talking about how they drive "puck possession stats" in the abstract while on the ice. Which is indeed far from magic. It's just +/- for shot attempts. But that makes it ~fancy~.


And in that respect, it seems you'd largely agree. Hoglander isn't very good at being a guy who actually possesses the puck. He's best when he doesn't, and gets rid of it quickly. Which is the crux of why i don't think he works with Pettersson.

Just putting a bunch of "positive puck possession stats" forwards together doesn't really mean squat if they don't gel. Because of things like the fact that one of them wants to actually physically possess the puck as a line and methodically work it into high danger chances. While the other wants to drive "puck possession" by mostly not actually having the puck, but rather...quickly and repeatedly getting it on net.

 

[arttk]

Also, the Dutch love their soccer but for a strong soccer nation they are all collectively horse crap on the defensive side. Like you said, defence is somebody else's problem. Then wonder why they lose. Then go to the QJHML, and you get more of the same lack of defensive responsibility. No wonder he's a n'mare defensively.

Wut? The Dutch team always had great defenders and DMs. f*** they invented total football.

 

[Lindgren]

He either pulls a complete 180 in his entire mentality and approach to the game...or he's a mess defensively. There's really not much in between there. His biggest problem is, he simply doesn't engage with the game defensively. It's not a priority in any aspect of the way he plays. There's not really much room for, "he'll engage with a responsible 2-way outlook for 5% more shifts and that will make him a better defensive player" or whatever. Either he buys in and substantially changes the way he plays and his priorities on the ice...or he doesn't. If he does buy in, he's still not a very good defensive player...but that's where the marginal, incremental improvements could be made. But without the buy-in...it means nothing.



Schenn's growth as a player absolutely wasn't a radical 180 shift. Which is literally exactly the point i was making. He didn't reinvent himself, because that is extremely rare. He didn't become a fundamentally different player. He didn't have to. He was always a defensive-minded defenceman. He simply got marginally, incrementally better at it with experience. Which is...entirely normal. Typical even.

Sprong, in order to be a decent, reliable defensive player...would have to pull that total 180. That's my point. To liken it to the Schenn example...it'd be like if Schenn had gone off to the woodshed to refine his game, and came back a completely reinvented "Offensive Powerplay Specialist". That doesn't happen.


And it's not even just an age thing. It's an experience thing. This guy has over a few hundred NHL games under his belt under a wide range of situations and coaches. And he's been the same guy pretty much right through. Little ups and downs in his commitment level to playing a two-way game...but it always ends up back in the same place.




Yeah. It's not impossible that something finally rattles loose and his commitment to playing a genuinely responsible two-way game actually lasts the whole year this time. It's just...extremely unlikely, given his age, experience, and how long he's been playing the game the way that he has.

Most of this makes little sense to me and seems obviously counter-intuitive. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree and wait for the season to see what transpires.

 

[Nick Lang]

Wut? The Dutch team always had great defenders and DMs. f*** they invented total football.

Yeah, seemed like a pretty big misnomer to me, total football like as in everyone plays offence and pushes forward trying to dazzle and outscore the opponent while no one is left to play defence. I played for a Dutch club as a youth growing up so I was a huge fan but I used to just shake my head during World Cup and Euros. They had a couple decent guys like Jap Stam and DeBoer, but then there was always a guy like Giovanni Bronkhorst as well who was basically a forward playing fullback. It wasn't always one specific player but their collective and flashy hive mind.

Then look at all all their best players, Gullitt, Bergkamp, Kluivert, Davids, Van Persie, Nistleroy, Seedorf, Rijkaard, Van Basten, Cryuff. It's hard to blame them with talent like this but their whole focus was on playing beautiful football and scoring goals, often to the detriment in the back. Just look at this Euros, what an awful performance. They were truly lucky to make it as far as they did. I can't count how many times they scored a big goal to claw back only to give away a goal or huge chances within a minute or two. Watch the Austria game to see just how brutal they were.

 

[Nick Lang]

i just don't see how they can send aman down without adding another center first and i will never, ever bet against pdg being on a tocchet roster

Yeah, no way they are going into the season with only 4 centers on the roster, one of them being Suter who often ends up on the wing, and is probably better than a fourth line player.

