Devils 2017-18 team discussion (player news and notes) - Offseason part IX

[Bleedred]

severson is good by most measures. i've said this before but the treatment of Severson compared to Santini by Devils fans is crazy considering there is only a seven month age difference between the two. I know the difference is a bit significant when considering d-men but Severson is the best young dman the Devils have including both prospects and NHL players, and will be and probably already is the Devils best defenseman. I hope they give him a Klefbom like contract

Severson has this (false) reputation around here by what seems to be a small but vocal crowd, who claim he's bad at defense.

He looks bad at defense and makes more mistakes because he has the puck more often. More than any of our other defensemen, thus more times to make mistakes and ''Give the puck away''. I constantly use this comparison over and over again, but too many people overlook it and all they see are the name's Burns and Karlsson and say ''WUT?!?? SEVERSON ISN'T AS GOOD AS BURNS! STOP THAT COMPARISON NOW!'' and completely miss my point.

Burns and Karlsson make a lot of mistakes and look bad at defense because of it, as do many point producing defensemen. Just like Shattenkirk and the (false) claims that he's a ''Liability in his own zone''. Burns and Karlsson are better than Severson, they also make more mistakes and appear to be ''Worse at defense'' because of it. This is also why Adam Larsson has become such a darling over on the main board and people are already claiming he's better than Klefbom. Klefbom is another defenseman that has this ''Struggles defensively'' reputation because he's a good puck possession player, while Larsson really is not and doesn't have as many chances to make these ''Boneheaded'' mistakes.

 

[devilsblood]

While I don't think he's a gamebreaker or the difference in making the playoffs and not making the playoffs, the team definitely needs more players like him, if not for the fact that this lame (lack of) system seems to be completely useless and almost like the antithesis of possession hockey. Hopefully we score a hell of a lot more and Cory looks like Cory again, but the lack of shots and scoring chances we see with this crap system in the last 2 years, I'm skeptical we'll score a lot more, barring 13-14 Avalanche-like fluke percentages.

have to hope the influx/maturation of talent leads to an uptick of goals.

 

[Bleedred]

have to hope the influx/maturation of talent leads to an uptick of goals.

We usually don't have the puck enough to score a lot. Better talent will help that a little bit, but I'm convinced that the Penguins playing this type of system would have been torpedoed from the playoffs pretty early the past couple years. They would have still made them, but can you imagine the 2016 Penguins, who dominated other good teams like TBL and the Sharks, playing those teams with the system we play? They probably won this last cup on talent more than anything, but they won the 2016 cup by playing one of the most impressive team systems I've seen in quite a while.

 

[devilsblood]

Severson has this (false) reputation around here by what seems to be a small but vocal crowd, who claim he's bad at defense.

He looks bad at defense and makes more mistakes because he has the puck more often. More than any of our other defensemen, thus more times to make mistakes and ''Give the puck away''. I constantly use this comparison over and over again, but too many people overlook it and all they see are the name's Burns and Karlsson and say ''WUT?!?? SEVERSON ISN'T AS GOOD AS BURNS! STOP THAT COMPARISON NOW!'' and completely miss my point.

Burns and Karlsson make a lot of mistakes and look bad at defense because of it, as do many point producing defensemen. Just like Shattenkirk and the (false) claims that he's a ''Liability in his own zone''. Burns and Karlsson are better than Severson, they also make more mistakes and appear to be ''Worse at defense'' because of it. This is also why Adam Larsson has become such a darling over on the main board and people are already claiming he's better than Klefbom. Klefbom is another defenseman that has this ''Struggles defensively'' reputation because he's a good puck possession player, while Larsson really is not and doesn't have as many chances to make these ''Boneheaded'' mistakes.

Sev's def needs to clean up the boneheaded plays, but as you say he is very young, so I don't worry much. But still, he needs to clean up his decision making.

And he also needs to improve in terms of play in his own end, get more physical, but again, as a young player I expect these improvements.