I don't think there's much real danger of Aman being claimed. Especially with two years of more or less NHL salary due either way. But teams don't tend to claim guys like that out of camp. Zero offense #5Center types...usually lost in the shuffle of a crowded waiver wire.


The issue though, is that without Aman on the roster, the Canucks only have 4 NHL Centers. Hard to imagine that working. Gives you zero flexibility or ability to sustain 4 coherent lines through any sort of minor injury that doesn't warrant an IR stint to create a roster spot and call a guy up.

Yes, exactly regarding Aman. Where did you get the, "unless PDG can play center part you alluded to in another post"? He's a fringe winger ... they don't usually go from AHL tweener winger to starting at Center.

There's also always the possibility of just keeping 14F - 7D. Everyone just writes that off as though it's impossible. But Friedman ain't squat. He played less games than either of PDG/Aman and barely more than Podkolzin even. We don't need two spare RHD anyway. And it'd allow them to just send PDG down and keep everyone else, including Podkolzin and Aman as the spare Center on the roster.

Frankly, it's really been more traditional for the most part to carry 2 spare forwards and 1 spare D, due to the fact you have twice as many Forward spots as Defence. We've got a ton of guys in Abbyford who can come up and play some games at D this year, including Friedman if he's sent down. That's the way i'd lean.


Though there's certainly some merit to the idea of a Hoglander trade...which could kick loose a roster spot up front and a potential upgrade on defence where it's badly needed. Just not sure where that deal is, especially with the cap so tight now.

I really like this post as yes most teams do carry 14 forwards and 7 D. I don't think Friedman gets claimed but not a big deal if he does either. The only thing is I seem to recall him covering on the left side more than Juulsen last year. I've got PDG and Podkolzin as the weakest links right now. I mean hopefully we aren't going to waste a spot just to keep Podkolzin protected, if he doesn't show up ready.

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think it takes a radical 180 to realize marginal improvement, and I don't think Schenn's improvement is what you described (and if the "radical 180" is simply a change in attitude that brings more attention to the defensive side of the game, surely there's plenty of precedent for that).

But I wasn't intending the Schenn comparison to be a strict analogue for Sprong (I'd have thought that was obvious), just a refutation of the claim that players of Sprong's age can't improve.

Yes, I have to agree with you on this one. Schenn was almost out of the league at one point and re-invented his approach out there. He was one player who remarkably got better late in the game. As such, I think the comparison is apt on a possible results type basis.

With Sprong, if he adapts to the staples and stops flying the zone I think it's possible as you say to go from horrendous to passably averagish.

 

[Bgav]

either is good for me. anything over $100 and i'll insist we both escrow the money tho

are you just not reading any of the things tocchet and co are saying about sprong??

 

[F A N]

I don't think we really disagree on this.

You're just inserting "puck possession" where i originally said "puckhandler/puck possessor". Which is very much a different thing. As i'm aware that the term "puck possession" has come to mean nearly sweet diddly about a player actually possessing the puck individually, or even as a line.


But when describing individual players, talking about how effective they are as an individual puckhandler/puck possessor/puck carrier/puck protector/puck distributor is still very meaningful...rather than just talking about how they drive "puck possession stats" in the abstract while on the ice. Which is indeed far from magic. It's just +/- for shot attempts. But that makes it ~fancy~.

And in that respect, it seems you'd largely agree. Hoglander isn't very good at being a guy who actually possesses the puck. He's best when he doesn't, and gets rid of it quickly. Which is the crux of why i don't think he works with Pettersson.

Just putting a bunch of "positive puck possession stats" forwards together doesn't really mean squat if they don't gel. Because of things like the fact that one of them wants to actually physically possess the puck as a line and methodically work it into high danger chances. While the other wants to drive "puck possession" by mostly not actually having the puck, but rather...quickly and repeatedly getting it on net.

I think we agree on a lot of things except for your assessment of Hoglander's "puck handling" etc. ability. I think Hoglander is a very good puck handler and is good at winning puck battles. Of course everything is relative, but the end result is that he's pretty good at coming up with the puck. That's kind of what I am focused on since we can get into the weeds if we ignore the final results. For example, there are certainly players who belong in the "soft, highly skilled" camp who are individually a good puckhandler and technically might be good at protecting the puck but loses the majority of puck battles and the other team comes away with the puck.