 

[Bleedred]

Sev's def needs to clean up the boneheaded plays, but as you say he is very young, so I don't worry much. But still, he needs to clean up his decision making.

And he also needs to improve in terms of play in his own end, get more physical, but again, as a young player I expect these improvements.

Meh

Physicality is overrated. I think our fanbase seems to be into it even more than many others, due to the HOF defenseman that was the captain of the team for 3 Stanley Cups.

One of the very few guys in the history of the game that was a game changer because of his physicality.

 

[Devils731]

Severson has this (false) reputation around here by what seems to be a small but vocal crowd, who claim he's bad at defense.

I think he also gets some flack because he seemed to be the defenseman Hynes was most comfortable calling out for not playing well enough.

I hope it was tough love being used to motivate Severson but my worry is that Hynes doesn't get what Severson adds.

 

[kdb527]

Don't have the room really. Blender and Noesen might be the extras.

Noesen will be the 3RW this year. Shero knows what he has in Noesen... he never got a chance with the Ducks.. He replaces Bennett because he adds an element that the devils didn't have. big, strong cycle game, net front presence, good hands and can score dirty goals.

 

[devilsblood]

We usually don't have the puck enough to score a lot. Better talent will help that a little bit, but I'm convinced that the Penguins playing this type of system would have been torpedoed from the playoffs pretty early the past couple years. They would have still made them, but can you imagine the 2016 Penguins, who dominated other good teams like TBL and the Sharks, playing those teams with the system we play? They probably won this last cup on talent more than anything, but they won the 2016 cup by playing one of the most impressive team systems I've seen in quite a while.

I'm not ready to lay it all on Hynes yet. There are signs pointing that way, but there are plenty of other signs pointing towards lack of talent.

I'm not really sure what the system even entails just yet, but I would like to see how it pans out with some legit speed.

I personally don't give him much of a leash though.

 

[Devils731]

Noesen will be the 3RW this year. Shero knows what he has in Noesen... he never got a chance with the Ducks.. He replaces Bennett because he adds an element that the devils didn't have. big, strong cycle game, net front presence, good hands and can score dirty goals.

That's what we were hoping Smith-Pelley would bring. We don't know what we have with Noeson just yet, imo.

 

[MadDevil]

I think he also gets some flack because he seemed to be the defenseman Hynes was most comfortable calling out for not playing well enough.

I hope it was tough love being used to motivate Severson but my worry is that Hynes doesn't get what Severson adds.

Based on Severson's ice time this last year, that doesn't seem to be the case. If Hynes didn't get what he adds I doubt he'd play the minutes he does.

On the physicality argument, I don't think he necessarily needs to hit people, but he could afford to add some strength and be harder on the puck. There are times he looks like he could get blown over by a stiff breeze.

 

[devilsblood]

Meh

Physicality is overrated. I think our fanbase seems to be into it even more than many others, due to the HOF defenseman that was the captain of the team for 3 Stanley Cups.

One of the very few guys in the history of the game that was a game changer because of his physicality.

I'll grant that the game is evolving more and more towards skating but to say there were very few physical game changers? That's pretty much a falsehood.

Even in todays game physicality should not be dismissed. It just needs to be part of the package, and not the the sole distinguishing characteristic.

Certainly if we watched much playoff hockey from this past season(or any season) we wouldn't brush aside the importance of physicality.

 

[devilsblood]

Based on Severson's ice time this last year, that doesn't seem to be the case. If Hynes didn't get what he adds I doubt he'd play the minutes he does.

On the physicality argument, I don't think he necessarily needs to hit people, but he could afford to add some strength and be harder on the puck. There are times he looks like he could get blown over by a stiff breeze.

I agree, but he did get the last game of the season scratch. Probably a tough love moment, but it was a little worrisome if it signalled Sev's was not part of the long term plans.

 

[Bleedred]

I think he also gets some flack because he seemed to be the defenseman Hynes was most comfortable calling out for not playing well enough.