I don't see any issues with Hoglander's ability to transport the puck up the ice either. He of course doesn't possess elite level speed or skill. He's not McDavid. But watching Hoglander I don't really come away thinking that he shouldn't be transporting the puck up ice.

 

[bossram]

either is good for me. anything over $100 and i'll insist we both escrow the money tho

Fair enough! $100 is easy then! Honour system.

 

[arttk]

Yeah, seemed like a pretty big misnomer to me, total football like as in everyone plays offence and pushes forward trying to dazzle and outscore the opponent while no one is left to play defence. I played for a Dutch club as a youth growing up so I was a huge fan but I used to just shake my head during World Cup and Euros. They had a couple decent guys like Jap Stam and DeBoer, but then there was always a guy like Giovanni Bronkhorst as well who was basically a forward playing fullback. It wasn't always one specific player but their collective and flashy hive mind.

Then look at all all their best players, Gullitt, Bergkamp, Kluivert, Davids, Van Persie, Nistleroy, Seedorf, Rijkaard, Van Basten, Cryuff. It's hard to blame them with talent like this but their whole focus was on playing beautiful football and scoring goals, often to the detriment in the back. Just look at this Euros, what an awful performance. They were truly lucky to make it as far as they did. I can't count how many times they scored a big goal to claw back only to give away a goal or huge chances within a minute or two. Watch the Austria game to see just how brutal they were.

It's weird to say that they don't play defense when they produced great defenders like Stam, Rijkaard, Koeman, De Boer and even now with a decline in overall talent, still produced guys like Van Dijk and De ligt. They have no issues developing defenders and the issues with the Dutch team is they don't have any good mids, wings and forwards since Van Persie and Robben retired.

 

[credulous]

Fair enough! $100 is easy then! Honour system.

just so we're clear

* sprong is on the roster and either aman or pdg is on the ahl roster -> you win
* aman and pdg are on the roster and sprong isn't -> i win
* all three are on the roster -> no bet
* none of them are on the roster -> no bet

roster here means nhl roster plus ir/ltir

are you just not reading any of the things tocchet and co are saying about sprong??

i'm reading it. i've just read all kinds of stuff from management/coaching over the years and i know it's mostly just air

 

[sting101]

I don't think we really disagree on this.

You're just inserting "puck possession" where i originally said "puckhandler/puck possessor". Which is very much a different thing. As i'm aware that the term "puck possession" has come to mean nearly sweet diddly about a player actually possessing the puck individually, or even as a line.


But when describing individual players, talking about how effective they are as an individual puckhandler/puck possessor/puck carrier/puck protector/puck distributor is still very meaningful...rather than just talking about how they drive "puck possession stats" in the abstract while on the ice. Which is indeed far from magic. It's just +/- for shot attempts. But that makes it ~fancy~.


And in that respect, it seems you'd largely agree. Hoglander isn't very good at being a guy who actually possesses the puck. He's best when he doesn't, and gets rid of it quickly. Which is the crux of why i don't think he works with Pettersson.

Just putting a bunch of "positive puck possession stats" forwards together doesn't really mean squat if they don't gel. Because of things like the fact that one of them wants to actually physically possess the puck as a line and methodically work it into high danger chances. While the other wants to drive "puck possession" by mostly not actually having the puck, but rather...quickly and repeatedly getting it on net.

I dont get your argument about Hoglander? maybe i missed it but what are you advocating for?

Who is better suited to play with EP40 then and was last year if they don't form the lotto line??

Obviously Debrusk was brought in to get him a legit top6 player and should help with net drive and possession because he's strong on the puck but the walls of text read to me more of we could sure use another high end possession scorer for Pettersson to play with. Where are we getting this cap from?

Hoglander and Pettersson have a 57% shot share at 5v5 and a 2-1 GF%. Hoglander in all his flaws basically just became a full time NHLer last year and is designed to be a 3rd wheel for many of the reasons you outlined. Are they a dynamic duo like Miller Boeser that should be attached at the hip...of course not. But this notion that his quick strike disjointed game is not able to produce positive results especially now that Mikhayev is gone and Debrusk is here is odd to me.