I hope it was tough love being used to motivate Severson but my worry is that Hynes doesn't get what Severson adds.

Ugh. That doesn't surprise me with Hynes. He has already shown that he doesn't really seem to know who his best possession players are, or that he doesn't value a possession game all that much. Just going by some of his quotes in post game and the Bennett thing and the love for Miles Wood is another indictment. Some of the quotes like ''We look more at the quality of shots than the quantity of shots'' after one of our close (in score) losses last year, in which we allowed 45 shots or something. And even going out of his way to rationalize some of the wins where we got outshot badly. ''Shots against were high, but we did a good job keeping them to the outside'' or whatever he said exactly. And then acting like a game where we played respectable but goaltending did us in, was some of the worst hockey he's ever seen and then making lineup changes the next game for players that had nothing to do with the loss. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of coaches in the NHL who also don't value these things, so it's not like Hynes is the only one. The guy that coaches across the river is another one.

I'm not ready to lay it all on Hynes yet. There are signs pointing that way, but there are plenty of other signs pointing towards lack of talent.

I'm not really sure what the system even entails just yet, but I would like to see how it pans out with some legit speed.

I personally don't give him much of a leash though.

I think it's because the team is bad, that it's not fair to fire him yet. And you'd just be putting another coach into a bad team. So I think unless things get really bad, I probably wouldn't fire him before April of next year.

I don't think he adds anything of value though, at the absolute best, he's a complete wash. Don't ever try to convince me that he's the difference between finishing 4th to last and dead last though. Or that he's the reason we didn't finish bottom 5 in his first year here.

I don't think that if he coached a good team, they wouldn't be a playoff team. Although I don't think every playoff team would be a playoff team with him. And I laugh just trying to imagine the 2016 Penguins under him.

 

[Triumph]

That's what we were hoping Smith-Pelley would bring. We don't know what we have with Noeson just yet, imo.

Noesen's no sure thing, but he was pretty good in limited time. He didn't really have to pay the Miles Wood tax, though, so any relative stats he has are a bit skewed. I think he's a capable 4th line RW and I'm curious to see what he can do next year - I'd like to see him get power play time in front of the net on PP2.

 

[Bleedred]

I'll grant that the game is evolving more and more towards skating but to say there were very few physical game changers? That's pretty much a falsehood.

Even in todays game physicality should not be dismissed. It just needs to be part of the package, and not the the sole distinguishing characteristic.

Certainly if we watched much playoff hockey from this past season(or any season) we wouldn't brush aside the importance of physicality.

Who is a physical game changer these days? Surely not Shea the ''Man Mountain'' (LOL) Weber?

I don't think physicality is useless or anything. The Kings under Sutter were a physical team and very good and won two cups because of a strong and physical two way game. I wouldn't exactly say they had any players that changed the game because of their physicality alone.

 

[MadDevil]

I agree, but he did get the last game of the season scratch. Probably a tough love moment, but it was a little worrisome if it signalled Sev's was not part of the long term plans.

People like to jump to all sorts of conclusions based on ice time, line combos, scratches, etc. I don't think giving a 22 year old defenseman a meaningless game in a lost season off has anything to do with the long term plans. I mean what, did Hynes just suddenly decide after game 81 that he's not part of the future?

 

[My3Sons]

Who is a physical game changer these days? Surely not Shea the ''Man Mountain'' (LOL) Weber?

I don't think physicality is useless or anything. The Kings under Sutter were a physical team and very good and won two cups because of a strong and physical two way game. I wouldn't exactly say they had any players that changed the game because of their physicality alone.

I think that's the point. Physicality is one element of a complete team or player. Like smoke on a rack of ribs. You still need the garlic brown sugar pepper and salty elements but without smoke the ribs can be good but not quite complete. That said you don't want the smoke to drown out the other flavors.

 

[Bleedred]

I think that's the point. Physicality is one element of a complete team or player. Like smoke on a rack of ribs. You still need the garlic brown sugar pepper and salty elements but without smoke the ribs can be good but not quite complete. That said you don't want the smoke to drown out the other flavors.

One thing about physical players though, is they need to be good at other things, other than just physicality.

We've had a lot of players here over the last few years that were very good at physicality, but were awful hockey players/just not very good anymore when we had them.

Mark Fraser, Bryce Salvador in his twilight, Colin White (twilight), Volchenkov when we had him. And on forward, we had the likes of Jordin Tootoo and a couple of others that were more of a detriment than anything.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

This argument is so bad. How can you not see how bad it is? Do I have to find some authority greater than me to point out how awful it is so you might see? If I find one of the top logicians in the world and he or she points it out, will you then accede?

In the broadest sense, the NHL values players correctly in that McDavid will be the highest paid player and Brian Strait the lowest. But within that there's huge gaps in valuation. So sure, if you bet on 'they're paying this guy close to right' versus 'they're not at all', you'll win those bets en masse if you get to bet on most of the league. But if you get to bet on one player with that criteria, you might be way off.

A: The NHL tends to be a groupthink league. This isn't demonstrable, but the NHL as a collective tends to value players somewhat close to equally. Watch how a guy like Parenteau will go out and score goals and play well and it's mid-July and Parenteau is once again jobless. The idea that 'analytics departments' have a bunch of sway over how GMs act is pretty unfounded - the Computer Boys got thrown out of having influence in Florida after one season as pretty much everything they did was undid. We won't see analytics do much in the NHL until someone without a serious hockey background takes over as a GM. Maybe Chayka's that guy, but I haven't really seen it yet.

B: The set of players who meet your criteria are insanely small. I would posit that Bennett is almost certainly the best player in that group. Maybe Sam Gagner fits into that group? Nah, too old. Maybe Benoit Pouliot, a guy who kept getting tossed around for smaller and smaller things until he had some breakout years with the Rangers and got a big UFA deal? But probably not, as he didn't ever have a minimum contract - you've set the bars on that group so tiny that basically Bennett and a few other guys fit into it, most of whom were terrible players.

C: I am not and never have been arguing that Bennett is some great player. He produces at a 3rd line level, drives play, and can play both wings. He also doesn't kill penalties, is bad on the power play, and hasn't really had a healthy season in the NHL.

D: The Blues have nothing invested in Bennett and if they don't like what they see right away they can waive him before the season and presumably after being dumped by 3 organizations within the space of about 15 months, probably no one else will be interested.

So when the point is made that 98 percent of climate scientists say that global warming is real, that's a fallacious appeal to authority? Obviously arguing that they know what they're talking about is just a really bad argument, or something. I'm sure you looked at their models, read the scientific literature, and so forth, and formed your opinion on the matter that way.

Look, I know you think you're smarter than everyone -- yes, you literally do -- and if only an NHL GM listened to you, you'd have his team winning six consecutive Cups in a few years time. But until the rest of the world recognizes your genius, I'll go by the actual track record of NHL front offices, collectively, which show that they do, in fact, have a very good handle on how good a player is by the time they're 25. In other words, it's a very strong authority to appeal to. The fact that you can point to only a few players who turned out to be marginally better than they were assessed to be at that age proves the point.

 

[devilsblood]

Who is a physical game changer these days? Surely not Shea the ''Man Mountain'' (LOL) Weber?

I don't think physicality is useless or anything. The Kings under Sutter were a physical team and very good and won two cups because of a strong and physical two way game. I wouldn't exactly say they had any players that changed the game because of their physicality alone.

As hinted at above, but you can bring more physicality without being a physical game changer.

And we also talked about how being "physical" has changed, you don't need to be destroying guys with open ice hits to be a physical player.

Certainly guys like Kieth or Doughty use their size and strength more then Severson thus far has. They are not big hitters, but they still need to muscle guys off the puck, dig the play out of the corners and tie guys up in front.