 

[Nick Lang]

It's weird to say that they don't play defense when they produced great defenders like Stam, Rijkaard, Koeman, De Boer and even now with a decline in overall talent, still produced guys like Van Dijk and De ligt. They have no issues developing defenders and the issues with the Dutch team is they don't have any good mids, wings and forwards since Van Persie and Robben retired.

I suppose, just my observation through the years and especially lately imo. They remind me of the 80's Oilers. You're best defence is a good offence type thing. And like I said I agree the players are very good individually it's just their total football mentality is really total offence from everybody ... again just in my opinion watching since the 80's. Like I would say Germany, Argentina, and Italy build their teams on defence out, whereas the Dutch are all about free flowing attacking football. Absolutely fantastic players though, no doubt about that.

 

[arttk]

I suppose, just my observation through the years and especially lately imo. They remind me of the 80's Oilers. You're best defence is a good offence type thing. And like I said I agree the players are very good individually it's just their total football mentality is really total offence from everybody ... again just in my opinion watching since the 80's. Like I would say Germany, Argentina, and Italy build their teams on defence out, whereas the Dutch are all about free flowing attacking football. Absolutely fantastic players though, no doubt about that.

i think Dutch football in general is just pretty bleh and the only bright spots are really the defenders. I look at their euro roster and it's like ugh wtf is this shit.
Argentina is definitely not built upon D, their team in the last like 16 year is to cobble a bunch of guys around Messi lol and prior to Messi and post Maradona, it was building around Aimar and Requilme and have like butchers around them that will hack people down.

back to regular programming..

This is what Toc has to say about Sprong in the latest AThletics article

Yeah, I think there’s this narrative out there that he’s not going to be a Tocchet-type of guy, but we had two really good conversations before he decided to sign with us. And I think he had two or three other teams on the go.

We had a very frank conversation. I asked him some pointed questions, about why he hasn’t stuck with a certain team, why he’s often sitting on the bench with five minutes left in a game. And I liked his answers. I thought he was accountable, he knows he has to be better without the puck …

And I think he liked what I said, because he signed with us four hours later. I told him, “I’ve got to work my ass off to make you the player you want to become,” and I asked him, is there a scenario where you stay here? Where you establish for several years in Vancouver instead of bouncing around?

He’s a 27-year-old player, so he’s still young and he’s a very intriguing guy. He could be a secret weapon for us.

I don't think this implies that Sprong will become good defensively but I think the point is that he joined us knowing what is required from him and one would assume that he is willing to at least give that a go if he is seeing this opportunity as a platform year.

 

[Nick Lang]

i think Dutch football in general is just pretty bleh and the only bright spots are really the defenders. I look at their euro roster and it's like ugh wtf is this shit.
Argentina is definitely not built upon D, their team in the last like 16 year is to cobble a bunch of guys around Messi lol and prior to Messi and post Maradona, it was building around Aimar and Requilme and have like butchers around them that will hack people down.

back to regular programming..

This is what Toc has to say about Sprong in the latest AThletics article

Agree the Dutch are blah right now. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. I am admittedly old and a lot of my memory and rhetoric is based on the older teams. Even with Messi and Requilme I always saw a huge commitment to defence first from that nation.

Yes, back to the topic at hand. Great quotes and material from Tocchet. Thank you very much! You really have to appreciate the directness of RT. It's pretty obvious what the plan is and it looks like Sprong is on board. Will it stick ... hopefully.

 

[sting101]

Yes while i see where Crudulous is going with this i just dont see the probability that any of the major issues flush out through pre season hockey and within the first month or so

Really the problems have arose as the season gets tighter more defensive and the wins losses are more magnified where he ends up playing himself down

Is it just me or did we turn Kuzmenko's salary into 975k

 

[arttk]

Yes while i see where Crudulous is going with this i just dont see the probability that any of the major issues flush out through pre season hockey and within the first month or so

Really the problems have arose as the season gets tighter more defensive and the wins losses are more magnified where he ends up playing himself down

Is it just me or did we turn Kuzmenko's salary into 975k

i think the best you would expect from Sprong is .. he will be at least in the right position and instead of being god awful defensively he will be below average defensively.