 

[devilsblood]

So when the point is made that 98 percent of climate scientists say that global warming is real, that's a fallacious appeal to authority? Obviously arguing that they know what they're talking about is just a really bad argument, or something. I'm sure you looked at their models, read the scientific literature, and so forth, and formed your opinion on the matter that way.

Look, I know you think you're smarter than everyone -- yes, you literally do -- and if only an NHL GM listened to you, you'd have his team winning six consecutive Cups in a few years time. But until the rest of the world recognizes your genius, I'll go by the actual track record of NHL front offices, collectively, which show that they do, in fact, have a very good handle on how good a player is by the time they're 25. In other words, it's a very strong authority to appeal to. The fact that you can point to only a few players who turned out to be marginally better than they were assessed to be at that age proves the point.

I think his main point was using the position or authority argument kills debate. Such as NHL teams don't much like Bennett therefore he is not good, no need to debate the issue.

But not only are gm's at times wrong, but we should be able to debate as to why they are either wrong or right.

 

[NjDevsRR]

Just here to say I like Noesen.

 

[Triumph]

So when the point is made that 98 percent of climate scientists say that global warming is real, that's a fallacious appeal to authority? Obviously arguing that they know what they're talking about is just a really bad argument, or something. I'm sure you looked at their models, read the scientific literature, and so forth, and formed your opinion on the matter that way.

This is a horrendous example, of course, because what we take for granted as 'science' has a long history of peer review. The reason why I can theoretically take it 'for granted' that scientists aren't lying and making stuff up is that the whole endeavor rests on the idea that no one has all the answers and people are checking one another's work. So yes, I suppose that's a kind of transitive argument from authority, but in between there's people who have to operate as though that's not the case, otherwise the entire thing falls apart.

Look, I know you think you're smarter than everyone -- yes, you literally do -- and if only an NHL GM listened to you, you'd have his team winning six consecutive Cups in a few years time. But until the rest of the world recognizes your genius, I'll go by the actual track record of NHL front offices, collectively, which show that they do, in fact, have a very good handle on how good a player is by the time they're 25. In other words, it's a very strong authority to appeal to. The fact that you can point to only a few players who turned out to be marginally better than they were assessed to be at that age proves the point.

I definitely don't think I'm smarter than everyone, but reading a post like this might make me think so. But yes, thank you for that strawman. Fallacy theater over here.

As I said in my previous post, you set the margins so incredibly small that almost nobody was going to fit into your data set. The player had to be a former first-round pick and had to be signed for near the minimum. There is almost nobody who fits these criteria. Regardless, the record of NHL front offices is that they are collectively horrendous at knowing how age curves work and they're not great at evaluating players on exactly the margin Bennett exists on - being a flawed player with some strengths and some obvious weaknesses. There are going to be far worse forwards who play more minutes than Bennett this year. Some of them might even play for this team next year. But yeah, NHL GMs are the 31 best guys to run NHL teams, and we should genuflect beneath them and wonder at their awesome hockey might. Is this how you strawman properly? I'm not the authority on that here.

EDIT: One last thing - I don't know how you read posts about analytics or microstats and get the idea that they are magic powers that enable Stanley Cup wins. That's not what anyone thinks, least of all me. A team can improve at the margins by using this stuff. They can buy themselves a few extra wins a year they might not have had. There's no magic formula, and everyone in the league knows that Connor McDavid is good and Brian Strait is not - you can't pull off a Hall for Larsson type heist every year.

 

[Stephen Gionta]

Watching the replay of Devils Leafs from last season. Cammalleri just tied the game at 3, for his third point of the night. 1G 2A. I still do not understand why the Devils bought him out. It makes zero sense. He's gonna put up 45+ points for the Kings this season.

 

[MadDevil]

Watching the replay of Devils Leafs from last season. Cammalleri just tied the game at 3, for his third point of the night. 1G 2A. I still do not understand why the Devils bought him out. It makes zero sense. He's gonna put up 45+ points for the Kings this season.

That must have been during that 8 game stretch where he scored 90% of his goals and almost half his points on the season.